DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 049 321 UD 010 975

AUT1ORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

Winston, Judith A.Desegregating Urban Schools: EducationalEquality/Quality in San Francisco Public Schools. AReport.Council of the Great City Schools, Washington, D.C.Office of Education (DREW), Washington, D.C.[Sep 70)OEC-0-70-259 (037)69p.

EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29Administrator Attitudes, *Community Control,Community Involvement, Educational Facilities,overament Role, Integration Effects, *IntegrationPlans, *Political Power, Public Schools, 'SchoolIntegration, *Urban SchoolsCalifornia, San Francisco

This report examines the difficulties faced by theSan Francisco school district in attempting schoc,1 integration, andplaces these events in the context of the national picture of urbanschool desegregation. Chapter I describes the kind of communitypressures to which the school board was exposed, and how the schoolboard responded to these pressures. Chapter II describes the role ofthe Council of the Great City schools in rendering assistance to theSan Francisco school district. Chapter III reviews problemsassociated with designing some workable desegregation plans, as wellas the plans themselves. (Author/DM)

U.S, DEPARTMENT OF H EALTH, EDUCATIONWELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION7NIS DOCUMENT HAS HEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORIGINNTING IT POINTS OFVIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECES-SARILY REPTESEN1 OFFIZIAL OFF ICE Of EDU-CATION POSITION OR POL'CY

DESEGREGATING URBAN SCHOOLS:

EDUCATIONAL EQUALITY/QUALITY INSAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

A Report.

THE COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLSWashington, D.C.

The Project reported herein Was performed pursuant to acontract with the United States Department of Health,Education and Welfare, Office of Education. OEC-0.70-259(037)

1

COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS

Officers

Acting PresidentSecretaryTreasurer

Executive Vice President

Dr. Joseph ManchMrs. Louis A. MallsDr. Alvin G. Skelly

Executive Committee

Dr. Paul W. Briggs Dr. Nolan EstesMr. Larry Gibson Dr. Richard P. GoushaMrs. Louis A. Malis Dr. Joseph ManchMr. Alan Nichols Ur. William OhrenbergerRev. David W. Preus Dr. Mark R. Shedd

Rev. George Smith

AtlantaBaltimoreBostonBuffaloChicagoClevelandDallasDenvcrDetroitLos AngeirlMemphisMilwaukeeMinneapolisNew York CityPhiladelphiaPittsburghPortlandSt. LouisSan DiegoSan FranciscoWashington, D.C.

Board of Directors

Dr. John Le tsonDr. Thomas SheldonDr. William OhrenbergerDr. Joseph ManchDr. James F. RedmondDr. Paul W. BriggsDr. Nolan EstesDr. Howard JohnsonDr. Norm An C. PrachlerDr. Robert KellyDr. E. C. StimbertDr. Richard P. Goush aDr. John B. DavisDr. Harvey B. ScribnerDr. Mark R. SheddDr. Louis KishkunasDr. Robert BlanchardDr. Clyde C. MillerDr. Jack P. HornbackDr. Thomas ShaheenDr. Hugh Scott

Prepared By:Judith A. WinstonResearch Associate

2

Dr. Benjamin hiayesMr. Robert KarwackiMr. Paul R. TierneyDr. George BlackmanMrs. Louis A. MalisMil . Daniel 0. CorriganMr. Marvin BerkeeyMr. Wiliam BergeMi. James HathawayDr. Robert L. DocterMr. Edgar BaileyMr. Thomas Br mnanRev. David PreusMr. Murry BctstraumMr. George HuttDr. Robert KibbeeMr. Frank CaseMr. Malcolm MartinDr. Gene FrenchMr. Alan NicholsMrs. Anita Allen

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

Introduction: The National PerspectiveUrban Public Schools in an Ag, of Crisis 1

School Desegregation: A NationalPerspective 3

School Desegregation: Obstacles Facedby Urban School Systems 6

Chapter 1 Plan&ng for School Desegregation inSan Francisco

An Overview 11

School Desegregation in San Francisco,1962-1! 69 14

Chapter II Technical Assistance in Action: The Councilus' the Great City Schools 25

"The Process is the Service" inSan Francisco 20

How You Get There is Important 30Other Elements Reviewed 34Another Form of Technical Assistance 34Parents Form Advisory Councils in

Two Complexes 36

Chapter III The Complex Plan: "Schools for Living anAdventure in Education" 39

Finding of Significant Components 40Transportation 41

Parent-Teacher-Administrator Involvement . . . 42Facilities and Physical Plant 44Junior High School Feeder Patterns 44THE QUALITY COMPONENTS:

Instructional Arrangements 46Staffing and Stiff Development 51

Plans for Systematic Evaluation 52

Chapter IV The Plan Becomes Official SS

Conclusion 57

Appendix 61

Credits: Photographs courtesy of the San Francisco Unified SchoolDistrict, Office of the Superintendent

PREFACE

This report is an account of one urban school system'sattempt to tackle the problem of de facto school segregation.it is a continuing story; all the problems have not been solvedand, as this report indicates, the development of solutions hasnot been without obstacles and a series of frustrations.Nevertheless, the San Francisco Unified School District itsstaff and members of the school community have taken animportant step in initiating a "process" aimed at involving allsegments of the community in educational decision-making.Neither the "process" nor the Complex Plan described hereinare intended to be regarded as a model for desegregationuseful to any or all urban school systems, they are merelyillustrative of the kind of activities that are being supportedto deal with some of the crucial issues facing urban schoolsystems. Those persons interested in achieving quality educa-tion in the San Francisco schools have come to realize duringthe last few years that attaining their goals required openingthe lines of communication between the home and theschool, the teacher and the administrator, the Board ofEducation and the citizenry-at-large, and promoting theconstructive exchange of ideas among all those who are insome way served by, and a part of, the public educationalsystem. An atmosphere had to be created in which all flies,:groups could work cooperatively towards solutions to prnb-lems which affect them all.

Community involvement and community participation,as these concepts became operational in San Francisco, seemdestined to become the educational "passwords" for the1970's. if the American system of urban public educationdoes in reality find itself at a crossroads today, as many assertit is, then it would appear that the key to its preservation andultimate success in serving the needs of all children will bethe ability of schoolmen to gain the commitment of thecommunity to actively assist in developing new programs,new procedures and talent to help solve the problems which

plague the system.The report which follows attempts to put into perspec-

tive the difficulties the San Francisco school district faced inits attempts to eliminate segregated schooling. The introduc-tion puts these recent events in San Francisco into thecontext of the national picture of school desegregation withadditional insights into the obstacles confronting urbanpublic schools on both a national and local level. Chapter Ioutlines the recent history of school desegregation efforts inSan Francisco and describes the kind of community pressuresto which the school board was exposed as the demands toeliminate de facto segregation in the schools intensified. Theresponse of the San Francisco Board of Education to thedemands of the Community (Chapter I) makes interestingand instructive reading for educators, community activistsand others involved in, or curious about, urban schooldesegregation.

The Council of the Great City Schools was pleased tohave another opportunity to serve one of its member schooldistricts and to be a part of the special effort of SanFrancisco described in this report. The role of the Council(Chapter II) was made possible by a contract awarded to ittv the U.S. Office of Education which enables it to provideits member school systems with technical assistance forschozl! desegregation problems. The Council was able toprovide San Francisco not only with financial assistance butadditional technical expertise to tackle some of the "thorny"problems essociated with designing workable desegregationplans (Chapter Ili). This assistance was especially useful andappreciated as such at a tine when there is considerabledebate nationally over the future of school desegregation anda reluctance on the part of many to actively support it. TheCouncil hopes this report will serve as an inspiration to otherswho are working towards quality, integrated education as agoal. The fulfillment of our national heritage and the qualityof life in the United States will depend in a large measure onhow we succeed in this diffictit but worthwhile endeavor.

Democracy . . . is the only form of government that isfounded on the dignity of man, not the dignity of somemen, of rich men, of educated men, but of all men. Itssanction is not the sanction of force, but the sanction ofhuman nature.

(Robert Maynard Hutchins, Democracy and Flu -man Nature)

6iii

INTRODUCTION:The National Perspective

Urban Public Schools in an Age of Crisis

It has become fashionable to characterize urban publicschools in extreme forms as failures in the inner-city, asbeing unable to relate to the aspirations of the child of theghetto, as enclaves of the white, middle-class culture to thedetriment of non-white minorities. To understand, accurate-ly, the crisis in urban education it also is necessary to look atthe realities of urban life in America. It i; not sufficientmerely to accept unquestioningly what has become the mostrecently fashionable rhetoric.

The foundation for public school education in theUnited States was laid in the nineteenth century. Its basicphilosophy has changed little since then, but the aemandsmade on the school by urban communities have changed.They are asking that an institution whose traditions wereforged in the nineteenth century solve twentieth and twenty-first century problems. Public schools are being asked tobecome the major instrument for solving the major nationaldomestic problems such as racism, poverty, alienation andpowerlessness. At the same time they are expected torespond to the unique manpower needs of an advancedtechnological society. In addition, the big cities in the lastdecades have been Oe victims of an exodus of majorindustries and middle-income families to the suburbs, higherrates of unemployment, an increase in the number oflow-income residents of "minority group" status. With thesechanges has come a concomitant array of social problems,rapidly increasing costs and a diminishing tax base to pay forbasic municipal services. Between 1930 and 1960, the averageper pupil expenditure for education in fourteen of thenation's largest cities rose by three hundred and thirty-onepercent (331%) white the per capita value of taxable propertyrose on the average by only ninety-seven percent (97%), an

PM

obvious indication that the tax base of the cities has not keptpace with demands put on the educational system.' Anotherexample of the financial difficulties of urban schools is thefact that New York City, the largest school system in thecountry, has doubled its educational budget in less than adecade.

More and more money is constantly required simply tomaintain what appears to be an outdated system. Educatorsin an effort to respond to the growing demands on theeducational system have developed the "add-on strategy",i.e., building layers onto the traditional educational systemwhile at the same time trying to keep the present systemoperating. The result over the years is that the totaleducational system has become ponderous and largely unableto respond to the aspirations of those who depend most onschools as the lever to success and social status.

This ferment in urban education has created ever moreinsistent demands for effective schooling. The 1960's haveseen the rise of a new era in school-community relations. Thevoices of the parents of disadvantaged childre., have becomelouder and louder; but more importantly. these voices areii.creasingly becoming more effective in demanding andgetting results. Parent participation in the inner-city is

emerging as a constructive if unsettling new concept in theeducational process. Organized parer, t groups have realizedthat they cannot achieve more direct control of the school orschool system without cooperation from teacher-groups andan open line of communication with school administrators.This factor may be the single most dynamic element on thecontemporary school scene. It is directly relevant to the issueof urban school desegregation. If a desegregated, qualityeducational system is to become a reality, the community tobe served by such a system must be involved in a meaningful

1H. Thomas James, James A. Kelly and Walter L. Carms Why Clty Schools NeedMore Money. A Summary of Determinants of Educational Expenditures in LargeCities of the United Stales. (Distributed by The Council of the Great CitySchools, Washington, D.C.) p. 3.

82

way in its design and implementation. Community involve-ment may well become the dominant trend of the seventiesand the way public education for the balance of thetwentieth century will have to function. Without this kind ofactive involvement of community it is questionable whetherpublic schools as viable educational institutions will be ableto survive.

School Desegregation: A National Perspective

Segregated schooling has become a major issue in theurban education crisis. The effects of racial isolation whethercaused by de jure or de facto segregation have beenextremely damaging to non-white children in the inner-city.Many parents of these children believe that these schools donot and cannot serve the needs of their children as presentlyconstituted and the community control and involvementissue has grown out of this concern. Attempts to remedyschool segregation and efforts to desegregate schools gainednationwide attention in 1954.

On May 17. 1954, in the now famous case of Brown v.Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 the United States SupremeCourt held that racial discrimination in public education isunconstitutional. One y Jar later the Court required alldeliberate speed in effectuating the transition from a de luresegregated school system to a nondiscriminatory system.However, any optimism held by civil rights activists, andengendered by this decision, that progress toward establishingracially integrated schools in the South would be swift wassoon all but negated. The ruling of the Supreme Court wasinterpreted as applying primarily to the sort of legalsegregation found in the South; and Southern Courtsrequired only a minimum legal compliance when and ifschool cases reached the courts.

In northern cities the courts were further immobilizedby the doctrine of de facto segregation. Whereas, in theSouth segregation had been a matter of law or de jure,

93

segregation in the Nut tli and West, insofar as the distributionof students was concerned, was without the explicit cover ofthe law but a social fact de facto, and was mainly aconsequence of segregated housing patterns. The existence ofthe physical segregation of students in the North wasapparent and often acknowledged; but the courts oftendenied any responsibility for remedying the situation. Earlyin the 1960's however, state courts were beginning to acceptand legitimize the rights of school boards to move to correct,segregated schooling regardless of its cause.' The questionarose however whether all school boards had an affirmativeconstitutional obligation to desegregate schools. From 1955to 1965 the answer from federal district and appeals courtswere conflicting. However, a positive change was perceived in1965. The U.S. court of appeals in the Fifth Circuit providedthe leadership in the South. During 1966 and 1967 itdeclared that the Brown decision required action not merelyto avoid segregation but affirmative action to desegregate.'The Washington, D.C., school case (Hobson v. Hansen)decided in 1967 by the U.S. district court proceeded to strikedown a number of discriminatory practices many of whichwere standard procedures in northern and western schooldistricts. To date the Supreme Court has yet ro declare apolicy on de facto school segregation as it exists in northernurban centers.

Several state legislatures have also begun to movepositively on the problems of urban education. Massachusettspassed the Massachusetts Law on Racial Balance in 1965providing financial incentive and penalties to encourageschool boards to construct school facilities conducive to theattainment of racial balance. California was one of manystates to adopt legislation requiring fair and accurate repre-

Meyer Weinberg. Integrated &location. A Reader (Beverly Hills, California:Geneve Press, 468) Introduction.

a Mid.

104

sentation of ethnic minorities in textbooks.Some Federal legislation of special significance to

schools has been adopted which also requires nondiscrimina-tory policies and practices. For example, the 1964 CivilRights Act includes two sections which have an affect onbehalf of school integration. Title iv provides federal moneyto assist boards of education design and implement schooldesegregation plans. Title VI prohibits the use of federalfunds for racially discriminatory projects and programs.Section 601 of Title VI specifically sfltes that: "No person inthe United States shall, on the grounds of race, color ornational origin, be excluded from participation in, bedeprived of the benefits of, or be subjected to discriminationunder any program or activity receiving Federal assistance."Unfortunately, in the North, federal authorities have notclearly interpreted Title VI as applicable to so-called de factosegregation; but as the federal government becomes increas-ingly involved in school affairs the debate on this issue growsmore intense.

It has become clearer than ever before that racialsegregation in the schools can no longer be regarded as aregional problem; it is national in scope and demands aremedy at the national level. The Supreme Court based muchof its 1°54 decision on the fact that children who attendsegregated schools are damaged psychologically, socially andeducationally. This sort of damage is not restricted to onlythose children attending de lure segregated schools, butoccurs wherever racial segregation in schools exists, regardlessof the cause. One would expect that the knowledge thatchildren are adversely affected by racial isolation in theschool would be sufficient to rally local, state and nationallegislations towards eliminating the causes of racial segrega-tion just as Congress has attempted to eliminate the causes ofanother massive social problem, poverty. Over one-hundredyears ago, Alexis de Tocqueville made an observation whichhas a great deal of relevance to the issue of schooldesegregation today. He noted that Americans have

11

tendency to transform their political or social problems intolegal problems; perhaps this kind of transformation serves toprovide legislators and politicians in general with a morelegitimate rationale for not moving as quickly and decisivelyas possible towards seeking adequate solutions to nationalproblems.

School Desegregation: Obstacles raced byUrban School Systems

When a school system declares either through itssuperintendent or its board of education that with or withouta court order, stab: mandate, or some other form ofaffirmative requirement to act, that segregated schooling iseducationally and socially unsound and should be eliminated,how does it go about getting the job done? And. whatobstacles does it face in pursuing quality education in racialt,balanced schools? The obstacles as they apply to urbanschool systems might well be classified in redefinition ofthe traditional "three R's". The new L's characterizing theplight of de facto segregated urban schools are:

1. Resources2. Regionalism3. Racism

Together these "three R's" constitute some of the mostessential points discussed in urban school desegregationplanning. In terms of present financial resources, urbansche-.1 systems are unable to finance the cost of their presenteducational programs. They are forced to consider the costsinvolved in planning and implementing desegregation in thebleak context of an on-going fiscal crisis.

From whatever angle one looks at the financial pictureof urban schools, one encounters a series of circumstantialinequalities between suburban and urban budgets and needs.The per pupil costs across the country row more than threetimes as fast as the average per capital value of taxible

126

property in cities over a thirty year span.' In addition, cityschool systems re , a smaller share of the local tax dollarthan rural or suburban systems becaust., of the high cost ofnumerous other municipal services required in large cities.This declining ability to adequately finance education andthe increasing requirements for educational services haveplaced the public schools of America's great cities in adilemma so serious that only drastic increases in state andfederal aid can help city schools meet the educational needsof their pupils.'

While some improvement in racial balance can generallybe accomplished without additional financial resources, e.g.,changing boundaries and feeder patterns, other aspects of aneffective desegregation plan require additional funds for suchitems as staff development programs, student and communityorientation and improved or new school facilities.

Urban school systems must also contend with theexodi s of white middle-class families from the city and intothe suburbs which, in addition to removing valuable munici-pal tax resources, leaves behind a growing non-white andpoorer population and a diminishing budget from which todraw much needed educational funds. Desegregation alsobecomes more difficult in large geographic areas of the citywhen there are so few white, school-age children attendingpublic schools. For example, in Washington, D.C. in 1968over 94 percent of the children enrolled in public schoolswere non-white children. In Chicago the figure was 58percent; in Philadelphia, 61 percent; in Detroit almost 61percent. Not only is the flight of whites to the suburbs aproblem in terms of racial integration, but also in terms ofthe socio-economic integration of children.

Many middle-class families leave the city in pursuit of

'Why CYry Schools Need More Money. A Summary of Determinants ofEducational Expenditures in Large Cities of the United States. By H. Thomaslames, lames A. Kelly and Walter L. Gums. (Chicago: The Research Council ofthe Great Cities Program for School Improvement n.d.)

21w.

137

"gcod schools" for their children. And, most of these whiteparents consider the "good school" to be one where theiajority of students are white and where per pupil expendi-

tures far exceed those in the city. Urban schools are unableto compe ,e with suburban budgets, facilities and the racialand class homogeneity of their student bodies. Increasedcooderation among regional school systems suburban andurban would be a necessary and welcome step towards theachievement of desegregation in the largest urban schoolsystems. To date, regionalism, or the existence of manyindependent school districts within the metropolitan area, isa real obstacle to this goal. But the achievement ofmetropolitanism -- "the process of planning for futuredevelopment of the metropolitan area as a unit" as aneducation goal appears to be a long way off.

While the flight to the suburbs and to outlying areas ofthe city is often undertaken in the guise of "better educationand better services", it has also been traced to the lessarticulated desire of many white families to find a raciallyhomogeneous environment and is suggestive of another majorbarrier to school desegregation racial prejudice. It is

difficult to separate the concern of parents for bettereducational facilities and opportunities for their children,from fear, distrust and hostility toward Negroes and othernon-white minorities. The attempt to preserve the "neighbor-hood school" is indicative of the kind of subtle racismprevalent in urban areas under the cloak of concern for thepreservation of "good" education. For a full discussion of the"neighborhood school" concept see Race and Place: A LegalHistory of the Neighborhood School. Racial isolation inurban public schools is principally the result of residentialsegregation. The widespread employment of the "neighbor-hood school" policy, however, is currently being used as avehicle for transfering segregation from housing to education.It has not been demonstrated that the neighborhood school ismore sound educationally than schools with student popula-tions from larger, more diverse geographic areas. Parents

14

argue that children are safer walking to their schools. Yet,even when it is possible to integrate schools through"pairing" techniques that require no busing and maintainneighborhood schools, there still has been resistance amongwhite parents. The implication is that there is much moreinvolved in parental resistance than the alleged desire forschools within safe walking distance.

In 1968 the National Advisory Commission on CivilDisorders (The Kerner Commission) warned the country thatracism black and white in this country threatens to "leadto the permanent establishment of two societies: onepredominantly white and located in the suburbs, in smallercities, and in outlying areas, and one largely Negro, located incentral cities." It is in this climate that educators must cometo grips with the issue of de facto segregated schooling. Manyeducators believe that quality education is inextricablybound to the goal of desegregated schools and "only inferioreducation can result where the commitment among profes-sional personnel to the education of minority-group childrenis less than it is to other children no matter what otheraspects of the education system are equalized."'

(Benjamin Solomon. "Integration and the Educators." Integrated Education: AReader. Meyer Weinberg, editor (Beverly Hills, California: The Glencoe Press,1968), p.135.

9

CHAPTER. 1

Planning for School Desegregation in San Francisco

An Over View

The city of San Francisco occupies a 46-1/2 square-milepeninsula that is the hub of the entire region :mown as theBay Area. A significant clue to the character of San Franciscois the fact that three out of every ten of the Bay Area'sinhabitants were either born outside of the United States orhave at least one parent of foreign stock.' San Francisco'sethnic minorities tend to be gathered in relatively small areas,with Negroes residing for the most part, in three maindistricts. This concentration of ethnic groups has, of course,led to racial imbalance within a school system organized onthe "neighborhood school" concept.

In September 1969, San Francisco was the 29th largestschool district in the nation with a total of 115,457 childrenenrolled in 156 elementary and secondary schools. Fifty-three percent of these students are classified as white andforty-seven percent are identified as non-white. In SanFrancisco those groups classified as non-white includeNegroes, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, American Indian andFilipino.' Students classified as white include those ofSpanish surname. This group constitutes 14.7 percent of allpupils attending San Francisco public schools.'

During the 1968-1969 school year 4,222 school teacherswere employed to teach in the San Francisco schools.

`Jack McDowell, editor. San Francisco (Menlo Park, California: Lane Magazineand Book Company, 1969) p. 120.

2San Francisco Unified School District. Racia! Estimates of Pupils Attending SanFrancisco Public Schools. (September )7,1969)

3(bfd. In October 1970, the San Francisco Unified School District indicated thatwhile the statistics have not yet been completely compiled, for school year1970.1971, a recent survey shows that the percentage of white students in theDistrict is declining while the percentage of Negro and Oriental studcnts isincreasing.

1611

Eighty-four point two percent (84.2%) of these teachers werefrom non-minority groups and 15.8% were from minoritygroups.'

The San Francisco Unified School District during theschool year 1969-1970 embarked on an ambitious project todesign and subsequently to implement a model equality-quality program for twenty elementary schools in twoelementary school complexes. The Board of Educationapproved the project on condition that serious planning for,and consideration of, the following components for the twoelementary school complexes begin and be completed suc-cessfully in a designated time period:

1. Funding of significant components.2. Transportation.3. Parent-teacher-administrator involvement in the

formative, implementation and operational phasesof the plan.

4. Facilities and physical plant.5. Junior High School feeder patterns.6. Instructional arrangements including pupil-

teacher-paraprofessional ratio, programs for all

children, grade organization, A:riculum materials,cultural learning centers, site specialization andother innovations.

7. Staffing and staff development professional,administrators, and pupils.

8. Submission, during the planning phase, of periodicprogress reports embodying concrete proposals forapproval by the Board of Education.

9. Mars for .ystematic evaluation of teachers, admin-istrator, and pupils.

Many minority and non-minority citizens, however, afterfifteen years of relative inaction n the part of school boards,

'The Council of the Great City Schools. Preliminary Statistical Profile of theSchool Systems of the nventy Council Members. (May, 1970 - unpublished) p.43.

1712

were losing faith in the promise of integration. Rebuffed timeand again by white resistance to integrated schooling, manyblack -- formerly enthusiastic integrationists were nowreappraising the arguments of separatists for decentralizedschool systems and black control of black schools. Theseblack as well as white separatist trends are evident in SanFrancisco as well as other parts of the nation and reflect askepticism about the willingness of the school district tomove toward meaningful integration. In addition, followingthe election of a new National Administration in 1968, thedebate over desegregation intensified throughout the coun-try. As a result of this new debate over the commitment orlack of commitment of the Federal government to supportschool desegregation, a general impression has developed thatspeedy desegregation of the nation's schools is less of areality today than it was in 1954. While in 1969 theCalifornia State Department of Education issued new guide-lines for the achievement of racial balance in Californiaschools which gave additional incenf,e to the planners of therwo elementary school complexes in San Francisco, eventhese were later repealed (March, 1970) by the StateDepartment of Education in response to increased social andpolitical pressures against school desegregation. (For a dis-cussion of these guidelines see the Appendix, page 61Procedures to Achieve Racial Balance in California Schools.)Even with the existence of these trends around them, therewere enough people working with the school administrationwho believed that the continued existence of racial, culturaland economic isolation within the San Francisco communitycould only further complicate the already difficult problemswithin the School District. They proposed to the Board,therefore, that top priority be given to the propos2ls for thetwo elementary school complexes which, if successful, hadthe promise of becoming the prototype for integratededucation throughout the city.

Nevertheless, San Francisco like most urban schooldistricts had still to come la grips with the threeheaded

13

18

"Charybdis" described earli-,r resources, regionalism andracism in order to deal effectively with a plan fordesegregiting schools. The most important of the three atthis time appeared to be resources. Burt, San Francisco movedahead with its planning of the integrated complexes in theface of the many barriers confronting. the eventual success ofthe project. The complex planners engaged thmselves in anintense planning period and through careful planning theywere able to increase the enthusiasm and commitment of theBoard and the community to .he Complex idea, they did not,however, attempt to minimize the difficulty of the task itself.They were heartened, for exampl by the success of aneighboring school district, :"lerkeley, where schools had beensuccessfully and fully integrated in 1968 in spite of the factthat many of those opposed to the Complexes were quick topoint out the integration disasters which had recentlyoccurred in the neighboring cities of Sausalito and Rich-mond. But, the Complex Planners also recognized thatdelaying integration and school reorganization would onlyfurther reduce what faith remained in the District's willing-ness to move ahead.

School Desegregation in San Francisco, 1962-1969

The Board of Education of the San Francisco UnifiedSchool System had its first major confrontation with theissue of racial imbalance in the schools during the school year1961-1962. It was at that time that various citizens groupsincluding the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), theCouncil of Civic Unity and the Bay Area Human RelationsClearing House, a group of organizations concerned with civilrights, asked that the Board move to correct raciallyimbalanced schools by appointing a citizens' committee toexamine the problem of de facto segregation in San Franciscopublic schools and submit a progress report to the schoolcommunity. It was decided that the Superintendent himself

1914

would make the report. The results were disappointing tomany citizens who were strong civil rights advocates. InMarch, 1962, the Superintendent gave his report whichproved to be very inconclusive and in which he opposed aracial census. At this same meeting, since the civil rightsgroups had not seen a copy of the report in advance, theBoard decided to hold a special hearing later in the year andthis aspect of the controversy ended in a stalemate.

For the next two years the school desegregation issuemoved along very slowly. The NAACP filed a suit against theSchool District asking the courts to order the school systemto present a plan to eliminate de facto segregation, Sixmonths after filing and while the case was still pending, acommittee of board members recommended that the idea ofrace be considered when new school sites were selected andendorsed the redrawing of school boundaries to reducesegregation. The committee rejected busing as a method ofcorrecting racial imbalance. The Board of Education votedunanimously to adopt the committee's recommendations.This action put the charges leveled by the NAACP in its courtsuit in an ambiguous position, and the suit was subsequentlywithdrawn.

In 1963, at the start of the fall semester the high schoolopen enrollment plan was implemented. But it was not untilthe summer of 1965 that the Superintendent agreed to meetone of the demands which had be !n presented in January,1962, to conduct a racial census of the schools. It waslearned that the eight high schools ranged in Negro popula-tion from 4 to 34 percent. The fifteen junior high schoolshad a range from 2 to 90 percent Negro students. There were95 elementary schools in San Francisco and all had somewhite students; one of them had no Negro students. Thecensus also showed that if the 10 percent point were used asa threshold, seventy-six percent of all San Francisco Negrostudents were in integrated elementary schools; t.nd nine ofthe elementary schools were classified as segregated prc-

2015

dominantly Negro schools.'In 1966, the San Francisco Unified School District

retained the services of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI)to study racial imbalance in its schools and to proposealternative desegregation plans. At the end of one and a halfyears of inte.isive study, Stanford Research Institute s.ibinit-ted a report which described eleven possible ways toeliminate the racial isolation of students in the city schools.At the same time that the SRI study was completed, SanFrancisco was seeking a new school 4uperintendent. Since thecontract with SRI specified that the recommendations madeby their report should be presented to the community for itsreactions, it was decided that the new superintendent shouldbe given the opportunity to conduct the community forumswhich would discuss the SRI report. Action on the reportwas delayed until Dr. Robert E. Jenkins became Superin-tendent in J'ily, 1967. The Board asked him to narrow downthe alternatives proposed in the SRI report before presentingthem to the c ammunity. In December, 1967, SuperintendentJenkins completed that task and submitted his first report onquality integrated education to the Board of Education,Educational Equa!itylQuality Report #1 . Program Alter-natives. In this report Superintendent Jenkins added a newdimension to the issue of school desegregation in SanFrancisco: the concept of quality education. Along withthree of the alternatives proposed by SRI, eight additionalways for achieving racial balance were suggested and includedin the report.

The Educational EqualitylQuality Report #1 of theSuperintendent now became the basis for public discussion diseveral community forums attended by thousands of citizens.Deep concern was expressed about those alternatives in thereport which included cross-town busing as a method forachieving racial balance. "Forced busing" soon became the

Robert 1,. Crain, The Politics of School Desegregation. (Chicago: AleinePublishing Company, 1968), p. 88.

2116

"red-herring" in a great many of the cEscussions of theStanford Research Institute study as summarized by Dr.Jenkins in his EEQ Report #I. This issue of busing weighedheavily in the attempt to seek reasonable and feasible plansfor desegregating schools. It looked as though the SRI studywould soon be abandoned. In a continued effort to design aplan which would be more feasible and realistic than thereport done by SRI, the Superintendent appointed a taskforce composed of teachers, administrators, and a citizensadvisory committee to study all of the proposals whichresulted from these community forums and to submitadditional recommendations for construtAi\ and practicalways to achieve equality/quality in the city's vblic s hoofs.The Superintendent's charge to this group was:

"The problem of racial equality lnd educationalequality/quality encompasses the most difficult andurgent challenges facing our schools. We are hopefulthat with the number of suggested plans that havebeen 0, -,:sented to us we can find the answers that willgreatly strengthen our educational program for boys andgirls of all racial, social and economic backgrounds, andhelp to unify )tir city as we work together in thedevelopment of great city scho,)I systems. We areco Icerned with the goal of integrated education of thehighest quality."'The Board of Education joined the Superintendent in

endorsing the development of plans and programs leadingto,,,ard improved quality eduction and integration in a

policy statement adopted on June 10, 1968:1 he Board of Education, affirms its responsibility

to promote racial and f thnit: integration with carefully

'Educational 1 qualasiQiulity Report d'2... Report of the Citiiens' AdvisoryCommittee: to the Superintendent's Tas1, I or.:e Studyuip. Fducational Equality,'Quality and um Proposals. Submitted to the 13c.4-1 of Education andSuperintendent of Schools of the San Francisco Unified District, Februar).1969, r. I.

2217

considered, practical plans that are reasonably feasibleand acceptable.

The Superintendent is hereby authorized to formu-late and submit for Board Approval reasonably feasibleplans to bring about, as soon as possible the greatestamount of integrated quality education in the followingphases:

1. Initial plans (1968-1969)2. Intermediate (to be implemented not later

than 1971-1972)3. Long-range (developmental, beginning 1968-

1969)'A report entitled Educational Equality/Quality Report

#2 was the product of the Citizens Advisory Committee'sefforts. It was submitted to the Board of Education and theSuperintendent in February, 1969. The Committee statedthat the School District had willed to itself a legacy ofproblems related to racial, cultural and economic isolation.The community at large held a skeptical view of the SchoolDistrict's willingness to move toward meaningful integrationand this skepticism was being reflected for example, in theseparatist trends developing in the San Francisco area. It wasthe Committee's rcommendation that the School Districtbegin to provide the leadership for the community in movingtowards meaningful integration at all levels of society. Thetask by its very nature wou' I be an extremely complex andcostly one; but further delay ,iight result in an even costliermonetary outlay as wail as further deterioration of the sociallabile of the San Francisco schools and community. TheCommittee also indicated that recent reports from the Boardof Education, revealed that ell the money spent on compen-satory education in large school districts has brought little ifany ret .Arn. It was the Committee's o;inion that integrationwould cost less than those monetary and social costs whichwould surely result from further delay and it was time that

I Educational Equality /Quality Report 43`2. p. 41.

182 3

San Francisco gave it a chance.The Committee's report made several recommendations

for reorganization of certain school practices to facilitateintegration. Among till... recommendations was the creation oftwo elementary school complexes, Richmond and ParkSouth, as models for future integrated elementary schoolcomplexes. The .-Apansion of bilingual programs for Chineseand Spanish-speakip,s; children was recommended as well asthe improvement of community relations with the schools.

The Superintendent recommended to the Board thatReport #2 be studied by parents, teachers and administratorsin the schools that would be directly affected by therecommendations, in order to determine the feasibility of theproposals. Later the Board authorized the Superintendent toretain Davis-MacConnell-RaVfon, Inc., Educational PlanningConsultants for several large cities, to assist in the analysis ofthese community and other staff feasibility studies; and topresent more detailed information on the proposed complexapprooch for the twenty elementary schools in the twodesignated areas.

Based on the Report of the Citizens Advisory Commit-tee and the school-community feasPility studies, the Super-intendent recommended the following in Educational Equality/Quality Report . . Time for Action!:

1. Elementary School ComplexesThat two elementary school complexes, the Richmondand the Park-South, should be created as models forfuture complexes San Francisco, and that i )69-70 beused for instructional planning. in-service educationpreparation of school faciliti:s and the arrangement fortransportation through limited shuttle busing withimplementation September, 1570, in accordance withthe basic proposals for educational equality/qualityrecommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee.

It is further recommended that in order to achievegreater educational equality/quality the grade structureof all the schools in the two complexes be reorganized

19

with several schools serving the kindergarten throughfourth grade, and the others designated as kindergarten,5-6 schools, depending upon the school site andfacilities, and that Curri.ulum Materials Center conceptbe expanded to provide a Cultural Learning Center foreach complex, with specialized resources centers to bedeveloped in several of the elementary schools

The Complex approach to achieving quality inte-grated education had been proposcd initially in theSuperintendent's first Equality/Quality Report (Decem-ber, 1967) and subsequently became a key recommen-datior of the Citizens Advisory Committee. The feasi-bility studies which had been analyzed by Mac Connell-Ralston, Inc. demonstrated that a little more than fiftypercent of the participants believed that the Complexidea would be a reasonable and practical plan for SanFrancisco.

In outlining the bash- plans for the two proposedComplexes thc, Superintendent and his staff utilized aframework which incorporated the necessary elementsfor equality/quality education within the parameters offinancial reality. Current school sites and facilitieswould be used with a reorganization of the gradestructure and of the geographic areas from which thecomplex schools would draw their students. The en-lalvd neighborhood concept would make it possible forall the schools in the Complex to have racial ail() ethnicpercentages more closely approximating the populationin the entire complex.

A provision for shuttle busing would be made forapproximately 4,500 of the 9,000 children attendingschools within the two Complexes and the developmentof time schedules and fixed locations would make it

'Educational EquOirylQuailtS arPorr '.? Time for ACIION! Recommenda-tions of the Superintendent of Schools. San rrancisco Unified School District,Slay 20, 1969, p. 5. 2i

20

possible to confine transportation to a restricted area ofpick-up and delivery. While transportation would toprovided the parent and the child would have the optionto use it or not use it. The Complex Plan as envisionedby the Superintendent in Report #3 would also includethe use of personalized and individualized instructiondlprograms with the most modern and innovative instruc-tion materials and methods. The Complex idea wouldalso incorporate measures to provide for the betterutilization of the talents of teachers and instructionalmaterials as well as a realistic program of professionaldevelopment and in-service education for teachers andadministrators in the complex schools and more effec-tive use of supportive services.The elementary school complex idea for the San

7rancisco Unified School District was presented in a reportto the Board of Education on June 10, 1969. flre meeting ofthe Board set the underlying philosophy and reporting datesfor implementation of the Superintendent's EducationalEquality /Quality Report #3... Time for Action, The firstreporting date and the most crucial one was set for December1, 1969, less than six months away. The following resolutionwas adopted:

"Resolved, that the Board of Education ..eaffirms theproposition that racial and ethnic integration of theschool population and staff is one of the essentialconditions of educational excellence in Americanschools. It also affirms that there are instructionalcomponents equally necessary to any plan designed toimprove the quality of instruction.

"The Board recognizes substantial merit in theconcept of the Superintendent's Equality/Quality Plan,Report #3 and accepts the report with the understand-ing that its implementation in September of 1970 shallbe conditioned upon firm commitments of adequatefunding for one year and serious indication of interest infunding for two years thereafter, and upon approval by

2G21

the Board of Education on or before December 1,1969 .The Board proceeded to outline the components (de-

scribed on page 12), the details of which had to be fullydeveloped and funding sources to implement them found bythe December 1st deadline. The Board reiterated its concernfor careful planning:

"The Complex plan will net be implemented withoutthe necessar: quality components and unless the Com-plex plan will provide substantial improvements in thequality of education of all children involved."'With the passage of this resolution and under pressure of

deadlines less than six months away, the Superintendent andhis staff initiated an intensive effort to secure funds for thecomplex plan. A team of people were assigned to the task ofcoordinating this difficult planning phase. The AssistantSuperintendent for Innovative Planning was released from allother responsibilities to help coordinate all the activitiesinvolved in the development of the more letailed plans forthe co:nplexes by December 1, 1969. Working with theAssistant Superintendent were four members of the Supple-mentary Planning Center, a federally funded Title 111 project;three school administrators, a researcher/evaluator; and acommunity organization liaison specialist, whose salary ini-tially was funded for one month by The Council of the GreatCity Schools.

Virtually every segment of the Central Office staff aswell as members of the school community had a role to playin this planning phase. Attempts to provide an opportunityfor teacher involvement resulted in special teacher councils ineach complex area. Complex Advisory Councils were set upin both the Pack -South and Richmond areas (the two sites forthe initiation of the Complex Plan). The Councils providedpatents, teachers and other community people the oppor-tunity for meaningful participation in planning and decision

'June 10, 1969, resolution of the San Fttnciy.0 Board of Education.

Lc

27

making. Contact wa made with state and federal agencies aswell as private foundations with the hope that theseexplorations would result in the funding of significant qualitycomponents.

2323

CHAPTER II

Technical Assistance in Action:The Council of the Great City Schools

It was soon after the Board resolution of June 10th waspassed that The Council of the Great City Schools wasinvited by the Superintendent to provide technical assistanceon school desegregation to the San Francisco Unified SchoolDistrict. The Council in the next few months was able toprovide both consultant help and funds to San Francisco toassist in designing and implementing the Complex plan. As a

result of the response of San Francisco staff members to thetechnical assistance made available by the Council, there is nodoubt that the Council played an important role in thesubsequent success of the Complex planning effort. OnJanuary 6, 1970, the San Francisco Board of Educationvoted unanimously to accept the Complex Plan and toapprove its implementation for September, 1970. ThisChapter is a summary of how The Council of the Great CitySchools contributed to this outcome and an explanation ofthe process by which the plan was developed.

The Council of the Great City Schools, with itsmembership consisting of 21 of the nation's largest urbanschool systems, was incorporated in 1961 to conduct studiesof unique problems faced by these school systems in theirefforts to meet the comprehensive needs of their constitu-ents. The Council has also designed and implementeddemonstration projects to help provide solutions to some ofthese problems. in January, i969, under Title 1V of the 1964Civil Rights Act, the Council was awarded a grant by theUnited States Office of Education to implement a technicalassistance program on schc 31 desegregation problems.

It was the objective of the Council in administering thatgrant to accelerate and improve those programs which Ns ouldincrease school desegregation and to assist in the initiation ofcreative, new programs whj*, would provide racially inte-

Z25

grated educational experiences. Specifically the objectives ofthe Council in the area of school desegregation and withrespect to the technical assistance grant are:

I. The provision of technical assistance to schoolsystems which are in the process of identifyingdesegregation problems, developing and imple-menting plans and programs to facilitate desegrega-tion as well as for meeting crisis situations arisingout of desegregation activities.

2. The provision of consultant services to schoolsystems in their efforts to provide meaningfulintergroup experiences and quality education in adesegregated school environment.

In June, 1969, the Council was invited to providetechnical assistance to the San Francisco Unified SchoolDistrict. The invitation was issued soon after the Board ofEducation had reaffirmed its commitment to the racial andethnic integration of the San Francisco public schoolpopulation and accepted, on condition, the Superintendent'sEducational QualitylEquality Report #3.

This conditional acceptance, as explained earlier, wasbased on the Board's requirement that more detailed plans bedeveloped for implementing the nine components outlined inits June 10,1969 resolution: funding, transportation, parent-teacher-administrator involvement, facilities and physicalplant, junior high school feeder patterns, instructional ar-rangements, staff development, periodic progress reports, andsystematic evaluation.

In the weeks following, Council staff members met inSan Francisco with key school staff members to learn asmuch as possible abodt school desegregation plans for SanFrancisco. The objective of these exploratory visits was thedevelopment of a clear and comprehensive strategy forprc effective technical assistance. In developing astrategy, a number factors were considered. The schooldistrict staff was fa:ea with a myriad of problems, not theleast of which was that they llready were seriously behind

0 26

time in planning and implementation to meet the December1st deadline set by the Board of Education. In addition,complex planning as it had proceeded thus far, in the opinionof Council staff, was weighted by three pervasive factors: 1) ageneral lack of experience and far-reaching knowledge relatedto planning and implementing a desegregation plan such asthe one envisioned for the two elementary school complexes;2) the creation of an atmosphere of intense pressure for"action" without establishing a "process" for the develop-ment of the quality education components and the model forcommunity organization; and 3) the presence of the beliefamong some representatives of SFUSD and the communitythat real support of the program was not present among topschool staff and key members of the community. In fact, ithas been said that to ensure the project's failure, the Boardhad intentionally set unrealistic deadlines and made theirfinal approval contigent upon obtaining funding from sourcesother than the school district. While others believed that theBoard realized that the real danger was not unrealisticdeadlines and contigent funding but that staff and those infavor of integration would fail to recognize that integrationwould not be accepted in San Francisco without qualitycomponents well thought out and planned far in advance andwithout additional and extensive funding. The kind oftechnical assistance to be provided by the Council to SanFrancisco would be determined in part by these factors aswell as by the specific areas of need outlined by the SanFrancisco school staff itself.

Council staff believed that technical assistance on schooldesegregation could be rendered most effectively in SanFrancisco by utilizing the expertise of members of theCouncil's Racial Equality Committee. The Racial EqualityCommittee, one of the Council's several standing committees,was created by the Board of Directors in 1968. TheCommittee is intended to make use of the unusual structureand capacity of the Council to attack in a unified way themounting concerns and problems in race and education in the

31 27

Council's twenty-one member school systems. Working onthe Committee fr,dm the various big urban school distriets areschool superintendents, school board members and schooladministrators with special responsibilities and concernsdirectly related to race, minority groups and education.Committee members as well as Council staff regularly consultwith resource personnel from minority group organizations,foundations, state, local and Federal government agencies aswell as many private organizations with programs and goalsrelated to the work of the Committee.

Council stall' notified Committee members of SanFrancisco's request for technical assistance and sent to thema summary of the district's desegregation efforts. Preliminaryto intensive discussions dejzilied to provide San Franciscowith the kind of technical expertise it required to design thetwo elementary school complexes, Racial Equality Commit-tee Members were asked to locate and send to SFUSDmaterial related to the following items listed by SanFrancisco:

1. The development of a model computer data-bankfor fast and accurate retrieval of informationregarding the students, teachers and cc:nimunitywithin the complex area

2. The identification and definition of quality educa-tion components.

3. The development of representative communitygroups.

4. The development of guidelines or identification ofresearch data for pupil assignment in a desegre-gated system.

5. The location of technical expo, se al, 1 financialresources for implementing the Complex planoutlined in Edtica1/2nal Pcp4 ,y/Quality Report#3.

This request for information was only the first step in aprocess designed to facilitate high-level information sharingamong educators and others w ho have accumulated a vast

3228

range of expertise and knowledge in desegregation planning.San Francisco was faced with a critical deadline and

SFUSD staff assigned to direct the planning phase of theComplex Plan were confronted by a myriad of questions andtactical problems with which their previous experience, 'orthe most part, had not prepared them to deal. When advisedof this dilemma in San Francisco, many Racial EqualityCommittee members agreed that San Francisco might greatlybenefit from the collective experiences and the information-gained by Committee Members in similar situations occurringin their own school systems around the country. Plans weremade by Council staff to conduct a workshop in SanFrancisco. Several members of the Committee were invited toparticipate as consultants to the San Francisco UnifiedSchool District in what was envisioned to be, and material-ized as, a clynami.: exchange of ideas and informationdesigned to put "the meat on the bones" of a skeletalComplex Plan to achieve quality education in an integratedsetting in the elementary schools of the Park-South andRichmond distilcts of San Francisco.

With membership of twenty-one of the largest urbanschool systems the Council can provide this unique service bycalling upon a vast array of educational talent in any one of anumber of subject areas to assist in problem-solving ventures.Thu ability to bring together Racial Equality Committeemer hers with professional expertise and skills at the righttime has proven to be a useful, appreciated and substantialaid to school administrators seeking technical help from tl-.eCouncil. Members of the Council staff coined the phrase "theprocess is the service" to refer to this unique capability, itis a process of providing local school administrators, parentsand students with a variety of program alternatives, thebenefit of the experience of educators and other profes-sionals with similar problems, new ideas, new concepts andmodels and suggestions for funding sources.

3329

The Process is the Service" in Sail Francisco

In the fall of 1969, the Council brought to SanFrancisco selected members of its Racial Equality Committeeto work for three days with the Superintendent's administra-tive staff assigned to design the components of the Equality/Quality Complex Plan. These Council consultants are keymembers of their respective school system's central adminis-tration. Most of them are responsible for directing theactivities of their respective school district's office ofintegration, school community relations, or intergroup af-fairs. In addition, one committee member in attendance wasa highly respected member of the Board of Education in acity often described as being in the forefront of educationalreform. As a board member and community leader who isrecognized for his active support of equal educationalopportunity and educational innovation, this consultantprovided an important dimen,ion to the work sessions in SanFrancisco.

While its stated goals were to provide San Franciscowith detailed information about "what works" in othercities, the work session quickly becanle more than adiscussion of "promising practices ". San Francisco had theadvantage of having in one room veterans of some of thebiggest "battles" evzr fought in public education: Phila-oelphia, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Washington, D.C., Pitts-burgh and Minneapolis. With access to informed accounts ofwhy and how the "battle scars" had been administered, howother "wends" were aN oided, what should have been doneand was not, the San Francisco stall had its directions foraction. This process was perhaps the major and most crucialservice the Council could provide to San Francisco at thetime.

low YOU Get There is Important

The focal point of the conferenc.: turned out to be330

"community participations". A skeletal plan for achievingequality and quality in education within the twenty schoolsof the two complexes had been outlined in the Superin-tendent's report entitled Educational EqualitylQuality Re-port #3. When, on June 10, 1969, the Board of Educationaccepted this report and the concept of integration in thesetwo areas, it stipulated that final acceptance of the plan, andits subsequent implementation, depended on the firm com-mitment of adequate funding and concrete plans for the ninecomponents on which the Plan would be based (trans-portation, facilities, etc. see p. 12).

Council consultants from the Racial Equality Commit-tee had been invited to San Francisco with the expectationthat their input would serve to help develop the concreteplans required by the Board of Education. Specifically theSan Francisco staff grouped the stipulations of the Boardinto three general categories:

1. Development of a computer data-matrix model.2. Development of a system design of quality educa-

ion for the complex, with a definition of eachcomponent of quality with control methods anddf;ielopment of a functional task and methods/means analysis for achieving these objectives.

3. Design, development and implementation of acommunity organization model for the goals ofachieving citizen consensus, disseminating knowl-edge, giving professional help to teachers andadministrators, and nurturing a social climate forthe successful development of the complex.

The consultants "zeroed in" on the third point listedabove. The Board of Education, as stated earlier, requiredthat the community be involved in the complex experimentand the San Francisco staff, anxious to comply with thisrequirement, wished to design and implement a communityorganization model to achieve this goal. However, as themembers of the Racial Equality Committee perceived it theBcard req-tilred tht the community be actively involved in

31

every stage of the Complex Planning operation yet the schoolstaff at that very moment was busy planning without theinvolvement of representatives of the community. TheCommittee felt that the development of the communityorganization model and its implementation should have highpriority and not be developed concurrently with the eightother elements outlined by the June, 1969 resolution. Unlessthe community was involved at the earliest possible moment,the consultants from the Committee believed, that thesuccess of any plan developed exclusively by the school staff,would be severely threatened.

Community control and community involvement in thedecision-making process has become the rallying cry of manyparents in urban communities and educational institutionshave been the focus of this movement. New York City hesbeen, perhaps, the city where the community control andinvolvement issue has been most visible and other easterncities have felt and are continuing to feel the effects of t.-,isissue. Most of the consultants present at this workshop werefrom some of these cities and have been continuouslyinvolved in negotiations with community leaders and parents.

They have been exposed to the pressures generated bycommunities not traditionally included in school affairs butanxious to make their voices heard and to see their concernsincorporated into school policy. With this kind of back-ground the consultants perceived that the crucial need in SanFrancisco was to involve persons from the community inevery stage of the complex planning. An effort needed to bemade not to win community support for a plan designed bythe Superintendent's administrative staff, but to develop aprocess that would insure that the plan was one that could behonestly attributed to the community which would partici-pate in its operational phase.

1 he dangerous possibility of using the community onlyas "a rubber stamp" to gain the approval of the Board ofEducation was clearly evident. In addition, such a procedu.ewould risk the alienation of those persons whose support

3632

woald be crucial at the Board hearing in December, 1969.The central school administration, the consultants advised,needed to avoid at all costs the kind of communityinvolvement which only serves to help the educationalestablishment make acceptable what it wants to do. Parentand community involvement can be regarded as a meaningfulconcept only if it results in changing the educational processto such a degree that parents and the community believe thatwhat is going on in the schools is something they want to seehappening. This is a process which assures integrity. Withoutquestion, one of the most important elements in the attemptto provide quality and integrated education is the process andthe strategies by which it is obtained.

Because of their strong feelings about "how the com-munity should be involved in the complex", the RacialEquality Committee consultants indicated that the SanFrancisco staff needed to re-evaluate its own priorities, aswell as those established by the Board of Education. Thedeadline for concrete plans had been established as December1, 1969. It was already October. Clearly, the development ofa viable and representative community component needed tobe established before proceeding any further. The Boardneeded to be convinced that whatev,,r "process" was devel-oped for involving the community would be vital to theultimate acceptance and succtss of the complex plan. Toproceed haphazardly only to meet an arbitrary Decemberdeadline could jeopardize the program's integrity and itsacceptance by the community to be servzd by the schoolcomplexes.

The Board and school administrators in San Francisconeeded to face the fact that even in the most idealcircumstances for planning school integration, the programcould fail. Current trends made careful planning even morenecessary. It is becoming clearer and clearer that a growingnumber of people are not willing to accept integration. Theyhave made it clear that they do not want it and do notbelieve in it. For this reason, if any kind of integrated

37

program is to succeed given the political and social picturewhich presently exists in parts of this nation one obviouslyhas to take the time to do what one can well. And, there iscertainly no chance of succeeding without a genuine involve-ment of concerned people the parents and friends of thechildren who will be affected.

Other Elements Reviewed

The October meeting between Council consultants andstaff members of the San Francisco Unified School Districtserved to help identify probable problem areas as well as toclarify the direction of program planning. Time was alsodevoted to possible funding vehicles, components of qualityeducation, in-service and pre-service training for teachers,staff and students in the elementary school complex areas,the harnessing of the educational leadership and resources ofthe community and attracting representative leadership fromthe black, Chinese and Spanish sur-name communities. Therewas little doubt, however, that the issue of parent andcommunity involvement in the planning, decision-making andoperational stages of the desegregation of Park-South andRichmond Complex schools dominated the workshop ses-sion. There is also little doubt that the work of the SanFrancisco school staff and the work of the community in tsucceeding months were greatly influenced by what waslearned at this fall 1969 meeting attended by Councilconsultants.

Another Form of Technical Assistance

As a part of its effort to provide technical assistance tothe San Francisco school district, the Council in addition toproviding consultant and staff expertise also provided theinitial funds to support the position of a communityorganization liaison person for the San Francisco schook Inretrospect this position became crucial to the development of

3 3 34

a program for intensive community and staff involvement inthe complex planning

There were sonic indications that the San Franciscoschool administration, like many school administrations inthis country, suffered from a "credibility gap" in manysectors of the community. It was clear that in order todevelop the kind of community participation envisionedthe Racial Equality Committee consultants in October, 1969,this gap would have to be bridged. Many citizens living in thetwo complex communities felt that the educational establish-ment could not really be serious about "real" schooldesegregation in the twenty complex elementary schools, notin this day and time. In addition. integration in manyinstances has only meant busing black children away fromblack schools into white schools, never the rewrse. Whiteparents were especially anxious about ways in which theirchildren would profit by going to integrated schools. Anadded dimension to San Francisco's school desegregationefforts is the presence of racial hostilities not only betweensome of the white and black citizens but also between someof the Chinese population and the black population. Inproposing that parents and community become involved indesigning the complex, the school staff found it necessary torespond to many of these fears. This responsibility waslargely that of the community organization liaison person.

San Francisco was fortunate to have selected a personfor this position who had been able to maintain credibilitywith both the "downtown" central administrative staff aswell as with members of the two complex communities. Shewas able to accurately communicate the needs and concernsof parents to the school staff and at the same time herposition as a member of the central school staff was notcompromised or misinterpreted Ly the close links she hadestablished with the community. She was loyal to theequality/quality concept and the complex plan and recog-nized that it had to be the community's plan to succeed. Sheworked closely with the Park-South and Richmond Advisory

35

Councils which consisted of parents, teachers and adminis-trators as well as other community persons interested inplanning the design of the two complexes.

It is important to note that the San Francisco UnifiedSchool District put great emphasis on the Complex Plan as amodel of a quality educational environment. Equality ofopportunity for all racial and ethnic minorities was a crucialpart of this model system, but the concepts of desegregationand racial integration were not over-emphasized in thediscussions of the complexes as a whole. An effort was madeto incorporate those concepts as part of the basic foundationfor quality education in the schools.

Parents Form Advisory Councils in Two Comrlexes

In October, 1969, the involvement of all segments ofthe Complex communities was sought by the school districtin planning, implementing and operating the model equal-ity/quality school complexes envioned for the Richmondand Park-South districts of San Francisco. The Superin-tendent's staff had initiated the development of a communityinvolvement vehicle in the early fall. Increasingly, however,the attempt was made to have parent groups develop whichwould be not only representative of the complex communi-ties as a whcle but would also be independent from theschool administration and able to initiate recommendationsand submit reports reflecting the educational goals of thecommunity-in-general and not just those of one or twoisolated segments of it.

The Councils consisted of parents in the two complexesbut ..!v;y included not only parents and other communitypersons interested in good schools, but also people from theSchool District's Central Office, principals and teachers toinsure maximum in-put ar,1 the development of Nvorkablerecommendations. The Councils met once a Svc : thePark-South Advisory Council on Tuesday evenings: theRichmond Advisory Council on Wednesday evenings. The

3640

meetings rotated to different schools in the complex eachweek. Nine committees were fornied within each of theCouncils to work on each part of the Complex Plan.Chairmen were elected and an intensive period of work wasstarted as community involvement in school-decision makingbecame a reality in these two districts of San Francisco.Parents who had been asking for a meaningful voice in theways their children are educated were encouraged to join themeetings to influence important decisions. Teachers andprincipals were likewise z.uraged to make their feelingsknown and their professional expertise available.

4137

CHAPTER 111

The Complex Plan: "Schools forLiving an Adventure in Education"*

In December, 1969, as a result of the intensive effortmade by the school administrators assigned to the develop-ment of the complex plan and members of the communitywho participated in the Park-South and Richmond AdvisoryCouncils, a progress 'wort of the planning for hnplementa-tion of the Superintendent's Educational Equality/QualityReport #3 was issued to the Board of Education. On January6, 1970, the Board of Education meeting was devoted to areview and discussion of this report entitled "Schools forLiving an Adventure in Education", and provided an oppor-tunity for the Board to hear an expression of public views onthe subject. At this meeting the Board unanimously endorsedthe report for implementation in September, 1970, TheBoard made a commitment of $1,207,114 in the 1970-71school budget contingent on the staff's resourcefulness inobtaining funding for the balance of costs amounting to$1,622,000. This meeting of the Board lasted for more thanfour hours. A heated debate between speakers for and againstthe plan took place with proponents outnumbering oppo-nents by more than 2 to 1.

The plan which was approved by the Board on January6, 1970, covered the nine areas for which they requiredconcrete plans in their June 10th, 1969 resolution.

The report submitted to and subsequently approved bythe Board presented detailed plans for implementing the ninecomponents which would provide the integrated, qualityeducational setting envisioned for the two elementary school

*11.5 chapter is a summary of recommendations presented to the San I raneiscoBoard of Education on December 16, 1969 by Dr. Robert E. Jenkins,Superintendent of Schools: Educational Equality /Quality - Schools forIiringanAdventure in Education. Planning for Action.

A

complexes. The rest of this chapter a summary of thesedetailed plans.

Funding of Significant Components

The San Francisco Unified School District hoped toacquire adequate funding for the complex plan through acombination of district, state, federal and foundation funds.With this in mind a preliminary budget was developed andsubsequently revised and refined with consultant help.Contacts were made through the Superintendent and staff aswell as through the community with private, state and federalgencies where possible funding might be available for

innovative educational programs.In addition, specific applications for funding were

ubmitted to agencies which administer the following pro-grams:

1. ESEA Title III (Elementary-Secondary EducationAct) for consideration by the Title III StateAdvisory Innovative Education Commission andthe State Department.

2. Miller-Unrich Reading Act for funds to supportsixteen reading specialists.

3. Civil Rights - Title IV.4. Title III Central Cities Project for an Elementary

Science Resource Center to be continued withextensive participation from the 20 complexschools.

Other proposals to finance portiors of the EducationalEquality /Quality Report #3 sought f, uncial and technicalassistance from business, industry and other organizations.Active participation in the Teacher Corps by the SanFrancisco School District is again expected for the schoolyear 1970-71 and it is planned that an application will bemade for Teacher Corps personnel in the complex schools.

4340

Transportation

The issue of transporting children by bus to schools wasidentified early as one of the most sensitive areas in the entireplanning operation. However, the Advisory Councils and theSuperintendent had accepted the goals and policies whichhad been laid down by the State Board of Education inSpring, 1969, which stated that any school that deviates 15%or more from the ethnic distribution of the school system asa whole is considered de facto segregated and the schooldistrict must develop plans to achieve the goal of soundethnic distribution. Accepting this policy as its goal thoseinvolved in designing the Complex Plan directei themselvesnot only to the question of rhysical movement but also tothe positive preparation of students, parents and the com-munity at large for such movement. A great deal of researchand study went into the questions of cost, health, safety androutes, personal services and types of vehicles. The plannersanticipated that 4,500 of the 9,000 students living in thecomplex area would be provided w'th bus transportation totheir assigned scnools. Minimum distance busing providingfor a minimum transportation time within each complex wasrecommended. Pre-planned pick-up points were designated toensure that maximum safety would be provided. The issue ofsafety was of critical interest to parents in the Park-South/Richmond Complexes. This concern elicited the followingrecommendations:

1. That some type c,f Police Department crossingaides be employed to help with the primary schoolcrossing since the older children normally used fortraffic patrol duty will be attending a differentschool.

2. That the district publish in newspapers the buspick-up routes and also safe walking routes andalso mail this information to all parents involved.

3. That both the Police Department and the CityTraffic Engineers be involved in the initial planning

4441

of possible mutes.4. That bus monitors be employed for as long as

seems necessary.5. That information be given to the community at

large concerning California's excelleat safety rec-ord in busing of school children and the verystringent regulations governing school buses.

6. That inservice training be provided for both driversand bus monitors regarding special factors involvedin school busing.

The school district will also develop a data bank modelfor the 9,000 pupil population in the elementary schoolcomplexes in order that pertinent information on pupils canbe easily stored and retrieved. This Datametric Systemalso provide information on physical facilities in the complexschool buildings, their limitations and possibilities, which willenable staff to develop a model to scientifically matchpupil-teacher with physical facilities in terms of the educa-tional plan for primary and intermediate schools, and toachieve the sound ethnic distribution with minimum busingin accordance with the State guidelines.

Parent-Teacher-Administrator Involvement in theFormative, Implementation and Operational Phasesof the Plan

As described in Chapter II the involvement of allsegments of the community in the formative, operational andimplementation stages of the Complex Plan was deemedcrucial to its acceptance by the Board and the community-in-general and to its subsequent success. The planning staff2ppointed by the Superintendent began early in the Fall of1969 to identify and work with school and communityleaders to develop a vehicle for extensive participation andinvolvement of citizens and staff members in the ComplexPlanning operations. Consultant help was obtained to insurethat the pattern set for this kind of involvement would prove

12

to be feasible.Early in the Fall the Park-South Advisor3 ^ouncil and

the Richmond Advisory Council were formed and theyincluded a PTA or Parent Association representative and analternate from each school in the educational complex areas.Other school and community organizations and school staffwere invited to participate as follows:

Teachers Representatives - Park South SchoolsTeachers Representatives - Richmond SchoolsAndrew Jackson School Site CouncilBay Area Urban LeagueClarendon Parents & AffiliatesConcerned Parents AssociationCoordinating Council for Excellence in EducationCoordinating Council for School IntegrationHaight-Ashbury Neighborhood CouncilHuman Rights CommissionJapanese American Citizens LeagueLeague of Women VotersMothers in Support of Neighborhood SchoolsParent-Teacher Association (Second District)Parents for Community SchoolsParents and TaxpayersPark-South Teachers CouncilPresidio Junior High SchoolRichmond District CouncilRoosevelt Junior High SchoolSan Francisco Educational AuxiliarySCOPECommunity committees were established by each of the

two advisory councils one for each of the nine areasoutlined in the Board resolution of June 10. 1969.1 Centraloffice and field administrators were included in the commit-tees. The committees scheduled meetings once a week todevelop key recommendations which were subsequently

/See pages 12 and 2I-22. 4643

included in the Superintendent's progress report. In additionto school district's Central Office staff the committeesutilized the services of other district certified personnel,the Superintendent's staff, Complex Planning staff, thePlanning Centers and principals and teachers in the complexschools. The type of communication and sharing of ideasinitiated by the advisory councils produced a wealth ofsuggestions for the development of both the quality andequality components of the educational complex plan. Thereis little doubt that the San Francisco Unified School Districtestablished a successful pattern for involving several hundredcommunity and school leaders in the planning of thecomplexes %/hich is another example of widespread school/community participation.

Facilities and Physical Plant

Soou after the Board issued its resolution approving, inprinciple, the Superintendent's recommendation for theComplex Plan, a review was made of the physical conditionof the ^.0 elementary schools in the Park-South and Rich-mond Complexes. A preliminary examination identified thecondition and general needs of each school maintenanceneeds, including interior painting, lavatory facilities anddrinking fountains suitable for the age levels of children tospecific schools in the complex. The report indicated that allmaintenance and repair work on the schools was schedvled tobe completed by September, 1970.

Junior High School Feeder Patterns

Several recommendations were made by the two com-plex advisory councils regarding the issue of jur ior highschool feeder patterns. Since the complex idea was conceivedto be a total school experience for the student and not justan attempt to provide quality, integrated education at theelementary level, the question of what junior high school

44

4

Org

aniz

atio

nal C

hart

Plan

ning

for

Com

plex

es

II

BO

AR

Do

fE

DU

CA

TIO

N

1

SuR

ER

INT

EN

DE

NT

of

S010

0Ls

ASS

IST

AN

T S

UPL

NIN

ITIA

DIN

T,

INN

OV

AT

IVE

PIA

NN

INC

--[

PAR

R S

CU

M C

OM

PLE

7PR

IAC

IPA

IS-

sOC

OL

S

RIC

H40

55)

MIK

E(

PRIN

CIP

AL

S12

- s

al/O

ES

NA

MIN

G C

EN

TE

R

PAR

K S

CU

T, E

DU

CA

-T

ION

AL

AD

. SO

RY

CO

UN

CIL

nioi

ctio

ED

UC

A-

TIO

NA

L A

DV

ISO

RY

COUNCIL

PLA

NN

ER

SPA

RK

NIN

TH

Ria

tiON

D

CC

5BU

NIT

Y S

TO

OL

RE

PRE

SEN

TA

TIV

E

TE

AC

HE

R C

OU

NC

IL T

- -

r -4

TE

AT

:IT

ER

CC

UB

CIL

HR

ESE

AR

CH

and

EV

AL

UA

TIO

NC

ON

SUL

TA

NT

ASS

IST

AN

T S

UPE

RIN

TE

ND

EN

TE

ID4E

NT

AR

Y E

DU

CA

TIO

N a

ndST

AFF

if -

--' -

-1

O

ASS

IST

AN

T S

UPE

RIN

TII

IDE

NT

Nip

s4N

RE

LA

TIO

NS

STA

FF

F--

ASS

IST

AN

T L

EII

ER

INT

EIL

DE

NT

- --

INST

RU

CT

ION

AL

DE

VE

LO

P-M

EN

T L

SE

RV

ICE

S 6

STA

FF

children leaving the elementary would attend was an impor-tant question. The following proposals havr been made in anattempt to answer this question:

I. Principle of quality integrated education should beextended throughout the system from kindergartenthrough grade 12 fo* maximum results.

2. All children in the complex should be kepttogether. The aims of the complex would bedefeated by sending some children to schools notinvolved in complex planning.

3. Children attending elementary complex schoolsshould attend the junior high schools within thecomplex area.

4. Actual feeder patterns for junior high schoolsshould not be set up until the elementary complexwith its proper distribution of students has been inoperation for one year.

On the basis of some of the recommendations made, itwas decided that further intensive studies of junior highschool feeder patterns and curriculum needs should be madeby committees, parents, teachers and adrainistratiee person-nel.

THE QUALITY COMPONENTS.- InstructionalArrangements Including Pupil-Teacher-Parapro-fessional Ratio, Programs for all Children, GradeOrganization, Curriculum Materials, CulturalLearning Centers, Site Specialization and OtherInnorations

The success of San Francisco's Educational Equality/Quality Complex Plan is largely contingent on the qualityeducational components which are incorporated into it.

These are essential to the implementation of a successfulinnovative program in the Complex schools. The curriculumcommittees of both advisory councils worked diligently onthe development of components to insure pupil success

46

49

through maximum individualization and program flexibility.Members of these committees have made an intensive

study of exemplary instructional programs already operatingin select San Francisco schools as well as in other schooldistricts. The opportunity to see some of these exemplaryindividualized programs in action resulted in enthusiasm andsupport for their implementation in more schools.

The report submitted to the Board of Education inDecember, 1969, recommended the following in the area ofinstructional arrangements for the complex schools:

Accountability and Performance ContractsInherent in the development and organization of

these programs is a diagnostic-prescriptive educationalapproach, with the teacher and publisher committed tothe idea that all children can learn and must grow to themaximum of his or her capabilities. The San FranciscoUnified School District would like to institute the kindof program in the complexes where failure does notoccur. "In addition to teacher commitment the Superin-tendent is seeking accountability contracts from pub-lishers who will bid on learning packages and consultantservices with accountability provisions. The publisherwould be paid on the basis of the successful studentachievement of pre-negotiated standards of perform-ance. The staff and community in consultation withstaff members from the U.S. Office of Education willcontinue to weigh carefully the various approaches toaccountability contracts and to consider experiences ofother school districts with performance contracting andthe whole idea of cost effectiveness in education."

In summary the instructional program for the EducationalComplex would provide for the following:

1. Behavioral GoalsTo effectively evaluate pupils as well as the costeffectiveness of the total program, brief concisebehavioral goals will be developed to serve asbenchmarks or this continuous evaluation process.

47

50

2. Primary and Intermediate SchoolsThe primary, intermediate school concept will beimplemented with primary schools serving kinder-garten through third grade and intermediateschools serving kindergarten and grades fourthrough six.

3. Grade OrganizationEach of the primary and intermediate schools willbe organized on an individualized basis with thechildren grouped and regrouped according to needrather than by age or glade.

4. Pupil-Teacher Paraprofessionr:: RatioBoth teacher and community councils have recom-mended that class-size be reduced to a maximumof 25. However, until better evidence can beobtained on the cost effectiveness, further reduc-tions in the near future seem to be financiallyprohibitive.

The Superintendent has strongly recom-mended a program of differentiated staffing withextensive use of paraprofessionals. Differentiatedstaffing also calls for the assignment of someteachers as guiding or senior teachers, others asregular instructors, and some as junior instructors.In addition extensive use will be made of teamteaching, rge group-small group instruction, andindependent study, all of which call for somevariation of differentiated staffing as against afixed pupil-teacher ratio.

5. Curriculum MaterialsIn addition to using package learning programsmade possible by the diagnostic-prescriptive in-

structional approach, State texts will be used inaccordance with State law. Through the individual-ized approach it is possible for the instructionalprogram to be restructured into several majorblocks such as reading and language arts, math and

48

51

science, social studies and the fine arts.6. Learning Counseling Centers

These centers will be established to provide forcounseling and educational diagnosis which canLead to corrective and prescriptive instruction foreach child who receives the guidance of the center.

7. Library-Media Resource CenterSixteen schools in the complex will have ResourceCenters with library services for each :enter. Thiswill provide for a wide selection of lit,rary booksand audio-visual aids and readiness materials.

8. Elementary Science Resource CenterIt is recommended that school districts expand theElementary Science Resource Center which wasinitiated through Title III ESEA and which ispresently housed in the California Academy ofSciences in Golden Gate Park. The center in itsexpand -ri form would be used as a resource for theschools in each complex. The center Provides aunique opportunity to expand the teaching ofscience in a highly crettive manner and to serve asone of the centers of the staff developmentprogram in the field of science.

9. Cultural ArtsTitle III Funding is being sought to implement aproposal in the cultural arts 'New Conceptsthrough the Cultural Arts." The following areexamples of the elements that should be includedin the program:

a. Children's theatre in residentb. Tutorial experiences in musicc. Opportunities to attend performances of

the San Francisco Ballet, the San Fran-cisco Symphony and the San FranciscoOpera

10. Special EducationPlans are being developed by The Special Educa-

49

r()u

tion Services Division to meet the needs of thechildren in the Complexes who will be classified as"atypical",

1 1. Cultural Learning CenterBoth Educational Councils in the two complexareas endorsed the idea of the center. However, theDecember report indicated that the planning ofthis component had not yet been completed. Thesuperintendent summarized the approach thatcould be taken in the development of the center inhis Educational Equality /Quality Report #3:

"The Cultural Learning Center which couldbe initiated first as a Curriculum Materials Centercould provide rich opportunities with resources notavailable at each school. This could include areading clinic, tutorial study center, communica-tion skills laboratory, typing-shorthand laboratory,language laboratory, science-math computer labo-ratory, health services, testing and evaluation cen-ter, social skills center, children's center, familyservices, drama, arts and crafts laboratory, musiccenter, teieNision studio workshop skills labora-tory, physical education and aquatic center andfood services. The center could be open day andnight and could serve the community on weekendsand during the summer. Funding for this creativeapproach would depend upon the possibility ofstate, federal and/or foundation support."

12. Computer Assisted InstructionThe possibility of installing "plug.in" systems andcomputer assistance in the complex schools isbeing investigated. A study is being made ofpromising results being achieved in this area byother school systems.

The twelve items are to form the basis for achievingquality in the area of curriculum and instruction. The goal ofboth councils in this regard have been summarized in a report

50

J!

of one of the advisory councils:To provide an integrated educational program t It

will meet the needs and learning level of each child (bour goal). It is necessary to determine his needs andprovide an environment t''at fosters healthy self-conceptas well as educatiol d achievement. Resources of bothour community and total city will be considered as partof the educational laboratory of the pupil.

Staffing and Staff Development ProfessionalAdministrative and Paraprofessional andTheir Deployment

The Advisory Councils made recommendations for thefollowing staffing arrangements within the comple)o..J:

I. Two complex Directu.c with necessary clericalstaff

2. Paid and volunteer paraprofessionals assigned onthe basis of differentiated ',tatting

3. Sixteen library -Multi -Media Specialists4. Sixteen Counselors or Lc ng Counseling Centers5. Special Education staff bas(' on need and alloca-

tion of state funds6. Bilingual teacher based on need7. Sixteen reading specialists8. Specialists in Art, Music, Physical Education in

accordance with pres it provision of assigningspecialists to elementary ' ",cols to provide plan-ning periods for all teach and to enrich theeducational program.

In accordance with Board oft lucation policy theAdvisory Councils recommended that every effort I), madeto achieve an integrated staff that approaches the ethnicdistribution of students in the Complexes. In pddit,on, theAdvisory Councils indicated Fiat funds were needed for staffdevelopment in intergroup education and human relationsand for furthering integration and educational equality for

51

the Complex schools.

Plans for Systematic Evaluation of Teachers,Administrators and Pupils

The growing demand among .parents of school-agechildren for schools and teachers to be held accountable forthe educational progress of students has not fallen on deafears among the complex planners in San Francisco. Teachers,administrators, parents and other interested persons from thecommunity recommended that periodic evaluation becomean essential part of the complex operation.

A sum of 5150,000 was allocated in the tentativebudget for the Complexes for program and pupil evaluation.It has been recommended that these evaluations should beconducted by an outside organization or independent co.t-sultants retained by the school district.

The major thrust in the educational complexes is theachievement of quality integrated education for each child inattendance. Therefore the focus of pupil evaluation will beon changes in individual test scores over a period of time andon the child's adjustment in school.

Two task forces have been appointed by the Superin-tendent in the area of evaluation. One has been assigned tostrengthen the present system of teacher evaluation and theother to strengthen the program of administrator evaluation,teacher participation will constitute an important part of thisevaluative procedure. The evaluation instruments developedwere to be field tested during the Spring Term of 1970 andimplemented in the Fall Term, 1970. The outcome of suchan evaluation procedure in the performance of both teachersand administrators should lead to the self-improvement ofteachers and administrators both in educational effectivenessand attitudes as they work with a creative and innovativetype of educational program in the Complex Schools.

In order to ascertain how the community perceives thecomplexes and the educational success of the Complex Plan,

52

it was suggested by the Advisory Councils that a stratifiedrandom sample of parents in each complex and the delegatesand alternatives to each Complex Council be settled andsurveyed on an opinion questionnaire by trained interviewers.A range of topics and issues raised by the community shouldbe included in the questionnaire as well as questionsspecifically related to knowledge about the respondent.

The Superintendent and his staff plan periodic evalua-tion of all elements involved in the educational complexespupils, teachers, administrators and community. The focuswill be on the concept of accountability and the extent towhich successful achievement is being realized to the limit ofeach child's ability. These evaluations will serve to keep allmembers of the school community informed of not only theprogress being made in implementing those measures outlinedin "Schools for Living: An Adventure in Education" but alsoinformed about the contributing expectations and responsi-bilities of each member of the Complex Schools communityas they relate to the educational process.

5653

CtAPTER IV

The Plan Becomes Official

On January 6, 1970 as the preceding chapter indicated,the School Board of the San Francisco Unified SchoolDistrict voted unanimously to accept the Complex Plan andto implement it in September, 1970. In addition, the Boarddecided that it would assume almost one l-alf of the financialcosts of the program which were over and above the normaloperating budget for schools in the complex areas. Theadditional 1.6 million dollars, they hoped would be contrib-uted by outside funding sources. Subsequent to this actiontaken by the Board, those close to the situation in SanFrancisco have observed that in light of the current politicaland social pressures regarding school desegregation efforts,the overwhelming support of the Board for the Plan as well asthe support and commitment of a significant segment of thecommunity deserves high commendation.

The commitment of the Board to the integration of theComplex schools, and the inclusion of loop busing to achieveit, has been challenged a number of times since the Boardapproved the plan in January, 1970. In February, a nev iyelected member of the City's Board of Supervisors proposedthat the busing issue be put on the ballot in protest againstthe Complex Plan. It was his opinion that the citywide votewould demonstrate that the majority of parents in SanFrancisco were overwhelmingly opposed to 'fusing. Theproposal was not implemented. Subsequcnt1}. San Fran-cisco's mayor asked the Board of Education to delete thebusing provision from its quality-equality program. Themayor also asked, at a later date, that the Board considerpostponing the "integration-through-busing" plan for oneyear.

When the Board again resisted pressures from SanFrancisco's Mayor Joseph L. Moto and announced that theComplex Plan would be implemented in September, 1970,

55

57

the Mayor suggested that the School Board, now appointive,be made into an elected body. An election he felt would alsomean the rejection of the desegregation plan in the process.This move was stopped by a committee of the San FranciscoBoard of Supervisors.

During this period the San Francisco community hadnew indications from the National Administration thatbusing to achieve integration was an undesirable procedure.On February 16, 1970, the President of the United Statesindicated that desegregation plans "should involve minimumpossible disruption whether by busing or otherwise ofthe educational routines of children" and he endorsed theneighborhood school concept. The Governor of California onFebruary 17, 1970, in reaction to a court decision involvingschool desegregation in Los Angeles, assailed what he called"forced busing" of school children to achieve racial integra-tion and said his administration would vigorously oppose it"by all legal means".

On March 12, 1970, the State Board of Education, alsoreacting to the court decision in Los Angeles which found thecity board of education guilty of deliberately choosing toperpetuate segregation, repealed the "California Proceduresto Achieve Racial Balance" mentioned in Chapter 1 anddescribed in the Appendix. These regulations which had beenadopted in February, 1969, required school boards toattempt to remed, racial imbalances. Although the repealhad no effect on previous local school board actions it didrepresent another step designed to frustrate those activelyseeking solutions to school segregation.

In spite of extreme political pressure the Board ofEducation, on two occasions after January 6th, reconfirmedits commitment to the equality/quality plan and its imple-mentation in September, 1970. On several fronts the Boardhad overt indications of strong community support. TheRichmond Advisory Council composed of the parents,teachers a,id administrators concerned with the 12-schoolRichmond district called the mayor's position "unlawyer-

56

5

1

ti

like" and "politically irresponsible". "The board of directorsof the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Califor-nia released a statement saying that "the mayor's position isundistinguishable from that of the Deep South governors andmayors in seeking to avoid through delay the meeting ofconstitutional, statutory and moral obligations to integrateschools". And. reliable, on-site reports indicate that at allpublic meetings of the Board at which the Complex Plan wasbeing debated the majority of those who asked to speak fromthe floor spoke in favor of the desegregation, qualityeducation plan. The Board has remained firm in its commit-ment to it.

ConclusionWith the continued commitment of the Board to the

implementation of the Complex Plan in September, 1970,parents, teachers and administrators who had actively sup-ported its design continued to meet and plan for the smoothtransition of the complex schools to the quality/equalityoperational stage. They soon realized that the success of theplan as presented to, and accepted by, the Board ofEducation was only the first stage towards achieving quality/equality in the schools as visualized by Dr. Jenkins in hisReport #3.

All the obstacles had not yet been conquered, althoughduring this first stage some important ailics were won to theside of the Complex Planners. The need for funds continuesto be a grave problem. The lack of adequate resources hasalready had a devastating effect on the plans approved onJanuary 6th. The Board had appropriat-A additional districtfunds ($1.2 million) to insure the provision of qualitycomponents in the Complex schools. However, the districtwas able to raise only an additional $311,975 in foundationand federal funds for a total of $1.5 million. This was $1.3million short of the budget outlined in the January, 1970,report to the Board. The Board was faced with threealternatives: 1) operating half the schools in both complexes;

5957

2) eliminating one complex and maintaining all the schools inthe other complex and 3) retaining all the schools in bothcomplexes but using the existing funds to establish integratedquality education in primary and intermediate schools withover $1 million to strengthen quality education.

After long discussion and debate the Board indicatedthat it would not vote to include all twenty schools in thePlan unless the quality components could be included asoriginally indicated. Consequently, a limited Complex Planwas approved which would include only the schools in theRichmond District. The original plan called for serving over10,000 students. The modified plan will serve approximately5,000. The schools in the Park-South District will operate inthe fall as they did during the 1969-70 school year, drawingtheir students from their immediate neighborhoods andoffering all six grades.

Reports from the San Francisco Unified School Districtindicate that the Richmond Complex operation did, indeed,get off to a good start in September 1970, thanks to theplanning and hard work of the community and school staff.A large part of this initial success can be attributed to theenthusiasm demonstrated by teachers in a series of threeworkshops of two and three-days duration held prior to theopening of schools in September 1970. These workshopswere designed to re-train these teachers for individualizedinstruction and for the special problems involved in their.iplementation of the Complex components. The presentfocus of the Richmond District community people is towardthe creation of procedures and policies which will set upcommunity participation in the Richmond Complex on amore formal basis. This activity is meant to transform theidea of the Advisory Council from a rather loosely organizedgroup to a rather formal organization. School administratorsand other interested members of the community in theRichmond Complex ale discovering, in practice, that realdifficulties can develop when a desegregation plan emphasiz-ing quality educational components is initiated in only one

58

GO

segment of a school system. In light of the overwhelmingfiscal problems which face urban school systems in general,some issues are less manageable in terms of implementationthan others. This is especially true as the broad disabilities ofthe system as a whole spill over to "special" or "model"districts such as the San Francisco complex operation inRichmond. One illustration of this phenomenon in SanFrancisco is the issue of class-size. Approximately threeweeks after the opening of the 1970-71 school year, membersof the community and teachers in the Richmond Complexcreated a tremendous uproar on the grounds that class sizeshad not been reduced as recommended. This resulted from amisunderstanding based on the Board's decision, for budget-ary reasons and in light of other priorities, to declare amoratorium on its class size reduction program, district-wide.The problem has not yet been resolved and its resolution willbe of critical importance to the overall short-run, as well aslong-run success of the Plan since the concept of theComplex has been accepted by the community basically onthe grounds that there would be a higher quality of educationwhich many believe is dependent on the reduction of classsize as well as the changing of teaching methods.

In spite of the tremendous set-backs and the obviousdisappointment of those persons who had enthusiasticallyparticipated in the Park-South Council, the Complex Plan asit operates in the Richmond District could still provide theimpetus for achieving city-wide quality integrated education,or, at least, it might become one of seve.,1 possible modelsfor achieving quality/equality in other parts of the city ofSan Francisco. The months pr' ceding its implementationhave taken on the characteristics of a basically happy"courtship" among the planners in the school administrationand the community. As the problem of making it all workapproaches, the rest of the San Francisco community will bekeeping a close watch on the operations of the oneQuality/Equality Complex. Optimism runs high among manysectors that the successful interaction of the parents,

59

61

teachers, community representatives ald administrators whoparticipated in the design will carry its own momentumduring the operational phase to overcome the many problemsthat might occur.

The Council of the Great City Schools is pleased to havebeen a part of the "complex planning" task in San Franciscoand Council staff has reason to believe that the cooperationgenerated between San Francisco school staff, the Complexcommunity and the Council was mutually pleasing andbeneficial. The following statement made by the President ofthe San Francisco Board of Education, Alan H. Nichols, isindicative of the support the Council has received inproviding technical assistance for school desegregation activi-ties:

On behalf of the San Francisco Unified School Districtand the citizens of San Francisco, and more particularlyits students, involved in the unique educational experi-ence in the Richmond District, I want to thank theCouncil of the Great City Schools, its staff, committees,and members who were helpful in our planning. Theircontributions were individually and collectively out-standing. San Francisco feels indebted to the rest of themajor districts in this nation, through the Council of theGreat City Schools, for the benefit of the time andexperience of so many of these great districts who havehad, and continue to have, similar problems. It is, to me,the essence of the advantage of the Council to provide avehicle through which the Great City School Districtscan share experiences for the betterment of educationto all of those students attending school in thetwenty-one largest districts.

6260

APPENDIX

California Procedures to Achieve Racial Balance

(The following description of procedures toachieve racial balance in California school districtswere developed by the California State Board ofEducation in February, 1969, as an amendment toSections 2010 and 2011 of the California Adminis-trative Code, Title 5, Education. They provided abasis on which many California public schooldistricts could begin to design and implementdesegregation plans.

On March 12, 1970, the procedures wererepealed by the State Board of Education in whatseemed to be a response to the growing social andpolitical pressures imposed by those opposed toschool desegregation efforts including busing toachieve racial balance.]

In 1962, the California State Board of Educationdeclared that persons and agencies responsible for theestablishment of school attendance centers or the assignmentof pupils should exert all possible efforts to prevent andeliminate segregation in the schools. In February 1969, theState Board of Education reaffirmed and clarified this policy.Sections 2010 and 2011 of the California AdministrativeCode, Title 5, outlined procedures which were designed toassist school districts in meeting their responsibilities toprevent and eliminate racial and ethnic imbalance as definedby the Code.

In California, the Procedures stated, there is racialimbalance in a school if the enrollment of pupils of any racialor ethnic group differs by more than 15 percentage pointsfrom the district mean of pupil enrollment for that group. b1968, three-quarters of all Negro pupils in California at-tended racially imbalanced schools, as did more than half of

61

83

all Oriental pupils and nearly half of all Spanish-surnamepupils.'

The California State Department of Education requiredthat an evaluation of any school plan take into account bothits feasibility and the reasonable likelihood that it wouldeffectively prevent and eliminate imbalance. The 15-percent-age formula or the 30-percentage-point range of balance wasintended to be a guide regarding the extent of imbalance andthe need for corrective planning. The following pointsindicate what elements were deemed necessary for aneffective district plan:

(1) a clear and firm declaration of policy by the schooldistrict governing board that is consistent with thedeclared policy of the State Board of Education insections 2010 and 201) of the California Adminis-trative Code, Title 5, Education;

(2) a review of the relevant facts about the district,including among others, data on the racial andethnic compositions of each school, space andbuilding needs, location of facilities, school organi-zation by grades, finances, curriculum, staffing,student achievement, community relations andprojected population changes;

(3) sequential administrative steps to be taken toprevent and eliminate imbalance in the schools ofthe district, with a timetable for each step;

(4) assignment of specific staff tesponsiblity for imple-mentation of the plan, with consideration of thestrengths and weaknesses of the personnel in-volved;

(5) provision for preservice and inservice education ofstaff in conjunction with the steps to be taken indesegregation and integration;

'Procedures to Correct Racial and Eth is Imbalance in School Districts:California AdministratNe Code, Title 5, Education, Sections 2010 and 2011.California State Department of Education, 1969.

62

64

(6) provision for community relations and publicrelations programs in preparation for desegregationand integration;

(7) provisions for improvements in the educationalprogram, including intercultural curricula and eth-nic studies;

(8) procedures for continuing evaluation of the effec-tiveness of the plan in eliminating racial and ethnicimbalance and for necessary modifications forcontinuing effectiveness.

In developing policies to assure equal educationalopportunities and high-quality integrated education for allchildren the guidelines urged school officials to rememberthat social and ethnic balance is only one pre-requisite. Oftenin the attempt to design and implement alternate plans fordesegregation, the need to improve many other aspects ofschool district offerings in order to provide equal educationalopportunities is brought to light. Th,..!. curriculum and theprogram of instruction should be studied and revisions madeto assure that all students will have an opportunity to learnthe history and contributions of various racial, ethnic aridcultural groups; the pluralistic nature of American society;and the many intergroup relations issues in the school andcommunity. In addition, an effort should be made by theschool district to find ways to involve individuals and groupsfrom the local minority communities in curriculum develop-ment in these subject matter areas. The California Admin;s-trative Code further counseled that procedures for elimi-nating and preventing racial imbalance include a strongcommunity relations and information dissemination com-ponent; parents and other citizens should be informed byschool districts about the issues involved in correcting racialand ethnic imbalance in the schools. Local school districtgoverning boards and administrators should deal openly withthe facts and involve interested individuals and communitygroups in corrective planning. Among the policies andprocedures that have been developed by school districts in

63

65

California for the purpose of promoting effective communi-cation practices are:

I Assignment of responsibilities to specific staff forcommunity relations.

2. Establishment of procedures for regular communi-cation with the general public and with communityorganizations, both majority and minority. (Oppor-tunities for community participation in assessingneeds and in proposing solutions should be pro-vided).

3. Appointment of board committees or committeesof citizens representing different groups in thecommunity to review the facts and advise thegoverning boards and superintendent concerningalternate plans.

4. Employment of intergroup relations and humanrelations personnel representing different racial andethnic origins, including bilingual personnel to dealwith problems of Spanish-speaking and other nonEnglish-speaking minorities.

5. Employment of in-district and out -of- district con-sultants.

6. Broadening the representation of communitygroups, including civic, business, labor, ethnic orreligious groups, and non-school public agencies inadvisory and cooperative relationships with theschools.

7. Recruitment of parents and others in differentareas of the community for teacher aides, com-munity aides, and other paraprofessional positions.

8. Improving means by which individual or groupgrievances concerning the schools are heard andresolved.

9. Holding planning seminars and community meet-ings at which citizens are able to discuss problemsand concerns with school personnel for ethnic, andsocioeconomic isolation of different groups.

64

6G

In California, the principal test of a program to correctracial imbalance is its effectiveness in preventing and elimi-nating the segregation of students of any racial or ethnicgroup in the schools of a multi-ethnic district. In addition tomeeting the criteria of this test, the local school districtshould be constantly seeking the development of a superiorschool system which can be characterized in part by thefollowing criteria:

1. Wherever de facto segregation exists, the com-munity, board of education, administrative staff,mu local professional associations cooperate atdeveloping sound and imaginative plans to elimi-nate or reduce the conditions.

2. Plans for achieving a more desirable racial andethnic balance of pupils and staff, and personnelare accompanied by programs aimed at strengthen-ing school curriculums and at developing demo-cratic understandings, attitudes, and patterns ofbehavior among all individuals and groups con-cerned.

3. In addition, funds are used to inaugurate andconduct inservice training of staff personnel inhuman relations, intercultural understanding, andstrategies for educational change.

4. The cooperation of appropriate community agen-cies is enlisted in efforts to achieve and maintainequality of educational opportunity.

5. The public iF helped to understand that ending defacto segregation is an educational problem aF wellas one facing the community at large.

6. As part of the system's efforts to achieve equalityof educational opportunity, schools located indisadvantaged areas or serving disadvantaged chil-dren offer, in addition to specially staffed before-school, after-school pre-kindergarten, summer, andremedial programs of various types, all the specialopportunity programs found in other schools of

65

61

the syster,,7. Systemwide criteria for the selection of textbooks

and instructional materials inciade emphasis uponthe realistic portrayal of minority groups, balancedtreatment of current social issues, contribution tointercultural und,...rstanding, and success in relatingthe school experience of pupils to the realities oftheir daily lives.

666

RACIAL EQUALITY COMMITTEE

Dr. John B. Davis, ChairmanDr. Virginia F. Lewis, Vice Chairman

Mr. George Hutt, AdvisorDr. Robert E. Jenkins, Previous Chairman

(1967.1969)

Mr. Charles Patterson, Jr.Memphis Public Schools

Dr. William M. LamersMilwaukee Public Schools

Mr. Hilliard BowenAtlanta City Public Schools

Mr. Clarence GittingsBaltimore Public Schools

Dr. Bernard H. ShulmanBoston Public Schools

Mr. Donald S. LaingBuffalo Public Schools

Mrs. Louis A. MallsMember, Board of EducationChicago Public Schools

Dr. Virginia F. LewisChicago Public Schools

Mrs. Evelyn F. CarlsonChicago Public Schools

Mrs. Conella BrownCleveland Public Schools

Dr. J. L. Patton, Jr.Dallas Public Schools

Mr. Gilbert CruterDenver Public Schools

Dr. Norman DrachlerDetroit Public Schools

Mr. Arthui JohnsonDetroit Public Schools

Mr. Sam JiamermanLos Angeles Public Schools

kir. Julian NavaMember, Poard of EducationI os Angeles Public Schools

Mr. Edgar BaileyMemphis Public Schools

Dr. John B. DavisMinneapolis Public Schools

Dr. Robert WilliamsMinneapolis Public Schools

Mr. Frederick H. WilliamsNew York City Public Schools

Mr. Oliver LancasterMr. Robert Blackburn (1968-70)Philadelphia Public Schools

Mr. George HuttMember, Board of EducationPhiladelphia Public Schools

Mr. John BrewerPittsburgh Public Schools

Mr. Ellis CassonPortland Public Schools

Mr. Thomas McJunkinsSan Diego Public Schools

Dr. William CobbSan Francisco Public Schools

Mrs. Adella SmileyMember, Board of EducationSt. Louis Public Schools

Mr. Rufus Young, Jr.St. Louis Public Schools

Mr. Leroy DillardDistrict of Columbia Public Schools

60