Citation
Journey full circle

Material Information

Title:
Journey full circle a historical analysis of Keyes v. School District No. 1
Creator:
Brown-Bailey, Sharon Ruth
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 264 leaves : ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
School integration -- History -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
School integration -- Government policy -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
School integration ( fast )
School integration -- Government policy ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Genre:
History. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
History ( fast )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 242-260).
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sharon Ruth Brown-Bailey.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
40283235 ( OCLC )
ocm40283235
Classification:
LD1190.P86 1998d .B76 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
JOURNEY FULL CIRCLE:
A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF KEYES v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1
by
Sharon Ruth Brown-Bailey
B.A., Princeton University, 1975
M.S.S., University of Colorado, 1980
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Administration
1998


1998 by Sharon Ruth Brown-Bailey
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Sharon Ruth Brown-Bailey
has been approved
by
John Buechner

Date


Bailey, Sharon R. Brown (Ph.D., Public Administration)
Journey Full Circle: A Historical Analysis of Keyes v. School District No. 1
Thesis directed by Dr. Marjorie Lewis
ABSTRACT
Public school desegregation has been one of the most controversial and
problematic public policy issues on the American landscape. In the forty-plus years
of the history of desegregation litigation, Keyes v. School District No. 7 413 U.S.
189 (1973), is recognized as a landmark case. After twenty years of extensive
litigation in the South, Denver became the first Northern desegregation case. This
case is also notable as the first case to involve both African-American and Hispanic
plaintiffs. The purpose of this historical case study, is to document the history of
the Denver desegregation case from its beginnings in the late 1960s, to its
dismantling in 1995.
Through the methodology of case study, this research provides a
retrospective analysis and synthesis of the key events in the cycle of the initiation
and dismantling of desegregation in Denver schools. Primary sources of data
include court documents, archival records, and newspaper articles. Drafts of the
case study have been reviewed by key informants and participants in the case.
Within this historical emphasis, a second objective of this study is to examine the
impact and relationships between managerial, political, and legal aspects of
Denvers desegregation experience.
The theoretical framework informing this study, emerges out of the
managerial, political, and legal foundations of public administration. The tensions
and conflict among these approaches are reflected through the history of this case.
Examining desegregation policies and practices through these conceptual lenses,
IV


provides a unique vantage point, and a comprehensive picture of the evolution and
dismantling of desegregation in Denver emerges.
This study adds to our understanding of a complex history. It reveals why
desegregation has been so important, and why it has been so difficult to achieve.
Conclusions and policy implications drawn from this case are also discussed. This
study reinforces the importance of policymakers, administrators, and community
gaining a broader understanding of the multiple factors which can contribute to the
success or failure of efforts to achieve equal educational opportunity.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis.
I recommend publication.
Signed
v


DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is dedicated to my parents Glenn and Ruth Brown for always
encouraging and believing in me. They have given me as much support as any
parents could give a daughter, and I have tried my best to make them proud. I also
dedicate this study to my husband John and my three sons Mussa, Ra, and
Kamau. Your patience with this process will forever be appreciated. With your
constant support, I was finally able to complete this protracted journey. You all
have helped me in more ways than I can count.
Many people had a hand in making this dissertation possible. I have
incurred many debts along the way. Thanks to the members of my committee
John Buechner, Richard Stillman, Richard Koeppe, and Irv Moskowitz for their
insights and commitment to me and the completion of this degree. My deepest
thanks to Marjorie Lewis, the chair of my committee, whose guidance and
encouragement helped me to see the value of not giving up on the dream. There
are few words to express the debt to my mentor-sister-friend LaFrancis Rodgers-
Rose, who since my years at Princeton University, has been an angel in disguise.
Always gracious in demeanor, but never sparing in criticism, she never let me
accept my own excuses. She was able to tap into a reservoir of confidence that I
had forgotten existed. And she has always demonstrated by example, the potential
I hope to realize.
I also wish to acknowledge professors Marshall Kaplan, Franklin James,
Lloyd Burton, Peter deLeon, and the late Sam Overman of the Graduate School of
Public Affairs for their support at crucial junctures. I gratefully acknowledge, the
Graduate School of Public Affairs and Norwest Bank for their financial support
while I was completing my dissertation. I am also indebted and grateful for the
technical assistance provided by Cindy Rundstrom, whose expertise and archival
records contributed both to the process and final product.
My wish was to paint a scholarly portrait of Denver's experience with the
desegregation of its schools. Without the willingness of many individuals who
shared with me their personal experiences, this would not have been possible.
The insight of attorneys in the case, Michael Jackson and Gordon Greiner has
been particularly helpful in understanding this litigative history. And finally, a
special tribute to Rachel Noel, who sparked the struggle for desegregation in
Denver. Thank you for living and telling your story.


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION......................................................1
I. THE AMERICAN DILEMMA AND EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY : HISTORICAL OVERVIEW..............................5
Separateness in American Society............................5
Separate and Unequal Education.............................11
Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas..............17
Post-Brown Litigation......................................21
II. A PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON
SCHOOL DESEGREGATION: THEORETICAL AND
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK (Literature Review).............29
Public Administrations Conceptual Lenses..................29
The Managerial Approach to Public Administration........32
The Management of Public Schools...........................35
The Political Approach to Public Administration............41
Politics and Public Schools................................43
The Legal Approach to Public Administration................46
The Legal Environment of Public Schools....................49
Historical Case Study Methodology in Public Administration.52
vii


III. SEGREGATION IN DENVER AND THE EVOLUTION
OF THE KEYES CASE............................................64
Pre-Keyes Denver and its Schools...........................64
Post-W.W.II Denver and the Expansion of Schools...........69
Evidence of Racial Segregation in Denver Schools..........71
The Politicization of the Board of Education..............77
1966-The Berge Study Committee..........................79
The Civil Rights Movement and the Evolution of............80
the Legal Response to Segregation in Denver Schools
The Search for a Legal Remedy to Segregation..............89
Denver Schools
IV. ELUSIVE EQUALITY: THE STRUGGLE TO IMPLEMENT
COURT-ORDERED DESEGREGATION (1973-1983)......................99
The Decision...............................................99
Finger Plan: The Initial Remedy 1974-76...................107
Response to the Board's Appeal-10th Circuit...............113
The Politics of Busing ...................................116
Assignment of the Case to Judge Matsch....................121
1979-1982: The Search for a Non-Busing Plan...............123
The Ad Hoc Plan........................................126
Total Access Plan......................................128
Consensus Plan-1982....................................131
viii


V. THE DISMANTLING OF DESEGREGATION
IN DENVER (1984-1995)........................................136
A Unitary School District?.................................136
Shifting Legal and Political Environment...................146
The Interim Decree (1987)..................................148
The Re-Emergence of the Politics of Desegregation..........153
Black and Hispanic Coalition Attempt to....................159
Negotiate a Settlement
Shifting Legal Doctrine and the Limits of Desegregation....161
State Demands End to Racial Busing.........................164
Equal Opportunity on Trial.................................166
The Final Ruling: Court-Ordered Desegregation..............171
Ends in Denver
VI. A JOURNEY FULL CIRCLE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS....................................181
Focusing the Managerial Lens on Keyes......................185
Focusing the Political Lens on Keyes.......................193
Focusing the Legal Lens on Keyes...........................200
Policy Implications: Understanding the Past,...............208
Exploring the Future
Recommendations for Educational Equity in..................211
Post-Keyes Denver
ix


APPENDIX
225
(A) Ethnic Distribution Comparison, 1973 and 1994........226
(B) Sample Board Resolutions.Regarding....................227
Desegregation and Equal Educational Opportunity
(C) Post-Keyes Legal Framework...........................239
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................242
x


INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to document the history of the Denver
desegregation case, Keyes v. School District No. 1, from its beginnings in
the late sixties (1968), to its dismantling in 1995. The questions which
motivate this research are: 1.) What has been the impact of Keyes v.
School District No. 1? 2.) How have managerial, political, and legal factors
affected the overall impact of this case on equal educational opportunity?
and 3.) What are the implications of these findings for the future of policy
and practice regarding equal educational opportunity? Through the
methods of case study research, the researcher presents a public
administrative perspective from which to describe the significant aspects of
Denvers experience with desegregation policy. This framework provides a
foundation from which to explore the relationships among the political, legal,
and managerial aspects of the case. This perspective also places the
historical discussion of Keyes in a context from which to address the above
research questions.
The Denver Public Schools holds its own in educational history as the
landmark Northern desegregation case. Unfortunately, after more than
twenty-five years of desegregation efforts, equal educational opportunity
remains elusive for many African-American, other ethnic, and poor students.
As Denver moves beyond desegregation, there is a critical need to re-
examine where weve been in order to determine what the future of equal
1


educational opportunity might require, and possibly to avoid repeating the
mistakes of the past. The current climate of reform and legal challenges
includes vouchers, charter schools, and privatization as alternative means
for achieving equality and quality education for all children. However, even
these reforms, cannot escape the historical context of efforts to shape equal
educational opportunity in Denver's schools.
As Denver and its schools move forward in this uncertain landscape,
there is a gap in the public memory and understanding of the full circle of
segregation, desegregation, and the resegregation of the Denver schools. A
framework is needed which allows community leaders, educators, and
parents to understand more fully where we have been, possible lessons
learned, and where we might go from here. Desegregation policy
researchers have noted the importance of developing and preserving the
public memory of our desegregation experiences. Exploring the history of
these changes is critical to the future of policy and practice in the post-
desegregation landscape. The history of any school district, the activities
and direction provided by previous school boards and superintendents, is
often vague. If the district has no commitment to remembering and
understanding its organizational history, that history is dependent upon word
of mouth. The ever-changing nature of school boards with frequent
elections results in a situation where there is little or no institutional or
community memory, especially among those who are in a position to make a
difference. In the Denver case, as with others, the history of these issues is
often relegated to the archives. There have been only a handful of studies
2


of the history of desegregation in Denver. None to date has examined this
history in light of the recent movement to return to the resegregation that
neighborhood schools create.
The timeliness of this study is also important, because Denver and its
schools are at a unique turning point, a point at which a backward glance
may be useful. The vision of Brown and Keyes should not be lost. This
study provides a retrospective analysis and synthesis of the events of the
cycle of segregation-desegregation-resegregation of the Denver schools.
Such historical information has value for current and future board members,
administrators, teachers, and staff within the district, as they attempt to meet
the challenge of providing equity and quality in future educational policy and
practice. The goal of providing students, even in segregated environments,
with equitable and quality education cannot be isolated from the historical
context of these issues. The changing landscape will require school
leadership and community to be conscious of this history, its issues and
lessons, in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past. The value of this
study is not restricted to those who are in Denver or the Denver Public
Schools. One districts history may serve as a source of information for
other districts either as a guide or a warning.
The first chapter places the Keyes case in the historical context of this
nations struggle with issues related to race, separatism, and unequal
educational opportunity. This chapter relates the problem of separate and
unequal education, and how it sparked the movement to desegregate
Americas public schools. In the second chapter the writer defines a public
3


administrative framework, as the theoretical grounding through which the
history of Keyes will be examined. In this framework, the managerial,
political, and legal lenses provide a different vantage point from which to
assess the impact of this case on Denver's schools and community.
Chapters Three, Four, and Five describe the history of Denvers
desegregation experience through the managerial, political, and legal lenses
provided by three of public administrations conceptual lenses. Finally, in
Chapter Six, these conceptual lenses are and focused on the implications of
this history, as the writer discusses conclusions and policy implications for
the future of equal educational opportunity in Denver.
4


CHAPTER I
THE AMERICAN DILEMMA AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY:
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Throughout Americas history, racial issues have been
among, if not central to, the countrys most important concerns.
Often-as when the Constitution was written, during the Civil War
and Reconstruction, and throughout the decades of the civil
rights movement, and since the Supreme Courts Brown decision
in 1954-racial issues have riveted attention (Bell 1987:4).
Separateness in American Society
Racial issues have been central in shaping the history of the nation.
The racial matters which emerged with the legacy of slavery have stamped
their signature on each historical era up to the present day. Controversy
regarding superiority and inferiority of the races, hostility and separatism
have been the core residuals of this preoccupation. The legacy of racism
and separatism left its mark on many aspects of the struggle of blacks for
freedom, including education and literacy. The denial of rights and
opportunities to an education for African Americans has been inextricably
tied to the political, economic, and social life of the country. Carter
Woodson (1919: i) observed in The Education of the Negro Prior to 1981
that:
One can trace the waning of early liberal tendencies toward the
education of the Negroes as the slave system evolved, followed
by a brief upsurge in Negro education when the progressive
trends of the American Revolution coincided with a temporary
5


decline in the economic value of slavery. One can see the harsh
supression of Negro education with the resurgence and
expansion of slave power during the first half of the 19th century,
and observe white churchmen and statesmen shifting from
positive to negative attitudes regarding Negro education with the
fluctuations in the political influences of the time.
Education for Woodson (1919:i), is a dependant, inter-acting unit of
the whole culture. Indeed, it lies at the heart of culture, and necessarily
reflects the contending values which prevail at the time. Throughout the
early history of the nation there were those among abolishionists and
philanthropists who held a different view on the suppression of education for
those of African descent. The individual strivings of the likes of Benjiman
Banneker, Phyliss Wheatley, and Frederick Douglas represent the efforts of
many blacks to secure education despite the barriers established by the
dominant culture.
Writing in 1944, the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal observed
that the United States was and is beset by an apparent paradox. The
nations commitment to universal justice and equality are contradicted by the
way it treats its principal minority race. Myrdal termed this conflict between
the professed ideals of the American people and the reality of our behavior
in race relations An American Dilemma. A more contemporary analyst of
race and American culture, Andrew Hacker (1994:4) finds that America is
inherently a 'white' country; in character, in structure, and culture. Needless
to say, black Americans create lives of their own. Yet, as a people, they
face boundaries and constrictions set by the white majority.
6


In 1740, South Carolina enacted a law prohibiting any person from
teaching or causing a slave to be taught, or from employing or using a slave
as a scribe in any manner or writing (Woodson 1916:34). This practice was
followed throughout the South until Emancipation. Slavery was a foremost
concern for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as the
founders declared in a provision of the Constitution that slaves were to be
counted as three fifths of a person for taxation and representation. John
Hope Franklin observes that when the capitol of the United States was
established in Washington in 1801, they passed a law so blacks could not
vote, could not hold office and could not even carry the mail. Those bills
were signed by Thomas Jefferson, who had written the Declaration of
Independence, and by the Congress, many of whom had been members of
the Constitutional Convention. (Matthews interview 1994: 16). The state of
Ohio in 1807 excluded African Americans from residence in the state unless
they posted a $500 bond for good behavior (Gerber 1981: 3). In 1850, the
Fugitive Slave Act was passed, which made the national and state
governments responsible for the capture and return of runaway slaves.
In 1857, the Supreme Court described black Americans in the Dred
Scott decision as a class of persons who were regarded as being of an
inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in
social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which
the white man was bound to respect (Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393).
Anderson (1995: 25) maintains that, the Dred Scott decision was...the
culmination of a long-standing drift away from the natural rights philosophy
7


that seemed so apparent in the Declaration of Independence. It was all
men and not a race or color that were placed under the protection of the
Declaration. The leaders of the nation, from the early national era through
the ante-bellum period, rejected this egalitarian reading of natural rights
philosophy, and modified the philosophy to claim only rights derived from
white property owning citizenship. In 1857, the United States Congress
admitted Oregon to the union as the only free state with a black exclusion
clause in its original Constitution. Oregon demanded that all free persons of
color leave the state and subjected those who stayed to periodic floggings
and later made them servants to whites (Berwanger 1967:94).
The end of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation brought
hope to Blacks that they would begin to enjoy the fruits and rewards of
freedom previously denied them. Hope was further heightened when the
13th Amendment, proposed on February 1865 and ratified in December
1865, officially terminated slavery in the United States. The 14th
Amendment gave blacks citizenship and due process, while the 15th
Amendment gave blacks the right to vote. Blacks believed that these
amendments would end the debate over slavery. However, even the great
emancipator, Lincoln, said that, while he opposed the enslavement of
human beings, he did not view the Africans as equals. (Coombs 1972:84).
Despite these developments, the ingrained beliefs regarding the
inferiority of blacks would continue to shape barriers to securing the rights
and privileges enjoyed by the majority population. Black hope and optimism
were short lived as the Southern states quickly enacted the infamous Black
8


Codes that substantially restricted the newly gained freedom of the ex-
slaves. The Black Codes differed from state to state. Provisions of various
codes resulted in blacks not being allowed to enter a town without a permit,
to own firearms, to purchase land within city limits, and adhere to curfews.
Within the legal and political systems, blacks could serve as witnesses in
court only when against other blacks, were required to pay a poll tax to vote,
understand complicated passages of the Constitution, and were subjected to
grandfather clauses. Some even maintain that white South Africa based its
system of apartheid on the Black Codes of America.
Thirty-one years after slavery was abolished, the Souths movement
into two separate societies-one black, one white was officially sanctioned by
the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 60 U.S. 393 (1896,). This decision
was in response to a Louisiana law passed in 1890 that required railway
companies carrying passengers to have separate-but-equal
accommodations for whites and blacks. Plessy, who was one-eighth black
protested that the 14th Amendment forbade racial segregation on railroad
cars. The Court rejected the argument of Plessy that to be forced to ride in
separate railroad cars stamped him "with a badge of inferiority. In
disagreeing with Plessy, the Court upheld the doctrine of separate but equal.
By a seven to one margin, the Justices of the Supreme Court agreed that
separate but equal public facilities did not violate the equal protection clause
of the Constitution, and that the Amendment could not have been intended
to abolish distinctions based on color or to require a commingling of the two
g


races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Justice Henry Brown wrote the
majority opinion:
When the government, therefore, has secured to each of its
citizens equal rights before the law and equal opportunities for
improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for
which it is organized and performed all of the functions
respecting social advantages with which it is endowed.
Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish
distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to
do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the
present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be
equal one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If
one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the
United States cannot put them on the same plane (P/essy v.
Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537(1896).
This ruling led the way for Jim Crow laws that required the
separation of blacks and whites in almost every realm of life; in schools,
housing, jobs, public accommodations, cemeteries, and hospitals. In courts
of law separate Bibles were used for black and white witnesses. In public
places, white and colored signs designated which restrooms and water
fountains were to be used. Blacks were allowed in public parks only on
colored day. Blacks were forced to sit in the rear of streetcars and buses.
In restaurants, blacks could buy food only by entering a back door and then
leaving to eat outside. The separate but equal doctrine in P/essy was used
to justify two societies in America-one white and one black. The law
supported racial segregation, legitimized educational apartheid and
institutional duality, re-instated the traditions of white supremacy with black
inferiority, and structured privilege based on the color of ones skin.
10


With the oppressive conditions of the South, more than 800 black
men were lynched between 1901 and 1910. Blacks begin to leave the farms
and move to the larger Southern cities. Race riots started as early as 1906
in Atlanta, Georgia. The worst race riots in the history of the country took
place in the summer of 1917 in East St. Louis, Missouri; Charleston, South
Carolina; Longview, Texas; Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Illinois; and Omaha,
Nebraska (Franklin 1956:432,436). Threats of violence and the promise of
industrialization of the North, fueled black migration from the South.
Separate and Unequal Education
The elusive nature of equal education for African Americans is woven
into the story of the larger failure of American society to make emancipation
real. State and local governments maintained that it was the status of
citizenship that entitled one to public education. Because blacks were not
citizens, they were not entitled to the benefits of public education. In free
states during the pre-Civil War years, there was almost universal denial of
public education to black children. After the Civil War, four million slaves
were emancipated. Ninety percent of them lived in the former slave states,
and more than ninety percent of them were illiterate. By 1900, only half of
southern blacks claimed to be literate (Margo 1990: 9).
Racial separation of blacks and whites in public education had long
been institutionalized throughout the United States, in both the North and
the South. In 1865, all urban areas segregated African American children
into separate and unequal schools, and most rural districts refused to admit
11


them to white public schools and failed to establish separate schools
(Anderson 1995: 29). Using Plessyv. Ferguson (1896), segregated
education became the status quo. The disparity between expenditures for
black and white schools clearly demonstrated that separate did not
necessarily mean equal. In one South Carolina County, as late as 1932, $8
was spent on each black student in the public schools, while $178 was spent
for each white student. Separate and unequal schools meant the black
teachers were paid less, facilities for black schools were substandard. Black
students also had teachers with less qualifications than white students. In
the 1930s, more than one-third of the black teachers in 15 southern states
had not complete high school. As late as 1950, separate educational
facilities were required by law for black and white students in twenty-one
states and in the District of Columbia. Blacks were excluded from high
school education in the South. On the eve of World War II, 77% of the black
high school aged population was not even enrolled in public secondary
schools. As late as 1950, more than two-thirds of this population were not
enrolled in public high school. The reverse was true for whites (Anderson
1995: 35).
Utilizing its constitutional authority, the Supreme Court upheld the
doctrine of separate but equal in public education following the Plessy
decision. In Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education 175 U.S. 528
(1899), black taxpayers sought an injunction requiring the school board to
discontinue the operation of a white high school until it resumed the
operation of a high school for black children. The Justices, however,
12


allowed the school board to close the black high school, (so those affected
had no high school to attend), and keep the white high school open. The
separate but equal doctrine itself, however, was not challenged. The
Justices ruled similarly in Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U S. 78 (1927), as the
plaintiff, the father of a child of Chinese descent argued that state authorities
misapplied the separate but equal doctrine by classifying his daughter with
black children and therefore requiring her to attend a black school. The
court would not intervene on behalf of Lums daughter. Again, the doctrine
itself was not challenged directly (Fife. 1997:5).
The NAACP began to challenge the constitutional validity of
segregation in education in the years leading up to the Brown decision.
Between 1938 and 1950, four major cases brought by the NAACP reached
the Supreme Court of the United States. These cases dealt with graduate
level education (Missoun ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, Sipuel v. University of
Oklahoma, Sweatt v. Painter, and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents). In
Gaines (1938), the Court ruled that the state of Missouri had to provide
blacks with a legal education on par with whites. The state offered to pay
the black students tuition at an out of state law school that accepted blacks,
but the Court said that this wasnt enough and that equal accommodations
had to be provided within the state. In 1948, with Sipuel v. Board of
Regents, Ada Sipuel, a black woman who applied to the only law school in
the state at the University of Oklahoma was denied admission. Her
application was denied because a separate law school for blacks with
substantially equal facilities would soon be opened. The Court ordered
13


the university to admit Sipuel, open up a separate law school for her, or
suspend the white law school until it opened one for blacks. The Oklahoma
Board of Regents quickly created a separate law school by ordering a small
section of the state capital in Oklahoma city to be roped off for black
students. Three law teachers were assigned to Sipuel and other blacks in
her situation. This action by the Board of Regents rendered a great protest,
and Thurgood Marshall brought the case back to the Supreme Court. He
argued that the Regents had defiled the Courts mandate, but the Justices
did not agree. The Court ruled that the Regents had not acted in defiance of
the Courts earlier decision (Fife 1997:6).
By 1950, the Supreme Court was required to address the intangibles
of graduate education that could not be achieved within the separate but
equal doctrine. The facts in Sweatt (1950) were similar to those in the case
of Sipuel. Herman Marion Sweatt was a black letter carrier who wanted to
attend the all-white University of Texas Law School in Austin. As with
Sipuel, he was rejected on racial grounds. Like the Regents in Oklahoma,
officials in Texas attempted to create a makeshift law school for blacks, first
at Prairie View University, and then at the Texas State University for
Negroes at Austin. Marshall represented Sweatt and attempted to persuade
the Justices to review the original Plessy decision in their deliberations. A
unanimous Court ordered that Sweatt be admitted to the University of Texas
Law School, and that the state could not provide black students with equal
educational opportunity in a separate law school. This was a first, and the
Court did so on the grounds that the black law school created by Texas
14


officials had failed to provide equal educational opportunity. Much to
Marshalls chagrin, however, the Court did so without reviewing Plessy. The
separate but equal doctrine was still the law of the land.
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents was also decided in 1950.
George McLaurin applied to the University of Oklahoma to earn a doctorate
in education in 1948. His application was rejected on racial grounds. After
McLaurin initiated litigation, a federal district court ordered the state to
provide equal educational opportunity. The state responded by permitting
McLaurin to enroll in the University of Oklahoma, but the instruction had to
be on a segregated basis within the university. He could not sit in regular
classrooms, eat at the same time with white students in the cafeteria, and
was assigned a segregated desk in the library behind the newspapers.
Marshall and the NAACP represented him and took the case to the Supreme
Court. Prior to the case being heard by the Supreme Court, Oklahoma
officials modified their segregation practices by allowing McLaurin to be
admitted into the same classroom with white students. His assigned seat,
however, was surrounded by a railing labeled Reserved for Colored.
McLaurin had to sit in a unmarked row by himself, sit at a table designated
for him in the library, eat at his own table, though he could now dine at the
same time as the white students. The restrictions were humiliating in the
highest magnitude. Clearly the Oklahoma officials were attempting to send
a strong message to black students interested in graduate education.
McLaurin also posed a dilemma. Unlike the preceding cases dealing with
graduate education, McLaurin had not been denied equal educational
15


facilities, at least in terms of measurable factors such as faculty, curriculum,
and the availability of library and other resources. The true issue was the
stigma of segregation itself. Although the Justices were not willing to review
the Plessy rule, they determined that the restrictions forced on McLaurin
were inequalities and had to end. Chief Justice Fred Vinson, Jr. declared:
Our society grows increasingly complex, and our need for
trained leaders increases correspondingly. Appellants
case represents, perhaps, the epitome of that need, for he
is attempting to obtain an advanced degree in education,
to become, by definition, a leader and trainer of others.
Those who will come under his guidance and influence
must be directly affected by the education he receives.
Their own education and development will necessarily
suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his
classmates. State imposed restrictions, which produce
such inequalities, cannot be sustained. McLaurin v.
Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).
In the Sweatt and McLaurin cases, the Court found that there were
qualities which were incapable of objective measurement but which make for
greatness in law and other graduate education. Interactions with quality
faculty, for example, were among the intangible considerations
indispensable to equal educational opportunity. These cases laid the
foundation for direct challenge to the concept of separate but equal
education. Taking on these graduate level cases was a conscious strategy
of the NAACP to build the case for the challenge of separate but equal at the
lower levels of schooling in American public education.
16


Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas
Marshall and other NAACP lawyers faced a difficult challenge
following the Courts decisions in 1950. On one hand, if the Court could not
be forced to confront the legality of segregation itself, NAACP lawyers would
have to argue cases alleging unequal educational facilities one by one for
an undetermined amount of time. Segregation would therefore continue. On
the other hand, the Justices could decide to review Plessy and affirm it, thus
reinforcing segregation as the law of the land. A series of ensuing cases,
however, ail listed under Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas,
would resolve this dilemma.
The Brown case was a consolidation of four cases involving school
segregation in four states: Kansas, Delaware, Virginia, and South Carolina.
All involved black children who were denied admission to public schools
attended by white children under state laws either requiring or permitting
segregation. The cases were handled by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund,
which had previously attacked segregation in higher education and now
turned its attention to the elementary and secondary education that directly
affected all black children.
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that public school,
legally compelled, segregation of students by race is a deprivation of the
equal protection clause guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. Brown was the most sweeping of a series of decisions
affirming that black Americans are to feel that the United States is truly their
country, and that doors cannot be shut to them simply because of their
17


color." (Hacker 1992: 161). The most crucial question in the case was:
Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race,
even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal,
deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational
opportunities? The Court answered the question in the affirmative. The
ruling in Plessy had been reversed after fifty years. Justice Warren declared
that:
We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine
ofseparate but equal has no place. Separate educational
facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the
plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have
been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of,
deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment. (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
Kansas (Brown I), 347 US. 483 (1954).
The Justices further emphasized the importance of equal opportunity in
education for the maintenance of a democratic society:
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state
and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and
the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our
recognition of the importance of education to our democratic
society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public
responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very
foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument
in awakening the child to the cultural values, in preparing him for
later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally
to his environment, In these days, it is doubtful that any child
may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the
opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the
18


state has undertaken to provide it is a right, which must be made
available to all on equal terms (Id., at. 483).
The message of Brown was that black Americans were full citizens as
a principle of constitutional law, and that the end of an oppressive era whose
roots are over three hundred years old, had finally arrived. To blacks, 1954
was the year of jubilee, fifty-eight years overdue since Plessy v. Ferguson
in 1896, ninety-one years overdue since the Emancipation Proclamation in
1863, and two hundred ninety-three years overdue since blacks were
reduced to slavery in America in 1661 (US Commission on Civil Rights 1975:
29).
There were, in fact, two Brown decisions. The 1954 case or Brown I,
as it is called, declared segregation unconstitutional, but no remedies were
fashioned. After argument was heard on a number of issues, the Court, in
1955, declared a second opinion commonly called Brown II, 349 U.S. 294
(1955). All deliberate speed, is the most memorable language of the
second Brown ruling. Some scholars have argued that this dictum took
much of the steam out of the desegregation litigation as state and local
officials rushed to create ineffectual plans, many of which included busing."
(Phillips 1994:11). Despite the declaration that desegregation should be
carried out with all deliberate speed, both Southern and Northern school
officials became experts in tactics of avoiding or delaying compliance with
this controversial law. The resistance to desegregation created a snails
pace for compliance with desegregation orders. In 1956, the Southern
19


Manifesto' was endorsed by nearly every elected senator and legislator from
the Southern states. The supporters of the manifesto pledged to use all
lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision and to prevent the
use of force in its implementation. (Coombes 1972:192). Many felt that the
mandate to desegregate public schools was an overstepping of judicial
authority and contrary to the Constitution.
It became clear with the Brown II guidelines, that many school
officials largely ignored the Courts ruling. Dual systems remained prevalent
across the country, years after the Courts landmark directives. Segregation
continued over the next decade under freedom-of-choice plans, transfer
programs for white students to majority white schools, the closing of public
schools, and the provision of tuition grants and other aide to white
segregated schools. The most defiant national case against school
desegregation was the Little Rock, Arkansas case. The Little Rock school
board, complying with the Supreme Courts direction, had announced a plan
for gradual desegregation, beginning with their senior high school in the fall
of 1957. Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent
the nine black children from entering the school. The children came on
September 3rd, and were turned away. White mobs came to the school.
The state legislature closed all high schools in September 1958, only to
have them declared reopened by a federal court. Federal troops were used
for the first time in the history of America to enforce school desegregation in
Little Rock.
20


Post-Brown Desegregation Litigation
The Supreme Court has handed down many desegregation rulings in
the more than forty years that have passed since the original Brown ruling.
The implementation of desegregation orders required a good faith effort on
the part of school officials in their transformation from dual to unitary school
systems. The Supreme Court delegated the oversight responsibility to the
federal courts, because of their proximity to local conditions and the possible
need for further hearings. It was felt that the courts, which had originally
heard these cases, could best perform the necessary judicial appraisal of
the desegregation efforts of local school districts.
Black plaintiffs had to return to the courts throughout the country
repeatedly in their attempts to secure the implementation of Brown and its
progeny. In Prince Edward County, Virginia, for example, rather than
desegregate, officials decided to close all of its public schools and subsidize
private school tuition for white students until the Supreme Court stepped in
again. In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the closing of these public
schools denied equal protection of the law for black children. A decade after
the Brown decision, only 1.2 percent of black students in eleven Southern
states attended schools with whites (Orfield and Eaton 1996:vii).
To encourage compliance with these orders, the Civil Rights Act of
1964 included a provision to withhold moneys from school districts that did
not desegregate. This Act outlawed discrimination in federally funded
programs and gave the US Department of Justice the authority to bring
school desegregation lawsuits. This federal pressure did encourage some
21


compliance with the law. By 1968, 32 percent of all black students in the
South attended schools with white students.(Orfield and Eaton 1996:vii).
The progress, however, slowed again when the emphasis on Federal
enforcement shifted with the anti-busing policies of the Nixon administration.
In 1969, there was a movement away from the administrative fund cut off
requirement, a weakening of the enforcement powers of the Department of
Justice, and return to the political burden of the desegregation of public
schools to the courts. After more than a decade of resistance and delay on
the part of the defendant Southern school districts, desegregation rulings
began to reflect the frustration of the judiciary, as the Courts began to
fashion more stringent guidelines for the implementation of these orders.
There were several cases, which emerged in the late 1960s and early
1970s, which would reshape the desegregation landscape. In Green v.
County Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 392 U.S. 430 (1968), a
unanimous Court virtually ended the use of freedom of choice plans. In this
case, the school board plan to supposedly comply with the Brown ruling
implemented a freedom of choice plan. In this rural district in Eastern
Virginia de facto segregation was not present, because both blacks and
whites resided throughout the county. The school system had only two
schools (the New Kent school on the east side of the county was a combined
white elementary and high school; the George W. Watkins school was a
combined black elementary and high school). Students could attend either
school under this plan. After three years of operation, however, no white
students participated in the plan and freely chose not to attend the majority
22


black Watkins school. One hundred and fifteen black children did exercise
their choice to enroll in New Kent in 1967, but eighty-five percent of the
black children remained in Watkins. Justice William Brennan wrote the
opinion for a unanimous Court:
[l]n desegregating a dual system a plan utilizing "freedom of
choice is not an end in itself. Where it offers real promise of
aiding a desegregation program to effectuate conversion of a
state-imposed dual system to a unitary, non-racial system there
might be no objection to allowing such a devise to prove itself in
operation. On the other hand, if there are reasonably available
other ways, such for illustration zoning, promising speedier more
effective conversion to a unitary, non-racial school system,
freedom of choice must be held unacceptable {Id., at 430).
The volatile issue of busing as a remedy for segregation was
addressed in the case Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education,
402 U.S.1 (1971). Swann dealt with the constitutionality of several differing
desegregation techniques including zoning and transfer options. In a
unanimous opinion, the Court approved a comprehensive desegregation
plan while holding that bus transportation is a moral and accepted tool of
educational policy, and that desegregation plans cannot be limited to the
walk-in school. Four important rulings emerged from the Swann case.
Federal district courts could decree as tools of desegregation the following:
1.) reasonable bus transportation; 2.) reasonable grouping of
noncontiguous zones; 3.) the reasonable movement toward the elimination
of one-race schools, and 4.) the use of mathematical ratios of blacks and
23


whites in the schools as a starting point toward racial desegregation (Fife
1997:12).
Just as Green and Swann began to provide some definition and
clearer guidelines for desegregation school districts, the Detroit case
Milliken v. Bradley, 48 U.S. 717 (1974), would provide limitations that would
ultimately restrict the future of desegregation efforts throughout the nation.
This divisive case was decided by a five to four vote, and reflected the
growing chasm at the Supreme Court level regarding the increasingly
volatile issues surrounding desegregation, and the use of busing as a
remedy in particular. A class action suit was initiated by black students and
the Detroit branch of the NAACP against Michigan Governor William
Milliken, the State Board of Education, Detroits school board and
superintendent, and other state officials, alleging racial segregation in the
Detroit public schools. The federal district court ruled for Bradley and the
other black students. The school board was ordered to formulate
desegregation plans for the city school district; state officials were directed
to devise plans for a metropolitan unitary system involving three counties.
Eighty-five school districts were required to participate by the lower court,
even though de jure segregation was not evident in these areas. The court
appointed a panel to devise a regional desegregation plan which was to
include fifty-three of the eighty-five suburban districts. It also ordered the
Detroit public school system to purchase 295 buses for transportation
purposes. The court of appeals affirmed the district courts ruling, but
remanded the case for more extensive hearings involving the suburban
24


districts, it also tentatively rescinded the purchase order of the additional
school buses (Fife 1997:14).
The Supreme Court eventually reversed the lower decisions, and
many pro-desegregationists still lament this ruling more than twenty years
after the fact. Milliken remains a significant precedent in American
jurisprudence regarding desegregation. In this case, court limited the extent
of desegregation by deciding that the white children in suburban Detroit
could not be forced to cross district lines to attend schools in the
predominantly black Detroit public schools. Unfortunately, the only way to
solve the problems of Detroit schools seemed to be to create a metropolitan
district (Watras, 1997: 37). With this case, the Justices limited the scope of
public school desegregation to only those districts that have demonstrated
de jure segregation. The focus, and indeed the public discourse concerning
school desegregation, still lies on single school districts. Because of the
prevailing residential patterns over the past thirty years or so, this means
that school desegregation has largely remained an urban phenomenon, and
suburban America has been excluded to a considerable extent (Alexander
and Alexander 1980; Fife 1997). The Court stated that the school boards
obligation is to produce only that level of integration possible through within
district busing. This limitation by the Court was later viewed by many as
encouraging heightened anti-busing sentiments and the increase of white
flight to the suburbs from desegregating districts throughout the nation.
This chapter has explored the historical context of the American
dilemma of race and separatism as it relates to school desegregation. The
25


Supreme Court was forced to challenge the separate but equal doctrine in
education in its Brown decisions. Unfortunately, the resistance, delay
tactics, and traditions of separateness eventually undermined the mandates
of the courts. The passage of time would demonstrate that the Supreme
Court was not immune to the political climate and tensions of its
desegregation decisions (Spann 1993; Berry 1994). The Justices put forth
powerful statements regarding equal educational opportunity in the Green
and Swann cases, only to begin a reversal of its vision and commitment with
subsequent rulings. [Milliken v. Bradley (1977), Dowell v. Board of
Education (1991), Freeman v. Pitts (1992)]. The focus of this study, Keyes
v. School District No. 1, emerged against the political and legal context of
the nations two decade struggle with desegregation and the provision of
equal educational opportunity.
The next chapter will present the theoretical and methodological
framework of this case study. Defined as a public administrative
perspective, the framework provides legal, political, and managerial lenses
which are then focused on the policy issue of public school desegregation.
It is from the prism of these three lenses, that the data regarding Denvers
desegregation experience will be presented and analyzed.
26


REFERENCES: CHAPTER I
Alexander, Kern and M. David Alexander. 1985. American Public School Law. St.
Paul: West Publishing Co.
Anderson, James D. 1995: Literacy and Education in the African-American
Experience. In Vivian Gadsen and Daniel Wagner, eds. Literacy Among African-
American Youth. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.: 25, 29, 35.
Bell, Derrick. 1987. And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice.
New York: Basic Books: 4.
Berry, Mary Francis. 1994. Black Resistance/ White Law: A History of
Constitutional Racism in America. New York: Penguin Books.
Berwanger, E.H. 1967. The Frontier Against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro
Prejudice and the Slavery Extension Controversy. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press: 94-95.
Fife, Brian L. 1997. School Desegregation in the Twenty-First Century: The Focus
Must Change. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press: 5, 6., 12, 14,15.
Franklin, John Hope. 1956. From Slavery to Freedom: A History of American
Negroes. New York: Knopf: 432,436.
Coombs, Norman. 1972. The Black Experience in America. New York: Twayne
Publishers, Inc.: 84, 192.
Gerber, D. A. 1981. Black Ohio and the Color Line. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press: 3.
Hacker, Andrew. 1992. Two Nations: Black and White, Separate and Unequal.
New York: Ballintine Books: 4, 161.
Margo, R. A. 1998. Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press: 9.
Matthews, Frank L. 1994. The Genius of John Hope Franklin: Americas True
Great Historian.[lnterview]. Black Issues in Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 3:16.
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. The American Dilemma: New York: Harper.
27


Orfield, Gary and Susan E. Eaton. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet
Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W. W. Norton and Co: vii.
Phillips, Mary Christine. 1994. Brown At Forty: Reassessing the Case that
Changed Public Education in the U. S. Black Issues in Higher Education. VoL 19,
No. 23: 11.
Spann, Girardeau. 1993. Race Against the Court: The Supreme Court and
Minorities in Contemporary America. New York: New York University Press.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1975. Twenty Years After Brown. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: 29.
Watras, Joseph. 1997. Politics, Race, and Schools: Racial Integration, 1954-
1994. New York: Garland Publishing: 37.
Woodson, Carter G. 1919. The Education of the Negro Priorto 1861.
Washington D.C.: The Associated Publishers: I, 34.
Cases
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 407(1857).
Plessyv. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899).
Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 ( 1927).
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S.337 (1938).
Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 (1948).
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I), 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).
Swann v. Chariotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S. I (1971).
Milliken v. Bradley, 48 U.S. 717 (1974).
Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991).
Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992).
Other
Articles of Confederation 1787 Art. 1, Section 2
28


CHAPTER II
A PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON SCHOOL
DESEGREGATION:
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
A broad overview of the history and future of school desegre-
gation requires a range of analytic lenses. Desegregation is at
once a matter of constitutional law, federal and local politics,
individual psychology, demography, teaching techniques, and
liberal democratic ideas. Looking at desegregation through only
some of these lenses give a partial and distorted view. Thus, the
analysis must range from the legal meaning of Brown to patterns
of black suburbanization. Different lenses yield different, and
even contradictory images of school desegregation. If we can
understand these partial views and contradictions, we will go a
long way toward understanding why desegregation is both so
important and so difficult to achieve" (Hochschild, 1985:1).
(Emphasis added).
Public Administration^ Conceptual Lenses
Hochschilds perception of the multiple lenses required to understand
the complexity of the issues embedded in the policies and practices of public
school desegregation is well-founded. The field or discipline of public
administration can serve the analysis of school desegregation in a manner
which reveals a number of the analytical lenses required to understand the
29


Public administration has been defined in varied ways over its
evolution. Because public administration means different things to different
observers, and lacks a significant theoretical or applied meaning, some have
argued that there is no discipline or field of public administration, per se.
Others argue that the diversity of the field reflects its strength (Waldo 1956;
Stillman 1991). The study of public administration overlaps a number of
other disciplines including political science, sociology, administrative law,
economics, psychology, and business administration. The multidisciplinary
nature of public administration does present difficulties when attempting to
carve out a simple definition, but the advantage of its multiple lenses has
served to shed light on many significant areas of public policy. In an early
review of the traditional models used in public administration, Dwight Waldo
(1956:29) suggests that the multiple perspectives of the field can be
uniquely useful. In a discussion of the pluralistic nature of contemporary
public administration Stillman (1991:12) observes that, No one theory or
two, say the advocates of this school, can realistically explain contemporary
public administration thought. The pluralist philosophy holds that diversity of
opinions and points of view is not only an appropriate way to explain present
reality it is also a positive strength.
The positive strength of public administration's diverse origins and
approaches is demonstrated in David Rosenblooms (1986:6) integration of
three distinct underlying approaches to the field which grow out of different
perspectives on its functions. The following definition summarizes this
perspectivist approach to public administration:
30


Public administration is the use of managerial, political, and legal
theories and processes to fulfill legislative, executive, and judicial
governmental mandates for the provision of regulatory and
service function for the society as a whole or for some segments
of it.
Some have viewed public administration as a managerial endeavor
similar to practices in the private sector (Wilson 1887; White 1926; Gulick
and Urwick 1937). Others, stressing the publicness of administration have
emphasized its political aspects ( Appleby 1949; Long 1949; Waldo 1956;
Downs 1967). Still others, noting the importance of sovereignty, the
constitution and regulation in public administration have viewed public
administration as distinctly a legal matter (Goodnow 1905; Davis 1975;
Dimock 1980). For years, the tendency of scholars and practitioners has
been to stress one or another of these approaches. This, according to
Rosenbloom, has promoted confusion since each approach tends to
emphasize different values, different organizational arrangements, and
radically different views of the individual citizen (Rosenbloom, 1986:4). In
understanding public administration, it is important to understand the view
from each of these lenses, as well as their interrelationships.
Although the origins, definitions, and perspectives on pubiic
administration are many, to focus and limit this study, Rosenblooms three
lenses or approaches to public administration and the interactions among
them will provide the foundation of the theoretical framework. The
remainder of this chapter will examine these three lenses, and then focus
31


them on the governance and administration of the public schools. The
influence of these conceptual lenses on desegregation policy is also
discussed. These three perspectives lenses are particularly helpful in
understanding the policies and practices of public school desegregation. As
this case study of Keyes v. School District No 1. unfolds, the researcher
demonstrates how the managerial, legal, and political lenses of public
administration can be applied to the analysis of desegregation policy. The
public administrative perspective on public school desegregation provides
a theoretical framework and an insightful vantage point from which to
examine its impact on the schools, the community, and the provision of
equal educational opportunity.
The Managerial Approach to Public Administration
The managerial approach to public administration has its origins in
the early nineteenth century civil service reforms and the scientific
management movement which viewed public administration as a
businesslike function devoid of any political influence (Mosher 1982;
Rosenbloom 1986; Stillman 1991). This view of the managerial approach to
public administration was first articulated by Woodrow Wilson, who in the
1880s insisted that, administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics"
and that managerial questions are indeed a field of business (Wilson,
1880: 494). In his essay, Wilson is credited with positing the existence of a
major distinction between politics and administration. This was a common
32


and necessary tactic of the Progressive reform movement to limit spoils and
other abuses of government agencies.
The advocacy for a businesslike approach to public administration
ultimately came to represent the orthodox or classical view of how the public
service should operate. In articulating the values of the management
approach Wilson found that, It is the object of administrative study to
discover first, what government can properly and successfully do, and
secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible
efficiency and at the least possible cost of either money or energy. (Wilson
1887:481). In other words, according to the managerial approach, public
administration is to be geared toward maximizing effectiveness, efficiency,
and economy. The first academic textbook of the field by Leonard White
(1926), and Gulick and Urwicks (1937) principles of administration, reflect
the movement toward the scientific management of public organization.
These pre-W.W.II doctrines of public administration dominated the
early thinking about the management of the publics business. The
management model of public administration, in its early inception, reflected
the need for scientific management, scientific principles, and a machine
model of organization. Identifying the one best way to administer
government agencies was the preoccupation of these early theorists. To
maximize the attainment of the values of efficiency, effectiveness, and
economy, the managerial approach to public administration promotes the
organizational structure universally identified as bureaucratic.
Specialization, division of labor, span of control, and hierarchy, are all
33


management terms associated with the bureaucratic form of organization.
The bureaucratic form of organization and the values it promoted came
under strong criticism after W.W. II, as the demands on the administrative
state began to expand in scope.
The most historically strident criticisms of the managerial approach to
public administration, are reflected in the phenomena of bureaucracy. Post-
W.W.II theorists criticized the preoccupation with bureaucracy. While
bureaucracy is a positive instrument for the implementation of governmental
policies and programs, popular sentiment about bureaucracy is largely
negative (Cayer and Weschler 1988:43). Many critics of bureaucracy have
identified several common negative tendencies in bureaucratic behavior
(Merton 1940; Thompson 1961; Downs 1967; Schon 1971). Generally, it is
concluded that bureaucracies have conserving tendencies. They attempt to
hold on to what is comfortable and known, and resist efforts at change. In
protecting their turfs, bureaucracies tend to develop routines and
procedures that serve their interests and limit the ability of outsiders to
influence their activities. They are effective at resisting control and
perfected strategies for survival (Greenberg 1974; Kaufman. 1976). It is the
often impersonal and often inhumane approach to the individual, that draws
the bulk of criticism of this dominant managerial approach to public
organization. This is true whether the individuals are employees, clients, or
the victims of public administrative agencies.
34


Post W.W.II critiques of bureaucracy have produced competing
theories of organizational life for public organization ( Bernard 1938; Follet
1940; March and Simon 1958; Katz and Kahn 1966). These more
humanistic schools of administrative thought, focus on social leadership
skills, informal organization, group processes, quality of life in the
workplace, and responsiveness to constituents. They insist that reliance on
the impersonality of bureaucracies develops pathologies in organizations
and individuals. These alternative theoretical approaches or models of the
management are slowly having an impact on public organizations. However,
the influence of the values of the orthodox or classical model of public
administration, still maintains a significant influence on the theory and
practice of the management in public organizations (Stillman 1991).
The Management of Public Schools
Local communities were responsible for the first public schools in
America, and the beginning of educational administration occurred there.
Since the schools were small and their programs were narrow by modern
standards, required administrative services were few and were often
performed by the community. Necessary management functions constituted
the major internal administrative role and were performed by the teacher in
one-teacher schools or a head teacher in larger schools (Grieder et al. 1969:
98). As school districts continued to grow, administrative duties required the
full time of some individual. Thus, the school principalship and the
35


I
superintendency developed along with other key roles as a response to local
needs.
States gradually assumed legal responsibility for school and began
the development of state systems of education. An extremely important step
in the developing of state school systems was the creation of local school
districts. The local school district is an arm of state government and is
granted authority by the state to exercise designated responsibilities for
education in the district. Power granted to school districts varies
considerably from state to state. In general, creation of local school districts
recognized and preserved the initiative of local communities in school
matters.
The governance and management of local school districts has
focused much attention on the administrative functions of schools. As with
the field of public administration, the subfield of educational administration
has undergone many shifts, and there are multiple theories regarding
managerial functions. Concern for theory in educational administration was
late in developing (Grieder et al. 1969:102). The concern for the leadership
roles in educational administration, exerted a major influence on the growth
of interest in theory to guide the practitioners in the field. However, there
has been no general agreement, or a common set of definitions, and the
borrowing from the more general theories of administration in both the
business and public sectors has been significant. Textbooks on educational
administration reflect a similar search for scientific principles, key elements
and competencies. Gregg and Campbell (1957:269), after a careful study of
36


the early literature on educational administration, concluded that the
administrative process was composed of seven components:
decisionmaking, planning, organizing, communicating, influencing,
coordinating, and evaluating. Similar elements of administration are
reflected in the broader public administration literature on the managerial
approaches (i.e., Gulick and Urwick 1937). The organizational values of
efficiency, effectiveness, and economy have also been central themes in the
development of this sub-category of public administration.
As districts grew, and the complexity of the issues evolved, the
governance and management of school districts took on the bureaucratic
form of organization reflected in other public organizations. Many education
administration theorists have shared their concerns regarding the problems
created by the bureaucratic nature of public school systems (llich 1971;
Elmore et al. 1991; Spring 1991). Decentralization and other reforms, have
been slow to emerge from the public concerns that school districts are
impenetrable bureaucracies which are not responsive to the need of
students, teachers or community.
The Brown decisions and their progeny presented a complex and
challenging political and legal environment for administrators of public
schools. The civil rights movement also bolstered the emphasis on equity
and equal education as goals to be met by school districts. The problem
with translating desegregation law into operational management plans was
that the courts never crystallized a common definition of a desegregated
school, nor did they provide an understandable set of mechanics for
37


remedying a school system that was found to be segregated (Gordon:
1989:189).
Desegregation plans, whether voluntary or court-ordered, required
attention to many areas of concern. According to one guide for educators:
The initial issue in planning school desegregation is the nature of
the goal itself. Deciding when a school system is desegregated
by race, sex, and national origin may be partly a matter of
terminology and partly a matter of defining education. We
consider desegregation to have occurred when students
throughout a school system attend a interracial/gender classes,
and when the schools and classes afford students equal
education without regard to race sex, and national origin
background. Desegregation included racial sexual hetero-
geneity and parity in administrative staffs, teaching facilities, and
service personnel. In addition, curricular, extra-curricular
activities, and programs must be designed or redesigned so that
they appeal to and include racially/sexually heterogeneous
groups of students (Chesler et al. 1981:1).
The above interpretation of school desegregation is an operational
definition of the legal mandate to eliminate dual school systems root and
branch. The requirements were established in Green v. County School
Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). These guidelines stated that an adequate
desegregation plan must include more than good intentions and the
assignment of pupils to avoid the racial identification of schools. A school
district must also address the policies and practices with respect to facilities,
staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities (including
school construction and closure). The managerial context of public school
desegregation evolved from merely insuring against physical segregation, to
38


dealing with a complex set of political and legal requirements related to
representativeness, equity, and accountability (England and Morgan 1986;
Epstein 1986; Gordon 1989,1994).
The management of desegregation plans has been likened to trying
to hit a moving target (National Network of Desegregation Assistance
Centers 1989:1). For the most part, administrators were not aided by the
persistently equivocal research on the impacts of segregation, even though
the research and literature in this area is massive (Crain 1968, 1976; Clark
1971; Tucker 1994). There have, however, been a few studies of the issue
of desegregation which have provided clues to administrators regarding
best practices for achieving the goals of desegregation (Rossell and
Hawley 1983; England and Morgan 1986; Fife 1992; Stave 1995; Wells
1995). After reviewing numerous studies, Willis Hawley (1983: 334-336),
drew several conclusions which are worth noting:
1. Integration should take place in the earliest grade possible.
Kindergarten and the first grade are better than the upper
elementary grades and certainly better than the high school.
This is because achievement differences between minority and
majority pupils are smaller than they may be later, and prejudices
are least. The possibilities for positive interactions, therefore, are
at their highest.
2. Tracking and ability grouping should be avoided. Where
they seem educationally essential, monitor them to ensure that
racial diversity is maintained to the maximum extent possible.
"Pullout programs for remedial instruction should be monitored
for the same reasons.
39


3. In heterogeneous classrooms, employ cooperative learning
and peer teaching. Ensure that the teaching staff is well trained
in using these approaches.
4. Within classrooms, strive to achieve a critical mass of
minority studentsapproximately twenty percent. Less than this
and students tend to segregate themselves. However, there is
some evidence that intergroup conflict increases as parity is
attained.
5. Increase the opportunities for interracial contacts in
situations requiring cooperation rather than competition. Expand
extra-curricular activities and do not make participation in them
contingent on academic performance or behavior.
6. Create a relatively stringent disciplinary policy and enforce
it evenhandedly. Parents are particularly concerned about the
potential for race conflict in desegregating schools and should be
involved in setting disciplinary codes.
7. Reduce the anonymity fostered by large schools and
classrooms by creating smaller learning environments, and within
them attempt to inculcate shared norms of academic achievement
and good decorum. There is evidence that smaller class size
leads to improvements in achievement, and these may be
particularly important for integrating schools.
8. Once a plan is implemented, stick with it for a reasonable
period of time. Desegregation plans are typically disruptive to
students, teachers, and parents. Modifications coming rapidly
one on another create additional disruption. Do not expect good
plans to bear fruit in only a year or two.
The nation's experience with desegregation has demonstrated that
these management goals have been difficult to achieve (Bell 1980; F Brown
1994; Douglas 1995; Orfield and Eaton 1996). These management tasks
40


have been made more difficult with demographic shifts, changes in the
political climate, and a general lack of consensus regarding what works best
in urban school districts. Understanding the barriers and constraints of the
managerial dimensions of public school desegregation is critical to gaining a
more comprehensive and policy relevant assessment of these efforts.
Throughout the history of desegregation, there have been persistent issues
regarding disparities in achievement, minority faculty, and access to
programs. Faced with similar problems in the post-desegregation
environment, school board members, administrators, and teachers have
formed professional groups like the Council of Great City Schools, National
Alliance of Black School Educators, and the National School Boards
Association, which has allowed some communication among districts
regarding equal educational opportunity. The sharing of knowledge and
best practices in these professional contexts, will hopefully continue to
focus on the need for both quality and equity as management goals in urban
education.
The Political Approach to Public Administration
The political approach to public administration has been elaborated
by a number of observers of the reality of public organizations. In moving
beyond the separation of politics-administration dichotomy of the early
classical/orthodox theorists in the field. Wallace Sayre (1978:201) finds
that, Public administration is ultimately a problem in political theory. The
fundamental problem in a democracy is responsibility to popular control.
41


The responsibility and responsiveness of the administrative agencies and
the bureaucracies to the elected officials (chief executives, legislators and
the public), is of central importance in a government based increasingly on
the exercise of the discretionary power by agencies of administration.
The political approach to public administration has grown out of the
observations of scholars such as Paul Appleby (1949: in Shafitz in Hyde
1978:107), who considered public administration to be a political process.
In distinguishing public from private management he writes that, Statecraft-
-government- is different from all other professions, because it is broader
than anything else in the field of action. Government must be concerned
with intellectual and emotional outreachings too. Government is different
because it must take into account all of the desires, needs, actions,
thoughts, and sentiments of millions of people. Government is different
because government is politics.
The politicization of public administration has been documented at
great length. Appleby and others portray the politics of administration,
analyze the political process in administration, and present a philosophy of
the politics of administration in a democratic society. There are various
examples of how the values of the political approach are incorporated into
the policies and practices of government (Appleby 1949; Long 1949;
Kaufman 1956; Woll 1963; Downs 1967; Kaufman 1969; Seidman 1970).
Once public administration is recognized as a political endeavor,
emphasis must then be placed on a different set of values than those
promoted by the managerial approach. The political approach to public
42


administration stresses the values of representativeness, political
responsiveness, and accountability through elected officials to the citizenry.
These are viewed as crucial to the maintenance of constitutional democracy
and it is considered necessary to incorporate them into all aspects of
government, including public management.
Politics and Public Schools
The public schools have become one of the most pivotal and
controversial institutions in society. "The goals of education are related to
politics and political beliefs because schools play and important role in
providing access to jobs, determining social equality and inequality, and
distributing knowledge about the political system. What one believes about
the proper role of government in regulating the economy, and providing
social justice, is almost always reflected in ones beliefs about the purpose
of schooling" (Spring 1991:29). Parents make housing choices based on the
quality of schooling. Politicians are never hesitant to voice their opinions on
school issues. Racial and religious riots take place in the schoolhouse.
Some parents accuse schools of not being patriotic, while others find them
guilty of flag waving. Some members of society argue that schools will end
poverty, and others maintain that schools maintain poverty (Spring 1991:3).
Controversy about education has invaded politics at every level of
government. A major source of controversy is the question of what the
purposes of public schooling should be. The political, social, and economic
43


purposes or goals of schooling are often in conflict. According to Spring
(1991: 6):
The most important political goals of public schooling are
educating citizens, selecting future political leaders, creating a
political consensus, maintaining political power, and socializing
individuals for political systems. These political goals can be
both a source of political freedom and a means of exerting
political oppression...The major social purposes of education are
social control, improving social conditions, and reducing social
tensions caused by economic in equalities. The most important
arguments given for support of public schooling are that
education increases national wealth, socializes the future
workforce, and advances technological development.
The political philosophies of liberal, neo-conservative, and critical
theorists have had a significant impact on our thinking about schools (Apple
1988; Spring 1991). Liberal beliefs are dominant in the Democratic Party,
while neo-conservatives are influential in the Republican Party. Critical
theory, is a recent movement among American intellectuals, which has
stirred public debate through its exploration of issues related to race and
class (Omi and Winant 1986; Delgado 1995; Delgado and Stefanic 1993,
1995; Spann 1993; Carnoy 1994; Bell 1995; Crenshaw et al. 1995).
The desegregation of the nations public schools has been one of the
most politicized public policy issues in recent history (Crain 1968; Orfield
1978). When one views the desegregation experience through the political
lens, the political values of representativeness, responsiveness, and
accountability to the citizenry stand out sharply. The volatility of the issues
44


of race, at the heart of desegregation efforts, serves only to heighten the
level of politicization. One need only recall the federal troops in Little Rock,
the rioting crowds in Boston. The Southern Manifesto, or the bombing of
school buses in Denver, to sense the tension in the political dynamics of
desegregation. The political lens is critical to understanding the barriers and
constraints on achieving success with desegregation efforts. The political
aspects of desegregation have been a determining factor in the success or
failure of desegregation efforts throughout the country (Crain 1968; Kirp
1982; Orfield and Eaton 1996).
The politics of desegregation have historically existed at several
levels which include: intergovernmental, local community dynamics, cultural,
bureaucratic, and through the influence of the media. The struggle for
desegregation is a history of local, state, and federal control of public
schools. Throughout the history of desegregation, the political dynamics
between federal, state, and local governments, have had a consequential
and mostly negative impact on the desegregation movement (Farley 1975;
Showell 1976; Giles and Evans 1980; Wilkinson 1979; Kirp 1982). At the
national level, the politics of the courts, the Congress, and presidential
administrations, have diminished a national commitment to desegregation.
Like many state legislatures of the 1950s, Congress in the 1960s and
1970s, expended great effort in designing amendments to the 1964 Civil
Rights Act to restrain the enforcement of desegregation. The Nixon,
Reagan, and Bush administrations are well noted for their anti-busing
campaigns and administrative tactics to undermine desegregation. In his
45


exploration of How Equality Has Been Redefined in the Conservative
Restoration, Michael Apple (1989:17) finds that, The growth of the new
right and conservative movements over the past two decades, have had a
great deal of success in redefining what education is for, and in shifting the
ideological texture of the society to the right. Many observers of these
political struggles, find that the conservative revolution has proved to be a
more potent force than Progressivism in redefining the struggle for equal
opportunity in education.
The Legal Approach to Public Administration
In the United States, the legal approach to public administration has
been historically eclipsed by the other approaches, especially the
managerial approach. Nevertheless, it has a tradition and has emerged as a
way of defining public administration. Dwight Waldo (1956:29), explains
that, It is logical and historically fit to begin with the law a model, with public
administration viewed as or through a legal system. Thus viewed,
administration appears primarily as a framework of rights and obligations,
and when one studies administration, the focus is on an official definition of
proper relationships between persons or bodies within the system proper."
The law proper and the court system are concrete images in a person's
mind when he/she approaches administration.
According to Rosenbloom (1986:22), the legal approach to public
administration is derived primarily from three interrelated sources. The first
is administrative law. As early as 1905, Frank Goodnow, a leading
46


contributor to the development of public administrative theory, published a
book entitled The Principles of Administrative Law of the United States. He
defined administrative law as that part of the law which fixes the
organization, determines the competence of authorities which execute the
law, and indicates the individual remedies for the violation of his rights.
(Goodnow 1905:17).
Public agencies, including school districts, are often best defined in
terms of law:. An administrative agency is a governmental authority, other
than a court, and other than a legislative body, which affects the rights of
private parties through either adjudication, rule-making, investigating,
prosecuting, negotiating, settling or informally acting (Davis 1975:6).
A second source of the legal approach, has been the movement
toward the judicialization of public administration. Judicialization refers to
the tendency for administrative processes to increasingly resemble
courtroom procedures. Judicialization falls within the purview of Goodnows
(1905) definition of administrative law, but tends to concentrate heavily upon
the establishment of procedures designed to safeguard individual rights
(Rosenbloom 1986: 22). In the administration the public schools, due
process procedures for the termination of personnel, the procedures for the
expulsion and suspension of students, or deciding who goes where on a
court-ordered bus, reflect this type of judicialization.
Constitutional law also provides a third source of the contemporary
legal approach to public administration. Since the 1950s, the federal
judiciary has virtually redefined the procedural, equal protection and
47


m
substantive rights and liberties of the citizenry vis-a-vis public
administrators. The right to equal protection was vastly strengthened and
applied in a number of administrative matters ranging from personnel
recruitment systems to the operation of public schools and prisons
(Rosenbloom 1986:23).
In summary, the legal approach to public administration embodies
three central values. One is procedural due process, which is hard to define
precisely because it has been long recognized that this value cannot be
confined to any single set of requirements or standards. Rather the term
stands for the value of fundamental fairness and is viewed as requiring
procedures designed to protect individuals from malicious, arbitrary,
capricious or unconstitutional harm at the hands of government. A second
value concerns individual substantive rights as embodied in evolving
interpretations of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Third,
the judiciary values equity, a concept like due process, which is subject to
varying interpretations. In terms of public administration in general, equity
stands for the value of fairness in the result of conflicts between private
parties and the government (Rosenbloom 1986:24).
The organizational structure of the legal approach to public
administration is one that maximizes the use of adversary procedure. The
full-fledged judicial trial is the clearest model of this structure. Adversary
procedure calls upon two opposing parities to marshal facts and arguments
in support of their positions. These dueling parties are brought before and
impartial referee (e.g. judge or jury) who weighs the evidence, and ultimately
48


decides which side is more correct. To a significant extent, this model is at
odds with the values embodied in the both managerial and political
approaches. It militates against efficiency, economy, managerial
effectiveness, but also representativeness, responsiveness, and political
accountability. It is intended, rather to afford maximum protection of the
rights of private parties against, illegal, unconstitutional, or invidious
administrative action. (Rosenbloom, 1986:27).
The Legal Environment of Public Schools
Since the public schools are governmental agencies, their conduct is
circumscribed by legal concepts of general administrative law, supplemented
by those necessary legal doctrine that have uniquely evolved from the
historical traditions surrounding an educational organization that is state
established but locally administered. What the courts have said in
enunciating precedents and rules of law they have established, provides a
necessary basis of knowledge valuable to all those involved with the public
schools. Alexander and Alexander (1985), observe that even with the great
sweep of constitutional precedents which the Supreme Court of the United
States from time to time delivers, the laws governing our schools can often
be difficult to accurately access and summarize. They find that:
Beyond constitutional law, which is sometimes tighter knit
because the Supreme Court can give the final word, we have a
great mass of law pertaining to contract, property, torts, general
administrative law, et cetera, which all bear on the administration
of the schools. Substantial variation may be found from state to
49


state, not merely because of the different statutory bases, but
also because of the varying perspectives and philosophies of
education which the judges, themselves, may have in viewing
particular disputes. Certainly, the social context from which the
cases emanate may have strong influence on the outcome of
particular disputes (Alexander and Alexander 1985: xxxii).
The mass of desegregation law demonstrates the dominance of the
legal approach in the history of desegregation. The struggle to desegregate
the nations public schools is one of the most analyzed legal issues in the
literature. The legal scholarship which most effectively deals with this issue,
is that of the critical legal and race theorists (Ungar 1983; Delgado and
Stefanic 1993; Spann 1993; West 1993; Bell 1995; Delgado 1995;
Hayman 1995). These theorists provide insightful perspectives on the
history of desegregation, race, constitutional rights, and the socio-political
context of these efforts in urban school districts. Emerging in the 1980s,
these theorist have stressed the importance of 1.) historical perspectives
and the instructive role of historical narrative; 2.) perspectives on race,
class, and gender which permit analysis to search beyond reductionistic
notions like innate inferiority as explanations for the difficulties faced in
regard to issues related to education; 3.) a critical view of the role of the
courts and litigation as a means of achieving the expansion of rights, and
finally; 4.) an emphasis on the need to focus on the convergence between
theory and practice. Robert Hayman Jr.
(1995:62-63) writes that:
50


Critical race theorists articulate concerns that may have been
ignored or marginalized by the dominant discourse, problematize
concepts that seem otherwise immune from scrutiny, and suggest
solutions that frequently at odds with the prevailing demands of
convention or fashion. Thus, critical race theorists focus their
writings on the struggle for racial justice, the persistence of racial
hierarchy, and other issues of special importance to marginalized
communities. They challenge the efficiency of both liberal theory
and communitarian ideals as vehicles for progress, destabilize
the supposed neutral idea of meritocracy and call for a re-
examination of the very concept of race
Critical theorists point to the history of shifting attitudes and legal
doctrine of the courts as essential ingredients in the societal retreat from
desegregation. It is not only necessary to understand the litigative histories
of desegregation cases, but to also be place them in the context of the
interactions with political and managerial influences on their success or
failure.
As a judicial mandate and political rallying point, public school
desegregation has been one of the most public and controversial policies
in recent history. Rosenblooms (1986) public administrative framework
provides a unique vantage point from which to address the research
questions posed by this study: 1.) How has Keyes v. School District No. 1
impacted the Denver schools and community? 2.) How have the legal,
political, and managerial factors affected the overall impact of this case on
equal educational opportunity? 3.) What are the implications of these
findings on the future of equal educational opportunity in the Denver
schools?
51


The Historical Case Study Methodology in Public Administration
Grasping the contingent nature of the past can break the tyranny
of the present. Seeing how historical actors made and remade
social life, we can gain a new vision of our own present and
future. That is perhaps the most important lesson historians can
help people to draw from the past (Benson et al: 1986: xxiii-xxiv).
Historians have been persistent in making the argument regarding
history's usefulness in understanding contemporary policy issues (Graham
1980; Benson, Brier and Rosenweig, 1986; Neustadt and May, 1986).
Without the reality of history, concepts employed by those in the social
sciences become mere abstractions, devoid of content. Leffler and Brent
(1990: 52) observe that,
Terms like democracy, political man, rational man, or capitalism
have no meaning apart from history, and likewise cannot be seen
as elements in independent or free moving disciplines. Thus
history remains the great synthesizer of human knowledge.
Incorporating the other social sciences and allowing then to
check their abstractions against the knowledge of history. History,
in effect, becomes the data against which the hypotheses of the
social sciences can be verified'' (Emphasis added).
As a method of empirical analysis, the case study has been an
approach to understanding history, as well as, more contemporary public
policy issues. The case study is used in many situations including:
52


1.) policy, political science and public administration research; community
psychology and sociology; 2.) organizational and management studies;
3.) city and regional planning and research, such as studies of plans,
neighborhoods, or public agencies ( Yin 1994:1). The field of public
administration has employed the case study as a research tool for topics
ranging from decision making to ethics. One notable public administrative
case study which distinctly employed three conceptual frameworks to
analyze an issue of public policy is Graham Allisons (1971) Essence of
Decision: Understanding the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this case study, Allison
provides and insightful interpretation of this explosive period in Americas
international politics.
The historical case study approach to public policy is the
methodology of choice in this research. The Keyes case is a twenty-five
year saga that is rich with possibilities for the student of public
administration. There is an opportunity to introduce readers to the original
plaintiffs in the case (Wilfred Keyes and others), and to provide a sense of
the human price that was paid by ordinary citizens just to get such cases into
the Supreme Court. There is an opportunity to filter the historical facts of
this case through the lenses of the managerial, political, and legal lenses
described above.
The case study, particularly historical cases, have been a popular tool
for exploring the dynamics of desegregation. The literature is ripe with case
studies describing desegregation litigation, implementation, and the
dynamics of resistance and change these policies have produced (Franklin
53


1975; Kluger 1976, Pratt 1992; Linden 1995; Stave 1995). A classic
desegregation case study is Richard Kluger*s (1976) Simple Justice: The
History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for
Equality. In this historical treatment of Brown, Kluger observes that, This
book has not been conceived as a study of law and its permutations. It has
been designed to suggest how law and men interact, how social forces of
the post collide with those of the present. (Kluger, 1976: x). In reviewing
the literature on desegregation, the case study approach has been a
dominant methodology for exploring these experiences throughout the
country. In reviewing dissertations written in the past thirty years on the
topic of public school desegregation, many of these researchers have
chosen the case study method as an appropriate method for the empirical
analysis of these policies and their implications (Jenkins 1976; Dolak 1980;
England 1982; Fuller 1983; Taylor 1990; Fife 1991).
In the search for studies about the Keyes case specifically, the
researcher has identified two, mostly legalistic analyses. They are a lengthy
article in the Howard Law Journal by James Fishman and Lawrence Strauss
(1989) entitled, Endless Journey: Integration and the Provision of Equal
Educational Opportunity in Denver's Public Schools: A Study of Keyes v.
School District No.1. A second more dated analysis of Keyes, is a chapter
case study by Jessica and Jeffrey Pearson (1978), in Howard Kalodner
editor, Limits of Justice: The Courts Role in School Desegregation. These
studies have been useful in assisting this researcher in verifying timelines,
key events and actors, and issues which shape the descriptive analytic
54


framework for this study. A third study of Keyes, a dissertation by Taylor
(1990), provides an analysis of conflict and leadership among the key actors
in the case up to 1977. None of these treatments of Keyes has explored the
case from its beginning in 1969 to the end of court ordered busing in 1995.
Neither have these previous analyses examined the case from the public
administrative framework of this study which views the managerial, political,
and legal aspects of this desegregation history.
In summary, the public administrative framework moves us beyond
conventional assessments of the success or failure of desegregation (i.e.
innate inferiority which assumed to impair achievement scores or the
percentages of white flight). This framework provides a different vantage
point from which to analyze the impact of Denver's desegregation
experience on its schools and community. The history of Denvers struggle
with desegregation, when viewed through the managerial, political, and legal
lenses of public administration, reveals contradictions and conflicts not
typically examined when evaluating desegregation policy. It also reveals,
as Hochschild (1985) has suggested, why desegregation is so important and
why it has been so difficult to achieve.
The next three chapters, describe the history of Keyes as it is filtered
through the larger context of the history of race and education and the
conceptual lenses elaborated in this literature review. The three lenses of
the public administrative approach to desegregation policies and practices,
provide a different and more comprehensive view of this complex history.
And although attention to the socio-economic factors and demographic shifts
55


are important, research and policy framed in these approaches alone, have
limited utility to policy makers and practitioners. The managerial, political,
and legal lenses of public administration broaden our view for assessing the
possible impact of Denvers desegregation experience on the schools and
city.
56


REFERENCESCHAPTER II
Alexander, Kem and M. David Alexander. 1985. American Public School Law. St.
Paul: West Publishing Co: xxxii.
Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile
Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Apple, Michael. 1988. Redefining Inequality: Authoritarian Populism and the
Conservative Restoration. Teachers College Record. 90: 167-84
Apple, Michael. 1989. How Equality Has Been Redefined in the Conservative
Restoration. In Walter Secada, ed. Equity in Education. New York: Falmer
Press: 30-55.
Appleby, Paul. 1949. Government is Different. In Jay Shafritz and Albert Hyde.
1978. Classics of Public Administration. Oak Park, Illinois: Moore Publishing Co.
Bell, Derrick, ed. 1980. Shades of Brown: New Perspectives on School
Desegregation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bell, Derrick. 1995. Whos Afraid of Critical Race Theory?. University of Illinois
Law Review. (Fall) 2: 513-547.
Benson, Susan Porter, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenweig, eds. 1986.
Presenting the Past: Essays on History and the Public. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press: xxiii-xxiv.
Bernard, Chester. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Brown, Frank. 1994. Brown and Educational Policy at Forty. Journal of Negro
Education 63: 336-348.
Camoy, Martin. 1994. Faded Dreams: The Politics and Economics of Race in
America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cayer, N. Joseph and Louis F. Weschler. 1988. Public Administration: Social
Change and Adaptive Management. New York: St. Martins Press: 43.
Chesler, Mark A. et al. 1981. Making Desegregation Work: A Guide for Educators
and Other Professionals. Beverly Hill. Sage: 1.
57


Clark, K.enneth. 1971. The Segregation Cases: Criticism of the Social Scientists
Role. Villanova Law Review. 5: 224-240.
Crain, Robert. 1968. The Politics of School Desegregation: Comparative Studies
of Community Structure and Policymaking. Chicago: Aldine.
Crain, Robert L. 1976. Why Academic Research Fails to be Useful. In Florence
Levinsohn and Benjamin D. Wright, (eds.) School Desegregation: Shadow and
Substance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crenshaw, Kimberle et. al ((eds.). 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings
That Formed the Movement. New York: New Press.
Davis, Kenneth. 1975. Administrative Law and Government. St. Paul, Minn: West:
6.
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stephanie. 1993. Critical Race Theory: An Annotated
Bibliography1993: A Year of Transition. University of Colorado Law Review. 66:
153-193.
Delgado, Richard. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stephanie. 1995. The Social Construction of Brown
v. Board of Education: Law Reform and the Reconstructive Paradox." William and
Mary Law Review. 36(2): 547-570.
Dimock, Marshall. 1980. Law and Dynamic Administration. New York: Praeger.
Dolak, Mirko Julius. 1980. Toward the Development of a Policy Typology and
Policy Implementation Model: The Case of School Desegregation in the L.A.
Unified School District, 1977-1980. Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California.
Douglas, Davison M. 1995. The Promise of Brown Forty Years Later.
Introduction. (Symposium: Brown v. Board of Education After Forty Years:
Confronting the Promise) William and Mary Law Review. 36(2): 337-343.
Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.
Elmore, Richard F. et al. 1991. eds. Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation
of Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
58


England, Robert E. 1982. Assessing the Status of Urban Public School
Desegregation: A Case Study Approach. Ph.D. diss., University of Oklahoma.
England, Robert E., and David R. Morgan. 1986. Desegregating Big City Schools:
Strategies, Outcomes, and Impacts. New York: Associated Faculty Press.
Farley, Reynolds. 1975. Racial Integration in the Public Schools, 1967-72:
Assessing the Effects of Governmental Politics" Sociological Forces 8(January):
3-26.
Fife, Brian. 1991. Comparative Intervention Strategies: Desegregation of American
Schools. Ph.D. diss., State University of New York, Binghamton.
Fife, Brian. 1992. Desegregation in American Schools: Comparative Intervention
Strategies. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Fishman, James J. and Lawrence Strauss. 1989. Endless Journey: Integration
and the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunity in Denvers Public Schools/ A
Study of Keyes v. School District No. T. Howard Law Journal 32: 627-728.
Fox, Elliot M. and Luther Urwick. eds. 1940. Dynamic Administration: The
Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York Hippocrene Books.
Franklin, Vincent P. 1975. The Persistence of School Segregation in the Urban
North: An Historical Perspective". Journal of Ethnic Studies. 1(4): 51-68.
Fuller, James Nathaniel. 1983. Legal Aspects of Busing for Desegregation in De
Facto Segregated School Districts. Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina,
Greensboro.
Giles, Michael W. and Arthurs. Evans. 1980. Mass Level Compliance With
Public Policy: The Case of School Desegregation. Journal of Politics 37(August):
722-746.
Goodnow, Frank. 1905. The Principles of Administrative Law in the United States
New York: G.P Putmans Sons: 17.
Gordon, William. 1989. School Desegregation: A Look at the 70s and 80s.
Journal of Law and Education: 189.
Gordon, William. 1994. The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since
Brown. Journal of Negro Education. 63(3): 310-22.
59


Greenberg, Edward S. 1974. Serving the Few: Corporate Capitalism and the
Bias of Government Policy. New York: Wiley.
Graham, Patricia. 1980. Historians as Policymakers. Educational Researcher
9(11): 480-495.
Gregg, Russell T. and Ronald F. Campbell. 1957. eds. Administrative Behavior in
Education. New York: Harper and Row: 269
Grieder, Calvin, Truman Pierce and K. Forbis Jordon. 1969. Public School
Administration. New York: The Ronald Press Co.: 98, 102.
Gulick, Luther and Lyndall Urwick. eds. 1937. Papers on the Science of
Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
Hawley, Willis. 1983. Achieving Quality Integrated Education-With or Without
Federal Help". Phi Delta Kappan. 64:334-336.
Hawley, Willis et al. 1983. Strategies for Effective Desegregation: lessons From
Research. Lexington: D.C Heath.
Hayman, Robert, Jr. 1995. The Color of Tradition: Critical Race Theory and Post-
Modem Constitutional Traditionalism". Harvard Law Review 30: :62-63.
Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1985. Thirty Years After Brown: Washington, D.C.: Joint
Center for Political Studies: 1.
Illich, Ivan. 1971. The Alternative to Schooling. Saturday Review, June 19: 44-
60.
Jenkins, Jeffrey. 1976. Historical Analysis of Two Selected School Districts That
Have Undergone Desegregation." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1956. Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public
Administration. American Political Science Review. 50 (December): 1057-73.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1976. Are Government Organizations Immortal? Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institute.
Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn. 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations.
New York: Wiley and Sons.
60


Kirp, David L. 1982. Just Schools: The Idea of Racial Equity in America.
Berkeley:
Kluger, Richard. 1975. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of
Education and the Black Struggle for Equality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf: x.
Leffler, Phyllis K. and Joseph Brent. 1990. Public and Academic History: A
Philosophy and Paradigm. Malabar. FL.: Robert K. Krieger Publishing Co.: 53.
Linden, Glenn M. 1995. Desegregating Schools in Dallas: Four Decades in the
Federal Courts. Dallas: Three Forks Press.
Long, Norton. 1949. Power and Administration". Public Administration Review. 9,
(Autumn 1949): 257-264.
March, James G. Herbert Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley and
Sons.
Merton, Robert K. 1940. Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces,
18: 560-568.
Mock, David B., ed. 1981. History and Public Policy. Malabar, FI: Krieger
Publishing Co.
Mosher, Frederick C. 1982. Democracy and the Public Sen/ice. New York:
Oxford University Press.
National Network of Regional Desegregation Assistance Centers. 1989.
Resegregation of Public Schools: The Third Generation. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Dept, of Education: 1.
Neustadt, Richard and Ernest R. May. 1986. Thinking in Time: The Uses of
History for Decision Makers. New York: Free Press.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial Formulation in the United States:
The 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Rutledge and Kegan Paul.
Orfield, Gary. 1978. Research, Politics and the Anti-Busing Debate. Law and
Contemporary Problems. 42 (4) Autumn.
Orfield, Gary and Susan E. Eaton. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet
Reversal of Brov/n v. Board of Education. New York: W. W. Norton and Co: vii.
61


Pearson, Jessica and Jeffrey Pearson. 1978. Keyes v. School District No. 1. In
Howard Kalodner, ed. Limits of Justice: The Role of the Court in School
Desegregation. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co.
Pratt, Robert. 1992. The Color of Their Skin: Education and Race in Richmond,
Virginia, 1954-89. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Rosenbloom, David. !986. Public Administration: Understanding Management,
Politics and Law in the Public Sector. New York: Random House: 4, .6, 19, 22,
23,24, 27,29.
Rossell, Christine and Willis Hawley. 1983. The Consequences of School
Desegregation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Sayre, Wallace. 1978. Premises of Public Administration: Past and Emerging In
Jay Shafritz and Al Hyde, eds. Classics of Pubic Administration. Oak Park, Illinois:
Moore Publishing Co.: 201.
Schon, Donald. 1971. Beyond the Stable State. New York: Norton.
Seidman, Harold. 1970. Politics, Position, and Power The Dynamics of Federal
Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shafritz, Jay and Albert Hyde. eds. 1978. Classics of Public Administration. Oak
Park, Illinois: Moore Publishing Co.
Showell, Betty. 1976. The Courts, the Legislature, the Presidency and School
Desegregation Policy" in Florence Levinsohn and Benjamin D. Wright, eds.
School Desegregation: Shadow and Substance. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press: 100.
Spann, Girardeau. 1993. Race Against the Court: The Supreme Court and
Minorities in Contemporary America. New York: New York University Press.
Spring, Joel. 1991. American Education: An Introduction to Social and Political
Aspects. White Plains, N.Y: Longman Publishing Co.: 3, 6, 29.
Stave, Sondra Astor. 1995. Achieving Racial Balance: Case Studies of
Contemporary School Desegregation: Contributions to the Study of Education.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishers.
Stillman, Richard. 1991. Preface to Public Administration: A Search for Themes
and Direction. New York: St. Martins Press: 12.
62


Taylor, Mary Jean. 1990. Leadership Responses to Desegregation in the Denver
Public Schools, A Historical Study: 1959-1977. Ph.D. diss., University of
Denver.
Thompson, Victor. 1961. Modem Organization. New York Knopf.
Tucker, William H. .1994. The Science and Politics of Racial Research. Urbana
and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Unger, Roberto. 1983. The Critical Studies Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Waldo, Dwight. 1956. Perspectives on Administration. University of Alabama:
University of Alabama Press:29.
Wells, Amy Stuart. 1995. "Re-examining Social Science Research on School
Desegregation: Long Versus Short-Term Effects Teachers College Record 4
(Summer): 692-706.
West, Cornell. 1993. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press.
White, Leonard. 1926. Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. New
York: MacMillan Co.
Wilkinson, J. Harvie III. 1979. From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and
School Integration: 1954-1978. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. The Study of Administration, Political Science
Quarterly 56 (December 1941): 481, 494 (originally copyrighted in 1887).
Woll, Peter. 1963. American Bureaucracy. New York: W.W. Norton Co.
Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Second Ed).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications: 1.
Cases
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).
63


CHAPTER III
SEGREGATION IN DENVER AND THE EVOLUTION
OF THE KEYES CASE
Pre-Keyes Denver and its Schools
The frontier experience furnishes ample proof of the nationalization of
racial hostility. The intrepid pioneers who crossed the western plains carried
the virus of racism with them, as much a part of their psyche as their
heralded courage and their fears. Once settled in frontier communities,
these hearty souls erected the racial barriers their forefathers had created
back East. As these pioneers cleared the land, built homes, schools,
churches, and planted crops, they transplanted their bigotry into frontier life.
Even after the end of slavery, their belief in black inferiority would remain.
The pioneers and their children would hold tenaciously to the creed of their
ancestors (Katz 1996:307). Repeatedly, white settlers voted in the majority
to keep black people from entering their land, voting in their elections,
testifying in their courts, serving in their militias, or attending their churches
and schools {Id., at 307). Black settlers in the West, as they had in the East,
organized opposition to slavery and discrimination. And in several
instances, black pioneers leaped at the chance to build their own self-help
settlements in the West, such as Blackdon, New Mexico^nd Dearfield,
Colorado (Katz 1996:298).
64


Six months after the first important discoveries of gold were mined in
the Colorado Rockies, Denver was founded by William Larimer as a
stopping point for those struck with prospects of the mining boom of the last
quarter of the nineteenth century. Established in 1858, the permanent town
grew out of a pair of settlements at the mouth of Cherry Creek. The mining
town became known as the queen city of the Rockies and grew rapidly as
the financial, commercial, and manufacturing center of the West (Smiley
1901: 732).
The first school in Denver was established in 1860, during the peak of
the gold rush, by Owen J. Goldrick. Known as professor, he opened his
Union School in a log cabin located on the west side of Larimer and Market
Streets. It was a private school with an enrollment of thirteen children,
including two children of Indian descent, two of Mexican decent. The actual
beginning of the duly organized public school system of Colorado, as well as
that of Denver, was in an act passed early in the first session of the
Colorado Territorial Legislature, which convened in Denver in September
1861. The act was a rather comprehensive one and similar in its provisions
to the school law then in force in the state of Illinois. It provided for
appointment by the Governor, during that session, of a Territorial
Superintendent of Common Schools (Smiley, 1901:735).
Throughout this period, several private schools were established by a
number of individuals. Denver was without public schools until the new
territorial government brought into existence the office of the superintendent
of schools. On November 7,1861, Goldrick was appointed Superintendent
65


of Schools for Arapahoe County. Getting the school districts established
was no easy task, and it took Goldrick nearly a year to set up of the first two
schools districts in Colorado. They were the East Denver District and the
West Denver district which were both formally organized in 1862 as Districts
numbers One and Two respectively (McKeever et al, 1989:4).
The 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado,
known as the Rush Amendment created the City and County of Denver
(McKeever et al 1989:12). This Amendment separated Denver from
Arapahoe County, and the multiple school districts were consolidated into
one. Also with this amendment, the school boards of these school districts
were established. During the close of the nineteenth century, there was a
proliferation of small school districts but some of them didnt even have a
school building. This was, in most part, due to lack of tax funds. Many
times students, living in one school district had to pay tuition to another
district in order to attend school. This situation created difficulties in funding
major building projects and programs. Many families were paying double
tuition in the district in which they lived and the district in which their children
attended school (Id., at 12). As a result of this amendment, the city and
school district were synonymous. Thirty seven schools made of District No.1
when it began in 1902. The new districts school population continued to
grow, increasing from 27,000 in 1905 to 30, 000 in 1917. The 1920s were
years of expansion26 new schools were constructed, five of them high
schools. During the 20s, a system of instruction committees was initiated
66


whereby teachers had a voice in what was taught and how it was taught.
(Id., at 15).
The racism and discrimination of the restrictive laws reinforced
segregation in many aspects of the public and private lives of these
pioneers. With schooling, as in other areas opportunities, for adequate
education were limited. McKeever et. al. (1989), found that the practice of
segregation in the Denver schools occurred early in this history. They note
that:
In the beginning, both black and white students attended school
in the rented school space, but in 1868, people in the district
requested separate schools and rental space was found to house
the black students in a building at 16th and Market Street. The
school moved February 2, 1869 to the African Baptist Church,
and was later moved to the African Methodist Church at 19th and
Stout Streets and continued there for the black students until the
new Arapahoe School was complete in 1872 (McKeever et. al.
1989: 5).
The segregation of the Denver Public Schools began early on and continued
as a pattern enforced by custom and the law, until challenged by the case,
which is the topic of this study.
Segregation in the public schools was also reflected in the housing
patterns of the early African American and Hispanic immigrants to the city.
Blacks have lived in Denver from its earliest years, and all were not ex-
slaves. From a population of 1,000 in the 1880s, Denver's black population
grew to six thousand in the 1920s, concentrated in the Five Points area east
i
67


of the business district (Abbott et al. 1982:267). While legislation prohibited
discrimination in public accommodations, blacks nevertheless, usually were
excluded from white hotels, restaurants, and schools. Their occupational
opportunities were limited to a few menial occupations: domestic servants,
waiters, or Pullman porters (Fishman and Strauss 1989:632). The
environment for racial separation and tensions was much like that of other
parts of the nation during this period of migration and expansion of cities.
Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans helped to shape the
landscape of Denver and the West. Blacks have lived in Denver from its
earliest years. Some, but not all were ex-slaves. By the 1920s, Denver's
black population was concentrated in the Five Points area east of the
business district. Five Points was the center of black life in Denver for most
of the its early history. Within their own isolated enclave, this neighborhood
had black owned businesses including drug stores, restaurants, cab
companies, and more. The Casino Cabaret and the Rosonian were popular
night clubs where Black people went to dance and listen to good music
(Howard 1991:16). The experience for the blacks who migrated to Denver
has not been different from that of blacks who migrated to other major
American cities. In a story of her familys history in the West, Sammie May
Williams described Denver as a de facto segregated city. She, and most of
the people she knew, worked as domestic servants in the homes of Whites.
They didn't even allow you to walk across York. Blacks had to sit in the
balconies of theaters. Black people couldnt eat in downtown restaurants.
68


And if you worked downtown you had to bring your lunch and eat it in a
stairwell or wherever they (whites) allowed you to eat (Howard 1991:16).
In the first two decades of the twentieth century, Denverites moved
outwards from the core city creating expanding suburbs which served to
deepen the citys social economic, and ethnic divisions. Newer immigrants
predominantly from Southern Europe and Scandinavialived in ethnic
enclaves near the stockyards, foundries, railroad shops, packing plants and
smelters where they worked. The large immigrant population in Denver led
to a growth in nativism. In the 1920s the Klu Klux Klan had greater popular
strength in the city and even acceptance by the political establishment. In
this period and the following two decades, the key to politics was a
conservative fundamentalism reflecting small town values (Abbott et al.
1982:267).
Post-W.W.II Denver and the Expansion of Schools
Depression in the early 30s affected the District Number Ones
schools. The citys assessed valuation fell, and the citizens voted down a
bond issue for school buildings in 1938. Attention was focused on W.W.II,
and from 1930-1946, a no-expansion policy seemed to be in effect, no
schools were built for sixteen years.
Between 1940 and 1970 the population and economy of Denver
expanded significantly. The queen city attracted new business and a
growing service economy which grew out of the outdoors tourist industry.
69


The service economy and the outdoors tourist industry attracted new
residents. However, the influx of high technology business benefited the
metropolitan area rather than Denver proper. Between 1950 and 1970, the
suburbs grew by two and one halftimes (Abbott et al. 1982: 280).
A steady flow of new citizens increased the need for additional
funding to alleviate overcrowding on the strained school system. In 1947, a
new superintendent arrived in Denver who was to have a significant impact
on shaping the school district. Dr. Kenneth Oberholtzer, a nationally
recognized educator, brought a critical awareness of educational issues and
optimism to the schools of post-war Denver. Dr. Oberholtzer found a school
district with about 48,000 children, but lacking in community support or
attention. As he surveyed his new work environment he found old, run down
schools, inadequate curricula, and an electorate that hadnt voted in favor of
a bond issue for years. Questioning whether the citizenry truly cared about
its schools, Dr. Oberholtzer convinced voters to provided funding for
expanding the school system to meet the growing needs of the community.
He would be superintendent for the district from 1947-1967, and fashion a
school district which would be nationally recognized (Taylor: 1990:46).
Post-war governance in the Denver public schools was like that
reflected across the nation. Educational issues were popularly viewed as
apolitical, or a least non-partisan, and mostly of interest to older people,
women or families with children. Few people showed much interest in how
the schools were run. School board membership was the province of a
70


small cadre of the towns elite, people who were recognized members of the
communitys power structure (Id., at 46).
As the city grew, so did surrounding suburban development in the
1950s and 1960s. As Anglo populations migrated to outlying areas, Black
and Hispanic populations migrated into those areas of the city in which
housing was affordable and jobs were available. Blacks continued to
converge around the Five Points business district, which extended east of
the central business district. With the end of W.W.II, blacks also moved
slowly east from the Five Points area into the more middle class Park Hill
area, a trend that formed the underpinnings of the Keyes case. These inner-
city areas were up to fifty per cent or more black. This also reflected the
growing black middle-class in Denver composed of ex-military and the
migration in of black professionals from the South seeking relief from the
blatant display of racism and discrimination. To the dismay of these modern
day pioneers, there would be no hiding place from the barriers of race in this
Northern promised land. Discrimination and segregation in housing,
schooling, and employment would eventually stir Denvers growing black
population as it did in cities throughout the nation.
Evidence of Racial Segregation In Denver Schools
Although the battle for school integration in Denver was not fully
launched until 1968, the climate and momentum had been building through-
out the 1950s and 1960s. Newspaper accounts regarding the emergence of
71


this issue indicate that a series of boundary changes resulting from the
construction of a new high school in 1953, which provoked protest from the
black community, as did a 1957 school boundary change (Denver Post, April
9, 1959). Protest mounted once again in 1959, after the Board of Education
approved preliminary plans for the construction of a new elementary school
in the section of northeast Denver known as Park Hill. Critics of the plan
said that the construction site would lead to the creation of an all-black
school. Despite the opposition, Barrett Elementary School was built and
became overwhelmingly black in its student population.
For years there had been controversy about the gerrymandering
techniques utilize d by the Board of Education and the administration for
assigning students to schools. One technique was the construction of
schools in locations which predictably became racially segregated on the
basis of a long apparent trend in black population movement. A second
technique was the establishment of school attendance zones, which
assigned black pupils to predominantly minority schools. A third technique
was the use of mobile classroom units to accommodate the overcrowding at
minority schools rather than assign these students to any underutilized
schools in Anglo neighborhoods (Pearson and Pearson 1978: 181).
In 1962, Dr. Oberholtzer presented a new school construction plan
which sparked controversy. The plan called for a new junior high school to
be built in northeast Denver which would result in an all-black student
population. As a result of these proposals for new construction and
boundary changes, the segregation of the Denver Public School became a
72


concern of several Denver organizations, including traditional civil rights
agencies like the Urban League, CORE, the NAACP, and the Anti-
Discrimination Commission. The churches in the black community also
organized to help solidify opposition to the plan.
In addition to the African American communitys reaction, churches
and neighborhood organizations from the diverse Park Hill neighborhood
became central actors in the desegregation controversy. One of the most
active neighborhood associations was the Park Hill Action Committee
(PHAC). This bi-racial organization was formed in 1960 to address issues
impacting the changing nature of the schools, housing discrimination, and
the flight of whites from the neighborhood in the wake of the black in-
migration to Park-Hill, which had been occurring since the late 1950s.
(League of Women Voters 1976: 8)
As a result of the growing controversy, and the fear of repeating
violent incidents of other desegregating schools districts, the plans for the
construction of the school were suspended and a special study committee
was created in 1962. This group of citizens, board members, and
professional staff, were known as the Special Study Committee on Equal
Educational Opportunity in the Denver Public Schools. The members of the
committee brought with them the diverse attitudes of various segments of the
total Denver communitygeographic, economic, racial, ethnic ranging
from pride in the status quo and objection to change, through various shades
of interest without particular opinion, to feelings that real inadequacies
existed, with strong desires for change (Special Committee Report 1964:1).
73


There were two separate but related on which the committee focused. One
was the education of the urban disadvantaged child; the other, the problem
of the effect of racial segregation on the educational process. The charge of
the committee was to study and report on the present status of educational
opportunity in the Denver Schools, with attention to racial and ethnic factors
in the areas of curriculum, instruction and guidance; pupils and personnel
buildings, equipment, libraries and supplies, administration and
organization; school community relations, and to recommend improvements
in any or all of such areas (Special Committee Report 1964:9).
After nearly two years of study, interviews, surveys, consultant input,
meetings, and deliberations, the Committee released its report to the
community in February of 1964. The report contained approximately 155
recommendations for improving educational opportunity in minority schools.
The Committee found that generally the Board of Education and the
administration, principals, and teachers throughout the system shared a
concern for the disadvantaged child, but that this concern has not been
generally translated into effective action at the pupil level {Id., at: D-4). The
report also criticized the boards unwritten boundary policies as designed to
perpetuate racial isolation, as well as, the concentration of minority faculty at
minority schools. The findings regarding the recruitment, assignment, and
transfer patterns of minority faculty were most glaring. The committee found
that:
While precise statistics are not available, the Committee
believes that almost all of Denver's Negro teachers were initially
assigned to schools having a high proportion of Negro students.
74


A few have been transferred to other schools. As a result of its
interviews, the Committee is convinced that race has been
relevant in the assignment of teachers. It appears that the
administration has been extremely reluctant to place Negro and
Spanish American teachers in predominantly white schools
because of concern with a possible lack of acceptance on the
part of the white neighborhood and a realistic assessment of the
possible lack of support by some principals and faculties (Id., at
D-13).
In reporting 1963 statistics on the distribution of teachers of minority
background, the Committee found that 225 out of 3708 teachers on contract
were Negroes, and out of this number (225), 165 or nearly 75 percent of all
the Negro teachers were assigned to schools in predominantly Negro
schools. (Special Report 1964: Appendix 36). The remainder were sprinkled
in sparse numbers throughout the rest of the city.
The committee also concluded that segregated schools resulted in
inequality of educational opportunity and recommended a policy of
considering racial and ethnic factors in setting boundaries to minimize
segregation. At the same time the report upheld the neighborhood school
concept and rejected as impractical the transportation of pupils for the
purpose of integrating school populations.
Policy 5100 was adopted in May 1964, which upheld the principle of
educational equality and cited the desirability of reducing concentrations of
racial and ethnic minority groups in the schools. It also established the first
school choice" movement in the city with an open-enrollment program
designed to reduce racial imbalance. The plan permitted parents to file
75


transfer requests to fill approximates 1,809 places, some 2 percent of the
public school enrollment. Students were required to provide their own
transportation. Aside from this limited program of school choice nothing else
was undertaken to implement a policy of heterogeneous schools (Pearson
and Pearson 1978: 182). Critics of this plan" insisted that it did little to
impact the increasingly visible inequalities in the schooling of black and
Anglo students. Moreover, in the significant Green v. County School Board
of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 420 (1968), the Court ruled that the
freedom of choice concept was unconstitutional as long as a basically dual
system resulted. The Judges found that school choice plans were limited in
their ability to end segregation or promote equal educational opportunity.
Part of the limitation Denver and other districts experienced with school
choice, was the fact that around the country blacks would typically choose to
be with blacks, and whites with whites. With the Green case mere
deliberate speed was no longer sufficient. The Court removed from blacks
the onus of initiating school desegregation and placed it on local school
boards. The burden on a school today, the Court said in Green, is to come
forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises to
realistically work now. {Green, 319 U.S. 430 (1968).
76


The Politicization of the Board of Education
As the issues regarding the segregation of the public schools made
their way into the public discourse and politics of the city, sides were being
formed on both sides of the issue. Old Guard vs. New Guard school board
elections were drawing issues related to race and education into the political
arena. In the fall of 1963, Frank Traylor, an old established member of the
school board died. Three of the remaining new guard members saw this
unfortunate passing as an opportunity to demonstrate their good faith to the
minority community. For a number of reasons many feared that a black
could never be elected to the board, and it was felt by these members that
this was an opportune time to appoint a black to the board. In the search for
a black person who could gain the acceptance of the entire community the
name of Rachel Noel emerged in conversations and editorials.
Mrs. Noel and her family migrated from the South in 1949 to this
prosperous Northern setting seeking greater opportunities. She represented
for many in her community and beyond, a standard of education,
commitment, and elegance. As a leader in the black community, Mrs. Noel
had been recognized for her contributions to education and other areas of
community life. She had served as a member of the Special Study
Committee, and was probably one of the most knowledgeable members of
the black community regarding issues related to the segregation of the pubic
schools.
Old guard members of the board found numerous reasons for
avoiding the appointment of Mrs. Noel to fill the empty position. The board
77


remained in a 3-3 deadlock for months. The lack of a seventh member
meant that the tie couldnt be broken. The factions on the board, along with
community members politicked on both sides of this appointment. With this
delay, tensions grew deeper and the controversy surrounding segregation
increased. Finally, on February 26, 1964, just days before the Special Study
Committee Report was to be released, and 5 1/2 months after the position
had opened, the papers announced that the board had decided to appoint
Robert S. McCollum, vice-chancellor of the University of Denver, former
businessman and city councilman as the candidate qualified to fill the vacant
slot (Taylor 1990: 61).
With a swell of community support, Noel decided to run for the board
of education in 1965. The times were changing and a voice for equal
educational opportunity for all of Denvers children had emerged. During the
nearly six month delay in the board replacement decision, the nation had
witnessed the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the passing of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provided additional leverage for the struggle
for equal educational opportunity.
In the school board race of 1965, James Voorhees and Rachel Noel,
both of whom had served on the Special Study Committee, were elected as
board members with John Amesse, a doctor. Edgar Benton, who had
previously been the lone civil rights liberal on the board, was now joined by
Mrs. Noel, the first black ever to be elected to the Denver Board of
Education, and two other members sympathetic to minority pupil problems
(Pearson and Pearson 1978: 183).
78


1966The Berqe Study Committee
The steady increase of blacks moving to northeast Denver meant an
even greater concentration of minorities in the Park Hill Schools. School
overcrowding, the use of mobile units, and unabated racial segregation led
to increasing pressure from civil rights and black community leaders for
action on these issues. Once again, the Denver Board of Education
responded to the growing pressure to confront the challenge of segregation
and equal educational opportunity by appointing another study committee.
In February 1966, the Advisory Council on Equality of Educational
Opportunity, was charged ...to examine the 'neighborhood school policy in
its application to building new schools and additions to relieve overcrowded
schools in northeast Denver, and to suggest changes or new policies if
needed necessary to eliminate de facto segregation (Advisory Council
Report 1967:8). William Berge, an attorney was appointed as chairman of
this committee. Bernie Valdez served as vice-chairman. Both of these men
would later be elected to the Board of Education.
A year later, in February of 1967, the Advisory Council released its
final report. Although there wasnt a lot to distinguish it from the 1964
Special Committee Report, it did recommend that there be no construction of
new schools in northeast Denver until a plan could be developed to reduce
concentrations of minority pupils. The report also advocated that
heterogeneity in schools be increased to improve the quality of education for
all students. It suggested the establishment of special programs in schools
that would attract a variety of students from diverse racial backgrounds,
79


(precursor of magnet schools); the creation of an educational center, or a
multipurpose building to which students would be drawn for special
purposes (human relations contact); and the creation of superior programs
in several all-black junior high schools. A member of the advisory council,
Stephen Knight Jr. wrote a minority report which questioned the financial
feasibility of transportation costs for busing and contested plans for an
educational center (Advisory Council Report 1967:182).
As a culmination of his protest, that spring (1967), Stephen Knight,
along with like thinking William Berge, ran as candidates for the school
board with the support of the conservative views and money of the
Republican Party. The issue of busing in Denver began to show signs of
becoming a partisan issue. Berge and Knight disagreed with the direction
the board was moving. Although they replaced two fairly conservative
members, the rhetoric surrounding the campaign was an indication that the
citizens of Denver wanted an even more conservative board (Taylor 1990:
97). The community responded to their anti-desegregation campaign
promise, and the more liberal opponents were defeated.
The Civil Rights Movement and the Evolution of the Legal
Response to Segregation in the Denver Schools
In addition to the increasing politicization of the board, the battle over
segregation and equal educational opportunity in Denver was also
heightened as the Civil Rights movement swept the country. Events
80


occurring 1965-67 pushed these issues to the forefront. In these years the
interaction patterns of the school board changed, the silent majority began
to speak out, and racial tensions increased at both local and national levels
During the summer of 1965, racial tensions were escalating in many urban
centers. As racial issues intensified, so did the pressure to do something
about them.
In 1967, an ill-fated bond issue to relieve overcrowding became
entrenched in the controversy over segregated schools.
The Board had been discussing the need for a bond issue for five
years to respond to the urgent facilities needs of the district. The
issues related to minority schools had resulted in one delay after
another; it never seemed to be the right time or place for building.
Bill Berge made the motion to bring a bond issue to the voters
with the intention of reinforcing the neighborhood school policy.
But Rachel Noel attached an amendment to this motion, which
effectively forbade building, or additions to buildings, in the
areas of high or growing minority concentrations. (Taylor
1990:100).
Controversy regarding the Boards intentions, and vague plans
caused the bond issue to be defeated soundly by a two-to-one margin.
After the Watts riots of 1965, community meetings were held in
Denver and racial issues moved beyond the classrooms into the community.
There were new activist voices emerging from various directions in the
community. The Black Muslims, the Black Panthers, and from the Hispanic
community, Corky Gonzales and the Crusade for Justice were targeting
school issues as key to their struggles. Where the push had always been
81


for integration, these voices were urging segregation. They did not want to
be absorbed into White America. They wanted to keep their heritage and
separateness. As racial issues became hot, it was no longer just
minorities who began to stake out positions on racial issues. There was a
fertile environment for all kinds of racially or ethnically aligned organizations.
In 1968, the concerns and protests about the racial injustice in the
schools reached an increased level. Several events were critical in raising
the level of awareness about the impact of segregated and unequal schools.
For the first time the school administration released comparative
achievement data to the public. These scores disclosed not only a
significant disparity between the achievement levels of predominantly Anglo
and predominantly minority schools (Black and Hispanic), but they also
reflected very low achievement levels at minority schools, which became
lower as the minority children advanced through the grades. There was also
more evidence that the predominantly minority schools had a
disproportionate number of minority teachers, more probationary, and
inexperienced teachers. These findings regarding minority teachers had
been previously brought to light in the 1964 Special Committee Report.
The sensitive climate of the country was brought to a head with the
assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. Student upheavals were breaking
out in several schools. In order to quell the violence that was heightening in
the schools and spilling over in to the community, members of several
groups of different ethnic persuasions formed Citizens for One Community.
This group presented a petition to the community calling for national unity
82


and racial balance in the schools. The organization developed a large
support base throughout the Denver community to gamer support for the
introduction of the Noel Resolution on April 25, 1968. This resolution
instructed Superintendent Gilberts to develop a plan for integration by the
upcoming fall. Thousands of middle class blacks and white from the Park
Hill community attended the public meeting at which this resolution was
introduced. This highly publicized event stirred the community, so much so,
that the board voted to table the resolution for one month (Pearson and
Pearson 1978: 184).
During this time, the community was mobilizing in two directions. The
administration building and homes of uncommitted school board members
were picketed. Speak Out for Integration groups attempted to inform the
public about the harmful effects of segregation. Community, religious,
political, and social leaders were approached to support the resolution.
Indeed, the Denver Chamber of Commerce, and the Denver City Council,
among other organizations voted to support the resolution. Two nights
before the May meeting, at which the Board would finally voted, additional
pressure was applied to the situation when the association of black school
teachers, Black Educators United, announced its intention to boycott the
schools in support of the Resolution.
On May 18, 1968, a bitterly divided Board of Education officially
committed the school system to integration. With a vote of 5-2 the Board
adopted the Noel Resolution (Resolution 1490), introduced by Rachel
Noel, which called for a comprehensive plan for the integration of the Denver
83


Public Schools. After this was enacted, the Board and the administration
spent from January to April 1969 studying fourteen alternative plans for the
integration of Denver's schools. Hearings were held, and expert testimony
was brought to bear on both sides of the issue. After months of debate and
deliberation, Resolutions 1520, 1524, and 1531 were passed with much
controversy. These resolutions offered more than a mere philosophical
commitment to integration by offering a concrete plan of action to lessen
racial imbalance.
The plan, a massive document with multiple parts, was presented to
the Board in the fall of 1968, by the newly appointed Superintendent
Gilberts. It was titled Planning Quality Education: A Proposal for Integrating
the Denver Public Schools, and also known as the Gilberts Plan. The plan
was adopted in this school year and would spark intensified conflict and
controversy. The plan was considered a first act of departure from the
Boards prior undeviating policy of refusing to take any positive action that
would bring about integration. The plan included a one-way busing of three
thousand black students from inner city elementary, junior high, and high
schools to predominantly Anglo schools in Southwest and Southeast
Denver. (East, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Smiley, Cole, Hill Jr.
High schools, and Barrett elementary). The superintendent recommended
against a program of massive cross-town (two-way) busing to achieve
immediate racial balance, and insisted that such a program does not contain
sufficient promise of long-range educational benefits (Rocky Mountain
News, October 11,1968).
84


The impact of this resolution and the plans for integration were
electric. A former superintendent of Denver schools, who was an
administrator at the time of these changes, remembers the student riots at
George Washington High School.
[W]e had chairs thrown through the windows, we had dogs on
campus, ambulances were called, some kids were hurt,
fortunately not seriously. The faculty was frightened terrified.
They werent prepared for this at all...We closed that school for
six days. I spent all my time out there [working to] put that school
back together. We put it on full split double sessionruined the
athletic program, ruined activitiesbut we got it back together
(Taylor 1990: 161).
As controversy about the merits of the busing plan increased, the
school board election in May of 1969 became the focal point of the busing
issue. The community was split as candidates on both sides of the busing
issue emerged. The proponents and opponents of desegregation in Denver
worked vigorously to get their points across to the public. There was much
at stake, and the election of a majority to the Board on either side of the
issue, would be an important and determining factor for the future of the
desegregation of the public schools.
An incumbent, Edgar Benton, and a newcomer, Monte Pascoe, both
backers of the Gilberts Plan, were defeated soundly by anti-busing
candidates Frank Southworth and James Perrill. Both Perrill and
Southworth had promised the electorate that they would save the city from
forced busing, and that their first official act would be to rescind the
85


integrative pro-busing resolutions passed by the previous majority. Over
108,900 Denverites, more than half of those registered, participated in the
election. Nearly every organization in Denver took a position on the issue.
For the next decade, the issues of busing and integration would preoccupy
Denvers political scene. Gordon Greiner, a young lawyer who was just a
spectator at the time of the election recalled, That the school board
election in the spring of 1969 was probably one of the most bitter public
events this community has ever gone through...[I]t was kind of scary to see
how polarized this community was (Taylor: 1990: 138).
On June 9, 1969, the Board of Education became a 4-3 anti-busing
majority against compulsory integration. Resolutions 1520, 1524, and 1531,
which evolved out of the Noel Resolution, were rescinded and superseded
by Resolution 1533, which sought to achieve desegregation on a voluntary
basis. The rescissions and adoption of the new resolution were brought with
little study. The Boards justification for this action was a response to what
they felt was a community mandate expressed in the school board election.
This mandate was questioned by many who reminded the newly
constructed board that only 50% of voters had a voice in this election.
The disappointment and the changing mood of the community made it
difficult for pro-integration forces to back the voluntary efforts proposed by
Resolution 1533. On the night of the election of the two anti-busing
members, it became clear to those who were pro-integration and equal
opportunity, that a legal battle was on the horizon. It had become apparent
to the pre-integration members of the community that the efforts to make
86


changes through the political process had failed. Those pushing for a
movement for equal educational opportunity felt that with these actions they
would be left with nothing but token programs and a continuation of the
status quo.
Many people from the community who had coalesced during the
election, were brought together to lay the groundwork for the litigation.
Lawyers, Robert Connery, Craig Barnes, and Gordon Greiner were recruited
by Fred N. Thomas, formerly the chairman of the vocal Park Hill Action
Committee. Financial and community support was also garnered from the
NAACP Legal Fund of New York. Holland and Hart, one of the largest law
firms in town, provided support for the plaintiffs primary attorney Gordon
Greiner. George Bardwell, a researcher from the University of Denver,
helped to organize extensive information about the historical status of the
district in regard to these issues.
Ten days later on June 19,1969, eight parents of Denver public
school students sought to enjoin the implementation of Resolution 1533 and
the rescission of Resolutions 1520. 1524, and 1531. The suit was filed in
the name of Wilfred Keyes, a black podiatrist whose wife was a teacher in
the district. It was well understood that this would be an unpopular case and
that there would be a possibility of danger. Keyes and the other families
were represented by a group of pro-integration Denver lawyers. The stage
was being set for more than twenty-twenty five years of legal and political
battles, and managerial experimentation with the provision of equal
educational opportunity in the Denver schools.
87


The Search for a Legal Remedy to Segregation
in Denver Schools
It would take approximately three years for the Denver desegregation
case to move from the lower courts to the Supreme Court. Through a series
of appeals and maneuvers on each side, the complaint and motion for
preliminary injunction were filed simultaneously in the U.S. District Court on
June 19, 1969. The complaint listed as plaintiffs eight individual citizens and
residents of the city of Denver and their wards or children, who were
students in the Denver Public Schools. Included were Blacks, Anglos, and
Hispanics. Listed as defendants were the school district itself, the then
superintendent Gilberts, and all the members of the School Board in their
individual and official capacities with the exception of pro-integration board
members Amesse, Voorhees, and Noel (Pearson and Pearson: 1978:189).
The plaintiffs action was brought as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure commencing Civil Action No. C-1499. The complaint
stated two claims for relief. First that the rescission of the Resolutions 1520,
1524, and 1531, be temporarily and permanently enjoined, and second, a
declaratory judgment that the rescission of the resolutions by the school
board, constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The second
claim for relief addressed itself to alleged segregation in the schools in the
Park Hill neighborhood, which became known as the core city schools
The initial hearing was expected to last two to three weeks. That
would allow district administrators plenty of time to plan for the following
school year. Though there had been repeated threats of a lawsuit through
88


the years, the districts legal advisors were caught off guard. While the
plaintiffs had been studying the situation for years and had been actively
considering whether or not a lawsuit was appropriate...nobody in the school
district was doing the same thing." (Taylor:1990:142). The hearings on the
motion for the preliminary injunction were held before District Judge William
E. Doyle. The conservative anti-busing board members were not happy that
the case had been assigned to Doyle, who was considered by many to be
one of the most liberal of the District Court judges in the nation.
On July 31, 1969, by order and opinion, Judge Doyle granted the
motion for preliminary injunction, declaring that he found illegal de jure
segregation in the Denver schools. The judge grounded his decision in the
applicable law set in the precedents of Brown (1954) and other
desegregation cases. The judge found that:
Admittedly, the facts of the case at bar are different from
Brown, but the legal implications of the Brown case are
fully applicable here. We have seen that during the ten
year period preceding the passage of Resolutions 1520,
1524, and 1531, the Denver School Board has carried out
a segregation policy. To maintain, encourage, and
continue segregation in the public schools in the face of
clear mandates of Brown v. Board of Education (Keyes
303 F. Supp. 279, at 286).
Some of the findings which Judge Doyle felt demonstrated clear
patterns of segregation reinforced by official action, and also showed
knowing and purposeful conduct resulting in de jure action by the board
included:
89


1. All actions of the School Board here under consideration
occurred during the last ten years. Thus, they took place long
after the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed 873
(1954).
2. The School Board Study Committees of 1964 and 1968
warned the members of the board of trends and strongly
recommended measures which would avoid or remedy these
conditions. The recommendations in the 1964 report were, for
the most part, ignored, and this led to the appointment of a
second implementation Committee which again was positive and
specific in its recommendations.
3. During the entire decade, there was regular debate and
although resolutions were adopted, no effective action occurred,
and many of the actions which were taken had the effect of
intensifying rather than alleviating the segregation problem.
4. Schools with predominantly minority student populations
were shown to be staffed by a greater proportion of teachers on a
probationary status, teachers with less than ten years experience
and minority group teachers than were schools with a
predominantly Anglo population Keyes, 303 F. Supp. 279 at
284).
Despite these findings, on appeal by the defendants, the 10th Circuit Court
of Appeals vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case back
to the district court for further proceedings, holding that the injunctive order
lacked specificity.
The following chronology constructed by Pearson and Pearson (1978:
192-93), provides a summary and chronology of the protracted journey of the
90


Full Text

PAGE 1

JOURNEY FULL CIRCLE: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF KEYES v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 by Sharon Ruth Brown-Bailey B.A., Princeton University, 1975 M.S.S., University of Colorado, 1980 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Administration 1998

PAGE 2

1998 by Sharon Ruth Brown-Bailey All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Sharon Ruth Brown-Bailey has been approved by Lfj.:;
PAGE 4

Bailey, Sharon R. Brown (Ph.D .. Public Administration) Journey Full Circle: A Historical Analysis of Keyes v. School District No.1 Thesis directed by Dr. Marjorie Lewis ABSTRACT Public school desegregation has been one of the most controversial and problematic public policy issues on the American landscape. In the forty-plus years of the history of desegregation litigation, Keyes v. School District No. 1 413 U.S. 189 (1973), is recognized as a landmark case. After twenty years of extensive litigation in the South, Denver became the first Northern desegregation case. This case is also notable as the first case to involve both African-American and Hispanic plaintiffs. The purpose of this historical case study, is to document the history of the Denver desegregation case from its beginnings in the late 1960s, to its dismantling in 1995. Through the methodology of case study, this research provides a retrospective analysis and synthesis of the key events in the cycle of the initiation and dismantling of desegregation in Denver schools. Primary sources of data include court documents, archival records, and newspaper articles. Drafts of the case study have been reviewed by key informants and participants in the case. Within this historical emphasis, a second objective of this study is to examine the impact and relationships between managerial, political, and legal aspects of Denver's desegregation experience. The theoretical framework informing this study, emerges out of the managerial, political, and legal foundations of public administration. The tensions and conflict among these approaches are reflected through the history of this case. Examining desegregation policies and practices through these conceptual lenses, iv

PAGE 5

provides a unique vantage point, and a comprehensive picture of the evolution and dismantling of desegregation in Denver emerges. This study adds to our understanding of a complex history. It reveals why desegregation has been so important, and why it has been so difficult to achieve. Conclusions and policy implications drawn from this case are also discussed. This study reinforces the importance of policymakers, administrators, and community gaining a broader understanding of the multiple factors which can contribute to the success or failure of efforts to achieve equal educational opportunity. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend publication. Si v

PAGE 6

DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is dedicated to my parents Glenn and Ruth Brown for always encouraging and believing in me. They have given me as much support as any parents could give a daughter, and I have tried my best to make them proud. I also dedicate this study to my husband John and my three sons Mussa, Ra, and Kamau. Your patience with this process will forever be appreciated. With your constant support, I was finally able to complete this protracted journey. You all have helped me in more ways than I can count. Many people had a hand in making this dissertation possible. I have incurred many debts along the way. Thanks to the members of my committee John Buechner, Richard Stillman, Richard Koeppe, and lrv Moskowitz for their insights and commitment to me and the completion of this degree. My deepest thanks to Lewis, the chair of my committee, whose guidance and encouragement helped me to see the value of not giving up on the dream. There are few words to express the debt to my mentor-sister-friend LaFrancis Rodgers Rose, who since my years at Princeton University, has been an angel in disguise. Always gracious in demeanor, but never sparing in criticism, she never let me accept my own excuses. She was able to tap into a reservoir of confidence that I had forgotten existed. And she has always demonstrated by example, the potential I hope to realize. I also wish to acknowledge professors Marshall Kaplan, Franklin James, Lloyd Burton, Peter de leon, and the late Sam Overman of the Graduate School of Public Affairs for their support at crucial junctures. I gratefully acknowledge, the Graduate School of Public Affairs and Norwest Bank for their financial support while I was completing my dissertation. I am also indebted and grateful for the technical assistance provided by Cindy Rundstrom, whose expertise and archival records contributed both to the process and final product. My wish was to paint a scholarly portrait of Denver's experience with the desegregation of its schools. Without the willingness of many individuals who shared with me their personal experiences, this would not have been possible. The insight of attorneys in the case, Michael Jackson and Gordon Greiner has been particularly helpful in understanding this litigative history. And finally, a special tribute to Rachel Noel, who sparked the struggle for desegregation in Denver. Thank you for living and telling your story.

PAGE 7

I CONTENTS CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... ....... 1 I. THE AMERICAN DILEMMA AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY : HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ........................................ 5 Separateness in American Society .................................................... S Separate and Unequal Education ..................................................... 11 Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas ................................. 17 Post-Brown Litigation ........................................................................ 21 II. A PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON SCHOOL DESEGREGATION: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK {Literature Review) ................... 29 Public Administration's Conceptual Lenses ..................................... 29 The Managerial Approach to Public Administration .......................... 32 The Management of Public Schools ................................................. 35 The Political Approach to Public Administration .............................. .41 Politics and Public Schools .............................................................. .43 The Legal Approach to Public Administration .................................. .46 The Legal Environment of Public Schools ....................................... .49 Historical Case Study Methodology in Public Administration ........... 52 vii

PAGE 8

Ill. SEGREGATION IN DENVER AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE KEYES CASE ........................................................................ 64 Pre-Keyes Denver and its Schools ................................................... 64 Post-W.W.II Denver and the Expansion of Schools ......................... 69 Evidence of Racial Segregation in Denver Schools ......................... 71 The Politicization of the Board of Education .................................... 77 1966The Berge Study Committee .............................................. 79 The Civil Rights Movement and the Evolution of.. ............................ 80 the Legal Response to Segregation in Denver Schools The Search for a Legal Remedy to Segregation .............................. 89 Denver Schools IV. ELUSIVE EQUALITY: THE STRUGGLE TO IMPLEMENT COURT -ORDERED DESEGREGATION (1973-1983) ......................... 99 The Decision ..................................................................................... 99 Finger Plan: The Initial Remedy 1974-76 ........................................ 107 Response to the Board's Appeal-1Oth Circuit.. ................................ 113 The Politics of Busing ..................................................................... 116 Assignment of the Case to Judge Matsch ........................................ 121 1979-1982: The Search for a Non-Busing Plan .............................. 123 The Ad Hoc Plan ......................................................................... 126 Total Access Plan ....................................................................... 128 Consensus Plan-1982 ................................................................. 131 viii

PAGE 9

V. THE DISMANTLING OF DESEGREGATION IN DENVER (1984-1995) ........ .......................................... .................. 136 A Unitary School District? ................................................................ 136 Shifting Legal and Political Environment.. ....................................... 146 The Interim Decree (1987) ............................................................... 148 The Re-Emergence of the Politics of Desegregation ....................... 153 Black and Hispanic Coalition Attempt to .......................................... 159 Negotiate a Settlement Shifting Legal Doctrine and the Limits of Desegregation .... ...... ..... 161 State Demands End to Racial Busing ............ .................................. 164 Equal Opportunity on Trial. ....... ..................... ........... ...................... 166 The Final Ruling: Court-Ordered Desegregation .... ................... ... 171 Ends in Denver VI. A JOURNEY FULL CIRCLE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ................................ ...................... 181 Focusing the Managerial Lens on Keyes ............ ......... ................... 185 Focusing the Political Lens on Keyes ........... .................................. 193 Focusing the Legal Lens on Keyes ................................................. 200 Policy Implications: Understanding the Past, ................... .............. 208 Exploring the Future Recommendations for Educational Equity in .................................. 211 Post-Keyes Denver ix

PAGE 10

APPENDIX .................................... ................................. ........................ 225 (A) Ethnic Distribution Comparison, 1973 and 1994 ..................... 226 (8) Sample Board Resolutions.Regarding ..................................... 227 Desegregation and Equal Educational Opportunity (C) Post-Keyes Legal Framework ....................... ...... .................... .239 VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............... ....... ......................... .... ........................... 242 X

PAGE 11

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to document the history of the Denver desegregation case, Keyes v. School District No. 1, from its beginnings in the late sixties (1968), to its dismantling in 1995. The questions which motivate this research are: 1.) What has been the impact of Keyes v. School District No. 1? 2.) How have managerial, political, and legal factors affected the overall impact of this case on equal educational opportunity? and 3.) What are the implications of these findings for the future of policy and practice regarding equal educational opportunity? Through the methods of case study research, the researcher presents a "public administrative perspective" from which to describe the significant aspects of Denver's experience with desegregation policy. This framework provides a foundation from which to explore the relationships among the political, legal, and managerial aspects of the case. This perspective also places the historical discussion of Keyes in a context from which to address the above research questions. The Denver Public Schools holds its own in educational history as the landmark Northern desegregation case. Unfortunately, after more than twenty-five years of desegregation efforts, equal educational opportunity remains elusive for many African-American, other ethnic, and poor students. As Denver moves beyond desegregation, there is a critical need to re examine where we've been in order to determine what the future of equal 1

PAGE 12

educational opportunity might require, and possibly to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. The current climate of reform and legal challenges includes vouchers, charter schools, and privatization as alternative means for achieving equality and quality education for all children. However, even these reforms, cannot escape the historical context of efforts to shape equal educational opportunity in Denver's schools. As Denver and its schools move forward in this uncertain landscape, there is a gap in the public memory and understanding of the full circle of segregation, desegregation, and the resegregation of the Denver schools. A framework is needed which allows community leaders, educators, and parents to understand more fully where we have been, possible lessons learned, and where we might go from here. Desegregation policy researchers have noted the importance of developing and preserving the public memory of our desegregation experiences. Exploring the history of these changes is critical to the future of policy and practice in the post desegregation landscape. The history of any school district, the activities and direction provided by previous school boards and superintendents, is often vague. If the district has no commitment to remembering and understanding its organizational history, that history is dependent upon word of mouth. The ever-changing nature of school boards with frequent elections results in a situation where there is little or no institutional or community memory, especially among those who are in a position to make a difference. In the Denver case, as with others, the history of these issues is often relegated to the archives. There have been only a handful of studies 2

PAGE 13

of the history of desegregation in Denver. None to date has examined this history in light of the recent movement to return to the resegregation that neighborhood schools create. The timeliness of this study is also important, because Denver and its schools are at a unique turning point, a point at which a backward glance may be useful. The vision of Brown and Keyes should not be lost. This study provides a retrospective analysis and synthesis of the events of the cycle of segregation-desegregation-resegregation of the Denver schools. Such historical information has value for current and future board members, administrators, teachers, and staff within the district, as they attempt to meet the challenge of providing equity and quality in future educational policy and practice. The goal of providing students, even in segregated environments, with equitable and quality education cannot be isolated from the historical context of these issues. The changing landscape will require school leadership and community to be conscious of this history, its issues and lessons, in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past. The value of this study is not restricted to those who are in Denver or the Denver Public Schools. One district's history may serve as a source of information for other districts either as a guide or a warning. The first chapter places the Keyes case in the historical context of this nation's struggle with issues related to race, separatism, and unequal educational opportunity. This chapter relates the problem of separate and unequal education, and how it sparked the movement to desegregate America's public schools. In the second chapter the writer defines a "public 3

PAGE 14

administrative framework," as the theoretical grounding through which the history of Keyes will be examined. In this framework, the managerial, political, and legal lenses provide a different vantage point from which to assess the impact of this case on Denver's schools and community. Chapters Three, Four, and Five describe the history of Denver's desegregation experience through the managerial, political, and legal lenses provided by three of public administration's conceptual lenses. Finally, in Chapter Six, these conceptual lenses are and focused on the implications of this history, as the writer discusses conclusions and policy implications for the future of equal educational opportunity in Denver. 4

PAGE 15

CHAPTER I THE AMERICAN DILEMMA AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Throughout America's history, racial issues have been among, if not central to, the country's most important concerns. Often-as when the Constitution was written, during the Civil War and Reconstruction, and throughout the decades of the civil rights movement, and since the Supreme Court's Brown decision in 1954-racial issues have riveted attention (Bell 1987:4 ). Separateness in American Society Racial issues have been central in shaping the history of the nation. The racial matters which emerged with the legacy of slavery have stamped their signature on each historical era up to the present day. Controversy regarding superiority and inferiority of the races, hostility and separatism have been the core residuals of this preoccupation. The legacy of racism and separatism left its mark on many aspects of the struggle of blacks for freedom, including education and literacy. The denial of rights and opportunities to an education for African Americans has been inextricably tied to the political, economic, and social life of the country. Carter Woodson (1919: i) observed in The Education of the Negro Prior to 1981 that: One can trace the waning of early liberal tendencies toward the education of the Negroes as the slave system evolved, followed by a brief upsurge in Negro education when the progressive trends of the American Revolution coincided with a temporary 5

PAGE 16

decline in the economic value of slavery. One can see the harsh supression of Negro education with the resurgence and expansion of slave power during the first half of the 19th century, and observe white churchmen and statesmen shifting from positive to negative attitudes regarding Negro education with the fluctuations in the political influences of the time. Education for Woodson (1919:i), is a "dependant, inter-acting unit of the whole culture. Indeed, it lies at the heart of culture, and necessarily reflects the contending values which prevail at the time." Throughout the early history of the nation there were those among abolishionists and philanthropists who held a different view on the suppression of education for those of African descent. The individual strivings of the likes of Benjiman Banneker, Phyliss Wheatley, and Frederick Douglas represent the efforts of many blacks to secure education despite the barriers established by the dominant culture. Writing in 1944, the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal observed that the United States was and is beset by an apparent paradox. The nation's commitment to universal justice and equality are contradicted by the way it treats its principal minority race. Myrdal termed this conflict between the professed ideals of the American people and the reality of our behavior in race relations An American Dilemma. A more contemporary analyst of race and American culture, Andrew Hacker (1994:4) finds that "America is inherently a 'white' country; in character, in structure, and culture. Needless to say, black Americans create lives of their own. Yet, as a people, they face boundaries and constrictions set by the white majority." 6

PAGE 17

In 17 40, South Carolina enacted a law prohibiting any person "from teaching or causing a slave to be taught, or from employing or using a slave as a scribe in any manner or writing" (Woodson 1916:34). This practice was followed throughout the South until Emancipation. Slavery was a foremost concern for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as the founders declared in a provision of the Constitution that slaves were to be counted as "three fifths" of a person for taxation and representation. John Hope Franklin observes that "when the capitol of the United States was established in Washington in 1801, they passed a law so blacks could not vote, could not hold office and could not even carry the mail. Those bills were signed by Thomas Jefferson, who had written the Declaration of Independence, and by the Congress, many of whom had been members of the Constitutional Convention.Q (Matthews' interview 1994: 16). The state of Ohio in 1807 excluded African Americans from residence in the state unless they posted a $500 bond for good behavior (Gerber 1981: 3). In 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, which made the national and state governments responsible for the capture and return of runaway slaves. In 1857, the Supreme Court described black Americans in the Dred Scott decision as a class of persons who were regarded as being of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect (Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393). Anderson (1995: 25) maintains that, "the Dred Scott decision was ... the culmination of a long-standing drift away from the natural rights philosophy 7

PAGE 18

that seemed so apparent in the Declaration of Independence. It was 'all men' and not a race or color that were placed under the protection of the Declaration." The leaders of the nation, from the early national era through the ante-bellum period, rejected this egalitarian reading of natural rights philosophy, and modified the philosophy to claim only rights derived from white property owning citizenship. In 1857, the United States Congress admitted Oregon to the union as the only free state with a black exclusion clause in its original Constitution. Oregon demanded that all free persons of color leave the state and subjected those who stayed to periodic floggings and later made them servants to whites (Berwanger 1967 : 94). The end of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation brought hope to Blacks that they would begin to enjoy the fruits and rewards of freedom previously denied them Hope was further heightened when the 13th Amendment, proposed on February 1865 and ratified in December 1865, officially terminated slavery in the United States The 14th Amendment gave blacks citizenship and due process, while the 15th Amendment gave blacks the right to vote. Blacks believed that these amendments would end the debate over slavery. However, even the great emancipator, Lincoln. said that," while he opposed the enslavement of human beings, he did not view the Africans as equals." (Coombs 1972:84). Despite these developments, the ingrained beliefs regarding the inferiority of blacks would continue to shape barriers to securing the rights and privileges enjoyed by the majority population. Black hope and optimism were short lived as the Southern states quickly enacted the infamous Black 8

PAGE 19

Codes that substantially restricted the newly gained freedom of the ex slaves. The Black Codes differed from state to state. Provisions of various codes resulted in blacks not being allowed to enter a town without a permit, to own firearms, to purchase land within city limits, and adhere to curfews. Within the legal and political systems, blacks could serve as witnesses in court only when against other blacks, were required to pay a poll tax to vote, understand complicated passages of the Constitution, and were subjected to grandfather clauses. Some even maintain that white South Africa based its system of apartheid on the Black Codes of America. Thirty-one years after slavery was abolished, the South's movement into two separate societies-one black, one white was officially sanctioned by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 60 U.S. 393 (1896). This decision was in response to a Louisiana law passed in 1890 that required railway companies carrying passengers to have separate-but-equal accommodations for whites and blacks. Plessy, who was one-eighth black protested that the 14th Amendment forbade racial segregation on railroad cars. The Court rejected the argument of Plessy that to be forced to ride in separate railroad cars stamped him "with a badge of inferiority". In disagreeing with Plessy, the Court upheld the doctrine of separate but equal. By a seven to one margin, the Justices of the Supreme Court agreed that separate but equal public facilities did not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, and that the Amendment could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color or to require a commingling of the two 9

PAGE 20

races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Justice Henry Brown wrote the majority opinion: When the government, therefore, has secured to each of its citizens equal rights before the law and equal opportunities for improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for which it is organized and performed all of the functions respecting social advantages with which it is endowed. Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them on the same plane (Piessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537(1896). This ruling led the way for "Jim Crow" laws that required the separation of blacks and whites in almost every realm of life; in schools, housing, jobs, public accommodations, cemeteries, and hospitals. In courts of law separate Bibles were used for black and white witnesses. In public places, white and "colored" signs designated which restrooms and water fountains were to be used. Blacks were allowed in public parks only on "colored day". Blacks were forced to sit in the rear of streetcars and buses. In restaurants, blacks could buy food only by entering a back door and then leaving to eat outside. The "separate but equaln doctrine in Plessy was used to justify two societies in America-one white and one black. The law supported racial segregation, legitimized educational apartheid and institutional duality, re-instated the traditions of white supremacy with black inferiority, and structured privilege based on the color of ones skin. 10

PAGE 21

With the oppressive conditions of the South, more than 800 black men were lynched between 1901 and 191 0. Blacks begin to leave the farms and move to the larger Southern cities. Race riots started as early as 1906 in Atlanta, Georgia. The worst race riots in the history of the country took place in the summer of 1917 in East St. Louis, Missouri; Charleston, South Carolina; Longview, Texas; Washington, D C.; Chicago, Illinois; and Omaha, Nebraska (Franklin 1956:432,436). Threats of violence and the promise of industrialization of the North, fueled black migration from the South. Separate and Unequal Education The elusive nature of equal education for African Americans is woven into the story of the larger failure of American society to make emancipation real. State and local governments maintained that it was the status of citizenship that entitled one to public education. Because blacks were not citizens, they were not entitled to the benefi ts of public education In free states during the pre-Civil War years, there was almost universal denial of public education to black children. After the Civil War, four million slaves were emancipated. Ninety percent of them lived in the former slave states, and more than ninety percent of them were illiterate. By 1900, only half of southern blacks claimed to be literate (Margo 1990: 9). Racial separation of blacks and whites in public education had long been institutionalized throughout the United States, in both the North and the South. uln 1865, all urban areas segregated African American children into separate and unequal schools, and most rural districts refused to admit 11

PAGE 22

them to 'white' public schools and failed to establish separate schoolsn (Anderson 1995: 29). Using Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), segregated education became the status quo. The disparity between expenditures for black and white schools clearly demonstrated that separate did not necessarily mean equal. In one South Carolina County, as late as 1932, $8 was spent on each black student in the public schools, while $178 was spent for each white student. Separate and unequal schools meant the black teachers were paid less, facilities for black schools were substandard. Black students also had teachers with less qualifications than white students. In the 1930's, more than one-third of the black teachers in 15 southern states had not complete high school. As late as 1950, separate educational facilities were required by law for black and white students in twenty-one states and in the District of Columbia Blacks were excluded from high school education in the South On the eve of World War II, 77% of the black high school aged population was not even enrolled in public secondary schools. As late as 1950, more than two-thirds of this population were not enrolled in public high school. The reverse was true for whites (Anderson 1995 : 35) Utilizing its constitutional authority, the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of separate but equal in public education following the Plessy decision. In Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education 175 U.S. 528 (1899), black taxpayers sought an injunction requiring the school board to discontinue the operation of a white high school until it resumed the operation of a high school for black children. The Justices, however, 12

PAGE 23

. I allowed the school board to close the black high school, (so those affected had no high school to attend), and keep the white high school open. The separate but equal doctrine itself, however, was not challenged. The Justices ruled similarly in Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), as the plaintiff, the father of a child of Chinese descent argued that state authorities misapplied the separate but equal doctrine by classifying his daughter with black children and therefore requiring her to attend a black school. The court would not intervene on behalf of Lum's daughter. Again, the doctrine itself was not challenged directly (Fife.1997:5). The NAACP began to challenge the constitutional validity of segregation in education in the years leading up to the Brown decision. Between 1938 and 1950, four major cases brought by the NAACP reached the Supreme Court of the United States. These cases dealt with graduate level education (Missouri ex ref. Gaines v. Canada, Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma, Sweatt v. Painter, and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents). In Gaines (1938), the Court ruled that the state of Missouri had to provide blacks with a legal education on par with whites. The state offered to pay the black students tuition at an out of state law school that accepted blacks, but the Court said that this wasn't enough and that equal accommodations had to be provided within the state. In 1948, with Sipuel v. Board of Regents, Ada Sipuel, a black woman who applied to the only law school in the state at the University of Oklahoma was denied admission. Her application was denied because a separate law school for blacks with "substantially equal" facilities would soon be opened. The Court ordered 13

PAGE 24

the university to admit Sipuel, open up a separate law school for her, or suspend the white law school until it opened one for blacks. The Oklahoma Board of Regents quickly created a separate law school by ordering a small section of the state capital in Oklahoma city to be roped off for black students. Three law teachers were assigned to Sipuel and other blacks in her situation. This action by the Board of Regents rendered a great protest, and Thurgood Marshall brought the case back to the Supreme Court. He argued that the Regents had defiled the Court's mandate, but the Justices did not agree. The Court ruled that the Regents had not acted in defiance of the Court's earlier decision (Fife 1997:6). By 1950, the Supreme Court was required to address the intangibles of graduate education that could not be achieved within the separate but equal doctrine The facts in Sweatt (1950) were similar to those in the case of Sipuel. Herman Marion Sweatt was a black letter carrier who wanted to attend the all-white University of Texas Law School in Austin. As with Sipuel, he was rejected on racial grounds. Like the Regents in Oklahoma, officials in Texas attempted to create a makeshift law school for blacks, first at Prairie View University, and then at the Texas State University for Negroes at Austin. Marshall represented Sweatt and attempted to persuade the Justices to review the original Plessy decision in their deliberations A unanimous Court ordered that Sweatt be admitted to the University of Texas Law School, and that the state could not provide black students with equal educational opportunity in a separate law school. This was a first, and the Court did so on the grounds that the black law school created by Texas 14

PAGE 25

officials had failed to provide equal educational opportunity. Much to Marshall's chagrin, however, the Court did so without reviewing Plessy. The separate but equal doctrine was still the law of the land. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents was also decided in 1950. George Mclaurin applied to the University of Oklahoma to earn a doctorate in education in 1948. His application was rejected on racial grounds. After McLaurin initiated litigation, a federal district court ordered the state to provide equal educational opportunity. The state responded by permitting McLaurin to enroll in the University of Oklahoma, but the instruction had to be on a segregated basis within the university. He could not sit in regular classrooms, eat at the same time with white students in the cafeteria, and was assigned a segregated desk in the library behind the newspapers. Marshall and the NAACP represented him and took the case to the Supreme Court. Prior to the case being heard by the Supreme Court, Oklahoma officials modified their segregation practices by allowing McLaurin to be admitted into the same classroom with white students. His assigned seat, however, was surrounded by a railing labeled "Reserved for Colored". McLaurin had to sit in a unmarked row by himself, sit at a table designated for him in the library, eat at his own table, though he could now dine at the same time as the white students. The restrictions were humiliating in the highest magnitude. Clearly the Oklahoma officials were attempting to send a strong message to black students interested in graduate education. McLaurin also posed a dilemma. Unlike the preceding cases dealing with graduate education, McLaurin had not been denied equal educational 15

PAGE 26

facilities, at least in terms of measurable factors such as faculty, curriculum, and the availability of library and other resources. The true issue was the stigma of segregation itself. Although the Justices were not willing to review the Plessy rule, they determined that the restrictions forced on Mclaurin were inequalities and had to end. Chief Justice Fred Vinson, Jr. declared: Our society grows increasingly complex, and our need for trained leaders increases correspondingly. Appellant's case represents, perhaps, the epitome of that need, for he is attempting to obtain an advanced degree in education, to become, by definition, a leader and trainer of others. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. State imposed restrictions, which produce such inequalities, cannot be sustained. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). In the Sweatt and McLaurin cases, the Court found that there were qualities which were incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in law and other graduate education. Interactions with quality faculty, for example, were among the 'intangible' considerations indispensable to equal educational opportunity. These cases laid the foundation for direct challenge to the concept of "separate but equal' education Taking on these graduate level cases was a conscious strategy of the NAACP to build the case for the challenge of separate but equal at the lower levels of schooling in American public education. 16

PAGE 27

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas Marshall and other NAACP lawyers faced a difficult challenge following the Court's decisions in 1950. On one hand, if the Court could not be forced to confront the legality of segregation itself, NAACP lawyers would have to argue cases alleging unequal educational facilities one by one for an undetermined amount of time. Segregation would therefore continue. On the other hand, the Justices could decide to review Plessy and affirm it, thus reinforcing segregation as the law of the land. A series of ensuing cases, however, all listed under Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, would resolve this dilemma. The Brown case was a consolidation of four cases involving school segregation in four states: Kansas, Delaware, Virginia, and South Carolina. All involved black children who were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under state laws either requiring or permitting segregation. The cases were handled by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which had previously attacked segregation in higher education and now turned its attention to the elementary and secondary education that directly affected all black children. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that public school, legally compelled, segregation of students by race is a deprivation of the equal protection clause guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. uBrown was the most sweeping of a series of decisions affirming that black Americans are to feel that the United States is truly their country, and that doors cannot be shut to them simply because of their 17

PAGE 28

color." (Hacker 1992: 161). The most crucial question in the case was: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? The Court answered the question in the affirmative. The ruling in Plessy had been reversed after fifty years. Justice Warren declared that: We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of'separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (Brown I), 347 US. 483 (1954). The Justices further emphasized the importance of equal opportunity in education for the maintenance of a democratic society: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to the cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust' normally to his environment, In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the 18

PAGE 29

state has undertaken to provide it is a right, which must be made available to all on equal terms (/d., at. 483). The message of Brown was that black Americans were full citizens as a principle of constitutional law, and that the end of an oppressive era whose roots are over three hundred years old, had finally arrived. To blacks, 1954 was the "year of jubilee," fifty-eight years overdue since P/essy v. Ferguson in 1896, ninety-one years overdue since the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and two hundred ninety-three years overdue since blacks were reduced to slavery in America in 1661 (US Commission on Civil Rights 1975: 29). There were, in fact, two Brown decisions. The 1954 case or Brown I, as it is called, declared segregation unconstitutional, but no remedies were fashioned. After argument was heard on a number of issues, the Court, in 1955, declared a second opinion commonly called Brown II, 349 U.S. 294 (1955). "All deliberate speed", is the most memorable language of the second Brown ruling. Some scholars have argued that this dictum took much of the steam out of the desegregation litigation as state and local officials rushed to create ineffectual plans, many of which included busing." (Phillips 1994:11 ). Despite the declaration that desegregation should be carried out "with all deliberate speed", both Southern and Northern school officials became experts in tactics of avoiding or delaying compliance with this controversial law. The resistance to desegregation created a snail's pace for compliance with desegregation orders. In 1956, the 'Southern 19

PAGE 30

Manifesto' was endorsed by nearly every elected senator and legislator from the Southern states. The supporters of the manifesto pledged "to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision and to prevent the use of force in its implementation." (Coombes 1972:192). Many felt that the mandate to desegregate public schools was an overstepping of judicial authority and contrary to the Constitution. It became clear with the Brown II guidelines, that many school officials largely ignored the Court's ruling. Dual systems remained prevalent across the country, years after the Court's landmark directives. Segregation continued over the next decade under freedom-of-choice plans, transfer programs for white students to majority white schools, the closing of public schools, and the provision of tuition grants and other aide to white segregated schools. The most defiant national case against school desegregation was the Little Rock, Arkansas case. The Little Rock school board, complying with the Supreme Court's direction, had announced a plan for gradual desegregation, beginning with their senior high school in the fall of 1957. Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the nine black children from entering the school. The children came on September 3rd, and were turned away. White mobs came to the school. The state legislature closed all high schools in September 1958, only to have them declared reopened by a federal court. Federal troops were used for the first time in the history of America to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock. 20

PAGE 31

Post-Brown Desegregation Litigation The Supreme Court has handed down many desegregation rulings in the more than forty years that have passed since the original Brown ruling. The implementation of desegregation orders required a "good faith" effort on the part of school officials in their transformation from dual to unitary school systems. The Supreme Court delegated the oversight responsibility to the federal courts, because of their proximity to local conditions and the possible need for further hearings. It was felt that the courts, which had originally heard these cases, could best perform the necessary judicial appraisal of the desegregation efforts of local school districts. Black plaintiffs had to return to the courts throughout the country repeatedly in their attempts to secure the implementation of Brown and its progeny. In Prince Edward County, Virginia, for example, rather than desegregate, officials decided to close all of its public schools and subsidize private school tuition for white students until the Supreme Court stepped in again. In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the closing of these public schools denied equal protection of the law for black children. A decade after the Brown decision, only 1.2 percent of black students in eleven Southern states attended schools with whites (Orfield and Eaton 1996:vii). To encourage compliance with these orders, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 included a provision to withhold moneys from school districts that did not desegregate. This Act outlawed discrimination in federally funded programs and gave the US Department of Justice the authority to bring school desegregation lawsuits. This federal pressure did encourage some 21

PAGE 32

compliance with the law. By 1968, 32 percent of all black students in the South attended schools with white students.(Orfield and Eaton 1996:vii). The progress, however, slowed again when the emphasis on Federal enforcement shifted with the anti-busing policies of the Nixon adminrstration. In 1969, there was a movement away from the administrative fund cut off requirement, a weakening of the enforcement powers of the Department of Justice, and return to the political burden of the desegregation of public schools to the courts. After more than a decade of resistance and delay on the part of the defendant Southern school districts, desegregation rulings began to reflect the frustration of the judiciary, as the Courts began to fashion more stringent guidelines for the implementation of these orders. There were several cases, which emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which would reshape the desegregation landscape. In Green v. County Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 392 U.S. 430 (1968), a unanimous Court virtually ended the use of freedom of choice plans. In this case, the school board plan to supposedly comply with the Brown ruling implemented a freedom of choice plan. In this rural district in Eastern Virginia de facto segregation was not present, because both blacks and whites resided throughout the county. The school system had only two schools (the New Kent school on the east side of the county was a combined white elementary and high school; the George W. Watkins school was a combined black elementary and high school). Students could attend either school under this plan. After three years of operation, however, no white students participated in the plan and freely chose not to attend the majority 22

PAGE 33

black Watkins school. One hundred and fifteen black children did exercise their choice to enroll in New Kent in 1967, but eighty-five percent of the black children remained in Watkins. Justice William Brennan wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court: [l]n desegregating a dual system a plan utilizing "freedom of choice" is not an end in itself. Where it offers real promise of aiding a desegregation program to effectuate conversion of a state-imposed dual system to a unitary, non-racial system there might be no objection to allowing such a devise to prove itself in operation. On the other hand, if there are reasonably available other ways, such for illustration zoning, promising speedier more effective conversion to a unitary, non-racial school system, "freedom of choice" must be held unacceptable (/d., at 430). The volatile issue of busing as a remedy for segregation was addressed in the case Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S.1 (1971 ). Swann dealt with the constitutionality of several differing desegregation techniques including zoning and transfer options. In a unanimous opinion, the Court approved a comprehensive desegregation plan while holding that bus transportation is "a moral and accepted tool of educational policy", and that desegregation plans cannot be limited to the walk-in school. Four important rulings emerged from the Swann case. Federal district courts could decree as tools of desegregation the following: 1.) reasonable bus transportation; 2.) reasonable grouping of noncontiguous zones; 3.) the reasonable movement toward the elimination of one-race schools, and 4.) the use of mathematical ratios of blacks and 23

PAGE 34

whites in the schools as a starting point toward racial desegregation (Fife 1997:12). Just as Green and Swann began to provide some definition and clearer guidelines for desegregation school districts, the Detroit case Milliken v. Bradley, 48 U.S. 717 (1974), would provide limitations that would ultimately restrict the future of desegregation efforts throughout the nation. This divisive case was decided by a five to four vote, and reflected the growing chasm at the Supreme Court level regarding the increasingly volatile issues surrounding desegregation, and the use of busing as a remedy in particular. A class action suit was initiated by black students and the Detroit branch of the NAACP against Michigan Governor William Milliken, the State Board of Education, Detroit's school board and superintendent, and other state officials, alleging racial segregation in the Detroit public schools. The federal district court ruled for Bradley and the other black students. The school board was ordered to formulate desegregation plans for the city school district; state officials were directed to devise plans for a metropolitan unitary system involving three counties. Eighty-five school districts were required to participate by the lower court, even though de jure segregation was not evident in these areas. The court appointed a panel to devise a regional desegregation plan which was to include fifty-three of the eighty-five suburban districts. It also ordered the Detroit public school system to purchase 295 buses for transportation purposes. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, but remanded the case for more extensive hearings involving the suburban 24

PAGE 35

districts. It also tentatively rescinded the purchase order of the additional school buses (Fife 1997:14). The Supreme Court eventually reversed the lower decisions, and many pro-desegregationists still lament this ruling more than twenty years after the fact. Milliken remains a significant precedent in American jurisprudence regarding desegregation. In this case, court limited the extent of desegregation by deciding that the white children in suburban Detroit could not be forced to cross district lines to attend schools in the predominantly black Detroit public schools. Unfortunately, the only way to solve the problems of Detroit schools seemed to be to create a metropolitan district (Watras, 1997: 37). With this case, the Justices limited the scope of public school desegregation to only those districts that have demonstrated de jure segregation. The focus, and indeed the public discourse concerning school desegregation, still lies on single school districts. Because of the prevailing residential patterns over the past thirty years or so, this means that school desegregation has largely remained an urban phenomenon, and suburban America has been excluded to a considerable extent (Alexander and Alexander 1980; Fife 1997). The Court stated that the school board's obligation is to produce only that level of integration possible through within district busing. This limitation by the Court was later viewed by many as encouraging heightened anti-busing sentiments and the increase of "white flight" to the suburbs from desegregating districts throughout the nation. This chapter has explored the historical context of the American dilemma of race and separatism as it relates to school desegregation. The 25

PAGE 36

Supreme Court was forced to challenge the "separate but equal doctrine in education in its Brown decisions. Unfortunately, the resistance, delay tactics, and traditions of separateness eventually undermined the mandates of the courts. The passage of time would demonstrate that the Supreme Court was not immune to the political climate and tensions of its desegregation decisions (Spann 1993; Berry 1994). The Justices put forth powerful statements regarding equal educational opportunity in the Green and Swann cases, only to begin a reversal of its vision and commitment with subsequent rulings. {Milliken v. Bradley (1977), Dowell v. Board of Education (1991 ), Freeman v. Pitts (1992)]. The focus of this study, Keyes v. School District No. 1, emerged against the political and legal context of the nation's two decade struggle with desegregation and the provision of equal educational opportunity. The next chapter will present the theoretical and methodological framework of this case study. Defined as a "public administrative" perspective, the framework provides legal, political, and managerial lenses which are then focused on the policy issue of public school desegregation. It is from the prism of these three lenses, that the data regarding Denver's desegregation experience will be presented and analyzed. 26

PAGE 37

REFERENCES: CHAPTERI Alexander, Kern and M. David Alexander. 1985. American Public School Law. St. Paul: West Publishing Co. Anderson, James D. 1995: Literacy and Education in the African-American Experience". In Vivian Gadsen and Daniel Wagner, eds. Literacy Among African American Youth. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.: 25, 29, 35. Bell, Derrick. 1987. And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books: 4. Berry, Mary Francis. 1994. Black Resistance/ White Law: A History of Constitutional Racism in America. New York: Penguin Books. Berwanger, E.H. 1967. The Frontier Against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro Prejudice and the Slavery Extension Controversy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press: 94-95. Fife, Brian L. 1997. School Desegregation in the Twenty-First Century: The Focus Must Change. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press: 5, 6., 12, 14, 15. Franklin, John Hope. 1956. From Slavery to Freedom: A History of American Negroes. New York: Knopf: 432,436. Coombs, Norman. 1972. The Black Experience in America. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc.: 84, 192. Gerber, D. A. 1981. Black Ohio and the Color Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 3. Hacker, Andrew. 1992. Two Nations: Black and White, Separate and Unequal. New York: Ballintine Books: 4, 161. Margo, R. A. 1998. Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 9. Matthews, Frank L. 1994. The Genius of John Hope Franklin: America's True Great Historian".[lnterview]. Black Issues in Higher Education. vol. 10, no. 3:16. Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. The American Dilemma: New York: Harper. 27

PAGE 38

Orfield, Gary and Susan E. Eaton. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W. W. Norton and Co: vii. Phillips, Mary Christine. 1994. "Brown At Forty: Reassessing the Case that Changed Public Education in the U.S". Black Issues in Higher Education. Vol. 19, No. 23: 11. Spann, Girardeau. 1993. Race Against the Court: The Supreme Court and Minorities in Contemporary America. New York: New York University Press. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1975. Twenty Years After Brown. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: 29. Watras, Joseph. 1997. Politics, Race, and Schools: Racial Integration, 19541994. New York: Garland Publishing: 37. Woodson, Carter G. 1919. The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861. Washington D.C.: The Associated Publishers: I, 34. Cases Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 407(1857). P/essy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899). Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 ( 1927). Missouri ex ref. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S.337 (1938). Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 (1948). Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950). McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown 1), 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955). Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S. I (1971). Milliken v. Bradley, 48 U.S. 717 (1974). Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991). Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992). Other Articles of Confederation 1787 Art. 1, Section 2 28

PAGE 39

CHAPTER II A PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON SCHOOL DESEGREGATION: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK A broad overview of the history and future of school desegre gation requires a range of analytic lenses. Desegregation is at once a matter of constitutional law, federal and local politics, individual psychology, demography, teaching techniques, and liberal democratic ideas. Looking at desegregation through only some of these lenses give a partial and distorted view. Thus, the analysis must range from the legal meaning of Brown to patterns of black suburbanization. Different lenses yield different, and even contradictory images of school desegregation. If we can understand these partial views and contradictions, we will go a long way toward understanding why desegregation is both so important and so difficult to achieve" (Hochschild, 1985:1 ). (Emphasis added). Public Administration's Conceptual Lenses Hochschild's perception of the multiple lenses required to understand the complexity of the issues embedded in the policies and practices of public school desegregation is well-founded. The field or discipline of public administration can serve the analysis of school desegregation in a manner which reveals a number of the analytical lenses required to understand the 29

PAGE 40

Public administration has been defined in varied ways over its evolution. Because public administration means different things to different observers, and lacks a significant theoretical or applied meaning, some have argued that there is no discipline or field of public administration, per se. Others argue that the diversity of the field reflects its strength (Waldo 1956; Stillman 1991 ). The study of public administration overlaps a number of other disciplines including political science, sociology, administrative law, economics, psychology, and business administration. The multidisciplinary nature of public administration does present difficulties when attempting to carve out a simple definition, but the advantage of its multiple lenses has served to shed light on many significant areas of public policy. In an early review of the traditional models used in public administration, Dwight Waldo (1956:29) suggests that the multiple perspectives of the field can be uniquely useful. In a discussion of the pluralistic nature of contemporary public administration Stillman (1991 :12) observes that, "No one theory or two, say the advocates of this school, can realistically explain contemporary public administration thought. The pluralist philosophy holds that diversity of opinions and points of view is not only an appropriate way to explain present reality it is also a positive strength." The positive strength of public administration's diverse origins and approaches is demonstrated in David Rosenbloom's (1986:6) integration of three distinct underlying approaches to the field which grow out of different perspectives on its functions. The following definition summarizes this "perspectivist" approach to public administration: 30

PAGE 41

Public administration is the use of managerial, political, and legal theories and processes to fulfill legislative, executive, and judicial governmental mandates for the provision of regulatory and service function for the society as a whole or for some segments of it. Some have viewed public administration as a managerial endeavor similar to practices in the private sector (Wilson 1887; White 1926; Gulick and Urwick 1937). Others, stressing the "publicness" of administration have emphasized its political aspects ( Appleby 1949; Long 1949; Waldo 1956; Downs 1967). Still others, noting the importance of sovereignty, the constitution and regulation in public administration have viewed public administration as distinctly a legal matter (Goodnow 1905; Davis 1975; Dimock 1980). For years, the tendency of scholars and practitioners has been to stress one or another of these approaches. This, according to Rosenbloom, has promoted confusion since each approach tends to emphasize different values, different organizational arrangements, and radically different views of the individual citizen (Rosenbloom, 1986:4 ). In understanding public administration, it is important to understand the view from each of these lenses, as well as their interrelationships. Although the origins, definitions, and perspectives on pubiic administration are many, to focus and limit this study, Rosenbloom's three lenses or approaches to public administration and the interactions among them will provide the foundation of the theoretical framework. The remainder of this chapter will examine these three lenses, and then focus 31

PAGE 42

them on the governance and administration of the public schools. The influence of these conceptual lenses on desegregation policy is also discussed. These three perspectives lenses are particularly helpful in understanding the policies and practices of public school desegregation. As this case study of Keyes v. School District No 1. unfolds, the researcher demonstrates how the managerial, legal, and political lenses of public administration can be applied to the analysis of desegregation policy. The "public administrative perspective" on public school desegregation provides a theoretical framework and an insightful vantage point from which to examine its impact on the schools, the community, and the provision of equal educational opportunity. The Managerial Approach to Public Administration The managerial approach to public administration has its origins in the early nineteenth century civil service reforms and the scientific management movement which viewed public administration as a businesslike function devoid of any political influence (Mosher 1982; Rosenbloom 1986; Stillman 1991 ). This view of the managerial approach to public administration was first articulated by Woodrow Wilson, who in the 1880s insisted that, "administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics" and that managerial questions are indeed a "field of business" (Wilson, 1880: 494). In his essay, Wilson is credited with positing the existence of a major distinction between politics and administration. This was a common 32

PAGE 43

and necessary tactic of the Progressive reform movement to limit spoils and other abuses of government agencies. The advocacy for a businesslike approach to public administration ultimately came to represent the orthodox or classical view of how the public service should operate. In articulating the values of the management approach Wilson found that, "It is the object of administrative study to discover first, what government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost of either money or energy." (Wilson 1887:481 ). In other words, according to the managerial approach, public administration is to be geared toward maximizing effectiveness, efficiency, and economy. The first academic textbook of the field by Leonard White (1926}, and Gulick and Urwick's (1937) "principles of administration", reflect the movement toward the scientific management of public organization. These pre-W. W.ll doctrines of public administration dominated the early thinking about the management of the public's business. The management model of public administration, in its early inception, reflected the need for scientific management, scientific principles, and a "machine model' of organization. Identifying the "one best way" to administer government agencies was the preoccupation of these early theorists. To maximize the attainment of the values of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy, the managerial approach to public administration promotes the organizational structure universally identified as bureaucratic. Specialization, division of labor, span of control, and hierarchy, are all 33

PAGE 44

management terms associated with the bureaucratic form of organization. The bureaucratic form of organization and the values it promoted came under strong criticism after W.W. II, as the demands on the administrative state began to expand in scope. The most historically strident criticisms of the managerial approach to public administration, are reflected in the phenomena of bureaucracy. Post W.W.II theorists criticized the preoccupation with bureaucracy. While bureaucracy is a positive instrument for the implementation of governmental policies and programs, popular sentiment about bureaucracy is largely negative (Cayer and Weschler 1988:43). Many critics of bureaucracy have identified several common negative tendencies in bureaucratic behavior (Merton 1940; Thompson 1961; Downs 1967; Schon 1971 ). Generally, it is concluded that bureaucracies have conserving tendencies. They attempt to hold on to what is comfortable and known, and resist efforts at change. In protecting their turfs, bureaucracies tend to develop routines and procedures that serve their interests and limit the ability of outsiders to influence their activities. They are effective at resisting control and perfected strategies for survival (Greenberg 1974; Kaufman. 1976). It is the often impersonal and often inhumane approach to the individual, that draws the bulk of criticism of this dominant managerial approach to public organization. This is true whether the individuals are employees, clients, or the "victims" of public administrative agencies. 34

PAGE 45

Post W. W.ll critiques of bureaucracy have produced competing theories of organizational life for public organization ( Bernard 1938; Follet 1940; March and Simon 1958; Katz and Kahn 1966). These more humanistic schools of administrative thought, focus on social leadership skills, informal organization, group processes, quality of life in the workplace, and responsiveness to constituents. They insist that reliance on the impersonality of bureaucracies develops pathologies in organizations and individuals. These alternative theoretical approaches or models of the management are slowly having an impact on public organizations. However, the influence of the values of the orthodox or classical model of public administration, still maintains a significant influence on the theory and practice of the management in public organizations (Stillman 1991 ). The Management of Public Schools Local communities were responsible for the first public schools in America, and the beginning of educational administration occurred there. Since the schools were small and their programs were narrow by modern standards, required administrative services were few and were often performed by the community. Necessary management functions constituted the major internal administrative role and were performed by the teacher in one-teacher schools or a head teacher in larger schools (Grieder et al. 1969: 98). As school districts continued to grow, administrative duties required the full time of some individual. Thus, the school principalship and the 35

PAGE 46

superintendency developed along with other key roles as a response to local needs. States gradually assumed legal responsibility for school and began the development of state systems of education. An extremely important step in the developing of state school systems was the creation of local school districts. The local school district is an arm of state government and is granted authority by the state to exercise designated responsibilities for education in the district. Power granted to school districts varies considerably from state to state. In general, creation of local school districts recognized and preserved the initiative of local communities in school matters. The governance and management of local school districts has focused much attention on the administrative functions of schools. As with the field of public administration, the subfield of educational administration has undergone many shifts, and there are multiple theories regarding managerial functions. Concern for theory in educational administration was late in developing (Grieder et al. 1969:1 02). The concern for the leadership roles in educational administration, exerted a major influence on the growth of interest in theory to guide the practitioners in the field. However, there has been no general agreement, or a common set of definitions, and the borrowing from the more general theories of administration in both the business and public sectors has been significant. Textbooks on educational administration reflect a similar search for scientific "principles", key elements and competencies. Gregg and Campbell (1957:269), after a careful study of 36

PAGE 47

I the early literature on educational administration, concluded that the administrative process was composed of seven components: decisionmaking, planning, organizing, communicating, influencing, coordinating, and evaluating. Similar elements of administration are reflected in the broader public administration literature on the managerial approaches ( i.e., Gulick and Urwick 1937). The organizational values of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy have also been central themes in the development of this sub-category of public administration. As districts grew, and the complexity of the issues evolved, the governance and management of school districts took on the bureaucratic form of organization reflected in other public organizations. Many education administration theorists have shared their concerns regarding the problems created by the bureaucratic nature of public school systems (llich 1971; Elmore et al. 1991; Spring 1991 ). Decentralization and other reforms, have been slow to emerge from the public concerns that school districts are impenetrable bureaucracies which are not responsive to the need of students, teachers or community. The Brown decisions and their progeny presented a complex and challenging political and legal environment for administrators of public schools. The civil rights movement also bolstered the emphasis on equity and equal education as goals to be met by school districts. The problem with translating desegregation law into operational management plans was that the courts never crystallized a common definition of a desegregated school, nor did they provide an understandable set of mechanics for 37

PAGE 48

remedying a school system that was found to be segregated (Gordon: 1989:189). Desegregation plans, whether voluntary or court-ordered, required attention to many areas of concern. According to one guide for educators: The initial issue in planning school desegregation is the nature of the goal itself. Deciding when a school system is desegregated by race, sex, and national origin may be partly a matter of terminology and partly a matter of defining education. We consider desegregation to have occurred when students throughout a school system attend a interracial/gender classes, and when the schools and classes afford students equal education without regard to race sex, and national origin background. Desegregation included racial sexual hetero geneity and parity in administrative staffs, teaching facilities, and service personnel. In addition, curricular, extra-curricular activities, and programs must be designed or redesigned so that they appeal to and include racially/sexually heterogeneous groups of students (Chesler et al.1981: 1 ). The above interpretation of school desegregation is an operational definition of the legal mandate to eliminate dual school systems "root and branch". The requirements were established in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). These guidelines stated that an adequate desegregation plan must include more than good intentions and the assignment of pupils to avoid the racial identification of schools. A school district must also address the policies and practices with respect to facilities, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities (including school construction and closure). The managerial context of public school desegregation evolved from merely insuring against physical segregation, to 38

PAGE 49

dealing with a complex set of political and legal requirements related to representativeness, equity, and accountability (England and Morgan 1986; Epstein 1986; GordCJn 1989, 1994 ). The management of desegregation plans has been likened to trying to hit a moving target (National Network of Desegregation Assistance Centers 1989:1 ). For the most part, administrators were not aided by the persistently equivocal research on the impacts of segregation, even though the research and literature in this area is massive (Crain 1968, 1976; Clark 1971; Tucker 1994). There have, however, been a few studies of the issue of desegregation which have provided clues to administrators regarding "best practices" for achieving the goals of desegregation (Rossell and Hawley 1983; England and Morgan 1986; Fife 1992; Stave 1995; Wells 1995). After reviewing numerous studies, Willis Hawley (1983: 334-336), drew several conclusions which are worth noting: 1. Integration should take place in the earliest grade possible. Kindergarten and the first grade are better than the upper elementary grades and certainly better than the high school. This is because achievement differences between minority and majority pupils are smaller than they may be later, and prejudices are least. The possibilities for positive interactions, therefore, are at their highest. 2. Tracking and ability grouping should be avoided. Where they seem educationally essential, monitor them to ensure that racial diversity is maintained to the maximum extent possible. ""Pullout" programs for remedial instruction should be monitored for the same reasons. 39

PAGE 50

3. In heterogeneous classrooms, employ cooperative learning and peer teaching. Ensure that the teaching staff is well trained in using these approaches. 4. Within classrooms, strive to achieve a critical mass of minority students-approximately twenty percent. Less than this and students tend to segregate themselves. However, there is some evidence that intergroup conflict increases as parity is attained. 5. Increase the opportunities for interracial contacts in situations requiring cooperation rather than competition. Expand extra-curricular activities and do not make participation in them contingent on academic performance or behavior. 6. Create a relatively stringent disciplinary policy and enforce it evenhandedly. Parents are particularly concerned about the potential for race conflict in desegregating schools and should be involved in setting disciplinary codes. 7. Reduce the anonymity fostered by large schools and classrooms by creating smaller learning environments, and within them attempt to inculcate shared norms of academic achievement and good decorum. There is evidence that smaller class size leads to improvements in achievement, and these may be particularly important for integrating schools. 8. Once a plan is implemented, stick with it for a reasonable period of time. Desegregation plans are typically disruptive to students, teachers, and parents. Modifications coming rapidly one on another create additional disruption. Do not expect good plans to bear fruit in only a year or two. The nation's experience with desegregation has demonstrated that these management goals have been difficult to achieve (Bell 1980; F Brown 1994; Douglas 1995; Orfield and Eaton 1996). These management tasks 40

PAGE 51

have been made more difficult with demographic shifts, changes in the political climate, and a general lack of consensus regarding what works best in urban school districts. Understanding the barriers and constraints of the managerial dimensions of public school desegregation is critical to gaining a more comprehensive and policy relevant assessment of these efforts. Throughout the history of desegregation, there have been persistent issues regarding disparities in achievement, minority faculty, and access to programs. Faced with similar problems in the post-desegregation environment, school board members, administrators, and teachers have formed professional groups like the Council of Great City Schools, National Alliance of Black School Educators, and the National School Boards Association, which has allowed some communication among districts regarding equal educational opportunity. The sharing of knowledge and "best practices" in these professional contexts, will hopefully continue to focus on the need for both quality and equity as management goals in urban education. The Political Approach to Public Administration The political approach to public administration has been elaborated by a number of observers of the reality of public organizations. In moving beyond the separation of politics-administration dichotomy of the early classical/orthodox theorists in the field. Wallace Sayre (1978:201) finds that, "Public administration is ultimately a problem in political theory. The fundamental problem in a democracy is responsibility to popular control. 41

PAGE 52

The responsibility and responsiveness of the administrative agencies and the bureaucracies to the elected officials (chief executives, legislators and the public), is of central importance in a government based increasingly on the exercise of the discretionary power by agencies of administration. n The political approach to public administration has grown out of the observations of scholars such as Paul Appleby (1949: in Shafitz in Hyde 1978: 1 07), who considered public administration to be a "political process". In distinguishing public from private management he writes that, "Statecraft -government-is different from all other professions, because it is broader than anything else in the field of action. Government must be concerned with intellectual and emotional outreachings too. Government is different because it must take into account all of the desires, needs, actions, thoughts, and sentiments of millions of people. Government is different because government is politics. n The politicization of public administration has been documented at great length. Appleby and others portray the politics of administration, analyze the political process in administration, and present a philosophy of the politics of administration in a democratic society. There are various examples of how the values of the political approach are incorporated into the policies and practices of government (Appleby 1949; Long 1949; Kaufman 1956; Woll 1963; Downs 1967; Kaufman 1969; Seidman 1970). Once public administration is recognized as a political endeavor, emphasis must then be placed on a different set of values than those promoted by the managerial approach. The political approach to public 42

PAGE 53

I administration stresses the values of representativeness, political responsiveness, and accountability through elected officials to the citizenry. These are viewed as crucial to the maintenance of constitutional democracy and it is considered necessary to incorporate them into all aspects of government, including public management. Politics and Public Schools The public schools have become one of the most pivotal and controversial institutions in society. "The goals of education are related to politics and political beliefs because schools play and important role in providing access to jobs, determining social equality and inequality, and distributing knowledge about the political system. What one believes about the proper role of government in regulating the economy, and providing social justice, is almost always reflected in one's beliefs about the purpose of schooling (Spring 1991 : 29). Parents make housing choices based on the quality of schooling. Politicians are never hesitant to voice their opinions on school issues Racial and religious riots take place in the schoolhouse. Some parents accuse schools of not being patriotic, while others find them guilty of flag waving. Some members of society argue that schools will end poverty, and others maintain that schools maintain poverty (Spring 1991 : 3). Controversy about education has invaded politics at every level of government. A major source of controversy is the question of what the purposes of public schooling should be The political, social, and economic 43

PAGE 54

purposes or goals of schooling are often in conflict. According to Spring (1991: 6): The most important political goals of public schooling are educating citizens, selecting future political leaders, creating a political consensus, maintaining political power, and socializing individuals for political systems. These political goals can be both a source of political freedom and a means of exerting political oppression ... The major social purposes of education are social control, improving social conditions, and reducing social tensions caused by economic in equalities. The most important arguments given for support of public schooling are that education increases national wealth, socializes the future workforce, and advances technological development. The political philosophies of liberal, neo-conservative, and critical theorists have had a significant impact on our thinking about schools (Apple 1988; Spring 1991 ). Liberal beliefs are dominant in the Democratic Party, while neo-conservatives are influential in the Republican Party. Critical theory, is a recent movement among American intellectuals, which has stirred public debate through its exploration of issues related to race and class (Omi and Winant 1986; Delgado 1995; Delgado and Stefanic 1993, 1995; Spann 1993; Carney 1994; Bell 1995; Crenshaw et al. 1995). The desegregation of the nation's public schools has been one of the most politicized public policy issues in recent history (Crain 1968; Orfield 1978). When one views the desegregation experience through the political lens, the political values of representativeness, responsiveness, and accountability to the citizenry stand out sharply. The volatility of the issues 44

PAGE 55

of race, at the heart of desegregation efforts, serves only to heighten the level of politicization. One need only recall the federal troops in Little Rock, the rioting crowds in Boston. The Southern Manifesto, or the bombing of school buses in Denver, to sense the tension in the political dynamics of desegregation. The political lens is critical to understanding the barriers and constraints on achieving success with desegregation efforts. The political aspects of desegregation have been a determining factor in the success or failure of desegregation efforts throughout the country (Crain 1968; Kirp 1982; Orfield and Eaton 1996). The politics of desegregation have historically existed at several levels which include: intergovernmental, local community dynamics, cultural, bureaucratic, and through the influence of the media. The struggle for desegregation is a history of local, state, and federal control of public schools. Throughout the history of desegregation, the political dynamics between federal, state, and local governments, have had a consequential and mostly negative impact on the desegregation movement (Farley 1975; Showell 1976; Giles and Evans 1980; Wilkinson 1979; Kirp 1982). At the national level, the politics of the courts, the Congress, and presidential administrations, have diminished a national commitment to desegregation. Like many state legislatures of the 1950s, Congress in the 1960s and 1970s, expended great effort in designing amendments to the 1964 Civil Rights Act to restrain the enforcement of desegregation. The Nixon, Reagan, and Bush administrations are well noted for their anti-busing campaigns and administrative tactics to undermine desegregation. In his 45

PAGE 56

I I I I i i I j I I I I I I I I I I I exploration of UHow Equality Has Been Redefined in the Conservative Restoration", Michael Apple (1989:17) finds that, uThe growth of the new right and conservative movements over the past two decades, have had a great deal of success in redefining what education is for, and in shifting the ideological texture of the society to the right. u Many observers of these political struggles, find that the conservative revolution has proved to be a more potent force than Progressivism in redefining the struggle for equal opportunity in education. The Legal Approach to Public Administration In the United States, the legal approach to public administration has been historically eclipsed by the other approaches, especially the managerial approach. Nevertheless, it has a tradition and has emerged as a way of defining public administration Dwight Waldo (1956:29), explains that "It is logical and historically fit to begin with the law a model, with public administration viewed as or through a legal system. Thus viewed, administration appears primarily as a framework of rights and obligations, and when one studies administration, the focus is on an official definition of proper relationships between persons or bodies within the system proper." The "law proper" and the court system are concrete images in a person's mind when he/she approaches administration. According to Rosenbloom (1986:22), the legal approach to public administration is derived primarily from three interrelated sources. The first is administrative law As early as 1905, Frank Goodnow, a leading 46

PAGE 57

contributor to the development of public administrative theory, published a book entitled The Principles of Administrative Law of the United States. He defined administrative law as "that part of the law which fixes the organization, determines the competence of authorities which execute the law, and indicates the individual remedies for the violation of his rights". (Goodnow 1905:17). Public agencies, including school districts, are often best defined in terms of law:. An administrative agency is a governmental authority, other than a court, and other than a legislative body, which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication, rule-making, investigating, prosecuting, negotiating, settling or informally acting" (Davis 1975:6). A second source of the legal approach, has been the movement toward the judicialization of public administration. Judicialization refers to the tendency for administrative processes to increasingly resemble courtroom procedures. Judicialization falls within the purview of Goodnow's (1905) definition of administrative law, but tends to concentrate heavily upon the establishment of procedures designed to safeguard individual rights (Rosenbloom 1986: 22). In the administration the public schools, due process procedures for the termination of personnel, the procedures for the expulsion and suspension of students, or deciding who goes where on a court-ordered bus, reflect this type of judicialization. Constitutional law also provides a third source of the contemporary legal approach to public administration. Since the 1950s, the federal judiciary has virtually redefined the procedural, equal protection and 47

PAGE 58

substantive rights and liberties of the citizenry vis-a-vis public administrators. The right to equal protection was vastly strengthened and applied in a number of administrative matters ranging from personnel recruitment systems to the operation of public schools and prisons (Rosenbloom 1986:23). In summary, the legal approach to public administration embodies three central values. One is procedural due process, which is hard to define precisely because it has been long recognized that this value cannot be confined to any single set of requirements or standards. Rather the term stands for the value of fundamental fairness and is viewed as requiring procedures designed to protect individuals from malicious, arbitrary, capricious or unconstitutional harm at the hands of government. A second value concerns individual substantive rights as embodied in evolving interpretations of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, the judiciary values equity, a concept like due process, which is subject to varying interpretations. In terms of public administration in general, equity stands for the value of fairness in the result of conflicts between private parties and the government (Rosenbloom 1986:24). The organizational structure of the legal approach to public administration is one that maximizes the use of adversary procedure. The full-fledged judicial trial is the clearest model of this structure. Adversary procedure calls upon two opposing parities to marshal facts and arguments in support of their positions. These dueling parties are brought before and impartial referee (e.g. judge or jury) who weighs the evidence, and ultimately 48

PAGE 59

decides which side is more correct. To a significant extent, this model is at odds with the values embodied in the both managerial and political approaches. It militates against efficiency, economy, managerial effectiveness, but also representativeness, responsiveness, and political accountability. It is intended, rather to afford maximum protection of the rights of private parties against, illegal, unconstitutional, or invidious administrative action. (Rosenbloom, 1986:27). The Legal Environment of Public Schools Since the public schools are governmental agencies, their conduct is circumscribed by legal concepts of general administrative law, supplemented by those necessary legal doctrine that have uniquely evolved from the historical traditions surrounding an educational organization that is state established but locally administered. What the courts have said in enunciating precedents and rules of law they have established, provides a necessary basis of knowledge valuable to all those involved with the public schools. Alexander and Alexander (1985), observe that even with the great sweep of constitutional precedents which the Supreme Court of the United States from time to time delivers, the laws governing our schools can often be difficult to accurately access and summarize. They find that: Beyond constitutional law, which is sometimes tighter knit because the Supreme Court can give the final word, we have a great mass of law pertaining to contract, property, torts, general administrative law, etcetera, which all bear on the administration of the schools. Substantial variation may be found from state to 49

PAGE 60

state, not merely because of the different statutory bases, but also because of the varying perspectives and philosophies of education which the judges, themselves, may have in viewing particular disputes. Certainly, the social context from which the cases emanate may have strong influence on the outcome of particular disputes (Alexander and Alexander 1985: xxxii). The mass of desegregation law demonstrates the dominance of the legal approach in the history of desegregation. The struggle to desegregate the nation's public schools is one of the most analyzed legal issues in the literature. The legal scholarship which most effectively deals with this issue, is that of the critical legal and race theorists (Ungar 1983; Delgado and Stefanic 1993; Spann 1993; West 1993; Bell 1995; Delgado 1995; Hayman 1995). These theorists provide insightful perspectives on the history of desegregation, race, constitutional rights, and the socio-political context of these efforts in urban school districts. Emerging in the 1980s, these theorist have stressed the importance of 1.) historical perspectives and the instructive role of historical narrative; 2.) perspectives on race, class, and gender which permit analysis to search beyond reductionistic notions like innate inferiority as explanations for the difficulties faced in regard to issues related to education; 3.) a critical view of the role of the courts and litigation as a means of achieving the expansion of rights, and finally; 4.) an emphasis on the need to focus on the convergence between theory and practice. Robert Hayman Jr. (1995:62-63) writes that: 50

PAGE 61

Critical race theorists articulate concerns that may have been ignored or marginalized by the dominant discourse, problematize concepts that seem otherwise immune from scrutiny, and suggest solutions that frequently at odds with the prevailing demands of convention or fashion. Thus, critical race theorists focus their writings on the struggle for racial justice, the persistence of racial hierarchy, and other issues of special importance to marginalized communities. They challenge the efficiency of both liberal theory and communitarian ideals as vehicles for progress, destabilize the supposed neutral idea of meritocracy and call for a re examination of the very concept of race Critical theorists point to the history of shifting attitudes and legal doctrine of the courts as essential ingredients in the societal retreat from desegregation. It is not only necessary to understand the litigative histories of desegregation cases, but to also be place them in the context of the interactions with political and managerial influences on their success or failure. As a judicial mandate and political rallying point, public school desegregation has been one of the most "public" and controversial policies in recent history. Rosenbloom's (1986) public administrative framework provides a unique vantage point from which to address the research questions posed by this study: 1.) How has Keyes v. School District No.1 impacted the Denver schools and community? 2.) How have the legal, political, and managerial factors affected the overall impact of this case on equal educational opportunity? 3.) What are the implications of these findings on the future of equal educational opportunity in the Denver schools? 51

PAGE 62

The Historical Case Study Methodology in Public Administration Grasping the contingent nature of the past can break the tyranny of the present. Seeing how historical actors made and remade social life, we can gain a new vision of our own present and future. That is perhaps the most important lesson historians can help people to draw from the past (Benson et al: 1986: xxiii-xxiv). Historians have been persistent in making the argument regarding history's usefulness in understanding contemporary policy issues (Graham 1980; Benson, Brier and Rosenweig, 1986; Neustadt and May, 1986). Without the reality of history, concepts employed by those in the social sciences become mere abstractions, devoid of content. Leffler and Brent (1990: 52) observe that, Terms like democracy, political man, rational man, or capitalism have no meaning apart from history, and likewise cannot be seen as elements in independent or free moving disciplines. Thus history remains the great synthesizer of human knowledge. Incorporating the other social sciences and allowing then to check their abstractions against the knowledge of history. History, in effect, becomes the data against which the hypotheses of the social sciences can be verified" (Emphasis added). As a method of empirical analysis, the case study has been an approach to understanding history, as well as, more contemporary public policy issues. The case study is used in many situations including: 52

PAGE 63

1.) policy, political science, and public administration research; community psychology and sociology; 2.) organizational and management studies; 3.) city and regional planning and research, such as studies of plans, neighborhoods, or public agencies ( Yin 1994:1 ). The field of public administration has employed the case study as a research tool for topics ranging from decision making to ethics. One notable public administrative case study which distinctly employed three conceptual frameworks to analyze an issue of public policy is Graham Allison's (1971) Essence of Decision: Understanding the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this case study, Allison provides and insightful interpretation of this explosive period in America's international politics. The historical case study approach to public policy is the methodology of choice in this research. The Keyes case is a twenty-five year saga that is rich with possibilities for the student of public administration. There is an opportunity to introduce readers to the original plaintiffs in the case (Wilfred Keyes and others), and to provide a sense of the human price that was paid by ordinary citizens just to get such cases into the Supreme Court. There is an opportunity to filter the historical facts of this case through the lenses of the managerial, political, and legal lenses described above. The case study, particularly historical cases, have been a popular tool for exploring the dynamics of desegregation. The literature is ripe with case studies describing desegregation litigation, implementation, and the dynamics of resistance and change these policies have produced (Franklin 53

PAGE 64

1975; Kluger 1976, Pratt 1992; Linden 1995; Stave 1995). A classic desegregation case study is Richard Kluger's (1976) Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality. In this historical treatment of Brown, Kluger observes that, II This book has not been conceived as a study of law and its permutations. It has been designed to suggest how law and men interact, how social forces of the post collide with those of the present". (Kluger, 1976: x). In reviewing the literature on desegregation, the case study approach has been a dominant methodology for exploring these experiences throughout the country. In reviewing dissertations written in the past thirty years on the topic of public school desegregation, many of these researchers have chosen the case study method as an appropriate method for the empirical analysis of these policies and their implications (Jenkins 1976; Dolak 1980; England 1982; Fuller 1983; Taylor 1990; Fife 1991). In the search for studies about the Keyes case specifically, the researcher has identified two, mostly legalistic analyses. They are a lengthy article in the Howard Law Journal by James Fishman and Lawrence Strauss (1989) entitled, II Endless Journey: Integration and the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunity in Denver's Public Schools: A Study of Keyes v. School District No.1." A second more dated analysis of Keyes, is a chapter case study by Jessica and Jeffrey Pearson (1978), in Howard Kalodner editor, Umits of Justice: The Courts Role in School Desegregation. These studies have been useful in assisting this researcher in verifying timelines, key events and actors, and issues which shape the descriptive analytic 54

PAGE 65

framework for this study. A third study of Keyes, a dissertation by Taylor (1990), provides an analysis of conflict and leadership among the key actors in the case up to 1977. None of these treatments of Keyes has explored the case from its beginning in 1969 to the end of court ordered busing in 1995. Neither have these previous analyses examined the case from the public administrative framework of this study which views the managerial, political, and legal aspects of this desegregation history. In summary, the public administrative framework moves us beyond conventional assessments of the success or failure of desegregation (i.e. innate inferiority which assumed to impair achievement scores or the percentages of white flight). This framework provides a different vantage point from which to analyze the impact of Denver's desegregation experience on its schools and community. The history of Denver's struggle with desegregation, when viewed through the managerial, political, and legal lenses of public administration, reveals contradictions and conflicts not typically examined when evaluating desegregation policy. It also reveals, as Hochschild (1985) has suggested, why desegregation is so important and why it has been so difficult to achieve. The next three chapters, describe the history of Keyes as it is filtered through the larger context of the history of race and education and the conceptual lenses elaborated in this literature review. The three lenses of the "public administrativen approach to desegregation policies and practices. provide a different and more comprehensive view of this complex history. And although attention to the socio-economic factors and demographic shifts 55

PAGE 66

I I I I I I are important, research and policy framed in these approaches alone, have limited utility to policy makers and practitioners. The managerial, political, and legal lenses of public administration broaden our view for assessing the possible impact of Denver's desegregation experience on the schools and city. 56

PAGE 67

REFERENCES-CHAPTER II Alexander, Kem and M. David Alexander. 1985. American Public School Law. St. Paul: West Publishing Co: xxxii. Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Apple, Michael. 1988. Redefining Inequality: Authoritarian Populism and the Conservative Restoration". Teachers College Record. 90: 167-84 Apple, Michael. 1989. "How Equality Has Been Redefined in the Conservative Restoration". In Walter Secada, ed. Equity in Education. New York: Falmer Press: 30-55. Appleby, Paul. 1949. "Government is Different". In Jay Shafritz and Albert Hyde. 1978. Classics of Public Administration. Oak Park, Illinois: Moore Publishing Co. Bell, Derrick. ed. 1980. Shades of Brown: New Perspectives on School Desegregation. New York: Teachers College Press. Bell, Derrick. 1995. "Who's Afraid of Critical Race Theory?. University of Illinois Law Review. (Fall) 2: 513-547. Benson, Susan Porter, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenweig, eds. 1986. Presenting the Past: Essays on History and the Public. Philadelphia: Temple University Press: xxiii-xxiv. Bernard, Chester. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Brown, Frank. 1994. "Brown and Educational Policy at Forty." Journal of Negro Education 63: 336-348. Carney, Martin. 1994. Faded Dreams: The Politics and Economics of Race in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cayer, N. Joseph and Louis F. Weschler. 1988. Public Administration: Social Change and Adaptive Management. New York: St. Martin's Press: 43. Chesler, Mark A. et al. 1981. Making Desegregation Work: A Guide for Educators and Other Professionals. Beverly Hill. Sage: 1. 57

PAGE 68

. I I I i I I I I I K.enneth. 1971. "The Segregation Cases: Criticism of the Social Scientists Role". Villanova Law Review. 5: 224-240. Crain, Robert. 1968. The Politics of School Desegregation: Comparative Studies of Community Structure and Policymaking. Chicago: Aldine. Crain, Robert L. 1976. "Why Academic Research Fails to be Useful". In Florence Levinsohn and Benjamin D. Wright. (eds.) School Desegregation: Shadow and Substance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crenshaw, Kimberle et. a/ ((eds.). 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement. New York: New Press. Davis, Kenneth. 1975. Administrative Law and Government. St. Paul, Minn: West: 6. Delgado, Richard and Jean Stephanie. 1993. "Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography-1993: A Year of Transition." University of Colorado Law Review. 66: 153-193. Delgado, Richard. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Delgado, Richard and Jean Stephanie. 1995. "The Social Construction of Brown v. Board of Education: Law Reform and the Reconstructive Paradox." William and Mary Law Review. 36(2): 547-570. Dimock, Marshall. 1980. Law and Dynamic Administration. New York: Praeger. Dolak, Mirko Julius. 1980. "Toward the Development of a Policy Typology and Policy Implementation Model: The Case of School Desegregation in the L.A. Unified School District, 1977-1980." Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California. Douglas, Davison M. 1995. "The Promise of Brown Forty Years Later: Introduction". (Symposium: Brown v. Board of Education After Forty Years: Confronting the Promise) William and Mary Law Review. 36(2): 337-343. Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. Elmore, Richard F. et al. 1991. eds. Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers. 58

PAGE 69

I I England, Robert E. 1982. "Assessing the Status of Urban Public School Desegregation: A Case Study Approach". Ph.D. diss., University of Oklahoma. England, Robert E., and David R. Morgan. 1986. Desegregating Big City Schools: Strategies, Outcomes, and Impacts. New York: Associated Faculty Press. Farley, Reynolds. 1975. "Racial Integration in the Public Schools, 1967-72: Assessing the Effects of Governmental Politics" Sociological Forces 8(January): 3-26. Fife, Brian. 1991. Comparative Intervention Strategies: Desegregation of American Schools. a Ph.D. diss., State University of New York, Binghamton. Fife, Brian. 1992. Desegregation in American Schools: Comparative Intervention Strategies. New York: Praeger Publishers. Fishman, James J. and Lawrence Strauss. 1989. "Endless Journey: Integration and the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunity in Denver's Public Schools/ A Study of Keyes v. School District No. 1". Howard Law Journal 32: 627-728. Fox, Elliot M. and Luther Urwick. eds. 1940. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York Hippocrene Books. Franklin, Vincent P. 1975. "The Persistence of School Segregation in the Urban North: An Historical Perspective". Journal of Ethnic Studies. 1 (4): 51-68. Fuller, James Nathaniel. 1983. Legal Aspects of Busing for Desegregation in De Facto Segregated School Districts." Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Giles, Michael W. and ArthurS. Evans. 1980. "Mass Level Compliance With Public Policy: The Case of School Desegregation". Journal of Politics 37(August): 722-746. Goodnow, Frank. 1905. The Principles of Administrative Law in the United States New York: G.P Putman's Sons: 17. Gordon, William. 1989. "School Desegregation: A Look at the 70s and 80s." Journal of Law and Education: 189. Gordon, William. 1994. "The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown." Journal of Negro Education. 63(3): 310-22. 59

PAGE 70

I I I Greenberg, EdwardS. 1974. Serving the Few: Corporate Capitalism and the Bias of Government Policy. New York: Wiley. Graham, Patricia. 1980. "Historians as Policymakers". Educational Researcher 9(11): 480-495. Gregg, Russell T. and Ronald F Campbell. 1957. eds. Administrative Behavior in Education New York: Harper and Row: 269 Grieder, Calvin, Truman Pierce and K. Forbis Jordon. 1969. Public School Administration. New York: The Ronald Press Co.: 98, 102 Gulick, Luther and Lyndall Urwick. eds. 1937. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration Hawley, Willis 1983 "Achieving Quality Integrated Education-With or Without Federal Help" Phi Delta Kappan. 64 : 334-336. Hawley, Willis et al. 1983. Strategies for Effective Desegregation : lessons From Research. Lexington: D.C Heath. Hayman, Robert, Jr. 1995. "The Color of Tradition: Critical Race Theory and Post Modem Constitutional Traditionalism". Harvard Law Review 30 : :62-63. Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1985. Thirty Years After Brown: Washington, D C.: Joint Center for Political Studies: 1. lllich, Ivan 1971. "The Alternative to Schooling." Saturday Review, June 19: 4460. Jenkins, Jeffrey. 1976. "Historical Analysis of Two Selected School Districts That Have Undergone Desegregation." Ph .D. diss., University of Michigan. Kaufman, Herbert. 1956 "Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public Administration American Political Science Review. 50 (December): 1057-73. Kaufman Herbert. 1976. Are Government Organizations lmmortan Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute. Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn. 1966 The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley and Sons. 60

PAGE 71

Kirp, David L. 1982. Just Schools: The Idea of Racial Equity in America. Berkeley: Kluger, Richard. 1975. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and the Black Struggle for Equality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf: x. Leffler, Phyllis K. and Joseph Brent. 1990. Public and Academic History: A Philosophy and Paradigm. Malabar. FL.: Robert K. Krieger Publishing Co.: 53. Linden, Glenn M. 1995. Desegregating Schools in Dallas: Four Decades in the Federal Courts. Dallas: Three Forks Press. Long, Norton. 1949. "Power and Administration". Public Administration Review. 9, (Autumn 1949): 257-264. March, James G. Herbert Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley and Sons. Merton, Robert K. 1940. Bureaucratic Structure and Personality." Social Forces, 18: 560-568. Mock, David B., ed. 1981. History and Public Policy. Malabar, Fl: Krieger Publishing Co. Mosher, Frederick C. 1982. Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press. National Network of Regional Desegregation Assistance Centers. 1989. Resegregation of Public Schools: The Third Generation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education: 1. Neustadt, Richard and Ernest R. May. 1986. Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers. New York: Free Press. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial Formulation in the United States: The 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Rutledge and Kegan Paul. Orfield, Gary. 1978. "Research, Politics and the Anti-Busing Debate". Law and Contemporary Problems. 42 (4) Autumn. Orfield, Gary and Susan E. Eaton. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W. W. Norton and Co: vii. 61

PAGE 72

Pearson, Jessica and Jeffrey Pearson. 1978. "Keyes v. School District No. 1." In Howard Kalodner, ed. Umits of Justice: The Role of the Court in School Desegregation. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co. Pratt, Robert. 1992. The Color of Their Skin: Education and Race in Richmond, Virginia, 1954-89. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Rosenbloom, David. !986. Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector. New York: Random House: 4, .6, 19, 22, 23,24, 27,29. Rossell, Christine and Willis Hawley. 1983. The Consequences of School Desegregation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Sayre, Wallace. 1978. "Premises of Public Administration: Past and Emerging" In Jay Shafritz and AI Hyde, eds. Classics of Pubic Administration. Oak Park, Illinois: Moore Publishing Co.: 201. Schon, Donald. 1971. Beyond the Stable State. New York: Norton. Seidman, Harold. 1970. Politics, Position, and Power. The Dynamics of Federal Organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Shafritz, Jay and Albert Hyde. eds. 1978. Classics of Public Administration. Oak Park, Illinois: Moore Publishing Co. Showell, Betty. 1976. "The Courts, the Legislature, the Presidency and School Desegregation Policy" in Florence Levinsohn and Benjamin D. Wright. eds. School Desegregation: Shadow and Substance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 100. Spann, Girardeau. 1993. Race Against the Court: The Supreme Court and Minorities in Contemporary America. New York: New York University Press. Spring, Joel. 1991. American Education: An Introduction to Socia/ and Political Aspects. White Plains, N.Y: Longman Publishing Co.: 3, 6, 29. Stave, Sondra Astor. 1995. Achieving Racial Balance: Case Studies of Contemporary Schoo/ Desegregation: Contributions to the Study of Education. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishers. Stillman, Richard. 1991. Preface to Public Administration: A Search for Themes and Direction. New York: St. Martin's Press: 12. 62

PAGE 73

Taylor, Mary Jean. 1990. "Leadership Responses to Desegregation in the Denver Public Schools, A Historical Study: 1959-197r. Ph.D. diss., University of Denver. Thompson, Victor. 1961. Modem Organization. New York Knopf. Tucker, William H .. 1994. The Science and Politics of Racial Research. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Unger, Roberto. 1983. The Critical Studies Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Waldo, Dwight. 1956. Perspectives on Administration. University of Alabama: University of Alabama Press:29. Wells, Amy Stuart. 1995. "Re-examining Social Science Research on School Desegregation: Long Versus ShortTerm Effects" Teachers College Record 4 (Summer): 692-706. West, Cornell. 1993. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press. White, Leonard. 1926. Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. New York: MacMillan Co. Wilkinson, J. Harvie Ill. 1979. From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration: 1954-1978. New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. "The Study of Administration," Political Science Quarterly 56 (December 1941): 481, 494 (originally copyrighted in 1887). Woll, Peter. 1963. American Bureaucracy. New York: W.W. Norton Co. Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Second Ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications: 1. Cases Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). 63

PAGE 74

CHAPTER Ill SEGREGATION IN DENVER AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE KEYES CASE Pre-Keves Denver and its Schools The frontier experience furnishes ample proof of the nationalization of racial hostility. The intrepid pioneers who crossed the western plains carried the virus of racism with them, as much a part of their psyche as their heralded courage and their fears. Once settled in frontier communities, these hearty souls erected the racial barriers their forefathers had created back East. As these pioneers cleared the land, built homes, schools, churches, and planted crops, they transplanted their bigotry into frontier life Even after the end of slavery, their belief in black inferiority would remain. The pioneers and their children would hold tenaciously to the creed of their ancestors (Katz 1996:307). Repeatedly, white settlers voted in the majority to keep black people from entering their land, voting in their elections, testifying in their courts, serving in their militias, or attending their churches and schools (/d at 307) Black settlers in the West, as they had in the East, organized opposition to slavery and discrimination. And in several instances, black pioneers leaped at the chance to build their own self-help settlements in the West, such as Blackdon, New Mexico.and Dearfield, Colorado (Katz 1996:298). 64

PAGE 75

Six months after the first important discoveries of gold were mined in the Colorado Rockies, Denver was founded by William Larimer as a stopping point for those struck with prospects of the mining boom of the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Established in 1858, the permanent town grew out of a pair of settlements at the mouth of Cherry Creek The mining town became known as the "queen city of the Rockies and grew rapidly as the financial, commercial, and manufacturing center of the West (Smiley 1901: 732). The first school in Denver was established in 1860, during the peak of the gold rush, by Owen J. Goldrick. Known as "professor", he opened his "Union School" in a log cabin located on the west side of Larimer and Market Streets. It was a private school with an enrollment of thirteen children, including two children of Indian descent, two of Mexican decent. The actual beginning of the duly organized public school system of Colorado, as well as that of Denver, was in an act passed early in the first session of the Colorado Territorial Legislature, which convened in Denver in September 1861. The act was a rather comprehensive one and similar in its provisions to the school law then in force in the state of Illinois. It provided for appointment by the Governor, during that session, of a "Territorial Superintendent of Common Schools" (Smiley, 1901 :735). Throughout this period, several private schools were established by a number of individuals. Denver was without public schools until the new territorial government brought into existence the office of the superintendent of schools. On November 7, 1861, Goldrick was appointed Superintendent 65

PAGE 76

of Schools for Arapahoe County. Getting the school districts established was no easy task, and it took Goldrick nearly a year to set up of the first two schools districts in Colorado. They were the East Denver District and the West Denver district which were both formally organized in 1862 as Districts numbers One and Two respectively (McKeever et al, 1989:4). The 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado, known as the Rush Amendment created the City and County of Denver (McKeever et al 1989: 12). This Amendment separated Denver from Arapahoe County, and the multiple school districts were consolidated into one. Also with this amendment, the school boards of these school districts were established. During the close of the nineteenth century, there was a proliferation of small school districts but some of them didn't even have a school building. This was, in most part, due to lack of tax funds. Many times students, living in one school district had to pay tuition to another district in order to attend school. This situation created difficulties in funding major building projects and programs. Many families were paying double tuition in the district in which they lived and the district in which their children attended school (/d., at 12). As a result of this amendment, the city and school district were synonymous. Thirty seven schools made of District No.1 when it began in 1902. The new district's school population continued to grow, increasing from 27,000 in 1905 to 30, 000 in 1917. The 1920s were years of expansion-26 new schools were constructed, five of them high schools. During the 20's, a system of "instruction committees" was initiated 66

PAGE 77

whereby teachers had a voice in what was taught and how it was taught. (ld., at 15). The racism and discrimination of the restrictive laws reinforced segregation in many aspects of the public and private lives of these pioneers. With schooling, as in other areas opportunities, for adequate education were limited. McKeever et. al. (1989), found that the practice of segregation in the Denver schools occurred early in this history. They note that: In the beginning, both black and white students attended school in the rented school space, but in 1868, people in the district requested separate schools and rental space was found to house the black students in a building at 16th and Market Street. The school moved February 2, 1869 to the African Baptist Church, and was later moved to the African Methodist Church at 19th and Stout Streets and continued there for the black students until the new Arapahoe School was complete in 1872 (McKeever et. al. 1989: 5). The segregation of the Denver Public Schools began early on and continued as a pattern enforced by custom and the law, until challenged by the case, which is the topic of this study. Segregation in the public schools was also reflected in the housing patterns of the early African American and Hispanic immigrants to the city. Blacks have lived in Denver from its earliest years, and all were not ex slaves. From a population of 1,000 in the 1880s, Denver's black population grew to six thousand in the 1920s, concentrated in the Five Points area east 67

PAGE 78

of the business district (Abbott et al. 1982:267). While legislation prohibited discrimination in public accommodations, blacks nevertheless, usually were excluded from white hotels, restaurants, and schools. Their occupational opportunities were limited to a few menial occupations: domestic servants, waiters, or Pullman porters (Fishman and Strauss 1989:632). The environment for racial separation and tensions was much like that of other parts of the nation during this period of migration and expansion of cities. Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans helped to shape the landscape of Denver and the West. Blacks have lived in Denver from its earliest years. Some, but not all were ex-slaves. By the 1920s, Denver's black population was concentrated in the Five Points area east of the business district. "Five Points was the center of black life in Denver for most of the its early history. Within their own isolated enclave, this neighborhood had black owned businesses including drug stores, restaurants, cab companies, and more. The Casino Cabaret and the Rosonian were popular night clubs where Black people went to dance and listen to good music" (Howard 1991: 16). The experience for the blacks who migrated to Denver has not been different from that of blacks who migrated to other major American cities. In a story of her family's history in the West, Sammie May Williams described Denver as a de facto segregated city. She, and most of the people she knew, worked as domestic servants in the homes of Whites. "They didn't even allow you to walk across York. Blacks had to sit in the balconies of theaters. Black people couldn't eat in downtown restaurants. 68

PAGE 79

And if you worked downtown you had to bring your lunch and eat it in a stairwell or wherever they (whites) allowed you to eat" (Howard 1991 :16). In the first two decades of the twentieth century, Denverites moved outwards from the core city creating expanding suburbs which served to deepen the city's social economic, and ethnic divisions. Newer immigrantspredominantly from Southern Europe and Scandinavia-lived in ethnic enclaves near the stockyards, foundries, railroad shops, packing plants and smelters where they worked. The large immigrant population in Denver led to a growth in nativism. In the 1920's the Klu Klux Klan had greater popular strength in the city and even acceptance by the political establishment. In this period and the following two decades, the key to politics was a conservative "fundamentalism" reflecting small town values (Abbott et al. 1982:267). Post-W.W.II Denver and the Expansion of Schools Depression in the early 30's affected the District Number One's schools. The city's assessed valuation fell, and the citizens voted down a bond issue for school buildings in 1938. Attention was focused on W.W.II, and from 1930-1946, a no-expansion pol icy seemed to be in effect, no schools were built for sixteen years. Between 1940 and 1970 the population and economy of Denver expanded significantly. The "queen city" attracted new business and a growing service economy which grew out of the outdoors tourist industry. 69

PAGE 80

The service economy and the outdoors tourist industry attracted new residents. However, the influx of high technology business benefited the metropolitan area rather than Denver proper. Between 1950 and 1970, the suburbs grew by two and one half times (Abbott et al. 1982: 280). A steady flow of new citizens increased the need for additional funding to alleviate overcrowding on the strained school system. In 1947, a new superintendent arrived in Denver who was to have a significant impact on shaping the school district. Dr. Kenneth Oberholtzer, a nationally recognized educator, brought a critical awareness of educational issues and optimism to the schools of post-war Denver. Dr. Oberholtzer found a school district with about 48,000 children, but lacking in community support or attention. As he surveyed his new work environment he found old, run down schools, inadequate curricula, and an electorate that hadn't voted in favor of a bond issue for years. Questioning whether the citizenry truly cared about its schools, Dr. Oberholtzer convinced voters to provided funding for expanding the school system to meet the growing needs of the community. He would be superintendent for the district from 1947-1967, and fashion a school district which would be nationally recognized (Taylor: 1990:46). Post-war governance in the Denver public schools was like that reflected across the nation. Educational issues were popularly viewed as apolitical, or a least non-partisan, and mostly of interest to older people, women or families with children. Few people showed much interest in how the schools were run. School board membership was the province of a 70

PAGE 81

small cadre of the town's elite, people who were recognized members of the community's power structure (/d., at 46). As the city grew, so did surrounding suburban development in the 1950s and 1960s. As Anglo populations migrated to outlying areas, Black and Hispanic populations migrated into those areas of the city in which housing was affordable and jobs were available. Blacks continued to converge around the Five Points business district, which extended east of the central business district. With the end of W. W.ll, blacks also moved slowly east from the Five Points area into the more middle class Park Hill area, a trend that formed the underpinnings of the Keyes case. These inner city areas were up to fifty per cent or more black. This also reflected the growing black middle-class in Denver composed of ex-military and the migration in of black professionals from the South seeking relief from the blatant display of racism and discrimination. To the dismay of these modern day pioneers, there would be no hiding place from the barriers of race in this Northern promised land. Discrimination and segregation in housing, schooling, and employment would eventually stir Denver's growing black population as it did in cities throughout the nation. Evidence of Racial Segregation In Denver Schools Although the battle for school integration in Denver was not fully launched until 1968, the climate momentum had been building through out the 1950s and 1960s. Newspaper accounts regarding the emergence of 71

PAGE 82

this issue indicate that a series of boundary changes resulting from the construction of a new high school in 1953, which provoked protest from the black community, as did a 1957 school boundary change (Denver Post, April 9, 1959). Protest mounted once again in 1959, after the Board of Education approved preliminary plans for the construction of a new elementary school in the section of northeast Denver known as Park Hill. Critics of the plan said that the construction site would lead to the creation of an all-black school. Despite the opposition, Barrett Elementary School was built and became overwhelmingly black in its student population. For years there had been controversy about the gerrymandering techniques utilized by the Board of Education and the administration for assigning students to schools. "One technique was the construction of schools in locations which predictably became racially segregated on the basis of a long apparent trend in black population movement. A second technique was the establishment of school attendance zones, which assigned black pupils to predominantly minority schools. A third technique was the use of mobile classroom units to accommodate the overcrowding at minority schools rather than assign these students to any underutilized schools in Anglo neighborhoods" (Pearson and Pearson 1978: 181 ). In 1962, Dr. Oberholtzer presented a new school construction plan which sparked controversy. The plan called for a new junior high school to be built in northeast Denver which would result in an all-black student population. As a result of these proposals for new construction and boundary changes, the segregation of the Denver Public School became a 72

PAGE 83

concern of several Denver organizations, including traditional civil rights agencies like the Urban League, CORE, the NAACP, and the Anti Discrimination Commission. The churches in the black community also organized to help solidify opposition to the plan. In addition to the African American community's reaction, churches and neighborhood organizations from the diverse Park Hill neighborhood became central actors in the desegregation controversy. One of the most active neighborhood associations was the Park Hill Action Committee (PHAC). This bi-racial organization was formed in 1960 to address issues impacting the changing nature of the schools, housing discrimination, and the flight of whites from the neighborhood in the wake of the black in migration to Park-Hill, which had been occurring since the late 1950's. (League of Women Voters 1976: 8) As a result of the growing controversy, and the fear of repeating violent incidents of other desegregating schools districts, the plans for the construction of the school were suspended and a special study committee was created in 1962. This group of citizens, board members, and professional staff, were known as the Special Study Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity in the Denver Public Schools. "The members of the committee brought with them the diverse attitudes of various segments of the total Denver community-geographic, economic, racial, ethnic-ranging from pride in the status quo and objection to change, through various shades of interest without particular opinion, to feelings that real inadequacies existed, with strong desires for change" (Special Committee Report 1964:1 ) 73

PAGE 84

There were two separate but related on which the committee focused. One was the education of the urban disadvantaged child ; the other, the problem of the effect of racial segregation on the educational process. The charge of the committee was "to study and report on the present status of educational opportunity in the Denver Schools, with attention to racial and ethnic factors in the areas of curriculum, instruction and guidance; pupils and personnel' buildings, equipment, libraries and supplies, administration and organization; school community relations, and to recommend improvements in any or all of such areasn (Special Committee Report 1964 : 9) After nearly two years of study, interviews, surveys, consultant input meetings, and deliberations, the Committee released its report to the community in February of 1964 The report contained approximately 155 recommendations for improving educational opportunity in minority schools The Committee found that generally the Board of Education and the administration, principals, and teachers throughout the system shared a concern for the "disadvantagedn child, but that this concern has not been generally translated into effective action at the pupil level (!d., at: D-4 ). The report also criticized the board's unwritten boundary policies as designed to perpetuate racial isolation, as well as, the concentration of minority faculty at minority schools. The findings regarding the recruitment, assignment, and transfer patterns of minority faculty were most glaring The committee found that: While precise statistics are not available, the Committee believes that almost all of Denver's Negro teachers were initially assigned to schools having a high proportion of Negro students. 74

PAGE 85

I I A few have been transferred to other schools. As a result of its interviews, the Committee is convinced that race has been relevant in the assignment of teachers. It appears that the administration has been extremely reluctant to place Negro and Spanish American teachers in predominantly white schools because of concern with a possible lack of acceptance on the part of the white neighborhood and a realistic assessment of the possible lack of support by some principals and faculties (ld., at D-13). In reporting 1963 statistics on the distribution of teachers of minority background, the Committee found that 225 out of 3708 teachers on contract were Negroes, and out of this number (225), 165 or nearly 75 percent of all the Negro teachers were assigned to schools in predominantly Negro schools. (Special Report 1964: Appendix 36). The remainder were sprinkled in sparse numbers throughout the rest of the city. The committee also concluded that segregated schools resulted in inequality of educational opportunity and recommended a policy of considering racial and ethnic factors in setting boundaries to minimize segregation. At the same time the report upheld the neighborhood school concept and rejected as impractical the transportation of pupils for the purpose of integrating school populations. Policy 5100 was adopted in May 1964, which upheld the principle of educational equality and cited the desirability of reducing concentrations of racial and ethnic minority groups in the schools. It also established the first "school choice" movement in the city with an open-enrollment program designed to reduce racial imbalance. "The plan permitted parents to file 75

PAGE 86

I transfer requests to fill approximates 1,809 places, some 2 percent of the public school enrollment. Students were required to provide their own transportation. Aside from this limited program of school choice nothing else was undertaken to implement a policy of heterogeneous schools" (Pearson and Pearson 1978: 182). Critics of this "plan" insisted that it did little to impact the increasingly visible inequalities in the schooling of black and Anglo students. Moreover, in the significant Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 420 (1968), the Court ruled that the "freedom of choice" concept was unconstitutional as long as a basically dual system resulted. The Judges found that school choice plans were limited in their ability to end segregation or promote equal educational opportunity. Part of the limitation Denver and other districts' experienced with school choice, was the fact that around the country blacks would typically choose to be with blacks, and whites with whites. With the Green case mere "deliberate speed" was no longer sufficient. The Court removed from blacks the onus of initiating school desegregation and placed it on local school boards. The burden on a school today, the Court said in Green, "is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises to realistically work now." (Green, 319 U.S. 430 (1968). 76

PAGE 87

The Politicization of the Board of Education As the issues regarding the segregation of the public schools made their way into the public discourse and politics of the city, sides were being formed on both sides of the issue. Old Guard vs. New Guard school board elections were drawing issues related to race and education into the political arena. In the fall of 1963, Frank Traylor, an old established member of the school board died. Three of the remaining "new guard" members saw this unfortunate passing as an opportunity to demonstrate their good faith to the minority community. For a number of reasons many feared that a black could never be elected to the board, and it was felt by these members that this was an opportune time to appoint a black to the board. In the search for a black person who could gain the acceptance of the entire community the name of Rachel Noel emerged in conversations and editorials. Mrs. Noel and her family migrated from the South in 1949 to this prosperous Northern setting seeking greater opportunities. She represented for many in her community and beyond, a standard of education, commitment, and elegance. As a leader in the black community, Mrs. Noel had been recognized for her contributions to education and other areas of community life. She had served as a member of the Special Study Committee, and was probably one of the most knowledgeable members of the black community regarding issues related to the segregation of the pubic schools. Old guard members of the board found numerous reasons for avoiding the appointment of Mrs. Noel to fill the empty position. The board 77

PAGE 88

. I I I I remained in a 3-3 deadlock for months. The lack of a seventh member meant that the tie couldn't be broken. The factions on the board, along with community members politicked on both sides of this appointment. With this delay, tensions grew deeper and the controversy surrounding segregation increased. Finally, on February 26, 1964, just days before the Special Study Committee Report was to be released, and 5 1/2 months after the position had opened, the papers announced that the board had decided to appoint Robert S. McCollum, vice-chancellor of the University of Denver, former businessman and city councilman as the candidate qualified to fill the vacant slot (Taylor 1990: 61 ). With a swell of community support, Noel decided to run for the board of education in 1965. The times were changing and a voice for equal educational opportunity for all of Denver's children had emerged. During the nearly six month delay in the board replacement decision, the nation had witnessed the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provided additional leverage for the struggle for equal educational opportunity. In the school board race of 1965, James Voorhees and Rachel Noel, both of whom had served on the Special Study Committee, were elected as board members with John Amesse, a doctor. Edgar Benton, who had previously been the lone ucivil rights liberal" on the board, was now joined by Mrs. Noel, the first black ever to be elected to the Denver Board of Education, and two other members sympathetic to minority pupil problems (Pearson and Pearson 1978: 183). 78

PAGE 89

1966-The Berge Study Committee The steady increase of blacks moving to northeast Denver meant an even greater concentration of minorities in the Park Hill Schools. School overcrowding, the use of mobile units, and unabated racial segregation led to increasing pressure from civil rights and black community leaders for action on these issues. Once again, the Denver Board of Education responded to the growing pressure to confront the challenge of segregation and equal educational opportunity by appointing another study committee. In February 1966, the Advisory Council on Equality of Educational Opportunity, was charged ... to examine the 'neighborhood school' policy in its application to building new schools and additions to relieve overcrowded schools in northeast Denver, and to suggest changes or new policies if needed necessary to eliminate 'de facto' segregation" (Advisory Council Report 1967:8). William Berge, an attorney was appointed as chairman of this committee. Bernie Valdez served as vice-chairman. Both of these men would later be elected to the Board of Education. A year later, in February of 1967, the Advisory Council released its final report. Although there wasn't a lot to distinguish it from the 1964 Special Committee Report, it did recommend that there be no construction of new schools in northeast Denver until a plan could be developed to reduce concentrations of minority pupils. The report also advocated that heterogeneity in schools be increased to improve the quality of education for all students. It suggested the establishment of special programs in schools that would attract a variety of students from diverse racial backgrounds, 79

PAGE 90

(precursor of magnet schools); the creation of an educational center, or a multipurpose building to which students would be drawn for special purposes (human relations contact); and the creation of superior programs in several all-black junior high schools. A member of the advisory council, Stephen Knight Jr. wrote a minority report which questioned the financial feasibility of transportation costs for busing and contested plans for an educational center (Advisory Council Report 1967:182). As a culmination of his protest, that spring (1967), Stephen Knight, along with like thinking William Berge, ran as candidates for the school board with the support of the conservative views and money of the Republican Party. The issue of busing in Denver began to show signs of becoming a partisan issue. Berge and Knight disagreed with the direction the board was moving. Although they replaced two fairly conservative members, the rhetoric surrounding the campaign was an indication that the citizens of Denver wanted an even more conservative board (Taylor 1990: 97). The community responded to their anti-desegregation campaign promise, and the more liberal opponents were defeated. The Civil Rights Movement and the Evolution of the Legal Response to Segregation in the Denver Schools In addition to the increasing politicization of the board, the battle over segregation and equal educational opportunity in Denver was also heightened as the Civil Rights movement swept the country. Events 80

PAGE 91

occurring 1965-67 pushed these issues to the forefront. In these years the interaction patterns of the school board changed, the silent majority began to speak out, and racial tensions increased at both local and national levels. During the summer of 1965, racial tensions were escalating in many urban centers. As racial issues intensified, so did the pressure to do something about them. In 1967, an ill-fated bond issue to relieve overcrowding became entrenched in the controversy over segregated schools. The Board had been discussing the need for a bond issue for five years to respond to the urgent facilities needs of the district. The issues related to minority schools had resulted in one delay after another; it never seemed to be the right time or place for building. Bill Berge made the motion to bring a bond issue to the voters with the intention of reinforcing the neighborhood school policy. But Rachel Noel attached an amendment to this motion, which effectively forbade "building, or additions to buildings, in the areas of high or growing minority concentrations." (Taylor 1990:100). Controversy regarding the Board's intentions, and vague plans caused the bond issue to be defeated soundly by a two-to-one margin. After the Watts riots of 1965, community meetings were held in Denver and racial issues moved beyond the classrooms into the community. There were new activist voices emerging from various directions in the community. The Black Muslims, the Black Panthers, and from the Hispanic community, Corky Gonzales and the Crusade for Justice were targeting school issues as key to their struggles. Where the push had always been 81

PAGE 92

for integration, these voices were urging segregation. They did not want to be absorbed into White America. They wanted to keep their heritage and separateness. As racial issues became "hot", it was no longer just minorities who began to stake out positions on racial issues. There was a fertile environment for all kinds of racially or ethnically aligned organizations. In 1968, the concerns and protests about the racial injustice in the schools reached an increased level. Several events were critical in raising the level of awareness about the impact of segregated and unequal schools For the first time the school administration released comparative achievement data to the public These scores disclosed not only a significant disparity between the achievement levels of predominantly Anglo and predominantly minority schools (Black and Hispanic), but they also reflected very low achievement levels at minority schools, which became lower as the minority children advanced through the grades. There was also more evidence that the predominantly minority schools had a disproportionate number of minority teachers, more probationary, and inexperienced teachers. These findings regarding minority teachers had been previously brought to light in the 1964 Special Committee Report. The sensitive climate of the country was brought to a head with the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. Student upheavals were breaking out in several schools. In order to quell the violence that was heightening in the schools and spilling over in to the community, members of several groups of different ethnic persuasions formed Citizens for One Community. This group presented a petition to the community calling for national unity 82

PAGE 93

and racial balance in the schools. The organization developed a large support base throughout the Denver community to garner support for the introduction of the Noel Resolution on April 25, 1968. This resolution instructed Superintendent Gilberts to develop a plan for integration by the upcoming fall. Thousands of middle class blacks and white from the Park Hill community attended the public meeting at which this resolution was introduced. This highly publicized event stirred the community, so much so, that the board voted to table the resolution for one month (Pearson and Pearson 1978: 184 ). During this time, the community was mobilizing in two directions. The administration building and homes of uncommitted school board members were picketed. Speak Out for Integration groups attempted to inform the public about the harmful effects of segregation. Community, religious, political, and social leaders were approached to support the resolution. Indeed, the Denver Chamber of Commerce, and the Denver City Council, among other organizations voted to support the resolution. Two nights before the May meeting, at which the Board would finally voted, additional pressure was applied to the situation when the association of black school teachers, Black Educators United, announced its intention to boycott the schools in support of the Resolution. On May 18, 1968, a bitterly divided Board of Education officially committed the school system to integration. With a vote of 5-2 the Board adopted the "Noel Resolution" (Resolution 1490), introduced by Rachel Noel, which called for a comprehensive plan for the integration of the Denver 83

PAGE 94

Public Schools. After this was enacted, the Board and the administration spent from January to April 1969 studying fourteen alternative plans for the integration of Denver's schools. Hearings were held, and expert testimony was brought to bear on both sides of the issue. After months of debate and deliberation, Resolutions 1520, 1524, and 1531 were passed with much controversy. These resolutions offered more than a mere philosophical commitment to integration by offering a concrete plan of action to lessen racial imbalance. The plan, a massive document with multiple parts, was presented to the Board in the fall of 1968, by the newly appointed Superintendent Gilberts. It was titled Planning Quality Education: A Proposal for Integrating the Denver Public Schools. and also known as the Gilberts' Plan. The plan was adopted in this school year and would spark intensified conflict and controversy. The plan was considered a first act of departure from the Board's prior undeviating policy of refusing to take any positive action that would bring about integration. The plan included a one-way busing of three thousand black students from inner city elementary, junior high, and high schools to predominantly Anglo schools in Southwest and Southeast Denver. (East, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Smiley, Cole, Hill Jr. High schools, and Barrett elementary). "The superintendent recommended against a program of massive cross-town (two-way) busing to achieve immediate racial balance, and insisted that such a program does not contain sufficient promise of long-range educational benefits" (Rocky Mountain News, October 11 1968). 84

PAGE 95

The impact of this resolution and the plans for integration were electric. A former superintendent of Denver schools, who was an administrator at the time of these changes, remembers the student riots at George Washington High School. [W]e had chairs thrown through the windows, we had dogs on campus, ambulances were called, some kids were hurt, fortunately not seriously. The faculty was frightened -terrified. They weren't prepared for this at all... We closed that school for six days. I spent all my time out there [working to] put that school back together. We put it on full split double session-ruined the athletic program, ruined activities-but we got it back together (Taylor 1990: 161). As controversy about the merits of the busing plan increased, the school board election in May of 1969 became the focal point of the busing issue The community was split as candidates on both sides of the busing issue emerged. The proponents and opponents of desegregation in Denver worked vigorously to get their points across to the public There was much at stake, and the election of a majority to the Board on either side of the issue, would be an important and determining factor for the future of the desegregation of the public schools. An incumbent, Edgar Benton, and a newcomer, Monte Pascoe, both backers of the Gilberts' Plan, were defeated soundly by anti-busing candidates Frank Southworth and James Perrill. Both Perrill and Southworth had promised the electorate that they would save the city from forced busing, and that their first official act would be to rescind the 85

PAGE 96

integrative pro-busing resolutions passed by the previous majority. Over 108,900 Denverites, more than half of those registered, participated in the election. Nearly every organization in Denver took a position on the issue. For the next decade, the issues of busing and integration would preoccupy Denver's political scene. Gordon Greiner, a young lawyer who was just a spectator at the time of the election recalled, "That the school board election in the spring of 1969 was probably one of the most bitter public events this community has ever gone through ... [l]t was kind of scary to see how polarized this community was" (Taylor: 1990: 138). On June 9, 1969, the Board of Education became a 4-3 anti-busing majority against compulsory integration. Resolutions 1520, 1524, and 1531, which evolved out of the Noel Resolution, were rescinded and superseded by Resolution 1533, which sought to achieve desegregation on a voluntary basis. The rescissions and adoption of the new resolution were brought with little study. The Board's justification for this action was a response to what they felt was a community mandate expressed in the school board election. This "mandate" was questioned by many who reminded the newly constructed board that only 50% of voters had a voice in this election. The disappointment and the changing mood of the community made it difficult for pro-integration forces to back the voluntary efforts proposed by Resolution 1533. On the night of the election of the two anti-busing members, it became clear to those who were pro-integration and equal opportunity, that a legal battle was on the horizon. It had become apparent to the pre-integration members of the community that the efforts to make 86

PAGE 97

changes through the political process had failed. Those pushing for a movement for equal educational opportunity felt that with these actions they would be left with nothing but token programs and a continuation of the status quo. Many people from the community who had coalesced during the election, were brought together to lay the groundwork for the litigation. Lawyers, Robert Connery, Craig Barnes, and Gordon Greiner were recruited by Fred N. Thomas, formerly the chairman of the vocal Park Hill Action Committee. Financial and community support was also garnered from the NAACP Legal Fund of New York. Holland and Hart, one of the largest law firms in town, provided support for the plaintiffs primary attorney Gordon Greiner. George Bardwell, a researcher from the University of Denver, helped to organize extensive information about the historical status of the district in regard to these issues. Ten days later on June 19, 1969, eight parents of Denver public school students sought to enjoin the implementation of Resolution 1533 and the rescission of Resolutions 1520. 1524, and 1531. The suit was filed in the name of Wilfred Keyes, a black podiatrist whose wife was a teacher in the district. It was well understood that this would be an unpopular case and that there would be a possibility of danger. Keyes and the other families were represented by a group of pro-integration Denver lawyers. The stage was being set for more than twenty-twenty five years of legal and political battles, and managerial experimentation with the provision of equal educational opportunity in the Denver schools. 87

PAGE 98

The Search for a Legal Remedy to Segregation in Denver Schools It would take approximately three years for the Denver desegregation case to move from the lower courts to the Supreme Court. Through a series of appeals and maneuvers on each side, the complaint and motion for preliminary injunction were filed simultaneously in the U.S. District Court on June 19, 1969. The complaint listed as plaintiffs eight individual citizens and residents of the city of Denver and their wards or children, who were students in the Denver Public Schools. Included were Blacks, Anglos, and Hispanics. Listed as defendants were the school district itself, the then superintendent Gilberts, and all the members of the School Board in their individual and official capacities with the exception of pro-integration board members Amesse, Voorhees, and Noel (Pearson and Pearson: 1978: 189). The plaintiffs action was brought as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure commencing Civil Action No. C-1499. The complaint stated two claims for relief. First that the rescission of the Resolutions 1520, 1524, and 1531, be temporarily and permanently enjoined, and second, a declaratory judgment that the rescission of the resolutions by the school board, constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The second claim for relief addressed itself to alleged segregation in the schools in the Park Hill neighborhood, which became known as the "core city" schools The initial hearing was expected to last two to three weeks. That would allow district administrators plenty of time to plan for the following school year. Though there had been repeated threats of a lawsuit through 88

PAGE 99

the years, the districts legal advisors were caught off guard. "While the plaintiffs had been studying the situation for years and had been actively considering whether or not a lawsuit was appropriate ... nobody in the school district was doing the same thing." (Taylor:1990:142). The hearings on the motion for the preliminary injunction were held before District Judge William E. Doyle. The conservative anti-busing board members were not happy that the case had been assigned to Doyle, who was considered by many to be one of the most liberal of the District Court judges in the nation. On July 31, 1969, by order and opinion, Judge Doyle granted the motion for preliminary injunction, declaring that he found illegal "de jure" segregation in the Denver schools. The judge grounded his decision in the applicable law set in the precedents of Brown (1954) and other desegregation cases. The judge found that: Admittedly, the facts of the case at bar are different from Brown, but the legal implications of the Brown case are fully applicable here. We have seen that during the ten year period preceding the passage of Resolutions 1520, 1524, and 1531, the Denver School Board has carried out a segregation policy. To maintain, encourage, and continue segregation in the public schools in the face of clear mandates of Brown v. Board of Education (Keyes 303 F. Supp. 279, at 286). Some of the findings which Judge Doyle felt demonstrated clear patterns of segregation reinforced by official action, and also showed knowing and purposeful conduct resulting in "de jure" action by the board included: 89

PAGE 100

1. All actions of the School Board here under consideration occurred during the last ten years. Thus, they took place long after the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S Ct. 686, 98 LEd 873 (1954). 2. The School Board Study Committees of 1964 and 1968 warned the members of the board of trends and strongly recommended measures which would avoid or remedy these conditions. The recommendations in the 1964 report were, for the most part, ignored, and this led to the appointment of a second implementation Committee which again was positive and specific in its recommendations. 3. During the entire decade, there was regular debate and although resolutions were adopted, no effective action occurred, and many of the actions which were taken had the effect of intensifying rather than alleviating the segregation problem. 4. Schools with predominantly minority student populations were shown to be staffed by a greater proportion of teachers on a probationary status, teachers with less than ten years experience and minority group teachers than were schools with a predominantly Anglo population( Keyes, 303 F. Supp. 279 at 284). Despite these findings, on appeal by the defendants, the 1Oth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings, holding that the injunctive order lacked "specificity". The following chronology constructed by Pearson and Pearson (1978: 192-93), provides a summary and chronology of the protracted journey of the 90

PAGE 101

initial litigation of the Keyes case. These researchers charted the path of this case through the U.S. court system, to the Supreme Court and back: August 7, 1969. The district court proceeded with hearings pursuant to the remand. August 14, 1969. The district court issued its supplemental findings, concluding and temporary injunction (303 F. Supp. 289). The defendants immediately applied to the Court of Appeals for a stay. August 27, 1969 The court of appeals stayed the preliminary injunction pending further review and order. Plaintiffs immediately moved the Supreme Court of the United States for an order vacating the stay of the Court of Appeals. August 29, 1969. Justice Brennan granted plaintiffs' motion for a stay (396 U.S. 1215) Justice Brennan's order vacating the stay of the Court of Appeals further directed the reinstatement of the preliminary injunction of the district court. February 2-20, 1970. Trial on the merits of Plaintiff's complaint before Judge Doyle. March 21, 1970. Pursuant to said trial, the district court entered its opinion and findings on the issues and made permanent the preliminary injunction. The court reserved ruling on remedies until consideration of proposed be submitted by both plaintiffs and defendants. May 10-20, 1970. The court held additional hearings on proposed remedial plans. May 21, 1970. The court issued an opinion regarding remedies (313 F. Supp.90). June 11, 1970. Pursuant to the order and opinion of March 21, 1979 and pursuant to the opinion regarding plans and remedies of May 21, the district court issued its final decree and judgment. Both the 91

PAGE 102

defendants and the Plaintiffs appealed the final decree and judgment to the court of Appeals. March 2, 1971. The Court of Appeals granted said motion for stay as to all judgment. March 26, 1971. The Court of Appeals granted said motion for stay as to all proceedings pertaining to the plain envisioned by the district courts final decree and judgment not yet implemented as of the date of the stay. Per curiam, the United State Supreme Court vacated the stay ordered by the Court of Appeals (402 U.S. 182). June 11, 1971. The court of appeals issued its opinion and judgment regarding the appeal and cross-appeal from the final decree and judgment of the district court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court in part and reversed and remanded in part to the district court.(445 F. 2nd 990). Plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and their petition for certiorari was granted. (404 U.S. 1036). October 12, 1972. Plaintiffs appeal was argued before the Supreme Court. June 21, 1973. The Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Brennan, modified the judgment of the Court of Appeals so as to vacate instead of reverse the relevant portions of the final decree of the district court (413 U.S.189). On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 1Oth Circuit Court's opinion. Keyes was the first non-southern case desegregation case to be decided by the Supreme Court. The majority found that where "school authorities had carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting a substantial portion of the students, schools, teachers, and facilities within the school system, it was only common sense to conclude that there exist[ed] a 92

PAGE 103

I I I predicate for a finding of a dual school system." (Keyes v. School District No. 1,413 U.S. 189 (1973). The Court further said: Where as here, the case involves one school board, a finding of intentional segregation on its part in one portion of a school system is highly relevant to the issue of the board's intent with respect to other segregated schools in the system. It establishes, in other words, a prima facie case of unlawful segregative design on the part of school authorities, and shifts to those authorities the burden of proving that other segregated schools within the system are not also the result of intentional segregative action (/d., at 207 -208). The purposeful concentration of minority students in certain schools did have the reciprocal effect of keeping other schools Anglo. The High Court established the presumption that the Board's negative acts in a substantial portion of the school district, rendered the entire district a dual system. It directed the district court, on remand, to offer the Board the opportunity to prove that the Park Hill areas was a separate, identifiable, and unrelated section of the district. In the event that the Board should fail in its proffer, the district court was to determine whether the Board's conduct, in deliberately segregating Park Hill schools, made the entire school system a dual system (/d., at 201 ). If so determined, the Board had the affirmative duty to desegregate the entire system root and branch. This case became significant in the context of the national movement for desegregation as the first ruling on desegregation in the North and West where there were no explicit statutes requiring segregation. This case is also noted for 93

PAGE 104

recognizing Latinos' right to desegregation, as well as that of African American students (Orfield and Eaton, 1996: xxii). On remand, and with additional hearings, Judge Doyle concluded that the segregative acts of the Board in Park Hill did constitute in the entire district, a dual school system. On December 13, 1973, pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court, the parties were ordered to submit plans for desegregation of the entire school district. After finding unacceptable the desegregation plans submitted by both the plaintiffs and defendants, the court appointed its own expert, Dr. John N. Finger, and thereafter approved Denver's first district-wide desegregation plan, known as the Finger Plan. (Keyes, 368 F. Supp.207 (D.Colo.1973). Throughout this initial period of litigation, violent modes of expressing opposition to the impending court-ordered desegregation plan flared throughout the city. In February 1970, shortly after Judge Doyle's first busing order, 46 buses were destroyed or damaged by dynamite blasts. Race-related tensions flared in various schools during the course of the controversy. Rachel Noel recalls the many nights that concerned friends would follow her home from board meetings to ensure that no harm would come to her. The latter part of 1973 saw the bombing of the school administration building, bombings at other school facilities, and letter bombs mailed to school board members. In addition, several key participants in the plaintiffs case were harassed by bomb threats and menacing phone calls. Plaintiff Wilfred Keyes was the victim of a bomb attack on his home. On June 9, 1974, shortly after system-wide busing of approximately 3,000 black 94

PAGE 105

I students was ordered, four flares taped together to imitate a bomb were found under the hood of a bus at the school bus lot which had been the site of the 1970 dynamite blast (Pearson and Pearson 1978: 208). In summary, this chapter has described the early history of Denver, its schools, and the segregative actions of the school district, which were finally challenged in the late fifties and early 1960s. The issue of desegregation, particularly the specter of busing, became a political issue which sparked racial hostilities and split the Denver community on opposite sides of the issue. The issue of busing also served to politicize the Board of Education and the educational decision making processes of the district, (i.e. community advisory committees). Superintendents and their administrations scrambled to manage these issues in the mist of political debate, factionalized board's of education, and threats of legal action. Frustrated with the inability of the political process to support the need to desegregate Denver's schools, legal action became the strategy for the AfricanAmerican community, its liberal allies, and eventually, the Hispanic community. The pressures of the civil rights movement, and growing racial tensions, challenged the Denver community, as they did in other parts of the country. Threats of violence to plaintiffs, school board members, and others spoke to the intensity of the impact of desegregation was to have on the Denver schools and community. Plans by both the plaintiffs and the defendant school district were submitted to the court and rejected. The busing plan was shaped by the court's outside "expert", Dr. Finger. This resulted in additional resistance 95

PAGE 106

and delay, as the buses to integrate Denver's schools began to transport black students to majority Anglo schools. This was only the beginning of the litigation, politics, and managerial challenges that desegregation would present for the next two decades. 96

PAGE 107

REFERENCES-CHAPTER Ill Abbott, Carl, Stephen Leonard and David McComb. 1982. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. (rev. ed.). Boulder, Co.: Associated University Press: 267, 280,288. Fishman, James J. and Lawrence Strauss. 1989. "Endless Journey: Integration and the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunity in Denver's Public Schools/ A Study of Keyes v. School District No. 1". Howard Law Journal 32: 627-728. Howard, Cedric J. 1998. "Denver Has it Share of Black History". Urban Spectrum (February 1998), vol. 10, No. 11: 16. Katz, William Loren, 1996. The Black West. A Documentary and Pictorial History of the African American Role in the Westward Expansion of the United States. New York Touchstone: 298, 307. League of Women Voters. 197 4 (revised 1976). A Composite View of Denver's School Desegregation. Denver, Co: League of Women Voters: 8. McKeever, Gene, Kenton Forrest and Raymond McAllister. 1989. History of the Public Schools of Denver. Denver: Tramway Press, Inc.: 4, 5, 12. Orfield, Gary and Susan E. Eaton. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.: xxii. Pearson, Jessica and Jeffrey Pearson. 1978. "Keyes v. School District No. 1." In Howard Kalodner, ed. Umits of Justice: The Role of the Court in School Desegregation. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co.: 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 192-193, 208 .. Smiley, Jerome C. ed. 1901. History of Denver. Denver, Co.: Denver, Times-Sun Publishing: 732, 735. Taylor, Mary Jean. 1990. "Leadership Responses to Desegregation in the Denver Public Schools, A Historical Study: 1959-1977". Ph. D. diss., University of Denver.: 46, 61, 69, 97, 100, 138, 142, 161. 97

PAGE 108

Cases Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown 1), 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955). Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) Keyes v. School District No. 1, 303 F. Supp. 279, *284 (D. Colo. 1969). Keyes v. School District No.1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973) (Keyes II) Keyes v. School District No. 1, 303 F. Supp. 289 (D. Colo. 1969) (Keyes Ill) Keyes v. School District No. 1,396 U.S. 1215 (1969) (Brennen. J., in chambers) ("Keyes Ill"). Keyes v. School District No. 1, 313 F. Supp. 61 (D. Colo. 1970) ("Keyes IV'); Newspaper Articles Denver Post, April 9, 1959. Rocky Mountain News, October 11, 1968. Archival Documents Special Study Committee on Equality of Educational Opportunity in the Denver Public Schools. Report and Recommendations to the Board of Education, School District Number 1.( Denver, Colorado, March 4, 1964): 1, 9, D-4, D-13, Appendix 36. Advisory Council on Equality of Educational Opportunity in the Denver Public Schools. Final Report and Recommendations to the Board of Education, School District No. 1 (Denver, Colorado, February 1967): 8, 182. Superintendent's Report. (Gilberts) Planning Quality Education: A Proposal for Integrating the Denver Public Schools. (Denver, Colorado, October, 1968). Policy 5100, Equal Educational Opportunity Policy, adopted May 1964. Board Resolution, 1490 (Noel Resolution) Board Resolutions 1520, 1524, 1531 (Implementation resolutions for Resolution 1490). Board Resolution 1533 (Rescinded and superseded Resolutions 1520,1524, and 1531. 98

PAGE 109

I I I I I i I I I I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER IV ELUSIVE EQUALITY: THE STRUGGLE TO IMPLEMENT COURT ORDERED DESEGREGATION (1973-1983) The Decision Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. This school desegregation case concerns the Denver, Colorado, school system. That system has never been operated under a constitutional or statutory provision that mandated or permitted racial segregation in public education. Rather, the gravamen of this action, brought in June 1969 in the District Court for the District of Colorado by parents of Denver school children, is that respondent School Board alone, by use of various techniques such as the manipulation of school attendance zones, school site selection, and a neighborhood school policy, created or maintained racially or ethnically segregated schools throughout the school district. (Keyes v. School District No.1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973). The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the Keyes case in the fall and winter of 1972. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Keyes was the first ruling on desegregation in the North and West, where there were no explicit statutes requiring segregation. Under Keyes, school districts were responsible for policies that resulted in racial segregation in the schools, including the construction of schools in racially isolated neighborhoods and gerrymandering attendance zones. Once intentional segregation was found 99

PAGE 110

in part of a district, the whole district was presumed to be illegally segregated. The implications of Keyes were felt nation-wide. A decision in Keyes was expected to establish a far-reaching precedent, particularly for segregation in the North. And Southerners were delighted to see their self righteous Northern counterparts on the spot for a change (Wilkinson 1979). Although the ruling was not unanimous, (i.e. Rehnquist's dissenting opinion and White's absence from this vote), the Justices chose to address a limited issue, one that had direct and clear implications for desegregation in Denver, and across the nation. The high court did not take issue with the findings of the lower court, nor did it even mention the issue of busing. Rather, the Court addressed the question of whether the District Court and the Court of Appeals had applied the correct legal standard in their determinations. The majority opinion Supreme Court ruling on Keyes reversed the decision of the District Court. The District Court had concluded its finding of a purposeful and systematic program of racial segregation affecting thousands of students in Park Hill, did not, in itself, impose on the school Board an affirmative duty to eliminate segregation throughout the school district. Instead, the court fractionated the district, and held that its finding of intentional segregation in Park Hill was not in any sense material to the question of segregative intent in other areas of the city (Alexander and Alexander 1980: 426). The High Court insisted that the lower court ruling misread the principle of law, and that the intentional segregation in Park Hill 100

PAGE 111

. I I I could not be separated out and made distinct from segregation in other parts of the city. The Supreme Court also made several points of clarification in this case which would provide the legal framework for the continuing battles over desegregation and equal opportunity in Denver and across the nation. The first issue, relates to the distinction between de jure and de facto segregation. De facto segregation is not unconstitutional whether it occurs in the South or in the North. The fundamental distinction between de jure and de facto segregation is the purpose or intent to segregate. The Supreme Court summarized the constitutional standard in the Denver case: ... we have held that where plaintiffs prove that a current condition of segregated schooling exists within a school district where a dual system was compelled or authorized by statute at the time of our decision in Brown ... the State automatically assumes an affirmative duty to "effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system ... ( 413 U.S. 203 (1973). If school authorities practice purposeful segregation, then a de jure condition exists and the school district is then required to take affirmative measures to correct racial imbalance in the schools. School board actions in this legal framework may have the effect of creating unconstitutional de jure segregation (Alexander and Alexander 1985:425). With Keyes, the distinction between de jure and de facto segregation would become a legal and political point of contention in desegregation cases. A major impact of this case is that it would eventually shift the onus of the burden of proof to the plaintiffs. It would become increasing 101

PAGE 112

problematic and difficult to prove the intent to discriminate as school district officials in Denver and elsewhere, would become more astute in avoiding actions, which would provide plaintiffs with this proof. This "burden of proof criteria would provide a formidable barrier for future desegregation litigation and the dismantling of desegregation across the country. A second issue which made Denver unique, was that it became the first desegregation case to address the tri-ethnic composition of a school district. The Judges recognized that: Denver is a tri-ethnic, as distinguished from bi-racial, community. The overall racial and ethnic composition of the Denver public schools is 66 percent Anglo, 14 percent Negro, and 20 percent Hispano. We conclude ... that the District Court erred in separating Negroes and Hispanos for the purposes of defining a "segregated school. We have held that Hispanos constitute an identifiable class for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S. Ct.667, 98 ,LEd. 866 (1954) ... 1n fact, the District Court itself recognized that "one of the things which the Hispano has in common with the Negro is economic and cultural deprivation and discrimination.n 313 F. Supp., at 69. This is agreement that, though of different origins, Negro and Hispanos in Denver suffer identical discrimination in treatment when compared with the treatment afforded Anglo students. In that circumstance, we think petitioners are entitled to have schools with a combined predominance of Negro and Hispanos included in the category of nsegregated" schools. Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973). Hispanic interests would further complicate school desegregation in Denver and in other parts of the nation. The interests of Hispanics would 102

PAGE 113

often differ from those of both blacks and whites. Many Hispanics did not want desegregation, which they perceived to be disruptive of Hispanic communities and bi-lingual educational programs. Hispanic leader Bernie Valdez, who serve on the School Board in the 1970s commented that: You see Hispanics as a group have never been very much pro-busing, pro-integration, forced integration. They believe in integration, but they believe in it taking place more naturally. And the reason for this is that Hispanics haven't had the degree of discrimination that Blacks have had. And there is a different psyche about Hispanics' feelings about themselves and what Blacks feel about themselves. Its difficult to explain that unless you're one, very difficult. As a consequence, they don't feel the same compulsion to be mixed with Anglos ... I think by and large, Hispanics think that they can do it even in their segregated communities. They feel their segregation is voluntary. And that has something to do with a cultural pattern and their family strains and all of those things go way back ... centuries. So that gives a different psychological evaluation of where you are ... Then comes busing, which catches them in the middle. They really not part of the whole court situation at all, they got caught in the middle. (Valdez interview, in Fishman and Strauss, 1989: FN: 25: 634). Hispanics would enter the case as plaintiff-intervenors, but their educational agenda focused on bilingual-bicultural issues. Hispanics did not want, any more than blacks did, to be excluded from the resources and opportunities of the school district. But the differing views on desegregation would add another layer of complexity to the planning and implementation of desegregation plans. 103

PAGE 114

The Supreme Court remanded the case back to Judge Doyle at the District Court with the following directions as to what should be done next. The District Court was ordered to: 1.) provide the district with an opportunity to prove that there were reasons to treat Park Hill as a separate, identifiable, and unrelated section; 2.) determine if the segregative policies used in Park Hill made the whole district a" dual" system; and 3.) give the board an opportunity to prove that their policies relative to the core city schools, had been free of intent to segregate. The District Court also ordered the development of a plan which would eliminate illegal segregation root and branch" (Keyes, 368 F. Supp. 209). There was a significant amount discontent regarding the Court's ruling from both sides of the issue. Some felt that the judges had gone to far, others felt that the Court had not gone far enough. The issue that had stirred such deep reservoirs of emotion, i.e. busing, was not even mentioned in the Court's ruling. It actually wasn't necessary to address the issue of busing. Earlier decisions of the Court, particularly Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenberg, 402 U.S. 1 (1973), had already legitimized busing as a judicial tool for desegregation (Schwartz 1986: 36). The remand trial was held by Judge Doyle in early December 1973, with the Board still insisting that Park Hill was different from the rest of the city. On December 13, 1973, the court ordered the parties to submit plans for desegregation of the entire school district. Hearings were conducted February through March 1974, regarding proposed desegregation plans. In these hearings the plaintiffs submitted two plans; the defendant school 104

PAGE 115

district submitted a plan; and court-appointed consultant John Finger was also asked to submit a plan. An additional plan complementary to the plaintiffs, was developed by Dr. John Cardenas and submitted by the Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE). There was controversy and criticism of all of the plans presented to the court. In pointing out the inadequacy of the specific p!ans, Judge Doyle found that the plan presented by the plaintiffs met constitutional standards for desegregating a dual system, the excessive and long bus rides made it unreasonable. The plaintiff's plans were, according to the Judge, "unduly complex and unadaptable to Denver's segregation problem." (Denver Post, Sunday May 5, 197 4: 77}. In more serious objections to the plan presented by the school district, the Judge found that this plan was" unconstitutional and equitably defective." The plan was criticized for the closing of inner city schools, and the continued operation of a dual system. After finding unacceptable the desegregation plans submitted by both the plaintiffs and defendants, the court turned to its own expert, Dr. John Finger. In relating to the public the legal and factual necessity for the court to fashion a plan, the Judge related the following: In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S.1 (1971 ), the problem of an uncooperative Board of Education was present just as it is here. The Supreme Court pointed out that the school board has the obligation to desegregate a dual school system and to produce a sufficient desegregation plan. 105

PAGE 116

The court ordered the professional staff of the school board to present certain work-ups and in response to these orders there were some submissions but the court found it impossible to work with the board in the preparation of a plan much less have the board do it because of their adamant opposition to any kind of scheme which called for transportation. Indeed, at the March trial the individual board members made it clear that they would oppose any plan (including their own) which made provision for busing. Minority members did not hold this view, but this was of no aid in obtaining production of a plan. The present attitude is nothing new because throughout this litigation the board has had fairly much the same approach. During this time opposition to busing has been exploited as a political issue and the board has steadfastly refused to take any action which might compromise its position in this regard. (April 8, 197 4, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 380 F Supp. 684). The impatient judge related to the Board that, "The Supreme Court has already said several times that what happens in one school affects another. Unless you can prove that the area outside Park Hill was not segregated by the same plan and design that you segregated the Park Hill Schools, which you have the burden to do, then you have a dual system." (ld ,at 685). 106

PAGE 117

The Finger Plan: The Initial Remedy 1974-76 Implementation of the Finger Plan was mandated for the 1974-75 school year. The desegregation plan adopted by the district court would contain a variety of measures. The central features of this plan contained four different procedures for integrating the Denver Public Schools: a.) All the schools have been rezoned through a computerized system for pupil accounting. This involves a grid system in which the center of each block in the city has coordinates and the information regarding the pupils living in that block are linked to the coordinates. b.) Some schools have been integrated by "short" busing of minority students. c ) Some schools have been integrated by receiving minority students who attend junior and senior high school in their home district. d.) 12,000 students are involved in a classroom pairing plan (The Finger Plan in Superintendent's Report, May 197 4:1) The logistics alone were enough to provide a managerial nightmare. Schools at the elementary, junior and senior high levels were rezoned to provide approximately 10,000 students with a walk in integrated school experience Approximately 37 elementary schools were organized in pairs or cluster for purposes of part-time reassignment of students on a classroom basis. This required transportation of students from their home schools to a receiving school for half days plus the lunch period. They would then be returned to their neighborhood school. A child would be in a "receiving" 107

PAGE 118

class some days, and in a sending class on others. Other elementary schools with about 4,300 pupils were to be integrated with short busing runs (Fishman and Strauss 1989:644). The court set a 40 percent minimum percentage and a 70 percent maximum percentage of Anglo students in every elementary school. In the secondary schools the minimum was set at 50 to 60 percent angles (Keyes, 521 F. 2d, 475 (1Oth Cir.1975). Deviations were permitted from those percentages in particular cases. One notable exception to the percentage guidelines, were the eight elementary schools with majority Hispanic pupil populations. The departure from the court's guidelines was justified for five of these schools, on grounds related to the school's accessibility and the desire to continue and expand bilingual-bicultural programs at these predominately Hispanic schools. The minority enrollments at these schools was projected to be between 77 and 88 percent (Keyes, 380 F. Supp. 692 (D. Colo. 1974). The plan also called for busing approximately 1,100 minority students (mostly black) from northeast to southeast Denver. Finger insisted that, "These students will bear a heavy burden in bringing about integration in Denver." (Finger Plan, Superintendents Report's 1974:1 ). And indeed they did. Black students would continue to bear the bulk of the burden of busing for the sake of integration. Provisions in relation to transportation, parental involvement were included to ease the "burden" of this more long distance busing. 108

PAGE 119

In addition to permanently enjoining the defendant school district from "discriminating on the basis of color in the operation of the school district ", the court reminded the defendants that the "duty imposed by law and by this Order is the desegregation of schools and the maintenance of that condition. The defendants were encouraged to use their full "know how" and resources to attain the described results, and thus to achieve the constitutional end by any legal means at their disposal. The other key provisions of the decree included: 1. Voluntary Open Enrollment. The Board was instructed to hold in abeyance its voluntary open-enrollment program pending resolution of various details of the Finger Plan and transfer procedures. 2. Collateral Services. The board was instructed to maintain "to the extent feasible", on-going programs of "collateral" services" such as hot breakfast programs, free lunches, tutorial programs, health services, remedial and compensatory education programs. 3. Busing. The Board was instructed to file plans with the court and to make immediate purchases of equipment for implementation of the busing required in the Finger Plan. 4 In Service-Teacher Training. The board was instructed to implement its own proposals for orientation and training of parents, pupils, school personnel, and staff as proposed to the district court. 5. Monitoring Commission. This key aspect if the decree required both parties to submit to the court nominees for appointment to a commission, initially to serve until June 1, 1975, at the expense of 109

PAGE 120

the district, to act as a liaison between the court and the "community" as to such matters as: coordination of community efforts to implement the plan, community education, receipt and consideration of criticism and suggestions from the community regarding the plan; assisting the community in working out programs with the school administration; reporting to the court as to the nature and resolution of such problems; and generally reporting on a periodic basis to the court about the implementation of the plan. 6. Bilingual-Bicultural Education. The School district was ordered to implement the model plan presented by Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE) or a plan "substantially and materially similar." Retaining a qualified consultant to develop the program and implement the plan on a pilot basis at three elementary and one junior high and high school. 7. New School Construction. The defendants were enjoined from locating new schools or additions thereto in a manner conforming to patterns of residential segregation and were required to submit all plans for new schools or additions to the court, with notice to counsel for the plaintiffs and provision for hearings to air objections within thirty days on reporting to the court. 8. Reporting. The court set forth formal and detailed reporting requirements on a monthly schedule beginning May 1, 197 4, through September of 197 4 as to plans and administrative details, regarding implementation of the Finger Plan. 110

PAGE 121

. I 9. Additional Reporting. The defendants were instructed to report within thirty days of the commencement of the fall semester in 197 4 and the second semester in 1975 on an extensive array of statistical phenomena including ethnic distribution of teachers, distribution of tenured and probationary teachers, student dropouts, the number and nature of special administration hardship transfers, and actions taken to implement the bilingual-bicultural program. 1 0. Desegregation of faculty and Staff. The school district was instructed in detail as to the permissible standards for assignment of faculty and staff among all schools in the district and required to implement immediately affirmative action programs for hiring minority teachers, staff, and administrators with the objective of attaining a ratio of Hispano and black personnel within the district which corresponded more with their populations in the district. 11 Foot Dragging. The board was instructed to take steps to prevent the frustration, hindrance or avoidance of this decree, particularly with regard to spurious transfer and falsification of residence to avoid assignment. 12. Harassment. Any attempt to hinder, harass, intimidate, or interfere with the School board, its members, agents, servants, or employees in execution of this order shall be reported to the Department of Justice through the U.S. Attorney of the District of Colorado (Keyes, 380 F. Supp. 705). 111

PAGE 122

The District was also ordered to pay the consultant fees of Dr. Finger and to pay an award of attorney's fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys which had accrued since the beginning of the case in June of 1969. In addressing the issue of the flexibility and discretionary limits of the decree, the judge noted that: If the defendants are uncertain concerning the meaning or intent of the plan they should apply to the Court for interpretation and clarification. It is not intended that the school authorities be placed in a single "strait jacket" in the administration of the plan, but it is essential that the Court be informed of any proposed departure from the sanctioned program. The Court is committed to the principle of the plan, but it is not inflexible concerning the details. (Keyes, 380 F. Supp. 673). The defendants were encouraged to use their full "know how" and resources to attain the described results. Yet despite what seemed to be an openness to Board and staff details for the implementation of the plan, the Board of Education requested a stay of the Court's Order. The stay was denied by the District Court and the Appeals Court. An appeal was then filed with the U.S. Circuit Court (1Oth Circuit). Immediately following the issuance of this decree, the Board of Education voted to appeal this decision and its plans for busing thousands of students to the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Superintendent Louis Kishkunis in reporting to the public on the progress of these issues stated that, "The Board recognized that an appeal would be indefinite, both in terms of time and results. In the interim, the implementation of the Court Order requiring several months of 112

PAGE 123

advance preparations must go forward. The Board instructed my staff and me to do all in our power to see that preparations were made. We have done so.n (Superintendent's Report, September 1974:1 ). In addressing the teachers and staff, Kishkunis insisted that, [I] admit I don't like the court order ... but it is a fact of life and we are professionals and are bound to implement it in good order ... There will be some soft spots, some inadvertent errors or oversights ... but we cannot allow ourselves any alibis or excuses. Whatever the reason, what ever the cause we must make certain that no critic can say that we didn't prepare, that we didn't have the ability and most emphatically that we didn't care.n (Denver Post, August 30, 1974). Each of the provisions of the court-fashioned desegregation plan would require the Superintendent and his staff to prepare the district for these changes, and to attempt to create an organization that could be responsive to these new challenges. Response to the Board's Appeal1Oth Circuit The Board of Education appealed the decision of district Judge Doyle to implement the Finger Plan for desegregation. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed most of the desegregation plan, but rejected the part-time pairing plan as constitutionally inadequate and ordered implementation of a full time plan for the desegregation of the Denver schools. The judges found that: In the present case, the court's part-time pairing plan would leave most participating minority schools intensely segregated during 113

PAGE 124

periods of instruction in basic subjects. Since we believe this lapse would seriously deprive minority pupils of an education equal to that provided in the Distr:ct's other schools, we must remand for implementation of a full-time desegregation program within a reasonable time and in accord with changing conditions Keyes, 521 F. 2d. 479 (10th Cir. 1975). In addition to this adjustment, the Circuit court reversed an order to consolidate two of the high schools. It also faulted the Finger Plan for leaving five elementary schools as segregated Hispanic schools. The court found that the five schools were substantially disproportionate in their racial composition, each with a Hispanic majority of 77 to 88 percent. The circuit court ruled that bilingual-bicultural education was not a substitute for desegregation, and such instruction had to be subordinate to a plan of school desegregation. Referring to the decision in Swan they found that, "The continued segregation of students at these schools must therefore be justified either on the grounds that practical or other legitimate considerations render desegregation unwise, or on the basis of proof that the racial compositions of these schools is not the result of past discriminatory action on the part of the board." Keyes, 521 F.2d. 470, n. 15 (1Oth Cir. 1975). The Circuit Court remanded this issue to Judge Doyle. And in an order entered on March 26, 1976, the five predominantly Hispanic elementary schools were included in the overall desegregation plan. Instead of finding some level of "relief' to the district in its appeal of the implementation of the desegregation plan, the remedy was further 114

PAGE 125

expanded and required additional busing. According to Willis Hawley, later a court appointed expert: After full implementation of the desegregation plan in 1975 Denver achieved approximately eighty-five percent of possible district wide racial balance. In subsequent years, level of racial balance increased. Prior to the implementation of the plan, eleven of Denver's 119 schools had enrollments that were more than ninety -percent minority. Twenty-one percent of the district's minority-student population attended these schools. By 1976, Denver had eliminated all eleven schools with such a minority population (Hawley et. al. 1983: 36). This initial"remedy" to the segregation of Denver's schools, would be plagued by controversy and politics, and would set the stage for over twenty years of court supervised desegregation. All the administrative "know how" of the superintendent and his administrative staff, would not be enough to prepare the school district and community for what would lie ahead. In Denver, the period following the court decision to impose school desegregation and busing, was one of the most tumultuous for the city and its schools. Several events and actors, were pivotal in shaping the impact the case would have. Changes in the leadership of the board and superintendents, volatile board politics, intervention of state officials, and yet another escalation in racial tensions created a climate in which the goals of equal educational opportunity envision by those who brought Brown, Keyes, and other desegregation cases would be lost. The impact of the political, 115

PAGE 126

legal, and managerial dynamics on the processes of school desegregation are clearly demonstrated in this period. The Politics of Busing The "politicizationn of desegregation and provision of equal opportunity in the Denver schools via the "busingn issue began in the mid sixties with the findings of the Special Committee. The 1969 school board election was a watershed. From then on, elections became ideological battlegrounds centered on the issue of busing. Busing continued to be an issue reflected in board politics throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s, ebbing and flowing, sharpening in intensity and then softening-but always there. Still some Denver residents say that one of the remedy's major obstacles had been a recalcitrant school board under intense political pressure from the community at large not to implement a less than popular court ordered busing plan. Although not all Denver School Board members have opposed busing as a way to integrate schools, the conflict between the proand anti-busers was played out in the local media and impeded the remedy's implementation (Fishman and Strauss 1989: 661 ). "The busing issue had become something of a pariah to politicians. Politicians at all levels throughout the state tried to avoid entanglement in the busing issues of Denver. It was a school board problem. There were careers to be protected. One strategy was to lay low. On the other hand, there were votes to be gained by opposing busing.n (Taylor 1990:218-19). 116

PAGE 127

For example, in 1970, Craig S. Barnes, a trial attorney for the plaintiffs, was severely defeated in a race for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in a campaign that aroused much proand anti-busing sentiment. In the 197 4 Mayoral race, the successful candidate conducted an advertising campaign that linked his opponent with Craig Barnes and a pro-busing s tance. In the previous year, 1973, in a Colorado Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Floyd Haskell won the nomination after placing advertisements in the suburban newspapers linking his opponent with busing and amnesty (/d., at 219). Even before the court issued its final order and decree, community reaction to desegregation began to crystallize in both directions. During this period, People Let's Unite for Schools (PLUS) was organized as a coalition of approximate fifty civic organizations formed to aid the smooth implementation of the Court ordered desegregation. This group expressed no commitment either way for or against busing (League of Women Voters, April 1976:8). The commitment of these organizations was to increase community awareness of the desegregation plans and to help prevent the type of violence experienced in past efforts to desegregate the schools. The more vociferous and potent force, was the organized opposition to school desegregation was a group known as the Citizens Association for Neighborhood Schools (CANS). An outgrowth of a variety of neighborhood associations opposed to busing, CANS was incorporate in January 197 4. According to the first president of CANS, Nolan Winsett, Jr., CANS had developed a membership of over 1,500 individuals, and by November 197 4 117

PAGE 128

had raised approximately $12,000. Shortly after the opening of school in October of 197 4, the CANS group called for a boycott of the schools as a demonstration of their continued resistance to busing. They felt it was important to keep up the struggle if there was going to be any chance of convincing politicians locally, and nationally, that it was time to change the United States Constitution and stop all this "sociological experimentation." (/d., at 218). The anti-busing push in the state gained significant momentum as school board members worked with like minded state legislators at state and national levels to impact what many felt was the Court overstepping its jurisdiction. The issue of local control was at the heart of these political battles. The anti-busing fervor of the nation was reinforced by the political campaign of Richard Nixon, and the actions of his administration to weaken the enforcement powers of the Department of Education and the judicial force behind desegregating school districts around the country (Wilkinson 1979; Hochschild 1984). There were many in Congress who wanted an amendment to either curtail the powers of the Supreme Court or prohibit busing for integrative purposes. The potency of local, state, and national anti-busing forces, was felt in Colorado when the Anti-Busing Amendment was added to the Colorado Constitution. Through town meetings, letter writing campaigns, boycotts and rallies, the group was able to mobilize enough support to put an anti-busing amendment on the November 197 4 election ballot in Colorado. More than 94,000 signatures were collected, more than double the number required to 118

PAGE 129

place the amendment on the ballot. Amendment 8 was passed overwhelmingly by the voters of Colorado (Pearson and Pearson 1978: 205). The Constitution of the State of Colorado expressly prohibits the use of such busing in the following language of the "anti-busing amendment: No sectarian tenets or doctrine shall ever be taught in the public schools, nor shall any distinction or classification of pupils be made on account of race or color, nor shall any pupil be assigned or transported to any public educational institution for the pur pose of achieving racial balancen (Colo. Const. Art. IX, Section 8). This action has been viewed as a clear effort to limit integration and busing. The amendment had no effect on the desegregation order for Denver because of the court order issued pursuant to federal constitutional law which has precedent over state law. The judges indicated that the anti busing clause in the Colorado Constitution was a key reason for the Court refusal to give up supervision of desegregation in Denver for so many years. In yet another legislative tactic to contain the dreaded busing and desegregation Denver was experiencing, the issue was next linked to the issue of annexation. Strong debate in the Colorado legislature found Denver officials hinting that suburban legislators objections to Denver annexations were based more on opposition to school busing than any other issue. A petition was circulated by the CANS organization to put a referendum on the ballot to amend the state law. Its passage meant that all qualified voters in a county could vote on a proposed annexation, not just those who would be directly affected. Known as the Poundstone 119

PAGE 130

Amendment, it effectively ended the expansion of the city of Denver. These two amendments to the Colorado Constitution clearly demonstrate the intensity of state level politics on the busing issue. The legislation effectively contained the issues related to the desegregation of public schools within the boundaries of Denver. The city and its desegregation problems were effectively "sealed off' from their neighbors. White and middle class blacks fled to the suburbs, leaving the city behind, and taking their tax money with them (Taylor 1990:220). And with these "protectionsn, there was no longer a need to be concerned if desegregation and busing would spill out into the suburbs. White flight to the outlying areas of the city could now proceed without the fear of busing invading the suburbs. In April 197 4, members of the Colorado state legislature passed House Joint Resolution No. 1012, calling for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the assignment of students to schools on the basis of race, creed, or color, and granting Congress the power to enforce this prohibition by appropriate legislation. On the federal level, in 197 4, Colorado's members of Congress split on bills that would have limited busing for integration to the next closest school (Pearson and Pearson 1978:207). The citizens of Colorado were not alone in their political protest of desegregation. State legislatures throughout the nation passed laws to limit the power of the courts in local affairs, and anti-busing bil!s also emerged in the U.S. Congress (Wilkinson 1979). 120

PAGE 131

Assignment of the Case to Judge Matsch In 1976, U.S. District Judge Matsch took over the supervision of the Keyes case. Richard Matsch was appointed to the U.S. District Court by President Nixon. Known as a brilliant and tenacious judge, he would guide the Denver Schools through the next two decades of legal battles over desegregation. The son of German-Lutheran parents who came to Denver from Burlington Judge Matsch began his legal career with the Denver law firm, Holmes, Roberts, and Owen. He worked in the office of the U S. Attorney and Denver City Attorney, and was a bankruptcy judge before his nomination to the federal bench. The hopeful anti-busing members of the board felt that this appointment may be an opportunity to receive relief from the order to desegregate the schools. After all, the Nixon appointment of conservative judges throughout the country was designed to reverse the momentum of desegregation. Despite his conservative connection Matsch's, forcefulness in the case surprised many and was very disconcerting to the Board In response to a criticism that the 197 4 implementation, and later adjustments to the desegregation plan that required frequent changes in school assignments which were frustrating and confusing for parents, the board call for a moratorium on changes in student assignments for three 121

PAGE 132

years in the interests of continuity and stability. Judge Doyle had previously honored the Board's request to avoid altering pupil assignments for three years, from 1976 through 1979, except upon Board request. Despite this effort to provide some calm to the desegregation of the schools, student enrollment and Anglo percentages continued to decline in these years of moratorium. In 1977, facing declining student enrollments and excess plant capacity, the board of education appointed an advisory committee of citizens to study the utilization of school buildings, and to recommend criteria for closures and consolidations. The Board accepted the committee's report in April, 1978, and anticipated making recommended changes in the Fall of 1980. In a letter dated October 2, 1978, the Community Education Council (CEC), which had been established in the 197 4 decree to monitor the implementation of the court ordered desegregation plan. requested a hearing. The purpose of this hearing would be to obtain a status report, from the school board and administration, on the development of a comprehensive, city-wide plan for the schools to take effect at the end of the three year moratorium. A new plan, adopted in Resolution No. 2060, met opposition from the plaintiffs/intervenors, and further hearings were held. The board's proposals in Resolution 2060 were designed to increase the number of students who would attend their neighborhood schools and to 122

PAGE 133

decrease busing. The burdens of the plan were not equally shared. Some children would be bused, while others would attend neighborhood schools. The board never considered upon whom the burden would fall. (Again mostly black students). After the CEC and plaintiffs objected to the plan of Resolution 2060, the board never met in legislative session nor considered alternatives. The judge was impatient with the many delaying proposals which called for further study. He was also aware that the administrative staff's reaction to the inquiries by the CEC were treated with hostility. He insisted that, u What is now needed is recognition by the Board of Education, school administration, and staff that they have not yet established a unitary, non-racial school system in Denver, Colorado and that they have a legal obligation to demonstrate to this court that they are taking appropriate action to reach that ;esult." (Keyes, 474 F. Supp. 1272). The board left it to Judge Matsch to make the necessary changes in pupil assignments. Matsch later said that the Board's dereliction of duty enabled its members to avoid criticism from the community, and permitted them to continue their politically popular protest against judicial intervention in local governance 1979-1982: The Search For a Non-Busing Plan One of the most significant areas of the Board's procrastination was in the development of a permanent unitary school district plan which would take effect when and if the district was released from the control of the courts. From July 1979, until the Spring of 1982, the Board was split along 123

PAGE 134

philosophical and political lines, with the anti-busers continuing to hold a four-three majority. In 1979, yet another controversy arose which would stir the political winds, bring the administration under criticism, and take the district and plaintiffs back to court. The court created watchdog group charged with evaluating integration in the Denver schools which would tell the judge that a new kind of segregation had swept into the city's schools. Members of the Community Education Council claimed they had found that Anglos were segregated from blacks and Hispanos according to their reading ability in Denver Schools. Such segregation could explain, the Committee felt, why Anglos dominated advanced high school classes, even when they are in a minority district. The Council also reiterated their complaints that some schools weren't and never had been within the racial balance percentages set by the federal district court order of 197 4. At this time 46% of Denver's school children were Anglo. The CEC also claimed the school district refused to provide it with information necessary to review the district's integration effort and hiring policies (Bob Weiss, Judge Orders School Probe into Reported Segregation, Rocky Mtn. News, January 14, 1979:9). CEC member James Reynolds, also submitted a report that said the district's inservice training program-required by the desegregation order and designed to make teachers sensitive to the needs of minority students --was in "disarray'' and "of little value." Reynolds, head of the Colorado Civil Right's Commission, said 36 of the city's 120 schools have no in-service program (/d., at. 1 0). 124

PAGE 135

It was a report from two CEC members, Faye Hill and Metropolitan State College professor Elaine Cohen, that prompted Matsch to order the segregation investigation. Their report said studies in cities similar to Denver show minority students aren't expected to do as well as Anglos and that teachers often automatically assign then to slow reading classes. The results in other cities show that by the time the students reach high school, black and Hispanic children are over-represented in classes for slow learners and the retarded. The pattern, Hill and Cohen said, is borne out by a limited study conducted in Denver schools (/d., at 10 ). The school district countered these claims, by insisting that the CEC had based their assessment on incomplete information and casual observance rather than the facts, and that they were over-stepping their level of competence. Board members and the administration denied suggestions that minority students in elementary schools are assigned to slow reading groups on the basis of race. They justified ability grouping to deal with the special issues that the disadvantages blacks and Hispanics bring to schools. This was not intentional segregation, but that which was necessary to meet these students needs. Hearings were held, and Judge Matsch ordered the district to investigate the allegations. The judge also ordered the school district to submit a full report on its past efforts to comply with the court order, and to develop and submit plans by May 1, 1979, for hiring and a comprehensive plan for desegregation efforts for the upcoming school year. Referring to fears that a probe would have an inflammatory effect on the public, Matsch 125

PAGE 136

I I I i added, "It seems to me we cannot, because of that, be afraid to face the facts. If the worst possible hypothesis is true, what effect is it having on the kids?" (Branscombe, Denver School Board Ordered to Probe School Assignments, The Denver Post, Jan. 14, 1979: 40). The controversy regarding these allegations, added fuel to the arguments on both sides of the issue. For those who believed there is no special magic to integration, and for those who still had hope, the issues were becoming more complex and no less political. The anti-busing majority was again solidified with the election of Franklin Mullen, a businessman who invested over $100,000 in his anti-busing campaign. He joined Robert Crider, who had opposed mandatory busing throughout his twelve year tenure on the board, and Naomi Bradford, a staunch anti-buser who was re elected in 1981. Bradford would later become the president of the board. The liberal faction of the Board included Kay Schamp, Rev. Marion Hammond, and the outspoken Omar Blair, all of whom supported busing. Despite Judge Matsch's July 30, 1979 memorandum ordering the Board to develop a plan for a permanent unitary school district, the delay tactics and lack of consensus on the part of the board, prevented the development of an acceptable plan. During this period, several plans were put forward which met resistance from a number of directions. The Ad Hoc Plan In 1980, the Board established yet another committee by resolution to formulate a plan which might be acceptable to the court, a blueprint to 126

PAGE 137

shepard desegregation on its proper course. Board member Kay Schamp chaired what was called the Ad Hoc Committee. The committee included representatives from the black and Hispanic communities, the teachers union, League of Women Voters, and the Parent Teacher-Student Association. The Ad Hoc Committee studied the issues and held public hearings. The first report from this committee was greeted with a negative response from interested community groups, including the CEC oversight committee. After months of further deliberations, the Ad Hoc Committee released its final report on June 5, 1981. In its final report, the Committee set out a definition of a unitary systemguidelines, and a pupil assignment plan for the implementation of the middle school concept. Included in this plan were provisions for maintaining 26 "walk-in" schools, creation of five new "walk in" junior high schools, and the elimination of 27 satellite attendance areas (Ad Hoc Committee Report 1981:1 0). Before consensus and final legislative action could be taken on the Total Access Plan, board member William Schroeder proposed a very different approach based upon an open enrollment policy or choice. The key feature of this alternative plan was to essentially eliminate forced busing. Schroeder's proposals did not sit well with many members of the minority community who saw the plan as an attempt to resegregate the schools. Despite these objections, the board forwarded both plans to the judge for consideration, and a request for hearings on to determine that the district was a unitary system and to establish a timetable for relinquishing jurisdiction. On November 12, 1981, the court entered its order refusing the 127

PAGE 138

request to consider the two proposals and directed the defendant district to file one "definite plan for the removal of racial discrimination in public education and the establishment of a unitary system Keyes. 540 F. Supp. 401 (1981 ). Total Access Plan After having both of the plans rejected by Judge Matsch in November 1981, the Board voted four to two, to formulate another plan by December 10 of the same year. The Board's anti-busing majority directed the staff to come up with a plan that would eliminate mandatory busing. Called the "Total Access Plan" (TAP), the plan's basic elements were open enrollments and magnet schools, both of which the majority of the board felt could create and maintain a unitary school system (Branscombe, Schools Ordered to Choose One Integration Plan, Denver Post, November 13, 1981: 1 B). In addition to allowing students to attend schools close to their homes, the Total Access Plan proposed creating thirty-five magnet schools throughout the district, and would eliminate mandatory busing. The plan also introduced a variety of innovative programs to the district like Fundamental schools, Montessori, language and engineering academies. The Total Access Plan was presented to the Board on December 1 0, by then superintendent Dr. Joseph Brzeinski. The Board approved the plan four to three, with the three liberal board members opposing it. 128

PAGE 139

The Board then filed the Total Access Plan with the court, and it was considered in two-weeks of hearings which concluded on March 15, 1982. Despite its many educational enhancements, Judge Matsch indicated that the plan was "unacceptable for implementation in the fall of 1982 because it was incomplete, insufficient, and unrelated to the realities of the continuing effects of past segregative policies." Keyes, 540 F. Supp. 399 (1982). The judge accused the district of not accepting its responsibility, and that the neutrality of the choice options had been previously criticized by the Supreme Court in Green v. School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). This case challenged "freedom of choice" plans that had been implemented in school districts throughout the South. Such plans placed the burden of integration on blacks who were reluctant to transfer in the face of hostility and intimidation. Such plans gave the students the option of transfer from a black to a white school and vice versa. These plans maintain and aggravate segregation because students of both races choose to be with their own. The judge read this plan as a lack of concern and protection of the interests of racial minorities. "The Total Access Plan was a sink or swim approach with responsibility for finding access to opportunity placed on the students and their families." Keyes, 540 F. Supp. 401 (1982). During these hearings, the court heard from a number of "experts" on various aspects of desegregation. Most of them agreed that under this plan there would not be a significant level of desegregation. The sharpest criticism of the Total Access Plan's "voluntary choice" model as a strategy for desegregation came from Dr. Charles Willie of Harvard University, who 129

PAGE 140

had served as a consultant to the district. Although applauding the emphasis on quality of education, he found that there needed to be further constraints to ensure racial diversity along with educational choices. He suggested racial ratios and guidelines for parental choice. Dr. Willie advised the court that such a plan would be workable only if the following conditions were present: 1 The assurance of integration in the magnet schools. 2. The assurance of integration in the regular schools. 3. Demonstrated capacity of the transportation element. 4. The assurance of an adequate affirmative action program for the faculty. 5. The assurance of adequate integration in the placement of faculty. 6. An adequate system to provide fairness in disciplinary suspensions and pupil placement in the classroom. 7. The assertion by the board of its ultimate responsibility for making pupil assignments. 8. The assurance of some stability by restricting the frequency with which there can be a change in the choice of schools. (Keyes, 540, F. Supp. 399, 401 (1982). Despite its merits as an educational plan, the issues related to desegregation of the Denver Schools did not surface clearly in the plan. During the March 1982 hearings, the exchange between plaintiffs lawyer Gordon Greiner and Dr. Brzeinski, the superintendent, went as follows: Greiner: "Would you admit that the Total Access Plan is not designed for desegregation?" Brzeinski: "It's an education plan." Greiner: "It doesn't even mention school integration, correct?" Brzeinski: "That's correct." 130

PAGE 141

(Branscombe, Plan Not Drawn to Desegregation Brzeinski, Agrees. Denver Post, March 3, 1982). Consensus Plan-1982 In this case, I am now accepting the modified consensus plan for the single school year of 1982-83. I do so with considerable reservation because I am not convinced that the incumbent school board has shown a commitment to the creation of a unitary school system which will have adequate capacity for the delivery of services without racial advantages Keyes, 540 F. Supp. 402 (1982). On May 12, 1982, nearly three years after he ordered the Board to come up with a suitable proposal for a unitary district in an effort to end the lawsuit, Judge Matsch accepted the plan with reservations. The judge said that he would remain active in the case to make sure future reforms were enacted. The plan would not end the lawsuit but would serve as an "interim measure." He saw it as an "expedient" measure which would accommodate the educational policy decision to move to middle schools, and attenuate the divisive effect of the factionalism found in the present board of education." Keyes. 540 F. Supp. 402 (1982). The judge saw the Consensus Plan as a political compromise patched together by a school board whose majority abhorred busing. The school district had demonstrated that it was unwilling to formulate a long-term plan for a unitary system that met the judge's approval. As his confidence in the Board continued to diminish, Matsch wrote in his June 3, 1985 opinion, "the proposal was premised on a hope 131

PAGE 142

that there would be a discernible movement toward natural integration of these attendance zones by changes in housing patterns." Keyes, 609 F. Supp. 1491 (D. Colo. 1985). The judge's hope regarding the natural integration of Denver housing proved unrealistic. The persistence of residential segregation and housing discrimination in Denver, continued to present the problem of racially isolated neighborhoods. The plaintiffs objected to the Consensus Plan because of the re-emergence of racially identifiable schools in Northeast Denver, (high percentage black schools, Barrett, Harrington, Mitchell). The school board attributed the continued racial imbalance in these schools to white flight and said that the existence of three racially identifiable schools did not constitute a dual system. After all, since the beginning of the court order, racially identifiable schools continued to emerge in the Hispanic community as a result of housing patterns and the requirements of bilingual education programs. The uncertainty and confusion that continued regarding the appropriate direction for the desegregation of the Denver Public Schools compelled the judge to set benchmarks and timetable in the supervision of the district. He applauded and then disbanded the Community Education Council (CEC}. Judge Matsch felt that the level of complexity, which was evolving in this case, would require a different level of sophistication. He then established a panel of "experts", with the input of counsel, to be appointed under Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to provide 132

PAGE 143

additional input and to assist the district with how to make desegregation work in the Denver schools. This chapter has explored how elusive the goals of integration and equal educational opportunity became for the school district and community of Denver. There was no true consensus in the development of multiple plans. And the continued recalcitrance of the Board, did not facilitate the implementation of the court order. 133

PAGE 144

REFERENCES-CHAPTER IV Alexander, Kem and M. David Alexander. 1985. American Public School Law. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.: 425,426. Fishman, James J. and Lawrence Strauss. 1989. "Endless Journey: Integration and the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunity in Denver's Public Schools: A Study of Keyes v. School District No. 1". Howard Law Journal 32: 661,634, FN.25. Hawley, Willis, et. al. 1983. Strategies for Effective Desegregation: Lessons From Research. Lexington: D.C. Heath: 36. Hochschild, Jennifer. 1984. The New American Dilemma: Liberal Democracy and School Desegregation. New Haven: Yale University Press. League of Women Voters. 1976. Composite View of Denver's Desegregation. Denver, Colorado: League of Women Voters: 8. Pearson, Jessica and Jeffrey Pearson. 1978 "Keyes v. School District No.1." In Howard Kaloder, ed. Limits of Justice: The Role of the Court in School Desegregation. Cambridge. MA: Ballinger Publishing: 205, 207. Schwartz, Bernard. 1986. Swann's Way: The School Busing Case and the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press: 36. Taylor, Mary Jean. 1990. "Leadership Responses to Desegregation in the Denver Public Schools, A Historical Study: 1959-1977". Ph.D. diss., University of Denver: 218-219. Wilkinson, J. Harvie Ill. 1979. From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and Schoo/ Integration: 1954-1978. New York: Oxford University Press: 34. Cases Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S 189, 203 (1973). Keyes v. School District No.1, 368 F. Supp. 209 (D. Colo 1973) Keyes v. School District No. 1. 380 F. Supp. 673,684, 685,692, 705 (D. Colo., 1974) (Memorandum Opinion and Order mandating the Finger Plan). Keyes v. School District No. 1, 521 F. 2d. 465, 470(FN.15),475,479 (10th Cir.1975). 134

PAGE 145

Keyes v. School District No. 1, 474 F. Supp 1272 (1979). Keyes v. School District No. 1., 540 F. Supp, 339, 401 (1982). Keyes v. School District No. 1, 609 F. Supp.1491 (D. Colo. 1985). Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954). Green v. School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 439 (1968). Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1973). Other Legal Colo. Const.. Article IX, Section 8. (Anti-Busing Amendment). Colo. Canst., Article XIV, Section 9. (Limits Denver's annexation capacity). Newspaper Articles Denver Post, Sunday May 5, 1974: 77. Denver Post. August 30, 1974 Denver Post, January 14, 1979:40. Rocky Mountain News, January 14, 1979: 8-10. Denver Post, November 13, 1981:1b. Denver Post, March 3, 1981. Archival Documents Report from the Superintendent of Schools. John Finger Plan: Special Report Denver, Colorado: Denver Public Schools, April1974). Ad Hoc Committe of the Board of Education Denver Public Schools. Unitary School System Plan: Final Report. Denver. Co.: Denver Public Schools, June 5, 1981. 135

PAGE 146

CHAPTERV THE DISMANTLING OF DESEGREGATION IN DENVER (1984-1995) To square American practice with the principle of equality, it was essential to end the deliberate segregation of schools. For that, we can thank Brown. But actually improving public education, let alone society, tums out to be much harder than the idealists of desegregation and their eager allies on the federal courts ever dreamed (Rocky Mountain News, editorial, May 18, 1994) A Unitary School District? By the 1980s, fifteen years of immersion in litigation, and experimentation with various strategies to both avoid and implement the changing desegregation decree, had produced few indicators of success There seemed to be no end in sight, and elusive and intractable questions continued to bewilder the court and the parties to the law suit. 1 ) How did the policy of containing blacks to northeast Denver affect Denver Public Schools as a whole?; 2.) What was required to remove those effects?; 3.) What must be done to protect against future segregation?; and 4.) How and when would the court conclude that the Denver Public Schools was a unitary system? (Fishman and Strauss: 1989:676). In 1982, Judge Matsch defined with the district and plaintiffs the standard of a unitary school system in the Denver case. Applying the Green 136

PAGE 147

criteria as the basis of the Court's definition of unitary status as one in which: All of the students have access to the opportunity for education, with the publicly provided educational resources distributed equitably, and with the expectation that all students can acquire a community defined level of knowledge and skills consistent with their individual efforts and abilities. It provides, a chance to develop fully each individual's potentials without being restricted by an identification with any racial or ethnic groups (Keyes, 540 F. Supp. 399 (D. Colo. 1982). In Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 420 (1968), the Supreme Court offered several criteria to measure whether a district had become a racially non-discriminatory school system: the composition of the student body, faculty, staff, the school transportation system, the physical condition of the school system, and extra-curricular activities. In concluding whether a school system is unitary, district courts must keep in mind the uniqueness of each district, the efforts of public school officials, and whether the end of the lawsuit will lead to future resegregation and return to a dual system. Despite these guidelines, the Supreme Court, in the 1980's, had yet to provide specific guidance as to when a racially unbalanced school system would be considered unitary, when a district court should return control to school authorities, or the manner in which a school desegregation case could be closed. The tradition of equity jurisprudence has been one of generality and an absence of specific guidelines. Critical legal theorists have observed that desegregation, and equity issues in 137

PAGE 148

general, have been treated by the Court in such a way as to provide plenty of room for delay and exception (Bell 1980; Liebman 1990; K.Brown 1992; Spann 1993; Delgado and Stephanie 1995). In December, 1983, the school board began to reshape its strategy in respect to desegregation in the district. Instead of delaying, and then grudgingly complying with the court's orders, the Board voted unanimously to seek a court declaration that the school system was unitary and desegregated, and that it be released from court control. In the 1980s, the changing legal context of desegregation remedies, and the lack of specificity in the Supreme Court's rulings regarding when and how a school district could be declared unitary, lifted the board's expectations. The political and legal environments supported the board's confidence to request release from the court and control of the district. Ten years of court-ordered desegregation seemed to be enough for the litigation weary board. The request for a return of the Denver Public Schools to local control was also a reflection of the conservative restoration and the Reagan Administration's policies toward forced busing and integration. Moreover, the desegregation efforts which were underway were not eliminating achievement gaps, Anglo and middle class black families continued to exit the city, and the quality of education was being questioned in all segments of the community. Hopes of release from court jurisdiction would also be withered by the unresolved issues related to bilingual education which the law did not separate from the broader desegregation issues. Despite these impending 138

PAGE 149

complications, the Board filed a formal motion on January 19, 1984 for entry of three orders: 1 a declaration that the Denver schools were a unitary system with respect to faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, facilities and composition of the student body; 2 a modification and dissolution of the injunction relating to the assignment of students to schools ; and 3 a declaration that the remedy previously ordered in the case to correct the constitutional violation had been implemented and that there was no need for continuing court jurisdiction (Keyes, 576 F. Supp. 1521 (D. Colo ,1983). In its request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion, the District stated it would demonstrate its compliance with the s i x criteria (Green Factors) and the court's definition of a unitary school system. On February 8, 1984, the Board received another boost when the Department of Justice moved to intervene as amicus curiae. This was the first time that the Justice Department had intervened in a private, i.e. citizen filed desegregation case The Department said it would intervene in cases in which court-ordered busing was in effect, but only upon the school board's request. However, in this case, the Denver Board never formally requested the Department to intervene, nor voted to do so. The Board president, Naomi Bradford, on her own initiative, requested the Justice Department intervention. The Justice Department decided to intervene after the Board 139

PAGE 150

unanimously resolved to ask Matsch to declare the system unitary. The court allowed this intervention (Fishman and Strauss 1989:680-81 ). The position of the School Board was that: Once a school district has complied with a constitutional acceptable court-ordered remedy that is designed to desegregate the system in the full sense, and has maintained substantial compliance with that remedy for a sustained period of time, the school district is entitled to be declared unitary unless there have been intervening acts of discrimination (Denver Post, Feb. 10, 1984). The prime thesis of this argument, was that the 197 4 Final Judgment and Decree, as modified in 1976, was a complete remedy for all of the constitutional violations found in the case, and adequate to desegregate the school district. If the Board had implemented this plan and refrained from unconstitutional segregative acts, unitariness will have been demonstrated, and the district court must end its supervision of pupil assignments. As each of the criteria for a unitary system was fulfilled, the defendants theorized, that each aspect could be removed from court supervision. Judge Matsch's December 1983 decision on the bilingual issues, prevented his acceptance of the Board's January 1984 motion for a declaration that the school system was now unitary and that previously ordered remedies had ended the need for further court supervision. Opposition to the Board's motion emerged in February 1984, as lawyers for the bilingual intervenors filed a brief insisting that until all vestiges of segregation, including differences in achievement between minority and 140

PAGE 151

white students were eliminated, the court should deny the Districts motion for release. The plaintiffs pointed to evidence of continued segregation, and leaders of community organizations urged the board to "openly articulate" to the public its commitment to equal educational opportunity. Among the relevant questions which the Board had never answered, according to community representatives was, "whether there was a basis for believing, with reasonable certainty, that there will be freedom from racial discrimination in the futureT (Rocky Mountain News Feb.16, 1984: 8). Feeling public pressure, and the determination of the court, the Board unanimously passed Resolution 2233, which was a declaration of policy guidelines for desegregation the board would use following the termination of court supervision. The lengthy resolution stated that the Denver schools should be operated in conformity with all federal laws, that there shall be no sudden alteration of the court ordered busing plan in effect, that no practices would be taken for the purposes of discriminating against any person, that the Board would attempt to achieve the beneficial effects of integration, and so on. (See Appendix B for Board Resolutions.). The resolution committed the Board to developing additional magnet schools and special programs, and using all available means to ensure that they would be integrated. In addition, the Board said it would develop and actively promote a voluntary program to encourage students to transfer to schools where their race is a minority (Branscombe, Groups Seek DPS Resolve on Equality, Denver Post, March 1 0, 1984, at 7 A). 141

PAGE 152

In April 1984, Judge Matsch began hearings to see if the school district could, in fact, demonstrate that it had achieved unitariness. After less than ten years of experimentation, delay, and litigation the board, administration, and segments of the community felt that the district was prepared to initiate the end to the law suit. There were also many who felt that there was little chance of a release from court jurisdiction, because of the problems which emerged in the DPS in the mist of implementing the court order. Desegregation expert, Dr. Gary Orfield stated, "I think it will get thrown out. The judge has thrown out an effort by the school district to get out from the court order before. He was obviously very impatient then [1982]. He threw it out, one day after the evidence was presented. He described the school district's motion as "a provocative and stupid thing to do ... a slap in the face of the judge."(Enda, Busing: Race Gap Persists, Experts Say, Rocky Mtn.News, April 15, 1984: 1 ). In order to make their case, the school district stretched to hire additional legal counsel and their own expert witnesses. One of those hired by the district was John Michael Ross, a Washington statistician whose statistical explanations for the increase in segregation in the district would confound and annoy the judge. The statistical approach to these issues was an attempt to prove that the significant decline in white enrollments and racial imbalance in the district's schools, was due to demographic shifts, versus any non-compliance with the court order. In response to these arguments based on statistical manipulations the Judge responded: 142

PAGE 153

It is paradoxical that the defendants presentation to this court in support of the subject motion has placed such a heavy emphasis on the use of statistical displays to demonstrate the establish ment of a unitary system when the thrust of the Spangler decision is to decry the rigidity of defining desegregation according to any fixed racial ratio. Both in 1979 and 1982, this court emphasized the importance of recognizing that establishing and maintaining a unitary system requires more than meeting a statistically satisfactory pupil assignment plan. Keyes, 609 F. Supp.1515 (1985). Matsch insisted that from the testimony of the School Board, it was apparent that they had been convinced that desegregation had occurred when measured by the racial balance and racial contact indices. In doing this they had ignored several critical issues. The Board also pointed to the "stigma" that the issue of busing had brought to Denver and its schools, and the negative impact on the city in economic, political, and social aspects. In answering the question as to whether a unitary school system had been established in Denver, it was maintained that, "The argument made that the adequacy of any desegregation plan is, of course, measured not by its intentions, but its effectiveness." Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman (Dayton II), 442 U.S. 536 (1979). The effectiveness of the implementation of the court order was targeted by Judge Matsch as he relayed his reasons for denying the motion to vacate the case. He pointed to the misunderstanding of the Board in believing that the modifications in the 197 4 decree and "Consensus" plan were an adequate desegregation plan for district desegregation. He also insisted that intentions were not good enough, and presented examples of the how the district had fallen short in a number of areas including: the assignment of minority teachers, abuses in hardship 143

PAGE 154

I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I i I I I transfers and lack of monitoring, racially identifiable programs (magnets) and schools. Plaintiffs argued that the district officials had a general lack of commitment to the established desegregation guidelines. In the mist of this stage of the Keyes litigation, the judge also attempted to lay the groundwork for a negotiated settlement of the case, by encouraging the various parties to work out some of the more contentious details related to the development and implementation of an effective desegregation plan. However, by the beginning of February 1985, the negotiations had broken down on several occasions with stalemates on issues like the continued segregation of several elementary schools in Northeast Denver (Harrington, Barrett, Mitchell, Gilpin-all predominately black). After the parties reported that their extensive efforts to reach a negotiated settlement of the remaining issues had failed, the court entered an order for further proceedings (October 1985), and once again directed the Board to submit plans for achieving unitary status, and to provide reasonable assurance that future Board policies and practices would not cause resegregation. The district was required to address several matters in particular: identification of Barrett, Harrington, and Mitchell as schools for minority children; the hardship transfer policy; faculty assignments, and plans for the implementation of Resolution 2233. 144

PAGE 155

Judge Matsch also reiterated the legal impediment for Denver in maintaining a unitary system once it was established. He concluded that resegregation would be inevitable if the school district complied with state law. He found that the organic law of the State of Colorado was in direct conflict with the pupil assignment plan, which was in effect at the time. He insisted that, "If the courts jurisdiction were removed, it must be presumed that the members of the Board of Education under the oath required by state law (Anti-busing Amendment Colo. Canst. Art. IX, Section 8), will obey this requirement of the state constitution, and dismantle the entire pupil assignment plan." (Keyes, 609 F. Supp. 1491 (1985). The hearings sparked heightened criticism of the Board and its efforts at desegregation. They were again accused of being unresponsive to the outside assistance of the "experts" of the court appointed Compliance Assistance Panel. In response to these observations, the judge revealed that indeed, there were no assurances that the district would not regress: The issue of good or bad faith of those Board members is irrelevant. As the history of this case has shown, philosophical and political views of the elected Board will vary as is to be expected in representative government. Indeed, remembering that this case began when a Board Resolution was repealed by a succeeding Board, little reliance can be placed upon Resolution 2233, or any other resolution, as directing future boards. What must be accomplished in constructing the final and ultimate permanent injunction in this case, is the creation of means and mechanism to prevent any future policy of discrimination, whether it results from intentional governmental action or simply in consequence of a policy of disregard or permissive passivity (/d., at 1515). 145

PAGE 156

With the denial of the district's motion for release from court supervision, came requests for a permanent injunction from the plaintiffs, and instructions from the judge to correct the deficiencies identified in the month long evidentiary hearings. Despite court orders board resolutions, and plans for implementation, the district had again fallen short in its efforts to address the complex issues related to desegregation. The path from an unconstitutional dual system, to one that would meet the criteria of unitariness, would continue to prove elusive In November 1985 the district appealed to the U S Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, regarding the June 1985 opinion and the October 19, 1985 order for further proceedings Notwithstanding the appeal, the district did move ahead with plans to address the concerns raised by the court. A shift in the board majority, and responsive superintendent's during this period, allowed some movement on the development of plans to address the above issues. Hearings on the plans were held until March 1986. In February 1987, Judge Matsch authorized the school district to proceed with the implementation of its plans and policies. In addition, the court noted that a hearing would have to be held on the effectiveness of those plans and operations, and that changes would likely be made in existing orders. Shifting Legal and Political Environment From the mid-eighties into the nineties, there were several changes in the legal and political environment of the lawsuit. First, changes in the superintendency and board leadership, focused the district on the need to 146

PAGE 157

comply with the court order, in order to be released from supervision. However, public criticisms had arisen over the costs of the litigation and the fees spent for court experts, and the pendulum would continue to swing away from support for desegregation efforts. One indicator of this changing landscape, was the May 21st school board election for two school board seats. This election resulted in anti-busing advocate William Schroeder's defeat and a change in the political balance of the board. Quality schools, not busing, was the new code phrase for this election This shift was likely a response to the national education reports (i.e., Nation At Risk), and the emerging national focus on defining "quality education versus equality. Another indicator of waning interest in the schools was that the "political" climate of school board elections attracted less than half of the 12 to 18 percent of off year voter turn out. Two liberals were elected; Edward Garner, a marketing specialist who became the only black member on the Board, and Carol McCotter, a former teacher. Garner said that he would work to stop spending money fighting desegregation in the courts. "What we have to do is follow the dictates of the court and hope it won't be unpleasant for all. .. the board has never bought into the idea of promoting desegregation Unless we do, we will always be faced with expensive appeals." Of those elected during the 1970s, when busing was the paramount issue, only Naomi Bradford remained (Bingham, Garner, McCotter Win Denver School Election, Denver Post, May 22, 1985: 1 A). The legal doctrine and precedents related to desegregation of public schools also began to shift dramatically in the mid-eighties. The 147

PAGE 158

retrenchment in the courts during this period has been documented and analyzed by a number of legal scholars.(Wilkinson 1979; Orfield 1983; Spann 1993). The movement away from desegregation was strengthened in the Nixon and Reagan eras. By the mid-eighties, the shift away from equity issues would emerge in several significant cases, giving hope to the anti busing forces in Denver and across the nation, that this "social engineering" could finally be abandoned. The Interim Decree ( 1987) On February 25, 1987, Judge Matsch issued a ruling relaxing court control over the Denver Public schools. However, since the district had chosen not to increase the amount of busing to integrate the school system for fear that it would have a destabilizing effect, but instead used more subtle methods to achieve a unitary system, the court would retain jurisdiction to insure that the methods were effective. The judge held that: 1.) despite the school district's failure to achieve unitary status, the district's sincere and strenuous efforts to meet the requirements of the desegregation order, warranted reduction of the district's court control in the operation of the school district, and 2.) in view of the proscription against student transportation to achieve racial balance contained in the Colorado Constitution, a permanent injunctive order by the district court was necessary to allow the school district to implement student assignment plans involving mandatory assignment or transportation of students. The judge found that a permanent injunctive order was also necessary because 148

PAGE 159

desegregation related resolutions were not binding on future boards of education. The court rejected the plaintiff's request for detailed monitoring and reporting requirements because the district would probably conduct such data collection and monitoring itself to convince the court that the system was unitary and that court supervision should end (Keyes, 653 F. Supp. 1536 (1987). The principle purpose of this injunctive decree was to enable the defendants to operate the school system under general remedial standards rather than specific judicial directive. This interim decree would remove obsolete provisions of existing orders, relinquish reporting requirements, and eliminate the need for prior court approval before making changes in the district's policies, practices, and programs. The judge saw the interim decree as a necessary step toward a final decree, which would terminate jurisdiction. The timing of a final order would, however be directly related to the defendant school district's performance under the decree. Specifically: Discriminatory intent would not be measured by the good faith and well meaning of individual Board members or of the persons who carry out the policies and programs directed by the Board. The intent is an institutional intent which can be proved only by circumstantial evidence. What the district does in the operation of its schools will control over what the Board says in its resolutions. In the remedial stage of a school desegregation case, the court must be concerned with the affirmative duty to eradicate the effects of past intentional governmental discrimination. When unitary status is achieved, court supervision can be removed when it is reasonably certain that future actions 149

PAGE 160

will be free from institutional discriminatory intent." [Emphasis added] Keyes, 670 F. Supp. 1516 (1987). The elimination of institutional discriminatory intent required the school district to address the following as guidelines for policy and action: 1. The defendants, their agents, officers, employees, and successors and all those in active concert and participation with them, are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the basis of race color or ethnicity in the operation of the school system. They shall continue to take action necessary to disestablish all school segregation, eliminate the effects of the former dual system and prevent segregation. 2. The defendants are enjoined from operating schools or programs which are racially identifiable as a result of their actions. The Board is not required to maintain the current student assignment plan of attendance zones, pairings, magnet schools or programs, satellite zones and grade level structure. Before making any changes, the Board must consider specific data showing the effect of such changes on the projected racial/ethnic composition of the student enrollment in any school affected by the proposed change. The Board must act to assure that such changes will not serve to reestablish a dual school system. 3. The constraints in Paragraph 2 are applicable to future school construction and abandonment. 4. The duty imposed by the law and by this interim decree is the desegregation of schools and the maintenance of that condition The defendants are directed to use their expertise and resources to comply with the constitutional requirement of equal educational opportunity for all who are entitled to the benefits of public education in Denver. 5. The District retains the authority to initiate transfers for administrative reasons, including special education, bilingual education and programs to enhance voluntary integration. The defendants shall maintain and established policy to prevent the 150

PAGE 161

I I I I I I I frustration, hindrance or avoidance of a district student assignment plan through parent initiated transfers and shall use administrative procedures to investigate, validate and authorize transfer requests using criteria established by the Board. If transfers are sought on the ground of "hardship", race, color or ethnicity will not be a valid basis upon which to demonstrate hardship. The defendants shall keep records of all transfers, the reasons therefore, the race, color, ethnicity of the student, and of the effects on the population of the transferee and transferor schools 6. No student shall be segregated or discriminated against on account of race, color or ethnicity in any service, facility, activity, or program (including extracurricular activities) conducted or sponsored by the school in which he or she is enrolled. All school use or school sponsored use of athletic fields, meeting rooms, and all other school related services, facilities and activities, and programs such as commencement exercises and parent teacher meetings which are open to persons other than enrolled students, shall be open to all persons without regard to race, color, or ethnicity The District shall provide its resources, services, and facilities in an equitable non discriminatory manner. 7. The defendant shall maintain programs and policies designed to identify and remedy the effects of past racial segregation 8 The defendants shall provide the transportation services necessary to satisfy the requirements of this interim decree notwithstanding the provisions of Article IX, Section 8, of the Colorado Constitution. 9 (A) The principals, teachers, teacher-aides and other staff who work directly children at a school shall be so assigned that in no case will the racial or ethnic composition of a staff indicate that a school is intended for minority students or Anglo students. (B) Staff members who work directly with children and professional staff who work on the administrative level will be hired, assigned, promoted, paid, demoted, dismissed, and otherwise treated without regard to race, color or ethnicity 151

PAGE 162

(C) Defendants are required to use an effective affirmative action plan for the hiring of minority teachers, staff and administrators with the goal of attaining a proportion which is consistent with the available labor force; the plan shall contain yearly timetables and a reasonable target date for the attainment of the affirmative action goals. 10. The District will continue to implement the provisions of the program for limited English proficiency students heretofore approved by the Court in the Language Rights Consent Decree of August 17, 1984. Nothing in this interim decree shall modify or affect the Language Rights Consent Decree of August 17, 1984, and the prior orders entered in this case relating thereto shall remain in full force and effect. 11. It is further provided that this interim decree is binding upon the defendant Superintendent of Schools, the defendant School board, its members, agents, servants, employees, present and future, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this interim decree by personal service or otherwise. 12. This interim decree, except as provided herein shall supersede all prior injunctive orders and shall control these proceedings until the entry of a final permanent injunction (Keyes, 670 F.Supp. 1516 (1987). This Interim Decree would provide a more flexible framework for the desegregation of the Denver Public Schools. The timing of a final order would be directly related to the school district's performance under this decree. Boards of education during the late eighties, and into the nineties, would attempt to design the policies and practices of the district according to these guidelines. 152

PAGE 163

The late 1980s passed fairly uneventfully, in respect to the community's awareness and involvement in the desegregation of the Denver Public Schools. The school district would continue in its appeals, which were consistently denied. Anglo and middle class migration would continue out to the sprawling suburbs, which claimed a higher quality of schooling and no mandatory busing, even though only a small number of Denver students were bused for integrative purposes.(S000-7000 or 10-11% of the student population). The Re-Emergence of the Politics of Desegregation The 1990s saw the election of Board members who would attempt to work with the school administration and within the desegregation guidelines established by the courts. The additional flexibility provided by the 1987 Interim Decree, permitted the district to experiment with a variety of educational strategies, including magnet schools, voluntary choice, etc., to promote the integration of the schools, and to attract middle class whites and minorities back to the district. In 1990, the Court of Appeals upheld Judge Matsch's determination of a lack of unitariness and denial of motion to terminate jurisdiction. Minor modifications were ordered to be made in the interim decree. Despite the good faith efforts of the school district, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Denver School Board's appeal requesting that the district be released from court supervision in 1991 (Keyes, 498 US. 1082 (1991 ). 153

PAGE 164

There was a shift from equal educational opportunity to educational reform efforts during this period. Sparked by the plethora of national reports on the state of American education, the Denver school district would also experience a shift that would call for increasing decentralization and collaborative decision making structure which would move many of the decisions, like school design, to the local school site. With Denver's collaborative decision making committees (CDMs), parents, teachers, and members of the local community, would now have a say in how schools were run. In the mist of these changes, the accountability for issues like equality of educational opportunity also became more problematic. As the 1990s evolved, the school district would also find that the student body had changed drastically, making it impractical and impossible to achieve district-wide desegregation. Since 1974, and the initial implementation of the court order, the student population declined from 96,000 to 63,000. In 1992, two-thirds of the nearly 63,000 students in Denver schools were minorities. In 1968, when the desegregation case began, Anglos made up two-thirds of the student body. Denver became an island of minority students in a sea of anglo students. (See Appendix A for demographic changes). The purpose and practicality of desegregation, had once again become a subject of debate in this changing context. The long battle over desegregation, became the scapegoat of blame for white flight, urban crime, a weakened tax base, etc. The reality of the situation was that Denver's schools were far more integrated in both a racial and socio-economic sense than any of the 154

PAGE 165

neighboring suburban districts that were not subjected to judicial constraints. These districts included nearly majority Anglo school systems such as Cherry Creek, as well as, racially mixed ones such as Aurora and segments of Adams County. In Colorado, Denver's schools were the only ones supervised by a federal judge. Denver, like other school districts in urban centers, was experiencing the impact of declining dollars and increasing needs of a diverse student population. Although the district was able to successfully pass a $200 million dollar bond issue for school renovations and construction, the district would also come under closer scrutiny as to their accountability for spending tax dollars wisely. At the center of these public criticisms, was the amount of dollars the district had spent in its long litigative journey with issues related to desegregation. Each time Denver school officials would go to court to fight busing and lose, they would pay a double legal tab millions of dollars to their own lawyers and those of the plaintiffs. The tab for legal fees since the beginning of the case in 1969 had amounted to approximately 4 million dollars. Another challenge to desegregation came with a school voucher amendment issue on the November 1992 ballot. This was viewed by some as an attempt to resegregate Denver's classrooms, and undo two decades of progress in race relations. Colorado drew national attention as one of the states to place a voucher proposal on the ballot. Under the voucher plan, parents would receive tax money to enroll their children in the public or private school of their choice. Arguments were made that vouchers would 155

PAGE 166

not aid disadvantaged students, the $2,000-$3,000 per child would not be enough for poor families to afford private schools but would serve as a mechanism to drive many middle class families out of the public schools. Dr. Evie Dennis, the superintendent at this critical juncture, argued that, "The idea of choice sounds good but misleads voters because the public schools don't have a choice in the students they educate; the poor, the handicapped, and those with discipline problems. It would leave many minority students trapped in the inner city and create havoc in the effort to maintain a fair mix of all students in school buildings." (Vouchers Worrying DPS Chief: Desegregation Work at Risk, Rocky Mtn. News, Sept .22, 1992}. Even though this initiative to create school choice through vouchers failed, the desegregation of the Denver schools would re-emerge as a political theme into the nineties. In the mist of these changes, the school district would again in 1992, submit a motion to Judge Matsch requesting release from court supervision and a return of control of the district to the board of education. School officials were optimistic about their chances because a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court ended busing in Oklahoma City the previous year (Dowell v, Board of Education, 1991 }. Board president Dorothy Gotlieb, insisted that the district had met the terms of desegregation orders and had an "obligation" to the public to seek an end to busing in a "timely fashion. n Denver Schools Seek to End Busing, Rocky Mtn. News, January 4, 1992). The precedent setting Dowell case, would have a lingering effect on desegregation cases through the nation. 156

PAGE 167

The 1992 appeal to the court for termination of the court supervision, brought a variety of elected officials and other notables out of the political closet. The court action came as Governor Romer, Mayor Wellington Webb, and several of the city's top minority leaders agreed publicly that it was time to put the busing controversy in the past, and get on with the larger task of educational reform. After making a political campaign pledges to seek an end to Denver's school busing order, Mayor Webb assigned members of his staff to begin to work with the district on ending the case. The city filed a motion to intervene in the case in support of the districts efforts seeking relief from court jurisdiction. In making its case for intervention, the city cited a number of "disturbing developments" that Denver had experienced over the past twenty years: An out-migration of the Denver middle class (especially Anglos and blacks) to the metropolitan suburban counties; An increase in the number and percentage of poor families living in Denver with a dramatic increase in the number of families receiving governmental aid; A large decline in the number of families with children living in Denver (especially families headed by both a husband and a wife) with a con-commitment increase in such families in the metropolitan suburban counties. Very low enrollment rate for Anglos students in Denver Public Schools classrooms; Increasing budgetary problems for Denver and an decreasing ability to maintain governmental services as the number of poor families increases; 157

PAGE 168

A strong public perception that a major unit of the government of the City and County is incapable of operating in a constitutional fashion without judicial oversight. (Memorandum in support of motion to intervene, City and County of Denver (1994) Case No. C1499:.2-3 ). As part of the city's effort to end busing in Denver, Mayor Webb indicated to the judge that the city would seek to integrate schools by integrating the neighborhoods around them. Families would be given economic and other incentives to move into areas of town that have been poorly integrated in the past. Denver officials would also consider expanding the dispersed housing program that places families in public housing throughout the city. Supporting documents also quote Webb as saying, that he would back a Denver property tax increase to pay for educational and other programs that might be part of a settlement of the long-standing case ( Busing Solution Offered: Webb: Integrate Neighborhoods, The Denver Post, April 18, 1992). Parallel to the mayor's interest in promoting integration in the schools through integrated neighborhoods, were the efforts of Housing For All, a small non-profit, which tried to get the city and district to offer leadership to develop a plan. Housing For All, was founded as a result of work of a task force put together by the former Mayor Pena and other mayors and commissioners throughout the metropolitan area. Its goals were to eliminate housing discrimination, increase free choices in housing, and promote the integration of housing and schools throughout the metro area. Many interested parties were invited to take part in the development of this integration plan, including the city, the school district, minority groups, 158

PAGE 169

realtors, neighborhood groups, and business leaders (DPS Busing is a Symptom, Not the Problem, Denver Post, January 15,1992). Meetings were held over a year, and the Housing For All effort produced a number of recommendations and strategies, which have been largely ignored. Black and Hispanic Coalition Attempts to Negotiate a Settlement As the school district moved to return to court, members of the minority communities felt that this was a opportune time to attempt to work with school officials to negotiate a compromise agreement to settle the case. Talks were launched in 1991, after a group of Hispanic leaders argued that the costs of busing and legal fees, had drained the district's general fund and done more harm than good for minority students. By 1992, African American leaders joined the talks, and Mayor Webb also had a representative involved. A school district lawyer joined the talks as well, with the understanding that the school district was not negotiating anything, only discussing issues. In these "negotiations", it was suggested that the school district ought to pursue a negotiated settlement to the school integration lawsuit. Judge Matsch, in fact, had ordered the parties as far back as 1985 to attempt to negotiate a settlement. It didn't work then, and there was skepticism as to whether it would work this time. Both African American and Hispanic leadership, brought to the table their own ideas of what was required of the school district at this particular juncture. The outspoken editor of the Denver Post, AI Knight, questioned the validity of this approach 159

PAGE 170

I and the so-called "political opportunists", who were in his view, holding the school system hostage. [T]he Black and Hispanic leaders who are making their list of settlement demands are offering to trade minority support for the removal of the court order, but only if they are able to impose new conditions. It is as though the school district is being told it can cast off its old set of court-ordered shackles, only if it agrees in advance to put on a new set-those tailored by the minority spokesmen. There is a second problem here. Most of them, unlike Webb, who holds elected office, have never been elected to anything. They speak for no identified constituency based on anything other than ethnic or racial factors, and some of them lack any background or credentials in the broader community ... That is why it would be a poor bargain for the Board to sign agreements that have the happy effect of ending court jurisdiction only to burden the district with a new set of constraints and new layers of obligations (Fighting a Tide of Bad Advice: DPS Board is Right to Return Case to Court, The Denver Post, January 25,1992). After months of meetings with the black and Hispanic communities, in May of 1993, the school board rejected their desegregation proposals designed to end busing for integration. These proposals addressed many of the persistent disparities between minority and Anglo students. The Board claimed that the coalition's proposals were too costly and would not free the school district from the court's jurisdiction until 2003. The Board claimed that it would cost over $50 million dollars to implement programs and add facilities requested in the proposals. The district also pointed to an "obvious lack of consensus within both the black and Hispanic communities". The failure of this second attempt to negotiate, brought sharp criticism from the 160

PAGE 171

. I minority communities, but district officials felt that both the legal and political climate, were ripe for a potential release from the court order. Instead of negotiating with the minority communities, the school board would instead press for an answer from Judge Matsch. Shifting Legal Doctrine and the Limits of Desegregation The optimism felt by the Board and school officials regarding the potential for release from court jurisdiction, was well grounded in the shifting legal doctrine regarding desegregation which emerged in two cases which were brought to a close in the early 1990s. These cases were the Oklahoma case, Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991 ), and the Georgia case Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992). Gary Orfield and others have labeled these cases as the "resegregation cases". Instead of clarifying how to implement effective desegregation plans, this shifting legal doctrine laid the groundwork for the termination of desegregation cases throughout the country. These cases would ultimately be used as the standard for assessing measuring the Denver district's status and the future of desegregation in the city. In the Dekalb County Georgia case, the Supreme Court moved from the requirement of the removal of discrimination "root and branch", to a position that public schools may achieve racial integration incrementally-a piece at a time. This 8-0 decision gave authority to relinquish supervision and control of school districts in incremental stages, before full compliance 161

PAGE 172

has been achieved in every area of school operations. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion. "Residential housing choices and their attendant effects on the racial composition of schools, present an ever changing pattern, one difficult to address through judicial remedies. A school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors." (/d., at 469). The key question that federal judges must answer in deciding whether school districts have complied with desegregation orders, is whether the lingering racial imbalances are due to policies or demographics. The Judges listed three factors federal judges should consider in making such partial-withdrawal decisions: 1 Whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance by school officials over all those aspects over which supervision is to end, 2. Whether continued court control over all aspects is needed to achieve compliance in other areas; 3. Whether a school district has demonstrated to the public and to the parents and students of the once-disfavored race, its good faith commitment to integration (Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1991 ). Although there are some significant factual distinctions within these cases, one central theme is the court's attention to the issue of "vestiges" of discrimination. Areas that can, or may be addressed in considering vestiges are: student achievement, student discipline, special education, racial and ethnic composition of schools, racial and ethnic composition in assignment of faculties, school attendance areas, and student transfers. Denver schools, according to the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gordon Greiner, had not 162

PAGE 173

met court-mandated standards in two key areas-student and faculty integration. A third issue in evaluating desegregation in Denver, was whether the district's student transfer policy had continued to provided an escape hatch for those wishing to avoid integration. In November 1992, Judge Matsch set a hearing for the purpose of determining the nature of the hearing to be held on the school districts motion for release for court jurisdiction. The court vacated a November hearing date because of the continuing settlement negotiations. When the negotiations between the school district and the minority communities broke down, the court set a hearing for October 8, 1993, on the issue of the scope of the evidentiary hearing to be held on the school district's motion, and to determine the motion of the City for leave to intervene. The city's proposed role in seeking an end to federal supervision of desegregation was broader than the other parties in the case wanted. The school district welcomed the city as a friend of the court, but opposed the city of Denver as an intervenor. Gordon Greiner, the lawyer for the families that brought the case in 1969, said in court papers that the city's intervention would introduce irrelevant issues. Denver city officials were "stunned" by the parties opposition to its intervention in the remedial stage of the case. In response to the rejection of assistance, city officials wrote that, "Mayor Webb is deeply offended by the plaintiffs insulting remarks that Denver's motion to intervene merely discharges a "campaign promise ... to end busing" and that he would be content to accept the resegregation of Denver schools." (Plaintiff's Brief, 1994: 7). And further, "Denver's motion to 163

PAGE 174

intervene is supported by Anglo and minority people, who believe that this is the appropriate time for the Court to terminate jurisdiction. What is especially galling is their statement that the Mayor brings to the case nothing of relevance." (/d., at 15). State Demands End to Racial Busing One of the most nagging legal issues confronting Judge Matsch in his consideration of whether Denver schools would be released from court jurisdiction, was the implications of the 197 4 Anti-Busing Amendment to the Colorado Constitution. Over the duration of the case, Matsch worried that the state could dismantle Denver schools integration policies if court ordered busing was ended. The state's intervention posed a stumbling block for Denver schools in their effort to be freed of the court order. In its own brief the Board told Matsch: "If the board were to adhere to its policies following termination of jurisdiction it will immediately face the threat of new litigation based on the Colorado constitution. On the other hand, if the Board were to abandon its policies and comply with the apparent command of the Colorado constitution, it would in all likelihood be faced with renewed litigation charging it with purposeful discrimination ( Board Brief 1994: 5). The district argument also suggested that the Colorado Constitution might render illegal any magnet schools where racial criteria are used as a factor to determine who is accepted. Magnet schools such as Knight Fundamental Academy, and programs like the International Baccalaureate, and others, had been 164

PAGE 175

used by the district to "voluntarily" draw students out their neighborhoods and desegregate schools across the city. In 1993, the federal court asked the State of Colorado to submit its views regarding the constitutionality of the Anti-Busing Amendment. This provision provided that "no pupil shall be assigned or transported to any public educational institution for the purpose of achieving racial balance. n Without discussion with the plaintiffs or defendants in the case, Attorney General Gale Norton and her legal staff submitted a motion and brief to the court. They insisted that the anti-busing clause was constitutional. Specifically, they said: In enacting the Busing Clause, the people of Colorado simply established a constitutional policy against race-based decision making and in favor of a general policy of neighborhood schools. Although the provision is binding on all 176 school districts in Colorado, it does not affect the authority of a federal court to order mandatory busing to remedy violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nor does the policy affect the power of local school districts to bus students for other purposes. Since the busing clause refers only to race, by its clear terms, it does not apply to assigning students to eliminate overcrowding, ensure access to special programs, or promote magnet schools. Thus, the only thing prohibited by the Busing Clause is for a school district to use race in determining where that student should go to school (District Attorney's Brief:14). Norton offered a free-market-style plan that would allow Denver students to choose any school they wished to attend, and to make schools compete for students. Busing to achieve racial integration, violated the 165

PAGE 176

Colorado Constitution by restricting where students can go to school. However, these types of efforts to promote "voluntary" integration of the Denver schools, had been rejected by the courts in the past (Green), and had proven to be ineffective in promoting any significant desegregation. Equal Opportunity on Trial Twenty-five tumultuous years of court-ordered busing had forever changed Denver, shaping its social, political, and economic landscape. On August 22, 1994, Judge Matsch would hear the last round of evidence to determine the future of desegregation in Denver. The Denver school system would once again go on trial to assess its treatment of minority students. Judge Matsch would hear argument from administrators and board members who would insist that all remnants of discrimination had been buried, and that federal court oversight of the Denver Public Schools was no longer necessary. As the case moved through the courts for twenty-five years, there were many changes in the district. As busing fueled the flight of thousands of anglo and middle-class families to the suburbs, the district was transformed from a predominantly Anglo school system with 96,000 students to a predominately minority district of 63,000. The number of Hispanic students grew to represented approximately 60% of the district's pupils. The number of school children bused for racial integration had declined from a high of more than 20,000 in the early 1970s to fewer than 7,000 in the nineties. The complexity of the issues related to providing equal educational 166

PAGE 177

opportunity also increased with the growing number of students coming from single parent and families requiring government assistance. The decentralization of decision making in schools through the collaborative decision making committees (CDMs) at each school site, had altered the management structure of the schools. And despite the long protracted struggle for equal educational opportunity through desegregation, minority students still lagged behind Anglo students in critical areas. As the case proceeded into court for its last journey, issues related to the success or failure of Denver's desegregation experience would be hotly debated in the press, and throughout the community. In the minority communities there was a mixture of opinion. Hispanic activist, Nita Gonzales, said that she never felt that cross-town busing was an appropriate mechanism to fix discrimination. "But that doesn't mean its time to end federal supervision of desegregation." (Hispanic Activist, Others Miffed, The Denver Post, Aug. 18, 1994). Former school board member Rachel Noel insisted that she didn't believe that the Denver schools were ready to be released. "I don't think the record will show that all things the court has ordered have happened." (ld). The assessment that desegregation in Denver did not lead to equal educational opportunity, had influenced minority leaders in both the African American and Hispanic communities who once supported these efforts, to urge a return to neighborhood schools. For many leaders in the black community, it was time to end-court ordered busing because black students had historically born the burden of this effort, with little results in terms of achievement in particular. 167

PAGE 178

Although busing had outlived its usefulness for many in the minority communities, the question still remained as to whether neighborhood schools would mean better schools? Researchers with the Harvard Project on School Desegregation warned that cities that return to neighborhood schools, may experience resegregation. With housing patterns and discrimination continuing in Denver, this would surely be the case. A Harvard study in Norfolk, Virginia, showed that gains expected when the federal court allowed that city to dismantle its school desegregation plan never materialized. Instead researchers saw a sharp increase of concentrated poverty and racial isolation in the city schools across the nation (Orfield and Eaton 1996 xvi). The evidence was that in dismantling cities across the nation, neighborhood schools were no panacea. There is no evidence to suggest that it leads to higher achievement. The arguments for neighborhood schools were persuasive, but many had ignored the fact that even in Denver's neighborhood schools (Hispanic community in particular), the historical disparities had continued. The issues debated in these hearings, went beyond busing to include several additional concerns. The search for "vestiges of past discrimination", !ed the plaintiffs in the case to explore district operations beyond the ethnic breakdown of school populations. Questions were raised as to whether discrimination was still present in the district's current policies and practices. Some of the issues on which the judge heard testimony and debate included: 168

PAGE 179

I I j I I i I I I Disproportionately higher numbers of minority dropout and disciplinary cases, along with disproportionately fewer minority students in advanced classes; The shortage of minority teachers; Under representation of minority parents on school collaborative decision-making teams. Resegregation in the student bodies of several schools The four days of hearings demonstrated that the Denver Public Schools had failed to completely correct the unfair way minority students were treated despite the good intentions of the board and administration. In a shift of opinion from the beginning of the trial, the attorney for the plaintiffs Gordon Greiner in closing arguments, claimed that too few minority teachers were being hired, minority students were being suspended at higher rates than whites, that too many blacks and Hispanics were dropping out, and that not enough minorities were being drafted into the classes for the best and brightest (Court Asked to Keep Bias Watch on DPS, The Denver Post, August 26, 1994). Greiner encouraged Judge Matsch to retain partial control of school district operations in order to force the district to develop plans to address these persistent disparities. Before the trial, Greiner had indicated that he didn't think extending court supervision was necessary. His shift in position occurred during the trial when he became convinced that the district's efforts, particularly on minority hiring, were too weak (Denver Post, August 26 1994). The statistics that emerged during the trial, showed that the rate of minority hiring by the district wasn't even enough to maintain what he considered to be a poor level of minority representation on the 169

PAGE 180

district's faculties. At the time of the trial, 22 percent of the 3,800 teachers were black and Hispanic, but Hispanics and blacks comprised 64% of the student population. Greiner's position was bolstered by AI Kaufman, who represented the Congress of Hispanic Educators in the trial. CHE had intervened in the case on behalf of Spanish-speaking students. Kaufman was even more emphatic about the need for the judge to retain jurisdiction. He criticized the district for the over-representation of Anglo students in accelerated classes. And with so few minority teachers, he argued, there are 43 black students for every black teacher and 57 Hispanic students for every Hispanic teacher. On the other hand, he pointed out there are seven white students for every white teacher (Denver Post, August 26, 1994). Michael Jackson, the lawyer for the school district, argued that testimony from the superintendent, board members, school principals and others had provided strong evidence that all actions of the district had been without any purpose or intent to discriminate. A number of witnesses including school board president, Tom Mauro, pointed to the variety of social problems that were outside of the district's control, as significant factors contributing to the persistent disparities. As part of these hearings, the judge would also have to consider the implications of the Amendment to the Colorado constitution, which prohibited busing for racial balance. Colorado Solicitor General Tim Tymkovich, acknowledged that the present plan would have to be modified, but that integration could be achieve by enticing students to magnet schools and through other voluntary means. Greiner called the state's legal position 170

PAGE 181

"rather sad" because it doesn't deny integration is a good idea, but argues that it can't be specifically sought as a goal. "You put all these programs into place in hopes that you attain some inadvertenUaccidental integration, because integration policies can't be stated without breaking the law (Denver Post, August 26, 1994 ). The August 1994 proceedings would end with little fanfare or controversy. The fate of desegregation in Denver was again squarely in the hands of the Judge Matsch. It would be a year before he would had down his ruling. In the interim, the school district would make moves to further cut back on the busing of students. In what was labeled a history making move, in May 1995, the school board de-paired nine elementary schools which meant that these Anglo and minority students would no longer be bused out of their neighborhoods to integrate schools. The move was rushed through by board members frustrated by the lack of improvement in minority student achievement, which had continued to decline. The end of busing between these schools, would make four schools in north Denver ninety-percent Hispanic or Black. As the school district and community waited to hear from Judge Matsch, a new superintendent would be hired (lrv Moskowitz), and the membership of the Board would change. Final Ruling: Court Ordered Desegregation Ends in Denver The headline in the September 12, 1995 edition of the Denver Post read "Busing Dead in Denver". Judge Matsch had finally lifted the busing 171

PAGE 182

order and returned control of the school district to the school board after nearly twenty-five years of court intervention. However, there were concerns of the plaintiffs and intervenors that the "good faith efforts of future boards" was not enough guarantee that critical issues would be addressed, and that partial release from court jurisdiction through a permanent injunctive order was required. There were different opinions as to whether the district had yet realistically achieved their goals relative to unitary status. Plaintiffs and intervenors pointed to issues like the continuing disparities in achievement and disciplinary numbers between minority and Anglo students, minority hiring, and the under-representation of minorities in gifted programs. Despite these lingering concerns, Judge Matsch completely severed the judicial hold on the district regarding desegregation issues, with the exception of the bilingual aspects of the case, which stood on their own statutory ground. With this exception, the judge found that" it is now determined that defendant School District No.1, Denver, Colorado (District), has complied in good faith with the desegregation decree entered in this case and that the vestiges of past discrimination by the defendant have been eliminated to the extent practicable." (Final Decree, 1995:1 ). In explaining the status of this case in the context of the most recent desegregation precedent, Judge Matsch insisted that, "The Supreme Court has provided "new guidance for trial courts in bringing school desegregation cases to a close." (/d., at 11) He went on to state that: 172

PAGE 183

This court's assumption that this civil action would end with a final injunctive order was removed by the Supreme Court in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 489 U.S. 237 (1991 ). There the Court reversed the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and said that injunctive orders in school desegregation cases differ from equitable decrees in antitrust and other types of litigation. The Supreme Court directed federal district courts to close these school cases with final orders relinquishing jurisdiction and returning full governance of the schools to local control, when the defending district makes a sufficient showing that it has achieved unitary status. In Freeman v. Pitts (1992), the Court ruled that school districts could be partially released from their desegregation responsibilities even if integration had not been fully achieved in all the specific areas outlined in the Green decision. Addressing issues related to the disparities and "vestiges of past discrimination" which remained, was beyond the scope of this case and the continued jurisdiction of the courts according to Matsch. "The constitutional authority of the federal courts is limited to compelling the elimination of negative effects of de jure discrimination; it does not include the power to posit any particular affirmative achievements." Moreover, the judge insisted that Freeman v. Pitts ( 1992), Dowell ( 1991), and Missouri v. Jenkins, 115 S. Ct. 2038 (1995), had established the standard for measuring the defendants present position. With these cases, the Supreme Court had reminded district courts of their duty to recognize that educational policy is to be determined through the democratic process. With these precedents, the Court limited the power of the judiciary to deal with the issues of desegregation and equal educational opportunity. Matsch also found that The Supreme Court's opinion in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) defeated the 173

PAGE 184

plaintiffs call for compelling additional action to investigate and redress racial disparities in student achievement, and participation in special programs for gifted and talented pupils. This court has never made any findings that such disparities are the result of discrimination by the District. On the contrary, ten years ago this court said: [T]here is nothing in the law which does or could require equality in the results of educational services ... No school policy and no court order can assure any particular level of success in public schools any more than in any other aspect of life. Individual students will flunk, become disciplinary problems, drop out, or otherwise fail to meet expectations for reasons wholly unrelated to race, ethnicity, and environment. Keyes, 609 F. Supp, at 1515 (1985). The evidence presented in the August 1994 hearings did not demonstrate to the judge any finding of new discriminatory conduct related to these issues, even though some would disagree. To obligate the district further, would go beyond the remediation of past discriminatory conduct. The Districts "good faith effort" was demonstrated in the facts regarding the district's effort to comply with the provisions of the Interim Decree (1987). This had been achieved in the actions taken by the board in regard to: 1.) correcting the racial isolation at Barrett, Harrington, and Mitchell elementary Schools; 2.) implementing and administering the Hardship Transfer policies to prevent abuse; and 3.) in the implementation and monitoring of modifications in the District's Teacher Assignment Policy. The judge was also impressed with the manner in which the district had exercised discretion under its Resolutions 2233 and 2314, in the 174

PAGE 185

reorganization, closure, de-pairing of schools, and in the creation of special educational programs. The nagging legal issue of the Colorado Anti-Busing Clause and whether it was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, was also addressed directly by the judge. Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenors, and the school district sought, a judgment on this issue because they contended that this state restriction would have an adverse affect on the ability of the district to implement Resolutions 2233 and 2314 related to desegregation and equal educational opportunity. In response to this concern, the judge admitted that the removal of the court-order would remove the Denver district from its unique status among Colorado schools districts. Removal of federal jurisdiction over desegregation issues would require the district to comply with Colorado, and other federal laws, which impact the operation of schools. In respect to the Busing Clause. The judge writes: The Busing Clause in the Colorado Constitution and the statutes applicable to public schools will present many challenging questions as Denver continues to provide educational opportunities in a multiracial, multicultural society. The only question now before this court is whether the Busing Clause is incompatible with the district's duty to provide educational opportunities without racial or ethnic inequalities. The answer is no. The words "integration" and "desegregation" are not synonyms. Brown v. Board of Education and all of its progeny hold that the Constitution prohibits segregation of races in public schools with a purpose to impose disadvantages because of race. There is no constitutional corollary requiring the mixture of races according to some formula reflecting the constituency of the community served by a single school system. Thus. de jure racial segregation is prohibited 175

PAGE 186

but racial integration is not required. (Memorandum and Order, 1985:15) The judge went on to indicate that the Busing Clause is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, because the restriction on the authority to assign or transport pupils to public schools, is applicable only when used for the purpose of achieving racial balance. The constitutional restriction on the use of governmental power to base policy decisions on racial criteria was consistent with the ruling in opinions such as Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler. 427 U.S. 424 (1976), and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995). There is, in essence, no constitutional right to any particular degree of racial balance. Thus, the Supreme Court had drawn a distinction between the temporary use of racial markers to remedy the effects of unlawful discrimination and the use of such racial identifiers for other governmental purposes, including educational policy. The judge also pointed to other state and federal statutory requirements which the District was obligated to follow. (See Appendix C for laws impacting the current legal context for the operation of the Denver Public Schools). In absence of court jurisdiction, Matsch felt that these laws would provide protections against equally discriminatory behavior and that, A reading of these laws demonstrated the influence and effects of the greater empowerment of minority groups that has occurred since the Supreme Court first ordered the desegregation of the public schools in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. 176

PAGE 187

In his concluding remarks, Matsch observed that throughout the years of litigation: [l]t has been necessary to return to the courtroom ... using the adversary process to resolve factual and legal issues. Each hearing generated expectations and disappointments. Public comment has been extensive. At times criticism became calumnious. Most of the public focus has been on forced busing-the crudest yet most common of the tools used in school integration. This case has not been unique. It is but one of many such cases across the country. What is most common in the history of all of those cases is uncertainty. Thousands of pages have been written by scores of federal judges attempting to articulate guiding principles under the broad constitutional concept announced in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). What has been demonstrated most clearly is that courts using the adversary system were not designed to accomplish institutional reform. The Supreme Court has recognized in its most recent relevant opinions that the framers of the Constitution put their faith in the people and the democratic process to provide for the general welfare. The Denver now before this court is very different from what it was when this lawsuit began. The current Mayor of Denver is Black. His predecessor was Hispanic. A Black woman has been Superintendent of schools. Black and Hispanic men and women are in the city council, the school board, the state legislature and other political positions. Business and professional leadership is multiracial. People of color are not bystanders. They are active players in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the community. Their influence has contributed to the enactment of legislation which will affect the future of public education ... Their voices will be heard in the Denver school system. There is little danger that they will permit the public schools to deny then full participation. (Final Decree, 1995: 64-65) The community reaction to the release of the Denver Public Schools from court jurisdiction has been mixed. Uncertainty, as the judge admitted is 177

PAGE 188

still the central theme, particularly when it comes to addressing the persistent issues related to the disparities between Anglo and minority students. Some felt that the school district had finally admitted the failure of desegregation, and the return to neighborhood schools would result in an increase in schools with Black and Hispanic student populations of over 90 percent. Rachel Noel, who has observed the beginning and end of desegregation, commented that, u I hear black people say, let us have our own schools .. but our children will get lost in the shuffle The school board will say otherwise, but I don't believe people have thought about the consequences And then sometimes I ask myself, why should I waste my breath? I wonder if anyone's listening?" (Rocky Mtn. News, May 1, 1995) In the next chapter, the findings regarding the impact and interrelationships between the managerial, political, and legal aspects of this case history will be discussed, along with policy implications of the unfinished agenda of Keyes. Reflection on this history, is critical to the future of desegregation and equal educational opportunity at the dawn of the new millennium. 178

PAGE 189

REFERENCES-CHAPTER V Bell, Derrick. 1980. ed. Shades of Brown: New Perspectives on School Desegregation New York: Teachers College Press. Brown, Kevin. 1992. "After the Desegregation Era: The Legal Dilemma Posed By Race and Education". St. Louis Law Review. 37: 898. Crenshaw, Kimberle eta/. eds. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: New Press. Delgado, Richard and Jean Stepahic. 1995. "The Social Construction of Brown v. Board of Education: Law Reform and the Reconstructive Paradox," William and Mary Law Review. 36 (2): 547-570. Fishman, James J. and Lawrence Strauss. 1989. "Endless Journey: Integration and the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunity in Denver's Public Schools: A Study of Keyes v. School District No1". Howard Law Joumal32: 680-681. Liebman, James S. 1990. "Implementing Brown in the Nineties: Political Resconstruction, Liberal Recollection, and Litigatively Enforced Legislative Reform. Virginia Law Review. 76: 349-420. Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1984. The New American Dilemma: Uberal Democracy and School Desegregation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Orfield, Gary. 1983. Public School Desegregation in the United States 1968-1980. Washington D.C.: Joint Center for Political Studies. Orfield, Gary and Susan Eaton. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Spann, Girardeau. 1993. Race Against the Court: The Supreme Court and Minorities in Contemporary America. Publisher? Wilkinson, J, Harvie Ill. 1979. From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Desegregation:1954-1978. New York: Oxford University Press. Cases Keyes, 540 F. Supp. 399 (D. Colo. 1982). Keyes, 576 F. Supp. 1503 1521 (D. Colo. 1983) Keyes, 609 F. Supp. 1491 (D. Colo. 1985}. 179

PAGE 190

I Cases Keyes, 540 F. Supp. 399 (D. Colo. 1982). Keyes, 576 F. Supp. 1503 1521 (D. Colo. 1983) Keyes, 609 F. Supp. 1491 (D. Colo. 1985). Keyes, 653 F Supp. 1536 (D. Colo. 1987). Keyes, 670 F. Supp. 1513 (1987). Keyes, 498 U.S. 1082 (1991) (Certiori denied) Keyes, (Memorandum and Order: Judgement, September 12, 1995): 1, 11, 15. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424 (1976). Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991). Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992). Missouri v. Jenkins, 115 S.Ct. 2083 (1995). Adarand Constructors, Inc. v Pena, 115 S.Ct. 2097 (1995). Other legal Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene, City and County of Denver (1994) :2-3. Plaintiffs Brief on Motion of Intervention of the City and County of Denver (1994): 7,15. District Attorney (Gale Norton) Brief Regarding the Constitutionality of the Colorado Anti-Busing Clause (1994):14 Board Brief on the Impact of Anti-Busing Clause of the Colorado Constitution (1994): 5. Newspaper Articles Denver Post, February 10, 1984. Rocky Mountain News, February 16, 1984:8 Denver Post, March 5, 1984:7A. Rocky Mountain News, April15, 1984:1 Danver Post, May 22, 1985:1A Rocky Mountain News, January 4, 1992. Rocky Mountain News, September 22, 1992. Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 1994. Denver Post, August 18, 1994 180

PAGE 191

I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER VI A JOURNEY FULL CIRCLE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Desegregation becomes a process through which a city reconsiders its history and revisualizes its future. When this happens, a great deal more than classroom teaching and learning are at stake: race relations, property values, character of leadership, values of universality and inclusiveness, and economics of commerce and housing are all placed on the scale of racial justice (Willie et. al. 1991: 44). The national debate as to whether desegregation has had a positive or negative impact on the nation's public schools is ongoing The debate in the public arena, and in the literature reflects a diversity of opinions as to the failure or success of this public policy However, when we assess the impact of the Keyes case on the schools and community of Denver, the essential questions we must ask are: Was this the correct or most effective policy approach for achieving equal educational opportunity? What was it that we were trying to accomplish? And, was the desegregation of schools, primarily through racial balance, a good way of attaining these goals? The evaluation of the impact of desegregation in Denver, clearly depends on the vantage point provided by one's perspective. As the end of Denver's desegregation era became apparent, there was no shortage of 181

PAGE 192

opinions regarding the significance of Keyes to the city and its schools. Former Denver School Board member (1973-79), and current city councilman, Ted Hackworth insisted that, "As a result of the lawsuit, two generations of kids in the city of Denver have had their education suffer because of the lawsuit" (Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 18, 1994 ). The media reported that, "Desegregation divided the city for a generation ... and busing has fueled the flight of thousands of Anglo and middle class families to the suburbs and private schools. Denver has been transformed from a predominantly Anglo school system with 96,000 students to a predominantly minority district of 63,000" (Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 28, 1994). One editorial proclaimed that, "Court-ordered busing for the sake of busing is a failure. The time and money squandered on this counterproductive chimera can be used to far better to prepare Denver's children for the challenges of the future" (Rocky Mountain News, April 2, 1992). "Twenty five years of tumultuous years of court-ordered busing have forever changed Denver, shaping its social, political and economic landscape" (Rocky Mountain News, August 18, 1994). Still a different viewpoint, is that Denver has come a long way from the pre-Keyes era. Other critics argue that, "The court order had become a convenient political excuse for conservative forces seeking to maintain the status quo and avoid reform." (Rocky Mountain News, August, 18, 1994 ). (The Denver Post, January 23, 1992). Long time columnist, Gene Amole writes that, "There has been social change, but it was unintended change. The court order triggered a white flight to the suburbs, leaving behind disadvantaged 182

PAGE 193

children of color who were suppose to benefit from desegregation. We quickly learned that busing was no magic bullet to cure the core city's educational ills" (Rocky Mountain News, May 19, 1994). The impact of court-ordered desegregation on Denver and its schools was significant. What it didn't impact were the disparities between Anglo and minority students that it was designed to repair. Rachel Noel, the first black member of the school board said that, It seems that it has not improved that much ... The federal court should maintain its supervision of school desegregation ... I'm very nervous that pressure political and other influences-might be a return to some of the ways that were." (Rocky Mountain News, Aug., 25, 1994). There is concern in the African American and Hispanic communities that there may be a "full circle" return to the pre-Keyes segregation and inequality. This concern is grounded in the issue of whether the district officials, present and future, can indeed be trusted to fulfill goals of equal educational opportunity without the oversight of the courts. Denver's experience with desegregation has been a complex and intriguing saga. Keyes did stir the quest for racial justice in schools and the city. Whether the case has encouraged the city and school officials to reconsider history or to revisualized its future remains to be seen. The history of this case, as filtered through the managerial, political, and legal lenses of a public administrative framework demonstrates how the politicization of busing, shifting legal doctrine, and the challenge of managing a moving target, made the efforts to desegregate the schools 183

PAGE 194

more problematic than anticipated. Throughout this history, we find that the convergence of managerial, political, and legal aspects of this case created multiple constraints and barriers to desegregation as a strategy for achieving equal educational opportunity. Uncertainty, as judge Matsch pointed out in his 1995 Memorandum, is the central theme regarding this case and the future of educational opportunity. In this chapter, the writer once again focuses the conceptual lenses of public administrative to interpreting the history of Keyes as viewed through the conceptual lenses of public administration. Themes and issues emerging from court documents, news articles, and archival documents, reveal that the managerial, political, and legal paths of this case are consequential to the historical assessment of this case on Denver and its schools. This history also reveals the limitations of each of these approaches to desegregation policy, and tensions between them. In addition, he convergence of evidence, as viewed through the conceptual lenses of public administration uncovers: 1. )the structural and systematic aspects of the managerial, political, and legal constraints and barriers to the desegregation of the Denver schools; 2.) the persistent issues and themes related to desegregation and the provision of equal educational opportunity ; and 3.) the challenges for public administrators charged with seeking equity and quality through policy and practice. Demographic and economic changes have influenced history and will help shape the future of desegregation in Denver. However, the impact of managerial, political, and 184

PAGE 195

legal aspects of this case demand attention, because they reveal key actors and influences on Denver's desegregation experience. The view from the vantage point of these lenses, also limits the ability to suggest simplistic answers or reductionistic explanations regarding the impact of this case. One popular tendency is to blame students of color and their families for the intractability of unequal educational opportunity. Bell curve philosophers, for example, have been persistent in their limited beliefs that genetic inferiority or cultural disadvantage, are the sole causes for the continuing disparities. Viewing the history of this case from a broader conceptual base, contextualizes desegregation within a framework that moves us beyond this type of scapegoating. Focusing the Managerial Lens on Keyes The managerial aspects of the implementation of court-ordered desegregation in the Denver schools is an often overlooked aspect of this city's desegregation history. The planning and management of desegregation strategies, have historically been the most problematic of the three approaches explored in this study. Public school administrators responsible for desegregation, not only have had to effectively manage multiple issues, but respond to the changing legal doctrine and the politics of public pressure. The managerial context of public school desegregation has evolved from merely insuring against physical segregation, to dealing with a 185

PAGE 196

complex set of requirements related to representativeness, equity and accountability. It is no wonder that politicians, and the public generally, have become so critical of public bureaucracies like the public schools. Rosenbloom (1986: 28) reminds us that, "It is virtually impossible to satisfy frequently all the managerial, political and legal/constitutional demands place on public administrators and public agencies. They stand on very shaky ground that is always likely to crumble beneath them." Over the span of the Denver case, the "politically" correct practice of establishing citizen advisory committees, were instituted to reflect the political values of responsiveness, accountability, etc. The Denver case illustrates how the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy values of the managerial approach to desegregation are frequently in tension with those of the political. Although politically correct, representative and responsive, the committee approach to desegregation planning would often get bogged down with politics. These efforts required considerable time and dollars, only to have these recommendations abandoned with the appointment of the next desegregation related committee. The "committee" approach to desegregation created frustration for the administration as they tried to manage the court case within the legal mandates, and respond to a variety of political interests simultaneously. In the earliest days of responding to the elimination of the segregation in the Park Hill schools, district officials recognized the depth of the task at 186

PAGE 197

had. In reporting to the district court on the preparations effort to desegregate, officials insist that: The plan development for the desegregation and integration has, of necessity had to be designed around existing environmental and operational considerations. Considered among these have been current practices and problems in Denver, review of research, establishment of criteria including the effect upon the educational program and the continuation of quality educational opportunity efficient utilization of plant capacity, financial limitations of the school district, community characteristics, and the role of transportation (Interim Report, February 1971 :2). Despite the development of elaborate plans for desegregation in Denver, the implementation processes and the measured outcomes fell short consistently. Several issues challenged management throughout the duration of the case. These include the disparities in student achievement. the disproportionate numbers of minority students subject to disciplinary procedures, the recruitment of minority faculty and administrators, the participation and representation of minority parents, equal access to special programs. These issues have been historically pointed out by the plaintiffs and recognized by the judge a vital to equal educational opportunity. The view that the politics and legal requirements of Keyes case had become a managerial impediment had also become popular. The concern was that, "As long as Denver schools remained under the watchful eye of the federal court, board members and administrators may hesitate to try new 187

PAGE 198

programs or implement much needed reforms for fear of invoking the wrath of the judiciary." (The Denver Post, January 23, 1992). Denver is not isolated in the elusive quest of turning desegregation policies into practice. Willie et. al (1991: 36), report that desegregation research planning, innovation, and field testing did not move forward rapidly. "It took roughly fifteen to twenty years after the Brown decision to master the challenge of how to plan and implement school desegregation methods. State agencies were with few exceptions were committed to avoiding these policy issues. Universities and colleges had few knowledgeable experts to contribute. Generally, technical needs in desegregation were great, while the availability of technical help was not." In the first twenty years after Brown, plans were usually devoid of educational components. Later a more diverse range of options began to be devised and installed. The best plans went beyond these, however, to include features for administrative decentralization, citizen participation, independent monitoring, evaluation, and even capitalization reforms for funding districts and upgrading their facilities and equipment (Chesler 1981; England 1982; England and Morgan 1986; Willie et. al. 1991; Fife 1992; Gordon 1994 ). As the Denver case evolved from the initial litigation in the sixties, to the implementation of district-wide desegregation in 1975, the diversity of ideas regarding what goes into an effective desegregation plan were confounding. There was little consensus in the Denver schools or in the community as to which approaches were the best fit for Denver. Prior to the 188

PAGE 199

judge's forced implementation of the court mandated and fashioned Finger plan in the 1970s, the board and district officials had reviewed over fourteen divergent versions or visions as to what desegregation in Denver should look like. The inability to find this common ground throughout the twenty-five years of desegregation litigation, made the implementation of any one plan problematic. The district was often criticized for the constant change and uncertainty that came with frequent experimentation. Denver did as other districts by fashioning strategies which included multiple components. In Denver, a combination of mandatory busing, pairing and clustering of schools, magnet schools, voluntary transfers, in-service training and school upgrades shaped the vision of desegregation. Each of these components became a part of Denver's efforts, and each strategy met with varying degrees of success (Reports on Resolution 2233, 1989; Matsch's Memorandum and Order, 1995). The official policies and charges to management regarding desegregation are reflected in the board's resolutions throughout the duration of the Denver case. (See Appendix B). These resolutions are embedded with managerial responsibilities for school leadership and their administrative staffs. The different superintendents and their respective staffs, have approached these managerial challenges differently and with different levels of commitment. Boards have modified and changed these resolutions over time, and they have served as a guide for the managers of 189

PAGE 200

the district regarding district philosophy, policy, and practice relative to equal educational opportunity. The 1987 Interim Decree allowed the district even more flexibility, as the judge began to change his view of the willingness and ability of the district to comply with court guidelines. However, despite these good faith efforts, Gordon Griener, lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued that, "The various boards and their staffs had done a poor job setting specific goals, designating individuals to make improvements, or even defining for themselves the scope of the problems." (The Denver Post, August 25, 1994 ). However, over time, the court case became more convoluted and complex that it affected nearly every aspect of management in the district. The expanding scope of the case, made desegregation extremely elusive in a climate of apprehension and uncertainty. The management of desegregation in Denver, as reflected in this history, can be likened to trying to hit a moving target. The recalcitrance of early boards and staffs set in motion a bureaucratic inertia, which gave way in later years to "good faith" efforts to comply coupled with continuous appeals to the court seeking release from court supervision. Despite efforts on the part of the district to comply, all was not done that could have been to achieve equal educational opportunity. Those responsible for implementing the court order moved with one foot in, and one foot out of the desegregation waters, throughout the history of the case. Denver Public School officials literally walked a tightrope over the duration of the case. This ambivalence 190

PAGE 201

was in part a reason for the courts questioning the degree of compliance and maintaining supervision for nearly twenty-five years. Notwithstanding the help and attention devoted to the planning and management of desegregation, school districts have not been able to bridge the gap between pronouncements about equal educational opportunity and actual practice. Urban districts have not been successful in providing desegregated education against the tide of shifting legal doctrine and political attitudes, demographic shifts, funding inequities between urban and suburban districts, and increasing socio-economic disparities in student populations (Orfield et al. 1993; Douglas 1995; Johnson, 1995). "In some school districts, plans that appeared on paper, simply did not work on implementation. Whether through a faulty plan, the lack of community and school leadership, or lack of vigilance, the result has been the same-large numbers of minority and poor students have experienced neither desegregation or equal educational opportunity (Network of Regional Desegregation Assistance Centers 1989: 17 -18). The interest and commitment to school desegregation also waned in the 1980s and 1990s. The mindset of the public at large, and that of state and local governments, has shifted to issues of excellence versus equity, even though these goals are not mutually exclusive (Apple 1989: 59). The impulse and funding to understand the phenomena of equal educational opportunity through scholarly investigation has similarly diminished, along with the usefulness of social science research in the management of these 191

PAGE 202

complex and interrelated issues (Hochschild 1985; Hansen 1993; Gordon 1994). Understanding the barriers and constraints of the managerial dimensions of public school desegregation, is critical to gaining a more comprehensive and policy relevant perspective on the history of the Keyes case and its impact. In the examination of the historical obstacles school administrators have faced in planning and implementing effective desegregation, we find persistent issues which have yet to be addressed fully. Fishman and Strauss (1989: 665), in their analysis of Keyes as an "endless journey", identified several obstacles to the management of effective desegregation in the Denver schools. They point to bureaucratic concerns and management dilemmas related to issues like: racial imbalance in student suspensions, minority and Anglo disparities in achievement, faculty integration, resegregation, bi-lingual education, demographic shifts, and housing segregation. Many of these issues cannot be resolved by school officials in isolation, but they must be addressed in the post-desegregation era. Efforts to partner with the city, other governmental agencies, and the private sector, provide new challenges for management, and hope for equity and quality in Denver's mostly segregated neighborhood schools. The 1989-90 decentralization of management functions, and establishment of local governing councils (CDMs) at each school site, will make ensuring quality and equity just as problematic as it has been during 192

PAGE 203

the desegregation era. In his final decree, Judge Matsch admits his concern regarding diversity and representation on these local school governing bodies. He observed that, "The creation and operation of these site-based management groups may present problems for the Board. Such decentralization of authority could adversely impact the unitary character of the District in the future" (Memorandum and Opinion, September 12, 1995: 64 ). Monitoring and accountability for equity and quality in this new environment, will present the Board and school administrators with significant challenges, if the goal of equal educational opportunity is to be realized for all of the children in Denver. Focusing the Political Lens on Keves The political tenor of integration changed. Neighborhood schools are what are politically possible ... The end of busing is strictly a matter of politics not education. (Gordon Griener, lawyer for the plaintiffs, quoted in Westward, January 1997: 18) By the time Keyes was heard in the Supreme Court: It was clear that the federal government was giving up on its mission of bringing the nation's public schools; into compliance with constitutional requirements for desegregation. The White House openly warned federal officials that they would be fired if they continued to urge busing. The Justice Department, once an ally of integration, gave low priority to school cases and sometimes led the opposition to legal theories advanced by civil rights lawyers. In both the Charlotte (Swann) and the Denver cases, the Department sided 193

PAGE 204

emphatically with proponents of less integration. (Wilkinson 1979: 217). In the assessment of the impact of Keyes, politics has been another under-emphasized, yet potent theme. By the time the Keyes case came to the Supreme Court docket in 197 4, the political tide had begun to shift and the opponents of busing were being listened to across the country. As the descriptive history of Keyes illustrates, the politics of desegregation in this city have had a significant influence on the effectiveness of desegregation efforts. In the Denver case, there have been political dynamics involving official policy makers at the federal, state, and local levels, A variety of political stakeholders have attempted to sway the direction of desegregation in Denver. Governors, state legislators, mayors, and local city council persons, have influenced both the emergence and dismantling of desegregation. From the beginning of this lengthy litigation, political coalitions were formed on both sides of the issue. School board campaigns were won or lost on one's position on the busing platform. At the state level, the anti busing forces in Colorado fearing that busing would cross city boundaries, passed the Anti-Busing Amendment to the Colorado Constitution (1974), and the Poundstone Amendment. These state level politics effectively isolated the idea of desegregation to the city limits of Denver and prohibited the city from annexing neighboring property. The Denver case also became a target of federal anti-busing forces through the intervention of the 194

PAGE 205

Department of Justice in support of the release of the district from court supervision. In the eighties and nineties, mayoral campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s (Pena and Webb) have taken on the challenge of "getting Denver off the bus". Busing has been utilized as the political scapegoat for all that is wrong with the city, despite the fact that persons leave inner cities for a variety of concerns, (economic opportunities, crimes rates, affordable housing, etc.) In the litigative proceedings which led to the release of Denver from its courtordered busing, Mayor Webb, through the city attorney, filed with the court to become intervenors in the case. In the final hearings to release Denver from its court-ordered desegregation plan, the state attorney general, Gale Norton, also filed to intervene in the case to support the district's contention that it had fulfilled the requirements for compliance. These political interventions received support from the press and public and were shunned by both the school district and plaintiffs (Rocky Mountain News, April 18, 1994). The politics of desegregation in Denver has been most visible in Board politics. Fishman and Strauss (1989:661) observe that, "In the course of the litigation, the Denver school boards became an extremely political governing body, a plateau from which its members could launch a political career. This trend has had an adverse effect on the development of desegregation remedies. Until Keyes, those who served on the board were 195

PAGE 206

members of the Denver establishment, board membership was not a highly visible position politically. n The 1969 school board election was a watershed. From then on, elections became ideological battle grounds centered on busing. Increasing, sophisticated political tactics were used for a position that paid nothing. A brief look at the board elections from 1975, the year after the original remedy was implemented, until the election in May 1985, reveals the tenacious grip the busing issue has had on the Board's politics, and how much the board evolved as a political animal-most notably when it came to getting elected and more importantly, to staking out a political constituency." (Fishman and Strauss 1989: 661 ). The politicization of the school board has meant that certain board candidates have run for office with the understanding that they would oppose the court-order-or not support it publicly. Into the 1990s, school board candidates with minor distinctions all wanted to end federal court supervision (Rocky Mountain News, May 5, 1993). "There is much political mileage to be gained by opposing busing, and over the years there has been a stable constituency in Denver that supports that stance. As a result, the board, in varying degrees has been recalcitrant, and some cases openly defiant toward court-ordered desegregation "(Fishman and Strauss 1989:662). The successful implementation of the variety of plans which were developed throughout the history of the case were subject to the political leanings, knowledge, and commitment of the boards of education. 196

PAGE 207

In addition to the intergovernmental and board politics, the community politics of race and class have also had a significant impact on the outcomes of Denver's desegregation. The racial and cultural politics of the Denver case make it unique in the history of desegregation litigation. From the beginning of the case, African-American and Hispanic litigants have presented various and often competing demands to a school system controlled by Anglos, in both policy making and administrative dimensions. The effort by the judge (Matsch) to allow the parties to negotiate an agreement to settle the case, often diminished into a political battlefield on which nothing was settled. The majority Anglo faculties of the Denver schools, have been challenged by these communities in regarding their commitment, and capacity to meet the needs of the current majority of the school population, which is predominately Hispanic and African-American. In addition to these more apparent forms of politics, the desegregation movements have to a large extent been influenced by the internal politics of the bureaucracies of large school districts, and Denver is no exception. Some have observed that bureaucratic politics between the administration and local schools, created its own inertia to the effective implementation of desegregation plans (Fishman and Strauss 1989; Kirp, 1992). Blaming the court order for white flight and the decline of schools, became an easy scapegoat for those who sought to blame the system rather than take responsibility on themselves. Some insist that at various stages of the Denver case, the board's reluctance to approach the desegregation 197

PAGE 208

remedies in a positive light, filtered down into the bureaucracy (Fishman and Strauss 1989). Faculty resistance to in-service training, (a key component of successful desegregation plans), the shunning of outside uexpere assistance are viewed as examples of this resistance. The resegregation of desegregated schools, has also been viewed as an example of a lack of internal organizational commitment to the various desegregation plans and their successful implementation. The influence of the media in the politics of Denver's desegregation experience is another aspect of the politics of desegregation which cannot be ignored. The mostly hostile Denver media, consistently put its spin on issues related to the desegregation of the schools. Gary Orfield (1978) has observed the selective and limited amount of information that got through to the public regarding the various views about the effort to desegregate public schools. After the review of the multitude of articles related to desegregation from Denver's two major dailies, The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News, the researcher has made several observations. The reporting of education news in Denver depends to a significant degree on the editor and individual reporters assigned to this section of the city desk. The overall coverage of the Keyes case by the Denver Press has ebbed and flowed with the intensity of the political climate. For example, there were peaks in coverage and editorial comment during times of the most controversy. The press was most active during the beginning of the desegregation controversy and during its dismantling (1960s-70s and the 1990s). The anti-198

PAGE 209

busing politics of the press is most clearly apparent in the editorial pages of both Denver dailies, which were often scathing in their criticism of the board, and the effort to desegregate the schools. The cost of legal fees also fanned the political fires which led to the dismantling of desegregation in Denver emerged in the 1990s. The district's and plaintiffs lawyers were accused of taking advantage of the tangle of legal issues involved in the history of the Keyes litigation. There were questions as to who was really benefiting from the continued litigation. The press exposed the high price of litigation at a time when the school district was struggling with budget cuts, poor student achievement, and frustration of parents and community members ( Rocky Mountain News, May 13, 1993 ). The changing attitudes of minorities in Denver also added to the shift in the political environment of desegregation (Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 19, 1994). Over the duration of the case the African-American community and its students felt that they bore the largest share of the burden of desegregation. In busing these students out of their neighborhoods to integrate majority white schools, many feel that achievement, parental involvement, and the sense of community suffered. Frustrated with the inability of desegregation to produce significant gains for their students, the AfricanAmerican community questioned its support of this lengthy litigation. And interestingly, the lawyers for the families who sued the district, filed a motion indicating that Denver Public Schools had made substantial progress 199

PAGE 210

and that they didn't oppose the move to end the case despite the continuing disparities (Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 21, 1994). The politicization of desegregation and busing in Denver most certainly limited the degree of success achieved. in the attempts to provide equal educational opportunity through these remedies. The historically anti busing majority on the boards of education, a hostile press, and an unsupportive community that voted with their feet, most certainly influenced the direction that desegregation would take in this city. The variety of political actors, who utilized the unpopular notion of desegregation for own political capital, also undermined the vision of those who supported the case. Focusing the Legal Lens on Keyes Recent Supreme Court decisions have trimmed constitutional requirements for a society that has left behind formal segregation, but not the realities of racism and discrimination. As ultimately designed, the law of the land is that the achievements of Brown need not be preserved and the undoing of segregation itself is required only to the extent practicable ( Lively 1993:649). The legal path of Denver's desegregation experience has been long, complicated, and protracted. The legal lens of this history reveals the tendency, on behalf of the district and the plaintiffs, to rely on the courts to referee these issues. In the course of the twenty-five years of litigation, we find in the court documents not just one legal battle, but Keyes I through Keyes XVIII stretched out over this history. The courts were both 200

PAGE 211

condemned and thanked for the strong supervisory role taken throughout most of the duration of the case. However, as legal precedents in desegregation cases shifted across the country, the legal requirement for remedial relief in the Keyes case was relaxed over time. The Court and its federal branches moved from eliminating the vestiges of past discriminatory practices "root and branch", to eliminating vestiges to "the extent practicable." The legal path of desegregation in Denver has followed that of the nation in respect to the retrenchment of these policies in the 1980s and 1990s. In the Memorandum and Opinion (September 12, 1995), releasing the Denver Public Schools from court-order desegregation, Judge Matsch makes reference to the precedents which have weakened these policies. The press has also been critical of the judge's handling of the case. Rocky Mountain News editor Vincent Carroll writes that, "Matschone of President Nixon's notable contributions to judicial hubris-has spent nearly 20 years conjuring a moving target for the school board, imposing one standard for English-deficient students, another for the recruitment of personnel, and even once supported a Compliance Assistance Panel whose clownish proposals included faculty relaxation programs" (Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 21, 1994). Kevin Brown (1992b:898) observes that, "Not only has America failed to integrate its public schools, but the Supreme Court, in two of its most recent desegregation rulings, Board of Education v. Dowell and Freeman v. Pitts, has set the judicial stage for the termination of school desegregation decrees. There are currently over 500 school districts under some form of 201

PAGE 212

. I I I I supervision. Termination of these decrees will return faculty and student assignment decisions back to the control of local and state education officials, and the reaction to this is mixed." Some say we have forgotten that in the history of Brown and its progeny, it was the resistance to fairness in education at state and local levels, which led to the intervention of the Court. In the post-desegregation landscape: Education officials will be able to adopt, or readopt, race neutral student placement methods, such as neighborhood school assignments, and possibly freedom of choice plans. Because student assignments will no longer be motivated by an attempt to maintain a desegregated student body, the result of the termination of a large number of existing desegregation orders during the 1990s, will be an increase in the amount of racial separation in public schools. With this in mind, it is probably safe to conclude that public schools have already achieved the maximum, amount of desegregation that will be achieved in the near future (/d., at 899). The legal frameworks of Freeman, Dowell, and now Keyes (1995), make it too easy for district courts to dissolve desegregation decrees, thus enabling the reemergence of racially identifiable stigmatizing schools that the decrees were designed to eradicate. While not advocating a mandated separation of the races, proposals to eliminate or scale back decades-old desegregation remedies will return many districts to a system of segregated and mostly unequal neighborhood schools. Once a decree is lifted, parents and children will have a tougher time attacking a school board's actions, even if they result in resegregation. Plaintiffs must now prove discriminatory 202

PAGE 213

intent and overcome a variety of other discouraging obstacles (F. Brown 1994:337). In a dissenting opinion, the late Justice Marshall observed that, "The majority of the Court signals that it regards racial discrimination as largely a phenomena of the past, and that government bodies need no longer preoccupy themselves with rectifying racial injustice." (J. Marshall dissenting in Cronson v .Clark, 48 U.S. 871 (1989). With a variety of shifts in attitude and tactics, the legal framework of desegregation law has unraveling to the point where it has been characterized as "contradictory, surrealistic, and incoherent" (Yoduf 1978:57). Some insist that the remedy for de jure segregation (i.e. desegregation through racial balance or busing}, has effectively duplicated and worsened the disease it was designed to cure (K. Brown 1992). The harshest critics of our over-reliance on the wavering desegregation doctrine, insist that the Court has helped to seal off inner cities, reinforced the "badge of inferiority" by insisting that black schools are inferior, and obfuscated our understanding of race and rights (Hansen 1993; Spann 1993). Today the retrenchment in race and rights is also reflected in the controversies regarding the constitutionality of Black male academies, minority scholarships, and affirmative action that takes the form of reserving slots in state funded professional schools (Lively 1992; Spann 1993). The recent court cases, along with Keyes, appear to complete a counter-revolution. Bell and other critical legal and race theorists, observe that the impact of white resistance, a less than supportive Supreme Court, and demographic shifts have proved to be a lot more potent than the 203

PAGE 214

progressiveness of the 1960s civil rights era for which Brown served as catalyst( Bell 1989; Spann 1993, Haymen, Jr. 1995). Taking their cues from the conservative restoration, public sentiment and the federal courts seem to have returned us full circle to a pre-Brown posture that says-segregation is O.K. under certain conditions or traditions, e .g de facto segregation. Plessy v. Ferguson's "traditions of the people" -the tradition of separateness, racial hierarchy, and racial tensions appear to be ours once again in this new landscape It is painfully ironic that the centennial of the Plessy ruling comes at a time when the courts and many school districts have moved to end the efforts to provide integrated schooling. Faced with the disillusionment in the ability of busing to guarantee quality education for all, urban districts appear convinced that the 1990s version of neighborhood schools can truly be "separate but equal", and preferable to "integrated but and unequal". However, the conclusion that there is a clear and certain path to providing quality education to racially isolated neighborhood schools is premature given the current state of educational inequity in urban school districts. The experiences of districts that have decided to dismantle their desegregation plans illustrate a variety of troublesome problems that suggest the need to re-examine basic assumptions regarding race, the law, and the right to equal educational opportunity They also reinforce the significance of the interrelationships between the managerial, political and legal aspects of this struggle. Orfield and Thronson (1993 : 761) in their examination of the "uncertain gains and 204

PAGE 215

unexpected costs" of dismantling desegregation efforts, warn that school districts are moving forward in this murky landscape with unsupported expectations. The idea, for example, that political conflict will diminish and that non-judicial mechanisms can assure equity in the resegregated minority schools are not supported empirically in several districts. Local commitments to special programs for resegregated schools last only a limited time. Furthermore, the assumption that we know how to provide equal education in segregate schools has not proved true in spite of considerable efforts. Costs are not likely to decline. In some districts, racial tensions and legal disagreements across racial lines have continued at a high level. The hoped for end of white flight and the return of white students have not materialized at all in some districts, and have been far below predictions in others (/d. ,at 761 ). They go on to insist that: The fundamental reason for the difficult and uncertain results of the dismantling efforts, is that the legal standards for a court finding that a school district has purged its constitutional violation and become unitary, have very little to do with whether the district has actually provided equal education to minority youth for a long enough time to overcome the cumulative impact of generations of unequal opportunity. In fact, the standards require no showing that gaps in educational opportunity have actually narrowed. (ld. at 762). The question facing the court in the last days of this case, was whether all children receive equal education in the Denver Public Schools. 205

PAGE 216

After days of debates and statistical presentations about student achievement, the answer was painfully clear: No. (Rocky Mountain News, Aug., 28, 1994). Disparities were recognized by the judge, however, the district was not to be blamed for the continuing discrimination or the resegregation of its schools with the lifting of the court-order. The gaps in educational opportunity were considered beyond the scope of the case. Moreover, recent court precedents had narrowed the scope of desegregation remedies and the jurisdiction of the federal courts in educational policy (Dowe/11991, Freeman v. Pitts 1992, Missouri v. Jenkins 1995). In these cases, the Court also conceded to the de facto segregation cased by housing patterns. Increasingly, segregated neighborhoods are being reflected in the nation's classrooms. For many school districts, including Denver, the only hope for eradicating segregation in schools is chipping away at housing segregation. In releasing Denver from court-jurisdiction Judge Matsch refers to a string of laws and statutes at the state and federal levels which would provide a framework for pursuing the goals of equal educational opportunity. (See Appendix C). This new legal framework should be examined closely by the board, administrators, and community, for it will most likely become the context for future legal and political battles. Elaine Jones (1996), Director-Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, helps to put the legal aspects of the struggle for desegregation in a striking perspective. She states that, 206

PAGE 217

As a nation we have come to a point where we now honor Brown, in theory more than we do in fact. The consequences are not solely of legal significance. Millions of American children are relegated to racially segregated schools with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged students. They gain little solace from the knowledge that at one point in time a federal court was able to take a judicial snapshot of a desegregated district before it was allowed to resegregate or that the segregation they experience has been judicially determined to be de facto (Orfield and Eaton: 1996:ix). This statement reflects the general frustration and realization of the historical limitations of the legal approach to desegregation Looking through the legal lens of desegregation, it does appear as if we have returned to the point where we started The history of Keyes, clearly illustrates, how a legal mandate cannot assure equal educational opportunity, in isolation from political will or managerial competence and commitment. The view of Keyes v School District No. 1 through the conceptual lenses of public administration, provides a broader understanding of the impact of the this case on Denver and its schools. The history of Keyes as reflected in these historical lenses, demonstrates how managerial, political, and legal approaches to these policies, have shaped the direction and overall impact of desegregation in this city. The convergence of these influences throughout the history of the case, reveals multiple constraints and barriers to desegregation efforts. The politicization of busing, legal retrenchment, and managerial ambivalence, provided an inertia to desegregation that supporters could not overcome. The hindsight of this 207

PAGE 218

history, also helps to identify themes and issues important to the unfinished agenda of providing equal educational opportunity to all students. Policy Implications: Understanding the Past, Exploring the Future Until the public mind is disabused of the notion that the "problem" of "segregated" schools has been eliminated, America will continue to be two societies: black and white, separate and unequal. One of the reasons for the resistance to various remedial measures is the difficulty the public has in understanding the nexus between the present segregation condition and that which existed in the past (Judge Nathan Jones 1994:525) Understanding the nexus between the present conditions in the nation's urban schools and the conditions of the past is critical for shaping future policy and practice. Forty-plus years after Brown, and twenty-five years after Keyes, is more a time for reflection and introspection than celebration. Issues related to race and social justice in a number of arenas continue to perplex us. The history of desegregation is a striking example of this continuing American dilemma. The most frustrating aspect of our forty year experience with desegregation is, as Gary Orfield (1986:93) has observed, that "There is no political or intellectual consensus about where we have been, what we have learned, or where we are going from here. n There is, however, general agreement on at least two points with regard to the history of public school desegregation-the racially integrated school systems we sought have not been produced to the extent hoped, and the 208

PAGE 219

I I I I I equal educational opportunities envisioned by the architects of the Brown strategy have not been realized. The dismantling of Keyes. has left the Denver community with many unanswered questions, unresolved issues, and an unfinished agenda relative to equal educational opportunity. If the desegregation era over, we must ask: How do we provide equal educational opportunity to African American students and other students of color. If racial balance is not the remedy for persistent educational inequities, then what is the formula for achieving this forgotten goal of Brown? Can we truly provide an education for these students that is separate yet equal? If resistance in the managerial, political, and legal realms make desegregation impractical, why not try to insure that separate does not mean unequal? What ever the future holds, we should be determined not to repeat the errors of the disappointing past. The ignored lessons of the four decades following Brown and the legacy of Keyes, are being learned at great cost to our children. They should not be ignored as policy makers and legalists chart the future course for race and equal educational opportunity. We should have learned that merely integrating schools, in a society still entrenched in racism, does not ensure black parents and their children equal opportunity. We should have learned that just moving children to different schools, is an important but not sufficient strategy, if the education they receive at the end of the bus ride will not prepare then for a competitive 209

PAGE 220

I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i I I i world, to be good citizens, or to have appreciation for people unlike themselves. This country and its schools are going through vast changes without strategies to impact the growing disparities. The children left behind in urban schools need a quality, equitable, and diverse education tailored to their needs in all of the varied educational settings in which we find them. The next set of struggles is to have schools that are truly equal. Our immediate concern must to require schools regardless of their ethnic make up to produce quality education for all who attend them. Educators, parents, and community must take the lead in the continuing struggle to make the promise of equal educational opportunity a reality. There are some who insist that there is a need to revise the goals of the Brown and Keyes, and move beyond desegregation. In the attempt to learn from the past, and avoid a return "full circle" to separate and unequal schooling, there is a need to refocus our efforts in four critical areas. Based on this research, the literature, and the experience of the writer with the plight of urban school districts, there are several emergent themes which may provide guidance for future policy. In depth analysis of these concerns for post-Keyes Denver is beyond the scope of this dissertation, however, they and will continue to provide fertile ground for further research and action. The following recommendations represent the minimum requirements for strategies to assist schools in Denver, and other urban centers, from making the journey full circle" return to separate and unequal 210

PAGE 221

schooling. There is a need to move beyond desegregation to more expansive models of equity and quality education. These two goals are not mutually exclusive, and many feel that you cannot have one without the other. The equitable distribution of resources, staff development, curriculum and instruction, and parental/community involvement are the cornerstones of a framework for equity in the post-desegregation landscape. In assessing the impact of the history of Keyes, these are only some of the challenges which remain in the unfinished agenda of this case. These critical themes have implications for future policy, research, and practice. The challenges in each of these areas, also have implications for managerial, political, and legal approaches to creating equity and quality education in today's changing environment. Recommendations for Educational Equity in Post-Keyes Denver 1. Equitable Distribution of Resources The equitable distribution of resources is a key factor for the realization of equity and quality schools in the post-desegregation landscape. Across the nation suburban school districts are often funded at twice the levels as urban school districts. In moving beyond desegregation, the issue of resource distribution, has moved to the center of the policy 211

PAGE 222

agenda for many seeking to ensure that minority children are not left out of the future. In addition, the dwindling tax bases of urban centers and the crumbling infrastructure of decaying schools, leave many urban districts at a serious disadvantage. Equitable in today's setting, does not mean equal resources. Schools in urban districts require additional resources to counter the effects of racial isolation and socio-economic disadvantage. The debate regarding the equitable distribution of resources will be a source of future legal and political battles. Already, in several states, urban centers have sued in order to obtain the funding necessary to provide quality and equitable education to their students. An example of the movement toward equity litigation in education can be found in the New Jersey case Abbott v. Burke, 136 N.J. 444 ( 1994) where the majorityminority school districts have successfully challenged state officials on the issue of equal funding. The politics of school vouchers, charter schools, and the like, threaten to further deplete the resources provided to urban districts. These proposals will have to be closely scrutinized for the degree of equity and opportunity provided they promise to all children. The equitable distribution of resources, human and material, will present a significant challenge for policy makers. In urban districts the socio-economic disparity between neighborhoods will require a method of managing resources in a way that they are distributed according to need. School in a mostly Anglo and middle class neighborhoods often have clear advantages when it comes to gifts, contributions and the capacity of these 212

PAGE 223

neighborhoods to support their schools. Conversely, schools in socio economically challenged neighborhoods may not have the same access to community resources. Without a fairer distribution of resources and quality between urban and suburban school districts, all proposals for providing equity and quality in education become merely and interesting topics for discussion. Money does make a significant difference, in both quality, and the degree of equity school districts can provide. The dismantling experiences of Dekalb County (Atlanta), Oklahoma City, and Kansas City, already suggest that it is unfortunately still true that segregation leads, perhaps inexorably, to inequality of educational resources and quality (Orfield and Eaton 1996). 2. Staff Development and Training Staffing disparities between black and minority schools was one of the central issues of the Denver case. The practice assigning of black teachers and inexperienced to majority black schools was an issue which initiated the court case. The politics of unions will be a challenge to the development of a quality and caring teaching force in Denver schools. The self-interest of unions often creates barriers to reform and change in schools districts. The rights of teachers have to be balanced with the rights of students and parents, if equity is to be of goal of Denver's post desegregation schools. In the effort to insure that each school has a qualified and committed staff, the Collaborative Decision Committees (CDMs) at each school site, can make decisions regarding personnel and 213

PAGE 224

school the design of schools. However, even with the opportunity this presents, there is potential for this decentralization to become another source of political and legal tensions in the development of future policy and practice. The creation of qualified and diverse staffs can provide schools with a fair chance to succeed. The recruitment and retention of African-American and Hispanic teachers is a challenge for all schools districts. The shortage of minority teachers will challenge the administrators of the district to develop strategies which can enhance the competitiveness of the district in salaries and benefits compared to the nation and surrounding district. Redefining the role of institutions of higher education provides another challenge in the development of policies and practices to support the needs of urban school districts in the areas of programs, research, and training. For example, teacher training programs which focus on preparing teachers to maximize their efforts in this age of information and technology are vital element for achieving both equity and quality in urban districts. Strengthening the educational pipeline, from kindergarten to post-graduate education, is vital to a productive workforce and future economy. The ability of the Denver public schools to forge functional partnerships with higher education institutions can provide resources and expertise vital to the future of equity and quality. 214

PAGE 225

3. Curriculum and Instruction Developing high standards and high expectations for all students is yet another focus which can assist urban districts in completing the unfinished agenda of desegregation efforts. Diversity in the curriculum, quality, and equal access to special programs, are all required. All students should be exposed to a curriculum which will provide them with an advantage in the context of the global village. Multicultural education scholars insist that it is important that the history and contributions of all Americans to be accurately written and integrated throughout the curriculum. "More of the curriculum should be organized around social issues that include race, class, gender, and disability as perspective for analysis. Students life histories and ethnic communities will often served as the starting point to teach critical thinking about issues critical to their life circumstances." (Tate et. al. 1996: 46). Attention to curriculum and instruction must also address the multiple learning styles of children, and issues of language and culture. Instructional methodologies which work for some students, may not work well for others. Sharing and duplication of techniques which meet the needs of different students, should be central to the professional development and support any school district provides to its staff. There is both legal and political pressure to address the issues of quality and diversity in curriculum and instruction. The pressure for higher standards and accountability is being felt from both the state and federal 215

PAGE 226

levels of government. Educational reform efforts are claiming to provide both educational excellence and equity for all students. The of minimum standards adopted by legislatures throughout the country, also hold some promise for an increased accountability for higher standards and greater opportunity for all children (Liebman 1993). Denver and other Colorado districts, have received pressure from the state for the improvement of curriculum and instruction with a focus on standards, monitoring, and accountability. 4. Parent and Community Involvement Keyes, like many desegregation cases before and after it, was heard by the judicial system because African-American parents and community members were fed up with the quality of education their children were receiving in the Denver public schools. In the challenging landscape of today's schools, parents and community are charged with becoming even more active and knowledgeable about educational processes. Research has demonstrated that the more involved the parents, the more responsive the schools, and the more students benefit. The site-based governance and decision making adopted by the Denver schools between 1988 and 1990, offers the opportunity for parents and community to impact schools and hold them accountable. The challenge for the school district, is to aggressively and continuously develop mechanisms to foster positive parent-community school relations. This need must be fundamental to the philosophy and 216

PAGE 227

practice of providing equity and quality education. When schools acknowledge the range in disposition, backgrounds, experiences, and strengths of diverse families, efforts to establish home-school communications and involvement are more successful. In the post-desegregation landscape, there is also greater onus on parents to take more responsibility for participating in and monitoring their child's education. With the decentralization of decision making and power in the Denver school district there are opportunities for constructive parental and community involvement. However, positive change cannot occur without a more active and informed involvement of parents and community. The end of busing in Denver, presents critical challenges to parents, churches, and community organization to become more informed and involved in their local schools. The leadership in Denver's communities of color, must renew their interest and commitment to educational issues. History has demonstrated that the schools cannot achieve the goals of equity and quality in isolation from community interest and involvement. The relative autonomy for schools in the Denver district presents challenges and opportunities for the provision of quality and equity in Denver's schools. There is opportunity for creativity, innovation, and a greater ability to response to the desires and needs of school populations. There are also challenges related to representativeness, equity, and responsiveness. The Denver school district has committed itself to policies which address many aspects of the above recommendations in Resolution 217

PAGE 228

No. 2529. This resolve, currently guides policies related to equal educational opportunity in the post Keyes-environment. The current leadership in the distrid has indicated its commitment to these goals. However, there is still significant uncertainty as to how these goals can be most successfully achieved. Participation and greater accountability on the part of parents and community, can help to ensure that equity and quality do not become empty promises in Denver, as they have in other districts which have dismantled their desegregation efforts .. ****************************** The writer ends the saga of desegregation in Denver where she began with the concern for how the traditions of racism and separatism continue to impact the provision of equal opportunity our public schools. The convergence of the managerial, political, and legal lenses of public administration on this history, have provide the reader with a broader more enlightened view of Denver's desegregation experience. The perspective on this history, as developed in this case study, helps to connect the past with the future of education in Denver. Race continues to be America's greatest dilemma and education still remains the best escape from segregation's effects. Revisioning the goals that Brown and Keyes represent, through the type of policies and practices recommendations discuss above, offers some hope in the post desegregation landscape. However, the persistence of separate and unequal education must challenge us all to take stock of the consequences 218

PAGE 229

of these trends to the future of the nation. There is a real danger in moving forward in the post-desegregation landscape without critical examination of the trade-offs for society and individuals as we evaluate our separateness. Several high profile media events, including President's Clinton's national dialogue on race, may help us come to grips with the realization that we are moving closer to Hacker's (1992) "Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, and Unequal." Judge Harvie Wilkinson Ill (1995:993) warns of the danger of ethnic separatism in a multicultural society. It must be remembered that the odious part of the Plessy v. Ferguson formulation, was always the word "separate". Although signs were not necessary in the mid-century to designate separate white and black schools, they were used to mark restrooms and water fountains. The indignities of that regime would seem too searing a historical experience ever to be forgotten. Of course, no one today advocates the return of the legally enforced apartheid, yet the lines of racial separation are emerging in a subtler form. Now, at the century's end, we are in danger of squandering the legacies of Abraham Lincoln, who gave us union, and of Thurgood Marshall and Earl Warren, who gave us Brown. It is disquieting that the legacy of Brown, Keyes, and other desegregation efforts should be in doubt just as America is emerging as a multicultural nation. Whether we will be a nation of interracial union or a nation of separate racial enclaves is now unclear. What is certain is that as the nation moves into the new millennium, the diversity of the population will increase. And the consequences of not finding effective ways to educate all 219

PAGE 230

of our children, regardless of race and class, will be reflected in the capacity this diverse nation to compete effectively at a global level, and in the level of social cohesion passed on to future generations. Dr. King's vision of a colorblind society has yet to be fulfilled, and the unfinished agenda of the efforts to desegregate the nation's public schools finds us only half way up the mountain of equality and social justice. Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion in Milliken v. Bradley (197 4) provides a prophetic warning that resounds loudly in today's post desegregation landscape. He writes that, "Our nation, I fear, will be ill served by the Court's refusal to remedy separate and unequal education. For unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to live together. n The full circle reflected in the history of the Denver case, is a legacy that must be overcome if we are truly to live and work together. Where we go from here is uncertain. History, as this case study illustrates, helps us to see the path we have walked, and the obstacles and barriers along the journey. It is hoped that the managerial, political, and legal perspectives reflected in this history of Keyes, can be helpful in charting a course for the future of equal educational opportunity in Denver. A broader vision and renewed commitment to these goals is critical.. .for the hearts and minds of our children are still at stake. 220

PAGE 231

REFERENCES-CHAPTER VI Alves. Michael and Charles V. Willie. 1987. "Controlled Choice Assignments: A New and More Effective Approach to Desegregation". Urban Review 19: 56 Armor, David. 1995. Forced Justice: School Desegregation and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Apple, Michael. 1989. "How Equality Has Been Redefined in the Conservative Restoration". In Walter Secada. ed. Equity in Education. New York: Falmer Press. Bell, Derrick. 1983. "Learning From Our Losses: Is School Desegregation Still Possible in the 1980s?" Phi Delta Kappan 64, No. 572: 89. Brown, Frank. 1994. "Brown and Educational Policy at Forty." Journal of Negro Education 63: 337. Brown, Kevin. 1992b. "After the Desegregation Era: The Legal Dilemma Posed By Race and Education." St.Louis Law Review. 37: 897-921. Brown, Kevin. 1992a. Has the Supreme Court Allowed for De Jure Segregation to Replicate the Disease? Cornell Law Review. 78: 1-83. Chesler, Mark A. 1981. Making Desegregation Worlc A Guide for Educators and Other Professionals. Beverly Hills: Sage. Douglas, Davidson M. 1995. "The Promise of Brown Forty Years Later: Introduction." (Symposium: Brown v. Board of Education After Forty Years: Confronting the Promise). William and Mary Law Review. 36(2): 337-343. England, Robert E. 1992. "Large District School Desegregation: A Preliminary Assessment of Techniques." Social Science Quarterly. 63 (4): 688-700. England, Robert E. and David R. Morgan. 1986. Desegregating Big City Schools: Strategies, Outcomes, and Impacts. New York: Associated Faculty Press. Fife, Brian L. 1992. Desegregation in American Schools: Comparative Intervention Strategies. New York: Praeger Publishers. Fishman, James J. and Lawrence Strauss. 1989. "Endless Journey: Integration and the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunity in Denver's Public Schools: A Study of Keyes v School District No. 1." Howard Law Journal. 32:661,662, 221

PAGE 232

Gordon, William. 1994. "The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown." Journal of Negro Education. 63(3):310-22. Hacker, Andrew. 1992. Two Nations : Black and White, Separate, Hostile and Unequal. New York: Basic Books. Hansen, Chris 1993 Are the Courts Giving Up? Emory Law Journal. 42(3) : 865-877. Haymen, Robert, Jr. 1995.'The Color of Tradition: Critical Race Theory and Post Modem Constitutional Traditionalism." 30 Harvard C. L.-C.L L R.: 62-78. Hochschild, Jennifer.L. 1985. Thirty Years After Brown. Washington, D.C. Joint Center for Political Studies Jones, Nathaniel. 1994. "The Desegregation of Urban School Thirty Years After Brown". University of Colorado Law Review. Vol.55 : 515. Johnson, Ronald 1995. The Promise of Brown: Has It Been Fulfilled? New York: New York University Press. Kirp, David L. Just Schools: The Idea of Racial Equality in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Liebman, James 1993 Three Strategies for Implementing Brown Anew". In Race in Ameria : The Struggle for Equality. Herbert Hill and James Jones. eds Madison Wisconsin: University of isconsin Press. Lively, Donald. 1993. "Desegregation and the Supreme Court: The Fatal Attraction of Brown". Hastings Law Review Quarterly. 20 (Spring): 649. Network of Regional Desegregation Assistance Centers. 1989. Desegregation of Public Schools : The Third Generation Washington, D.C.: U S Dept. of Education : 17-18. Ortield, Gary 1978. "Research, Politics, and the Anti-busing Debate." Law and Contemporary Problems. 442(4) Autumn. Ortield, Gary 1986. "Knowledge, Ideology, and School Desegregation: Views From Different Prisms Metropolitan Education. 1 (Spring): 93. 222

PAGE 233

Orfield, Gary et at. 1993. The Growth of Segregation in American Schools: Changing Patterns of Separation and Poverty Since 1968. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association). Orfield, Gary and David R. Thronson. 1993. "Dismantling Desegregation: Uncertain Gains, Unexpected Costs.n Emory Law Journal, 42(3):761, 762 .. Orfield, Gary and Susan Eaton. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.: ix, xiv. Rosenbloom, David. 1986. Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and the Law in the Public Sector. New York: Random House:28. Spann, Girardeau. 1993. Race Against the Court: The Supreme Court and Minorities in Comtemporary America. New York: New York University Press. Spring, Joel. 1991. American Education: An Introduction to Social and Political Aspects. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Publishing Co. Tate, William F., Gloria Ladson-Billings and Carl A. Grant, 1996. "The Brown Decision Revisited: Mathematizing a Social Problem.' In Mwalimu Shujaa. Beyond Desegregation: The Politics of African American Schooling. Thousand Oakes, CA.: Corwin Press: 46. Wilkinson, J. Harvie Ill. 1979. From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration: 1954-1978. New York: Oxford University Press: 217. Wilkinson, J. Harvie Ill. 1995. The Law of Civil Rights and the Dangers of Separatism in Multicultural American. Stanford Law Review. 42: 993. Willie, Charles, Antoine M. Girabaldi and Womie Reed. 1991. The Education of African Americans. New York: Auburn House: 36, 44. Yudof, Mark. 1978. "School Desegregation: Legal Realism, Reasoned Elaboration and Social Science Research in the Supreme Court." Law and Contemporary Problems. 42: 57 Cases Swann v. Charfotte-Mecklenberg, 401 U.S. 1 (1971). Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 171 (1974) (J. Marshall dissenting). Cronson v. Clark, 484 U.S. 871 (1989). 223

PAGE 234

Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992). Missouri v. Jenkins, 115 S.Ct. 2083 (1995). Abbott v. Burke., 136 N.J.444 (1994). Other Legal Memorandum and Order, 1995 Newspaper Articles The Denver Post, January 23, 1992. Rocky Mountain News, April 2, 1992. Rocky Mountain News, May 5, 1993 Rocky Mountain News, May 19, 1994. Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 18, 1994. Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 19, 1994 Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 21, 1994 Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 25, 1994. Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 28, 1994 Westward, January 1997: 18 Archival Denver Public Schools.( February 15, 1971). Interim Report: As Ordered by the United States District Court. Setting Forth Status of Defendant's Plans and Decisions Regarding Implementation of Final Decree of June 8, 1970. Denver, Colorado: 4 Denver Public Schools. Report on Resolution #2233 for the 1989-90 School Year. Denver, Co. Denver Public Schools, 1989-90. 224

PAGE 235

APPENDICES: A-C 225

PAGE 236

The Oen;er Pes l v/ednesday, Sept. I 3, I 995 APPENDIX A distribution in Denver Public Schools 1 1973 Eicmenlary sr:! tnul 1994 r,sianQ.7% .!unior M::!c!!c ,.,;. : oF 65.4% While Hiyll sr.l:u:::J 226 1 30fo J\; nf'!rir.i1n lntfo
PAGE 237

APPENDIX B Sample Board Resolutions Related to Desegregation and Equal Educational Opportunity 227

PAGE 238

RSOLUTION NUMBER PAR! I Policy 5100, Denver Schools, recognizes that the continuation of neighborhood schools has resulted in the concentration of 1oee minority racial 1nd ethnic groups in some schools and that a reduction of 1uch concentration and the establishment of an integrated school population is desirable to achieve of educational opportunity. Therefore, in order to implement Policy 5100, the Board of Education hereby directs the Superintendent to submit to the Board of Education aa soon as possible, but no later than September 30, 1968, a comprehensive plan for the integration of the Denver School. Such plan then to be considered by the Board, the Staff and the community and, with such refinements as may be required, shall be considered for adoption no later than December 31, 1968. PAR! II l. The Board of Education is faced vi th a serious 1ocial crisil. We believe a majority of citizens of Denver have in the ability of this Board to meet the complex, difficult and controversial issues in volved in thia crisis. However, the Board is aware of vide and deep distrust of its motives and actions by certain racial and ethnic groups, and indi viduah within those groups. It is accused of injustice, of perpetuating, without concern, the educational and 1ocial evil occurring with de facto 1egregation in school. The1e groups have been promised much by society in general. Repeated failures of performance have alienated good friend, have created vide distrust of motives and have created an atmosphere where respon1ible leadership and concerned citizen support are being lo1t to the school and to the community. We are increasingly aware of feelings of antagonism, of isolation, of hopelessness, of deep and unyielding bitterne11, real and intene. These feelings are strongly held and are not 1ubject to easy co.aunication to those who do not have a 1imilar background. The Board nov 1tate1 that it1 policy will be to eliminate distrust of its motive and performance by the minority community. 2. Also, the Board is aware of a different and widespread com.unity di1tru1t of Board motives and actions. This is evidenced by a sub1tantial credibility gap, baaed on the fears of many citizens that their freedom of choice of home location and concurrent school selection is or will be threatened by propo1ed Board action1, particularly actions in the 1olution of the educational problem of de facto minority ethnic and racial 1egreg1tion. The word "bussing", or "reverse bus:sing" (=eanir.g :he trn portation of vhite children into minority populated school), expre the undefined fear of large number of Denver citizens that somehow the Board and it pollcie threaten deeply felt sensibilities. Here there i1 abroad in Denver a degree of distrust that is frightening in it1 intensity and h11 any r .. ifications. Expressions of such feelings are frequently prefaced by expre11 denials of prejudice, racial or otherwise, and the Board accept 1uch denials 1t face value and as evidence of the existence of good will toward the minority communities of Denver. !he Board that the voluntary support of citizen who presently hold such view is neces1ary to the proper functioning of the school system. 228

PAGE 239

3. A third source of distrust of motives and performance ia that body of citizens of all races, including many whites, vho recognize and accept that segregated education is harmful to both mlnorlty and aajority children and vho now ir.sist the Board increase its efforts to ellainate the educational evila of de facto segregation. The Board has obviously failed to convince these people that ita past actions, and particularly the recent approval of major junior high achool construction snd the proposed voluntary movement of elementary minority pupils represent good faith efforts in this area. The confidence of these citizens must be restored and the Board proposes to seek their active support. 4. A fourth force presently apparent and widely communicated to the Board ia 1 throughout the city to aee the tax load priaarily the real estate tax load increased in any degree. In this area, the Board haa apparently failed to communicate to the community the validity of the financial needs of the District. Increased State aid, if and vhen forth coming, vill be welcome but realistically can do little to reduce the real estate tax levy and will, in the long run, create a further class of concerned taxpayers to whom the function, purpose, method and objectives of the school system must be explained and whose understanding of such matters must be ob tained. The Board states that its policy is and will be to foster auch understanding. 5. The death of Dr. Hartin Luther King has focused the attention of concerned people of good vill upon the deep and festering injustices of modern urban existence, with ita contradictions of opportunity and achievement, in an America dedicated, at least in theory, to the equality of opportunity for all men. Particularly in the area of public education, Dr. King'a death hal cau1ed thoughtful peraona of all races, particularly whites, to reaaaeaa beliefs long and dearly held and to question the pace of change and even ita direction. A. The Board is resolved to act as a unifying agency for Deaver in these times. To this end, it requests the Superintendent in implementation of the purposes of Resolution No. 1490 and in responae to the community concerns stated above, to include within the plaa required by Resolution No. 1490, or to submit separately but at the earliest practical tiwe or tiea, a further plan, or a aeries of plana, including specific timetables, to accomplish the following: 1. The reduction of concentrations of minority racial and/or ethnic groups in school and the integration of achool populations. 2. The actual existence of equality of educational program in all achoola, regardless of location, including,vithout limitation, faculty quality, training, experience and attitude, course offerings, equipment and facilities. 3. The active participation in progTama within the metropolitan Denver area to establish more diverse or heterogeneous racial and/or ethnic school populations. 4. The emphasis at all instructional levela of the individual and group contributions of ethnic and racial ainorities.

PAGE 240

RESCLUTION N:J. zz:n WHEREAS, the Board of Education or School District No. 1, Den"'!r, decl;res It to be it! Intention that the Denver Public Schools shall be oper;ated In conformity with the United States Constitution and ;all applicable federal l;aws; and WHEREAS, the Soard of Education desires that Integration be fostered throughout the Denver Public Schools; and WHEREAS, the Board of Education declares that every student enrolled In the Denver Public Schools shall have equal access to all educational opportunities; and Y.HEREAS, the Board of Education Intends th;at the quality or educat!on in the Denver Public: Schools shell be lrnproed continuallv, and that opportunities for enhanced ;and diverse educational shall be av;ilable to all students; end 'MJEREAS, the Board or Education has complied with court providing far the deseqreqratlon of the Denver Public S.:hools, :and h:n petitioned the court for a declaration or unitary status, which deelaratlon would limit or brlnq to a close the c:c:urt's continuing supervision over the Denver Public Schools; and WHEREAS, the Board or Education Intends to ;nsure that the princi;.les ;and that have been by t:,e United States S:::-erne Cour-t shall be permanent policy In this District, so that no Ch:ld .viJI be deprived of :IC:C:e" to educational opportunities beC:lUSe Of barriers erected by discrimination; NOW, BE IT RESO.VED THAT: 1. The Denver Public Schools shalt be oper:\ttd at ;II times in conformity with the United States Constitution ar:d all :JPt:licable laws: 2. This the District, and officers :1nd c:nployees or the District not ;adopt ;any policy or program, Institute any or procedure, or make .,r out any decision for the purpose or dlscdminl\t_lng aqalnst ;nr person by reason or 'lr ethnic l cent! rt cation. !. The goal, objective and poll:y or this Board, the District, and the orncers and employees thereof Is and shall continue to be to provide the m:u:imum educatl.,nal opportunity that can be m;ade available to all students In the school _system. A. The Baud of believing that the beneficial effects or are most rully realized In Integrated schools, shall preserve contiguous zones for schools that are lnteqr;ted and sh111l establish contlquous attendance mnes whenever It appears that 1t:11ble Integration can be maintained In the schools serving ,uch are1s. April 10. 1904 230 \ ..___.

PAGE 241

I I I I I I I I I I i I i I I I I I I I 5. The Boar-d of Educ:;tlon will actively pur-sue to promote inte'}ratlon In the schools by volunt01r-y choice. To that end the Boar-d will develop additional magnet schools and spec:l al pr-ograms. The Boar-d will use all available means to Insure that the maqnet schools :;nd specl:;l are integrated Including, If necessary, enrollment limitations des! gned to Insure an Integrated student body .s. tn addition, the Board or will develo!' and ac!lvely promote 1 voluntary transfer pr-ogram to encourage maj.,:-ity to minority transfers within the District. 7. The meas.ures described In the preceding paragraphs A, 5, and 6 will be used In combination to preserve the unitary character or the S::hooi District. B. Upon termination or Judicial supervtston or the Denver Public Schools, ther-e shall be no sudden alter-ation or the c:ourt-aooroved school assignment plan then In effect. Changes In school attendance pattems which ne determined by the Board of Education to be educationally sound and which promote stable Integrated educational the stated objectives o( this resolution may be :nade. C:ommunlty Input will be sought In the development and implement1tlon or any such ch;anges. The measures referTed to In paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 will be adooted as they wre developed 11nd subject to sarequards to insure that the unitary c:h;;racter o( the District is preserved. 9. The Board or Education dec:l;ares that Its or afflr'matlve action and eqUal opportunity In employment shall continue to guide the selection and assignment or employees within the School District. 10. The Board of Education shall, In cooperation .,Jth the s..,,:;eri.,ci!nd.!nt, c:;,ncinue co m.aincain an emph
PAGE 242

RESOLOTION 23U POLICI fOR PiU:SeR7IW; DE:S!GR!:G'-TIOt: Of" PCBLIC SCSCOLS WHEREAS, the Board believes that the interests of th'J Denver Public Schools vould be ser.,..ed by the tcnnination of th'! 1 itigation arad the return to the School Boi'\r-:1 of full rest=onsibility for carrying out the School District's constltutional obligations without continuing control or supervision, and h"HEREAS, the Board is aware that the Distr:ct Court, in its opinion of June J, 1985, round that the had not pc-ovid'!d sufficiently concrate assurances possiule future resegre qation of the District, and WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish pol and procedures that ,.,ill both (1) clearly manifest the int:ention or the Board that the Denver Public Schools shall continuo!! pet to be operated as a unitary school district 1Jith that 1Jill promote equ'l educational opportunity for all students of race or ethnic background, and (2) provide guidelines for future decision-making-that ,.,ill safeguard against actions by the Board. NOW, 'I'llEREFOP.E, BE IT R!:SOLVED: 1. The Board reaffir-ms its commitment to the principl'!s and stated in Resolution 22JJ, adopted 10, 1984. 2. The Board adopts the following policies to further define and implement Resolution 2233. J. It shall be the policy of the Board to oper
PAGE 243

I I I I i I i I I I I I I I I (c) llo school may be identified as a school intended primad.ly for a particular racial or ethnic group by ::-e.1son of the composition of its teaching staff. {d) School buildings and other facilities a::-e of such quality, that no school may be identified as providing infer:icr or superior !or the education of pupils of any racial or ethnic background. (e) The school system recognizes as one important educational goa 1 t:he provision of an inteqrat::ed ional vherein of different and ethnic backgrounds mAy leat"n togE:ther and .acqu it"e an un.je:-standing and appreciation of their cultural differences and the values of diversity. 4. The policies shall qovet"n future changes in the attendance zones, assignments to schools, or of the student-attendance plan presently in effect: (a) No in such plan shall be made unless there has first. been presented to the BOat'd specific data the effect of such change on the projected racial/ethnic composition of the student enrollment in any school affected by the change. (b) If the projected effect of such a change be to cause a school's mir.ority percentage to move five (5) pet"centage points or more further away from the then-current distrlctwide averAge at that level (elementary, middle, or hiqh school) than it was in the ye4r preceding the proposed chang-e, the change shall not be made unless: (1) The Board determines that such change is consistent or will promote, the overall objective of maintaining or enhancin9 the stable character or the District as a whole and is justified by substantial, articulated educ:stional considet'at.ions independent of the effect on the racial/ethnic composition of the schools affected; (2) The Board determines that the educational values expected from the enough to outweigh the adverse effects of the proposed on the racial/ethnic composition of the particular school or schools adversely af!ected; 233 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction rohibite

PAGE 244

(J) The Board has given to (i) the availability or alternative that might accomplish the desired educational objectives without the adverse effects on the racial/ethnic cocposition of the schools adversely affected; and (li) t::he feaslbil ity of additional measures to countera-::t:. or ameliorate the adverse effects, such as initiating special programs to encourage voluntary transfers that will improve the racialjethnic composition of the affected school or schools, converting such school or schools to magnet schools, 1 imiting new enrol lmer.t in such schools, or closing a school when it appears no reason;sbly practicabl-e m"!asures are available to prevent:. a school from becoming lncreaslngly tionate in its racial/ethnic composition. 5. The policies stated in Paragaph 4 govern all decisions concerning the construction ot ne schools, enlargement or existing school f.scilitles, and closing or scho.,ls. rn all decisions as to the location and site of ne"' schools or the expansion of existing schools, and in all decisions as to th"! closing of existing facilities, Boar-i shall, to the practicable in light of the of sites, fisc:tl resour-::es and educational needs, choose from among the available alternatives those most to and Fromot"! the integrat"!d character of the school syste111 and prcser"Je and prooote residential integration. 6. As demographic and residential patterns in the District chanqe, the Soard will for modit}inq present attendance patterns by creating additional schools with contiguous attendance areas where such changes can made in a manner consistent with Paragraphs 4 and 5. This pol icy J:'ests on the belief that both stable integration, based on residential integration, and other important educational values are served by fostering schools with a strong especially the elementary level. 7. The District shall, consist'!nt with gooc educational practices, maintain its present policy regarding assignment of so as to insure that no school is racially or ethnically identifiable by reason of the composition of its faculty. a. The District shall maintain a recruitir:; program that makeos every reasonable effort. to increase the propottion of teachers and in the Public School system. 234

PAGE 245

I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I i I i I I I I I i I I 9. The District maintain its present policies and as stated in DPS Policy 12260, regarding of to schools other than their school of assignment so as to minil!lize tt"ansfet"S that have rese:;r-eg:!ltive effects and to encourage transfers that enhance 10. The District shall maintain recor-d-'keeping and other procedures that enable it to monitor the to which imposition of dl.scipline, including suspensions and expulsions, .is disproportionate by racial/ethnic groups in each school, to investlg.1te the of such dispropot"tionlllity, and to take all practl.cable to insure that discipline is administered without racial discrimination or bias. 11. The District shall monitor ent"ollments in all and programs by race or ethnl.city and shall take such as are practicable, with educational to prc.mote integration wit.hln schools and 1.1ithin classro.:>aos and programs. 12. The District shall monitor its progre:.s .in enh
PAGE 246

RESOLtmON No. 25::9 'WHEREAS, the litigation has been terminated and full authority has been restored to the Board for governance of Denver's schools under the applicable laws of the United States and the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the District Court in its Order terminating jurisdiction noted that the Board would necessarily modify some provisions in its Resolutions 2233 and 2314 in dealing with future changes in the pupil assignment plan and that requirements of existing federal and state laws will materially and significantly affect the directions of the Denver Public Schools; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to reiterate its commitment to the objectives of Resolutions 2233, 2314 and 2505, and to policies and procedures that will both (1) clearly manifest its intention that the Denver Public Schools shall continue permanently to be operated as a. unitary school district with policies that will promote equal educational opporrunity for all students regardless of race or ethnic background, and (2) provide guidelines for future decision-making that will safeguard against resegregative actions by the Board; and WHEREAS, the Board believes it desirable to adopt a restatement of policy that reflects the new circumstances resulting from the Court's Order; NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Denver Public Schools shall be operated at all times in conformity with the United States Constitution, the Colorado Constitution, and all applicable federal and state laws. 2. This Board, the District, and officers aad employees of the District shall not adopt any policy or program. institute any practice or procedure, or make or carry out any decision for the purpose of discriminating against aay person by re:lSon of race. color, or ethrlic identificatioc.. 3. The primary goal, objective and policy of this Board. the District. and the officers and employees thereof is and shall continue to be to provide the ma:-
PAGE 247

individual schools. Rather, it means that the Board will pu...-sue the following goals, among others: a. All studentS, without regard to racial or ethnic baclcground, are given access to all educational opporrunities provided by the District. b. The resources of the District. both human and material, are allocated with the aim of providing each student the opportunity to achieve the essentials of an education according to the educational goals of the community as defined by the Board. c. One of the important educational goals of the school system is the provision of an integrated educational experience wherein studentS of different racial and ethnic backgrounds may learn together and thereby acquire an understanding and appreciation of their cultural differences, the values of diversity, and of the historical and linguistic conttibutions of all segmentS of our society. d. School buildings and other facilities are of such quality that no school may be identified as providing inferior or superior facilities for the education of pupils of a11y racial or ethnic background. 5. The District believes parental and community support and involvement within the schools is critical to the success of studentS in the District and the delivery of the educational program. and increased parental and community support is fostered and enhanced by parents having the oppommity for their children to attend school close to home as well as the ability to select from among the numerous educational offerings of the Disttict and to participate in site-based governance. 6. The District shall monitor ics progress in enhancing the achievement of all sruder::ts and will take all reasonably practicable measures to ensure that students of all racial and ethnic groups are given equal opportunity and encouragement to participate in eduotional opportunities such as gifted and talented programs, magnet school programs, theme schools, and other similar offerings. i. The Board will continue to pursue measures to promote integration by voluntary choice through magnet and special programs. 8. The District shall continue with its emphasis on long-range planning to assure the professional staff of resources and policy support for the continued exploration of emerging technology and methodology to accommodate the changing and diverse needs of staff, srudents and the community, throughout the entire District at every leveL 9. Recognizing that the number of minority applicants for teaching positions in the Denver Public Schools has been in decline. the Board desires to increase the District's effons to identify and recruit minority applicants. Accordingly, the Superintendent is directed to implement such additional measures, consistent with legal requirements of non. discrimination. as may be necessary to reach this goal. 237

PAGE 248

10. The policies as stated in this Resolution shall govern all decisions concerning changes in the pupil assignment plan. construction of new schcvls, enlargement of existing school facilities. and dosing of schools. In all such decisions, tLe Board shall require that specific data as to the effects of any such actions on the urJ
PAGE 249

! I I I 1 I l l I I I APPENDIX C State and Federal Statutes That Apply to the Operation of Denver's Public Schools Post-Keyes Legal Frame....-.<>rk The District has identified the following state and federal statutes that apply to the operation of Denver's public schools State laws rrtJe 22 of the Colorado Revised Statutes contains the General Education Laws of the State of Colorado, including the following provisions: Article 2. Estabfishes the State Board of Education, the Office of Commissioner of Education and sets forth their powers and duties Article 9. Contains the Certificated Personnel Performance Evaluation Act which establishes a provision for evaluation of certificated personnel and sets forth the duties of local boards of education in the evaluation process. Article 20. The Exceptional Children's Educational Act which contains provisions regarding gifted children and children with disabilities. Article 23. Education of migrate children. Article 24. English Language Proficiency Act wtlich establishes a program for English language proficiency Article 26. Gifted and talented students Article Z7. Educational clinics for public school dropouts. Article 28. The Colorado Preschool Program Act. Article 30. The School District Organization Act. Article 30.5. The Charter Schools Act. Article 31. Establishes the process for election of School District Directors Article 32. Contains the powers and duties of Scnool District Boards. Included within this article are the requirements that the School District have a written conduct and discipline code (22-32-109(1)(w)), mandatory procedures regarding assaults upon, disorderly conduct toward, harassment of or the making knowingly of a false allegation of child abuse directed toward a school teacher or a school employee or instances of damages occurring on the premises to the property of a teacher or employee (22-32-t09(x)). and specific duties regarding the employment of personnel (22-32-109.7 and 109.8). Section 22 32-110 contains specific powers for the Board of Education, including mandatory provisions SOURCE : Judge Matsch's Memorandum and Order September 12, 1995 (Releasing Denver Schools From Court Supervision : 67-69 239 Reproduced with OP.rmissinn nf tht=> ('()nHrinht f'\W n o r c: ..... r----...1 .. _.,_ .

PAGE 250

regarding student conduct and discipline (22-32-11 0(2)) and concerning the transportation of pupils pursuant to 22-32-113. Section 22-32-116.5 allows for the participation of students, who are nonresidents of the school district, in extracurricular and interscholastic activities. Article 33. The School Attendance Law of 1963 provides for compulsory school attendance (22-33-104), home-based education (22-33-104.5), procedures for suspension, expulsion and denial of admission (22-33-105), grounds for suspension, expulsion and denial of admission of students (22-33-106), and for enforcement of compulsory school attendance (22-33-107). Article 35. The Post-secondary Enrollments Option Act. Article 36. Public Schools of Choice Act. Article 44. School District Budget Law. A.""ticle 52. The Second Chance Program for problem students. Article 53, Part 2. Concerns educational achievement and includes provisions for local goals and objectives in plans to approve educational achievement in graduation rates. Article 53, Part 4. Education reform which provides for the adoption of content standards by school districts. Article 54. The Public School Finance Act of 1994. (The ability of the School District to obtain revenues may further be limited by the "Taxpayers Bill of Rights which is found in Article X. Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.) Article 60. Contains provisions regarding teacher certification. Article 60.5. The Colorado Educator Ucensing Act of 1 991 Article 61. Concerns teacher employment and contains a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion of religious affiliation of any person seeking employment and prohibits any contract with a teacher to require by inference or otherwise that the teacher become a member of, or belong to, any group or organization. Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes provides for the establishment of the Colorado Civil Rights Diviston and provides in Part 4 (24-34-401) that it is a discriminatory or unfair employment praCtice for an employer to refuse to hire, to discharge, or promote or demote, or to discriminate in matters of compensation against any person otherwise qualified because of 240

PAGE 251

I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I disability, race, creed, sex. age, national origin, or ancestry. Federal Laws Federal laws which impact the operation of Public SchoolS inClude the following : Gun-Free School Zone Act of t 990. 18 U.S.C. 921, et seq. Prohibits possession of unauthorized guns on school premises. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, 41 U.S.C. 701, et seq. Umits school a district's ability to receive grants unless it assures the provision of a drug-free workplace and programs respecting incfiVidual employees and the use of drugs or other controlled substances. Federal Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, 49 U.S.C. 2717. Requires drug and alcohol testing of schOOl transportation employees. Individuals Wrth Disabilities Education Act. 20 U.S. C. 1400, et seq Provides for the education of children with cfiSabilities. Americans Wrth Disabilities Act 42 U.S. C. 12101, et seq. Prohibits discrimination in employment based on cf&Sability and requires that public schools be made accessible to disabled persons. Assignment or Transportation of Students, 20 U.S .C. 1651, et seq. Contains prohibitions against school busing to overcome racial imbalance. Equal Educational Opportunities and Transportation of Students, 20 U.S. C. 1701 et seq. Provides that all children enrolled in public schools are entitled to equal educational opportunity without regard to race. color, sex. or national origin and establishes the neighborhood as the appropriate basis for determining public school assignments and contains provisions restricting the use of transportation of pupils to achieve racial balance. Magnet Schools Assistance, 20 U.S.C. 3021, et seq Requires that a school district seeking funds for magnet school programs provide assurances that it will not discriminate based upon race, except to carry out an "approved plan, 20 u.s.c. 3027(b)(4). Title W of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U S.C. 2000c, et seq. Contains provisions relating to complaints of discrimination in public schools based upon race, authorizes initiation of actions with respect thereto, and imposes limitations on actions or programs designed to overcome or to achieve racial balance in any school. TiUe V1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. Prohibits exclusion from participation in. denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 241 Reproduced with OP.rmissinn of thP l"f'ln\trinht "uonor c ........ h,... ............................... ... : _ _ _ __ ._.,

PAGE 252

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, Carl., Stephen. Leonard and David. McComb. 1982. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. (rev. ed.). Boulder, Co : Associated University Press: 267, 280,288. Adair Karl and Bruce Eckland. 1984 Desegregation: The Illusion of Black Progress. New York: University Press of America Alexander, Kem and M. David Alexander. 1985. American Public School Law. St. Paul: West Publishing Co. xxxii. Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis Boston: Little Brown and Co. Alves, Michael Charles V Willie. 1987 "Controlled Choice Assignments: A New More Effective Approach to Desegregation. n Urban Review 19: 56 Anderson. James D. 1995. "Literacy and Education in the African-American Experiencen. In Vivian Gadsen and Daniel Wagner, eds Uteracy Among African American Youth. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.: 25, 29, 35. Apple, Michael. 1988. "Redefining Inequality: Authoritarian Populism and the Conservative Restoration". Teachers College Record 90: 167-84 Apple, Michael. 1989 "How Equality Has Been Redefined in the Conservative Restoration In Walter Secada, ed. Equity in Education. New York: Falmer Press : 17. Appleby, Paul. 1949. "Government is Different". In Jay Sahfritz and Albert Hyde.(1978), Classics of Public Administration. Oak Park Illinois: Moore Publishing Co. : 107 Armor, David 1978 The Evidence on Busing" The Public Interest 28 (Summer): 90-124. Armor, David. 1995. Forced Justice : School Desegregation and the Law New York: Oxford University Press. A sante, Molefe K. 1991. "The Afrocentric Idea in Education". Journal of Negro Education 60 : 170-80. Atkinson, Pansye S 1993. Brown v Topeka : An African American's View: Desegregation and Miseducation. Chicago, Illinois: African American Images. 242

PAGE 253

I I Banks, Cherry A. 1993. Restructuring Schools for Equity: What We Have Learned in Two Decades." Phi Delta Kappan. vol.25, no. 1: 42-44, 46-48. Bell, Derrick. Ed. 1980. Shades of Brown: New Perspectives on School Desegregation. New York: Teachers College Press. Bell, Derrick. 1983. "Learning From Our Losses: Is School Desegregation Still Feasible in the 1980's?" Phi Delta Kappan (Spring): 89. Bell, Derrick. 1987. And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books: 4. Bell. Derrick. 1995. 'Who's Afraid of Critical Race Theory?". University of Illinois Law Review. (Fall) 2: 513-547. Benson, Susan Porter, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenweig, eds. 1986. Presenting the Past: Essays on History and the Public. Philadelphia: Temple University Press: xxii, xxiv. Berry, Mary Francis. 1994. Black Resistance/White Law: A History of Constitutional Racism in America. New York: Penguin Books. Bernard, Chester. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Berwanger, E.h. 1967. The Frontier Against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro Prejudice and the Slavery Extension Controversy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press: 94-95. Best, J. H. (1990). Historical Inquiry in Education: A Research Agenda. Washington: American Educational Research Association Blaustein. A. and C. Ferguson. 1962. Desegregation and the Law. New York: Vintage Press. Braddock, Jomillis and James McPartland. "Assessing School Desegregation Effects: New Directions in Research". Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization. Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press. Brooks, Roy 1., 1994. "Critical Race Theory" A Proposed Structure and Application to Federal Pleading". Harvard Blackletter Law Journal (Spring): 85-113. Brown, Frank. 1994. "Brown and Educational Policy Making at Forty: Journal of Negro Education. 63: 336-348. 243

PAGE 254

Brown, Kevin. 1992a. "Has the Supreme Court Allowed for De Jure Segregation to Replicate the Disease?" Come// Law Review. 78:1-83. Brown, Kevin. 1992b. "After the Desegregation Era "The Legal Dilemma Posed By Race and Education". St. Louis Law Review. 37: 898. Button, Warren H. 1979. "Creating More Usable Pasts: History in the Study of Education". Educational Researcher. New York: Longman. Carney, Martin. 1994. Faded Dreams: The Politics and Economics of Race in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, Robert L. 1993. "Public School Desegregation: A Contemporary Analysis". St. Louis University Law Jouma/37(4): 885. Cayer, N. Joseph and Louis F. Weschler. 1988.Pub/ic Administration: Social Change and Adaptive Management. New York: St. Martin's Press: 43. Chesler, Mark A. 1981. Making Desegregation Worlc A Guide for Educators and other Professionals. Beverly Hills: Sage: 1. Chesler, Mark A., Joseph Sanders and Debra S. and Kalmuss. 1988. Social Science in Court: Mobilizing Experts in the School Desegregation Cases. Madison, WS: The University of Wisconson Press. Christopher, William L. 1993. "Ending Court Ordered Desegregation of School Systems". School Law Bulletin. 23(4): 1-7. Clark, Kenneth. 1971. "The Segregation Cases: Criticism of the Social Scientists Role". Villanova Law Review. 5: 224-240. Clark, Kenneth. 1977. "Social Science, Constitutional Rights, and the Courts". In Ray Rist and Ronald Anson. eds. Education, Social Science, and the Judicial Process. New York: Free Press. Cohen, David K., and Janet A. Weiss. 1977. "Social Science and Social Policy: Schools and Race". In Rist, Ray and Ronald Anson. Education, Social Science and the Judicial Process. New York: Teachers College Press: 72. Coombs, Norman. 1972. The Black Experience in America. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc.: 84,192. Crain, Robert. 1968. The Politics of School Desegregation: Comparative Studies of Community Structure and Policymaking. Chicago: Aldine. 244

PAGE 255

Crain, Robert L 1976. 'Why Academic Research Fails to be Useful". In Florence Levinsohn and Benjamin D. Wright eds. School Desegregation: Shadow and Substance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crain, Robert L and Rita Mahard. 1978. "Desegregation and Black Achievement: A Review of the Research". Law and Contemporary Problems. 42(3): 210-32. Crain, Robert L, and Karen Banks Carsud. 1985. "The Role of the Social Sciences in School Desegregation Policy". In R. L. Shetland and M. Mark, Social Science and Social Policy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications: 219, 224. Crenshaw, Kimberle et al (eds.). 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings Than Formed the Movement. New York: New Press. David, Eric. 1994. "Blurring the Color Line: The Desegregation of the Balitmore Public Schools, 1954-1994." Urban Review. val. 26, no.4: 243-255. Davis, Kenneth. 1975. Administrative law and Government. St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing: 6. Delgado, Richard. 1988. "Critical Legal Studies and the Realities of Race-Does the Fundamental Contradiction Have A Corrollary" (Responses to the Minority Critiques of the Critical Legal Studies Movement). Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Uberties Law Review. 23(2): 407-413. Delgado, Richard. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Delgado, Richard and Jean Stephanie. 1995. "The Social Construction of Brown v. Board of Education: Law Reform and the Reconstructive Paradox". Williams and Mary Law Review. 36(2): 547-570. Delgado, Richard and Jean Stephanie. 1993. "Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography-1993: A Year of Transition. University of Colorado Law Review. 66: 153-193. Denzin, Norman and Yvonne Lincoln. 1994. eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage Publications. Deever, Bryan. 1994. "Living Plessy in the Context of Brown: Cultural Politics and the Rituals of Separation". Urban Review. vol.26. no. 4: 273-288. Dimock, Marshall. 1937. "The Study of Administration". American Political Science Review. 3:28-40. 245

PAGE 256

Dimock, Marshall. 1980. Law and Dynamic Administration. New York: Praeger. Dimond, Paul. 1995. Beyond Busing: The Challenge to Urban Segregation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dipilato, George D. 1984. An Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Regarding Desegregation Policy in Historic Perspective. Ph.D. diss., Temple University. Dolak, Mirko Julius. 1980. "Toward the Development of a Policy Typology and Policy Implementation Model: The Case of School Desegregation in the L.A. Unified School District, 1977-1980." Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California. Donato, Ruben and Herman Garcia. 1993. "Language Segregation in Desegregated Schools: A Question of Equity". Equity and Excellence. 25(2-4): 949-99. Douglas, Davison M. 1995. "The Promise of Brown Forty Years Later: Introduction". (Symposium: Brown v. Board of Education After Forty Years: Confronting the Promise) William And Mary Law Review. 36(2): 337-343. Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. Doyle, William E. 1977. "Can Social Science Data Be Used in Judicial Decision Making?". Journal of law and Education 6(1): 13-27. Dubois, W.E.B. 1973. The Education of Black People: Ten Critiques 1906-1960. Amherst University of Massachusetts Press. Dunaway, David K. 1977. "Desegregation and City Hall: The Mayor's Role in the Schools". Integrated Education 15(1): 3-9. Dworkin, Ronald M. 1977. "Social Science and Constitutional Rights-The Consequences of Uncertainty". Journal of Negro Education. No.6: 3-12. Elmore, Richard F. et. al. 1991. Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. England, Robert E. 1982a. "Assessing the Status of Urban Public School Desegregation: A Case Study Approach". Ph.D. diss., University of Oklahoma. England, Robert E. 1982b. "Large District School Desegregation: A Preliminary Assessment of Techniques". Social Science Quarterly. 63(4): 688-700. England, Robert E., and David R. Morgan. 1986. Desegregating Big City Schools: Strategies, Outcomes, and Impacts. New York: Associated Faculty Press. 246

PAGE 257

England, Robert E. 1992. "Large District School Desegregation: A Preliminary Assessment of Techniques". Social Science Quarterly. 63(4) : 688-700. Epstein, Joyce L. 1986. After The Bus Arrives: Resegregation in Desegregated Schools. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fargas, George. 1996. Human Capital or Cultural Capital: Ethnicity and Poverty Groups in an Urban School District. New York: A. de Gruyter, Co. Farley, Reynolds 1975. "Racial Integration in the Public Schools, 1967-72: Assessing the Effects of Governmental Politics". Sociological Forces (January): 3-26. Fife, Brian. 1991. Comparative Intervention Strategies: Desegregation of American Schools Ph .D. diss., State University of New York, Binghamton. Fife, Brian L. 1992. Desegregation in American Schools: Comparative Intervention Strategies. New York: Praeger Publishers. Fife, Brian L. 1997. School Desegregation in the Twenty-First Century: The Focus Must Change. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press. 5, 6., 12, 15. Fishman, James J. and Lawrence Strauss. 1989. "Endless Journey: Integration and the Provision of Equal Educational Opportunity in Denver's Public Schools: A Study of Keyes v. School District No. 1". Howard Law Joumal32: 644, 665, 676, 680-681. Flaxman, Erwin and A. Harry Passow eds 1995. Changing Populations Changing Schools Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ford, Christine 1990. Educational Problems of Blacks in Urban America: Historical, Contemporary, and Futuristic Perspectives". Western Journal of Black Studies. 14(2):90-99. Foster, Gordon. 1973 "Desegregating Urban Schools: A Review of Techniques". Harvard Educational Review. 43(1 ) : 5-56. Fox, Eliot and Luther Urwick. eds. 1940 Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follet. New York: Hippocrene Books. Franklin, John Hope. 1974. From Slavery To Freedom: A History of Negro Americans. New York: Alfred A Knopf.: 432, 436. Franklin, Vincent P 1975. "The Persistence of School Segregation in the Urban North: An Historical Perspective". Journal of Ethnic Studies 1 (4): 51-68. 247

PAGE 258

I I I i I I I Fraser, Steven. ed. 1995. The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence and the Future of America. New York: Basic Books. Freeman, Alan. 1978. "Legitimizing Racial Discrimination through Anti Discrimination Law A Critical Review of Supreme Court Doctrine". 62 Minn. Law Review: 10-40. Fuller, James Nathaniel. 1983. "Legal Aspects of Busing for Desegregation in De Facto Segregated School Districts". Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gentilli, Veronica. 1992. "A Double Challenge for Critical Race Scholars: The Moral Context''. Southern California Law Review. 65(5): 2361-2383. Gerber, D. A. 1981. Black Ohio and the Co/or Une. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 3. Giles, Michael W. 1975. White Flight and Percent Black: The Tipping Point Re Examines". Social Science Quarterly. 56(1): 85-92. Giles, Michael W. and ArthurS. Evans. 1980. "Mass Level Compliance With Public Policy: The Case of School Desegregation". Journal of Politics 37 (August): 722-746. Giroux, Henry and Peter McLauren. eds. 1990. Schooling, Cultural, Politics and the Struggle for Democracy. New York: Free Press. Gladden, Miriam P. 1992. "The Constitutionality of African-American Male Schools and Programs". Columbia Human Rights Law Review. 24: 239-71. Goodnow, Frank. 1905. The Principles of Administrative law in the United States. New York: G. P. Putman's Sons Gordon, William. 1989. "School Desegregation: A Look at the 70s and 80s." Journal of Law and Education: 189. Gordon, William. 1994. "The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown". Journal of Negro Education. 63(3): 310-22. Graham, Patricia. 1980. "Historians as Policymakers". Educational Researcher 9(11): 480-495. 248

PAGE 259

Grayson, Zebie A. 1993. "Marshall's Dream Deferred: Almost Four Decades After Brown, The Vestiges of De Jure Segregation Unger as the Implementation Process Continues". Southern University Law Review. 20 (1): 53-68. Green, Patricia. 1993. "School Desegregation" Progress or Regression?" Mississippi College Law Review. 13(2): 439-66. Green, Phillip. 1981. The Pursuit of Inequality. New York: Pantheon Books. Green, Robert L. and Thomas Pettigrew. 1976. "Urban Desegregation and White Flight: A Response to Coleman". Phi Delta Kappan (February): 339-345. Gregg, Russell T. and Ronald F. Campbell. 1957. eds. Administrative Behavior in Education. New York: Harper and Row: 269. Greider, Calvin, Truman M. Pierce and K. Forbis Jordon. 1969. Public School Administration. New York: The Ronald Press Co.: 98, 102. Gulick, Luther and L. Urwick. eds. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Augustus M. Kelly Publishers. Hacker, Andrew. 1992. Two Nations: Black and White, Separate. Hostile and Unequal. New York: Ballantine Books. Hannel, Joy. 1991. "The Future of Desegregation After Dowell: Returning to the Pre Brown Days". Mississippi Law Review. 56: 1141-56. Hansen, Chris. 1993. "Are the Courts Giving Up?". Emory Law Journal. 42(3): 865877. Harding, Sandra. ed. 1993. The 'Racial' Economy of Science: Toward A Democratic Future. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Hawley, Willis. ed. 1981. Effective School Desegregation, Equity, Quality and Feasibility. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Hawley, Willis. et. al. 1983. Strategies for Effective Desegregation: Lessons from Research. Lexington: D.C. Heath.: 36. Hayman, Robert, Jr. 1995. "The Color of Tradition" Critical Race Theory and Post Modem Constitutional Traditionalism". Harvard Law Review 30: Heller, Frank. ed. 1986. The Use and Abuse of Social Science. Beverly Hill: Sage Publications. 249

PAGE 260

Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1984. The New American Dilemma; Uberal Democracy and School Desegregation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1985. Thirty Years After Brown: Washington, D.C.: Joint Center for Political Studies.: 1. Howard, Cedric J. 1998. "Denver Has It's Share of Black History". Urban Spectrum (February 1998), val. 10, No. 11: 16 Howe, Barbara J. and Emory L. Kemp. Eds., 1986. Public History: An Introduction. Malabar, FL.: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co. Husk, William L 1990. "White Flight: A Closer Look at the Assumptions". Urban Review 12 (1): 23-30. Hyde, Alison A. 1994. "School Desegregation: The Role of the Courts and Means of Achievement". NASSP BULLETIN. 78(565): 29-37 lllich, Ivan. 1971. "The Alternative to Schooling". Saturday Review, June 19; 44-60. lshaq, Yasin. 1983. "A National Study of Local Public School District Desegregation Processes Through the Identification of Planning, Implementation and Coalition Relationships." Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M University. James, Bernard, and Julie M. Hoffman. 1993. "Brown in State Hands: State Policymaking and Educational Equality After Freeman v. Pitts". Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly .. 20(3): 521-577. Jarvis, Sonia 1992. "Brown and the Afrocentric Curriculum". Yale Law Journal. 101: 1285-1204. Jenkins, Jeffrey. 1976. "Historical Analysis of Two Selected School Districts that Have Undergone Desegregation". Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Johnson, Ronald. 1995. The Promise of Brown: Has it been fulfilled?. New York: New York University. Joondeph, Bradley W. 1993. "Killing Brown Softly: The Subtle Undermining of Effective Desegregation". Stanford Law Review. 46(1): 147-174. Jones-Wilson, Faustine. ed. 1996. Encyclopedia of Affrican-American Education. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. 250

PAGE 261

Kalodner, Howard I. and James Fishman. eds. 1978. Umits of Justice: The Court's Role in Desegregation. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing. Kamin, Leon J. 1974. The Science and Politics of I.Q .. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn. 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations New York: Wiley and Sons. Katz, William Loren. 1996. The Black West. A Documentary and Pictorial History of the African American Role in the Westward Expansion of the United States. New York: Touchstone. Kaufman Herbert. 1956. "Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public Administration" American Political Science Review. 50(December) : 1057-73 Kaufman, Herbert 1969. "Administrative Decentralization and Political Power" Public Administration Review. 29 (Jan/Feb): 3-15). Kaufman, Herbert. 1976. Are Government Organizations Immortal? Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute. Kimberling, Joshua 1994. "Black Male Academies: Re-Examining The Strategy of Integration". Buffalo Law Review 42: 829-858. Kirp, David L. 1982. Just Schools : The Idea of Racial Equity in America. Berkeley : University of California Press. Kluger, Richard 1975. Simple Justice : The History of Brown v Board of Education and the Black Struggle for Equality. New York: Alfred A Knopf.: x. Knezevich, Stephen. 1984. Administration of Public Education : A Sourcebook for the Leadership and Management of Educational Institutions New York: Harper and Row. Kozel, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. New York: Crown Publishers. Kozol, Jonathan. 1995. Amazing Grace: The Uves of Children and the Conscious of a Nation. New York: Crown Publishers . Krol, Ronald 1980. "A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Desegregation of Academic Achievement". Urban Review 12:211-24 251

PAGE 262

Lagemann, Ellen C. and LaMar P. Miller. eds. 1996. Brown v. Board of Education: The Challenge for Today's Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. League of Women Voters. 1976.(revised). Composite View of Denver's Desegregation. Denver, Colorado: League of Women Voters:8 Leffler, Phyllis K and Joseph Brent. 1990. Public and Academic History: A Philosophy and Paradigm. Malabar. FL: Robert K. Krieger Publishing Co.: 53. Levin, Betsy. 1978. "School Desegregation Remedies and the Role of Social Science Research". Law and Contemporary Problems 42(4):1-36. Levine, David I. "The Latter Stages of Enforcement of Equitable Decrees: The Course of Institutional Reform Cases After Dowell, Rufo, and Freeman".: Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. 20(3): 579-648. Liebman, James. 1993. "Three Strategies for Implementing Brown Anew'. In Race America: The Struggle for Equality. Herbert Hill and James Jones. eds. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Linden, Glenn M. 1995. Desegregating Schools in Dallas: Four Decades in the Federal Courts. Dallas: Three Forks Press. Lively, Donald. 1992. The Constitution and Race. New York: Prager. Lively, Donald. 1993. "Desegregation and the Supreme Court: The Fatal Attraction of Brown", Hastings Law Review Quarterly. 20(Spring): 649-679. Long, Norton. 1949. "Power and Administration". Public Administration Review. 9, (Autumn 1949): 257-264. Lomotey, Kofi. ed. 1997. Sailing Against the Wind: African Americans and Women in U.S. Education. Albany: State University of New York Press. March, James G. Herbert Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley and Sons. Marshall, Catherine. ed. 1993. The New Politics of Race and Gender. Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.: 1. Margo, R. A. 1998. Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 9. Matthews, FrankL. 1994. "The Genius of John Hope Franklin: America's True Great Historian". (Interview), Black Issues in Higher Education. vel. 10, no. 3: 16. 252

PAGE 263

McKeever, Gene, Kenton Forrest and Raymond McAllister. 1989. History of the Public Schools of Denver. Denver. Tramway Press, lnc.:4, 5, 12. Meier, Kenneth J. Joseph Stewart, Jr., and Robert E. England. 1989. Race, Class and Education: The Politics of Second-Generation Discrimination. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Merton, Robert K. 1940. "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality". Social Forces. 18: 560-568. Middleton, Michael A. 1995. "Brown v. Board: Revisited". (Symposium: Brown v. Board of Education). Southern Illinois Law Joumal20 (Fall): 19-39. Miller, L. Scott. 1995. An American Imperative: Accelerating Minority Educational Advancement. New Haven: Yale University Press. Miron, Louis F. 1996. The Social Construction of Urban Schooling: Situating the Crisis. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press. Mock, David B. ed. 1981. History and Public Policy. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co. Mohraz, Judy Jolley. 1979. The Separate Problem: Case Studies of Black Education in the North, 1900-1930. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press. Monti, Daniel J., Ed. 1982. Impact of Desegregation. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers. Moran, Rachel R. 1986. "The Lessons of Keyes: How Do You Translate "The American Dream?" La Raza Law Joumal1 (3): 195-121. Morgan, Harry. 1995. Historical Perspectives on the Education of Black Children. Westport, Conn.: Preager. Mosher, Frederick C. 1956. "Research in Public Administration: Some Notes and Suggestions." Public Administration Review. vel. 16.: 169-178. Mosher, Frederick C. 1982. Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press. Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. The American Dilemma. New York: Harper. Murphy, Jerome T. 1971. "Title I of ESEA: The Politics of Implementing Federal Educational Reform". Harvard Educational Review 4:35-63. 253

PAGE 264

National Network of Regional Desegregation Assistance Centers. 1989. Resegregation of Public Schools: The Third Generation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept of Education:12, 17-18. NEA Desegregation Inquiry Panel. 1984. Three Cities That Are Making Desegregation Work. Report of the National Education Association: Special Study. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association Human and Civil Rights. Neustadt, Richard and Ernest R. May. 1986. Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers. New York: Free Press. Newby, I. A. 1969. Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Noblit, George W. and Bill Johnston. 1982. The School Principle and School Desegregation. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Norwood, George. 1992. "After a Finding of Unitariness the Dissolution of Busing and Resegregation of America's Public Schools: An Affront To Brown v. Board of Education". Southern Illinois University Law Journal. 27(2):339. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial Formulation in the United States: The 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Rutledge and Kegan Paul. Orfield, Gary. 1978. "Research, Politics and the Anti-Busing Debate". Law and Contemporary Problems. 42(4)Autumn: Orfield, Gary. 1983. Public School Desegregation in the United States 1968-1980. Washington, D.C.: Joint Center for Political Studies. Orfield, Gary. 1986. "Knowledge, Ideology, and School Desegregation: Views From Different Prisms". Metropolitan Education 1, (Spring): 93. Orfield, Gary, Monfort, Franklin and Melissa Aaron. 1989. Status of Schoof Desegregation: 1968-1986. Washington, D.C.: National School Boards Association. Orfield, Gary and Carole Ashkinaze. 1991. The Closing Door: Conservative Policy and Black Opportunity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Orfield, Gary and David R. Thronson. 1993. "Dismantling Desegregation: Uncertain Gains Unexpected Costs". Emory Law Journal. 42(3) 759-790. Orfield, Gary, et. at. 1993. The Growth of Segregation in American Schools: Changing Patterns of Separation and Poverty Since 1968. Alexandria, VA.: National School Boards Association. 254

PAGE 265

Orfield, Gary and Susan E. Eaton. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.:vii, xiv. Pearson, Jessica and Jeffrey Pearson. 1978. "Keyes v School District No 1." In Howard Kalodner. eds. Umits of Justice: The Role of the Court in School Desegregation. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.:181,182,183,184, 189, 192-193, 208. Pernell Leroy. 1990. "Suffering the Children: 35 Years os Suspension, Expulsion, and Beatings-The Price of Desegregation". Harvard Blackletter Journal. (Spring): 119-126. Peltzman, Sam. 1993. "Political Factors in Public School Decline" The American Enterprise. 4 (4):44. Phillip, Mary Christine. 1994. "Brown At Forty: Reassessing the Case that Changed Public Education in the U.S.". Black Issues in Higher Education. Vol. 19, No 23: 11. Prager, Jeffrey, Douglas Longshore and Melvin Seaman. Eds. 1986. School Desegregation Research: New Directions in Situational Analysis. New York: Plenum Press: 4. Pratt, Robert A. 1992. The Color of Their Skin: Education and Race in Richmond Virginia, 1954-89. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Rist, Ray and Ronald Anson. 1977. Education, Social Science and the Judicial Process. New York: Teachers College Press. Rosenbloom, David. 1986. Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector. New York: Random House: 4, 6, 19, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29. Rossell, Christine and Willis Hawley. 1983. The Consequences of School Desegregation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press of Virginia. Rossell, Christine. 1990. The Carrot or the Stick for School Desegregation Policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rossell, Christine H. 1995. "The Convergence of Black and White Attitudes on School Desegregation Issues During the Four Decade Evolution of Plans". William and Mary Law Review. 36(2): 613-663. 255

PAGE 266

Rourke, Francis E. 1969. Bureaucratic Politics and Public Policy. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Russo, Charles J. et al. 1995. "Brown v Board of Education at Forty: A Legal History of Equal Educational Opportunity in American Education". Journal of Negro Education 63(3):297-309. Sayre, Wallace. 1978. "Premises of Public Administration: Past and Emerging" in Jay Shafritz and AI Hyde. eds. Classics of Public Administration. Oak Park Illinois: Moore Publishing Co.: 201. Schon, Donald. 1971. Beyond the Stable State. New York: Norton. Schwartz, A. 1978. "Social Science Potential for Judical Formulation of Educational Policy". Educational Research Quarterly. 3(2):3-11. Schwartz, Bernard. 1986. Swann's Way: The School Busing Case and the Supreme Court (New York: Oxford University Press: 36. Seidman, Harold. 1970. Politics, Position and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Reorganization. New York: Oxford University Press. Shade, Barbara J. 1991. Engaging the Battle for African American Minds. Washington, D.C.: National Alliance of Black School Educators. Shafer, Robert Jones. 1980. A Guide to Historical Method. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Publishing. Shafritz, Jay and Albert Hyde. eds. 1978. Classics of Public Administration. Oak Park, Illinois: Moore Publishing Co. Shlomo, Sharon and Yehuda Amir. eds. School Desegregation: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Hillside, NJ.: L. Erlbaum. Showell, Betty. 1976. "The Courts, the Legislature, the Presidency and School Desegregation Policy" in Florence Levinsohn and Benjamin D. Wrights. Eds. School Desegregation: Shadow and Substance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 100. Shujaa, Mwalimu J. Ed. 1996. Beyond Desegregation: The Politics of Quality if African American Schooling: New Frontiers in Urban Education Series. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press (Sage Publications). Seidman, Harold. Politics, Position, and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Organization. New York: Oxford University Press. 256

PAGE 267

Siegel, Steven. 1991. "Race, Education, and the Equal Protection Clause in the 1990's: The Meaning of Brown v. Board of Education in Light of Milwaukee's Schools of African American Immersion". Marquette Law Review. 74: 501-511. Sleeter, Christine. 1988. Making Choices for Multicultural Education. Columbus: Bell and Howell. Smiley, Jerome C. Ed. 1901. History of Denver. Denver, Co: Denver, Times-Sun Publishing.:732, 735. Smylie, Mark A. et.al. 1995. "Educational Remedies For School Desegregation: A Social Science Statement To The U.S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. Jenkins". Urban Review. 27(3): 207-33. Spann, Girardeau. 1993. Race Against the Court: The Supreme Court and Minorities in Contemporary American. New York: New York University Press .. Spring, Joel. 1991. American Education: An Introduction to Social and Political Aspects. White Plains, N.Y.: Longmen Publishing Co.: 3, 6, 29. Stake, Robert. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Stave, Sondra Astor. 1995. Achieving Racial Balance: Case Studies of Contemporary School Desegregation: Contributions to the Study of Education. Westport, CO.: Greenwood Publishers. Steele, Roberta. 1993. "All Things Not Being Equal: The Case for Race Separate Schools". Case Western Reserve Law Journal. 32:591. Stillman. Richard. 1991. Preface to Public Administration: A Search for Themes and Direction. New York: St. Martin's Press.:12. Strauss, David A. 1989. Discriminatory Intent and the Taming of Brown". University of Chicago Law Review. 56(3): 935-1015. Taylor, Mary Jean. 1990. "Leadership Responses to Desegregation in the Denver Public Schools, A Historical Study: 1959-19n". Ph D. diss., University of Denver.:46, 61, 69, 97, 100, 138, 142, 161, 220 .. Thompson, Victor. 1961. Modem Organization. New York Knopf. Tucker, William H. 1994. The Science and Politics of Racial Research. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 257

PAGE 268

u. S. Commission on Civil Rights. 1975. Twenty Years After Brown. Washington D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: 29. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 1977. Reviewing a Decade of School Desegregation 1966-1977: Report of a National Survey of School Superintendents: A Staff Report of the United States Commission of Civil Rights. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Cicil Rights. Unger, Roberto. 1983. The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Waldo, Dwight. 1956. Perspectives on Administration. University of Alabama: University of Alabama Press:29. Warren, D. R. ed .. 1978. History, Education, and Public Policy. Berkeley: McCuthan. Watras, Joseph. 1997. Politics, Race, and Schools: Racial Integration, 1954-1994. New York: Garland Publishing.37. Weider, Alan. 1994. "Race and Education: A Review Essay" Equity and Excellence in Education 27 (3): 76-84. Weinberg, Meyer. 1970. Desegregation Research: An Appraisal. Bloomington, IN.: Phi Delta Kappan. Weinberg, Meyer. 1979. A Chance To Learn: The History of Race and Education in the United States. London: Cambridge University Press. Wells, Amy Stuart. 1995. "Re-examining Social Science Research on School Desegregation: Long Versus Short-Term Effects" Teachers College Record. 4 (Summer): 691-706. West, Cornell. 1993. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press. White, Leonard. 1926. Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. New York: MacMillan Co. Wilkinson, J. Harvie, Ill. 1979. From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration: 1954-1978. New York: Oxford University Press. Wilkinson, J. Harvie, Ill. 1995. ''The Law of Civil Rights and the Dangers of Separatism in Multicultural America". Stanford Law Review. 42: 993. Willie, Charles. 1984. "Access and Achievement". Currents. (Theme issue with title: "Commemorating Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka" 3(1): 24-33. 258

PAGE 269

Willie, Charles, Antoine M. Giraibaldi and Womie L Reed. eds. 1991. The Education of African Americans. New York: Auburn House. Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. "The Study of Administration", Political Science Quarterly 56(December 1941 ):481, 494(originally copyrighted in 1887). Winks, Robin W., Ed. 1979. The Historian As Detective: Essays of Evidence. New York: Harper and Row. Witcher, T. R. 1997. "Segregation Anxiety" Denver Westwon:f. Vol 20. No 22. (Jan 23-29): 18 (Greiner quote). Wall, Peter. 1963. American Bureaucracy. New York: W.W. Norton Co. Wolters. R. 1984. The Bun:fen of Brown: Thirty Years of School Desegregation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Woodson, Carter G. 1919. The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861. Washington, D.C.: The Associated Publishers: I, 34. Wortman, Pau! M. 1979. School Desegregation and Black Achievement: An Integrative Review. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Yarbrough, Marilyn V. 1995. "Still Separate and Still Unequal" William and Mary Law Review. 36(2): 685-702. Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Second Ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications: 1 Yudof, Mark. 1978. School Desegregation: Legal Realism, Reasoned Elaboration and Social Science Research in the Supreme Court". Law and Contemporary Problems: 57-110. Zlotnick, Marilyn S. 1981. Assessment of Current Knowledge About the Effectiveness of School Desegregation Practices. Nashville: Vanderbuiit University Press. 259

PAGE 270

Keyes v. School District No.1, 412 U.S. 189 (1973) LITIGATION CHRONOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION Keyes v. School District No.1. 303 F. Supp. 279 (D. Colo.) ("Keyes f), modified, 303 F. Supp 289 (D.Colo. 1969) ("Keyes lr), order reinstated, 396 U.S. 1215 (1969) (Brennan J in chambers) ("Keyes 1/r); Keyes v. School District No.1, 313 F. Supp. 61 (D.Colo.1970) ("Keyes IV'); Keyes v. School District No.1. 313 F. Supp. 90 (D.Colo.1070) ("Keyes V'). affd in part and rev'd in part, 445 F. 2d 990 (10th Cir. 1971) ("Keyes Vr), cert. granted 404 U.S. 1036 (1972) and cert. denied sub. nom Schoo/ District No.1 v. Keyes, 413 U.S. 921 (1973), modified and remanded, 413 U.S. 189 (1973) ("Keyes Vlf),on remand, 368 F. Supp. 207 (D. Colo 1973) ("Keyes Vllf') and 380 F. Supp. 673 (D. Colo. 1974) ("Keyes /X"), affd in part and rev'd in part, 521 F. 2d 465 (10th Cir. 1975) ("Keyes X"), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1066 (1976); Keyes v. School District No.1, 474 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Colo.1979) ("Keyes Xr); Keyes v. School District No. 1, 540 F. Supp. 399 (D.Colo. 1982) ("Keyes Xlr); Keyes v. School District No.1, 576 F. Supp. 1503 (D.Colo.1983) ("Keyes X//f) Keyes v. School District No.1, 609 F.Supp. 1491 (D.Colo. 1985) ("Keyes XIV'); Keyes v. School District No. 1. No. C-1499 (D. Colo. Oct 29, 1985) ("Keyes XV') (Order for further proceedings); Keyes v. School District No.1, 653 F. Supp. 1536 (D.Colo. 1987) ("Keyes XVf); Keyes v. School District No.1, 670 F. Supp, 1513 (D.Colo. 1987) ("Keyes XV/r), affd, 895 F. 2d 659 (10th Cir. !990) ("Keyes XVI/r), cert.denied, 498 U.S. 1082 (1991). 260

PAGE 271

Cases Dred Scott v. Sanford, 69 U.S. 393 (1857). Pfessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.s. 537 (1896). Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899). Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927). Missouri ex ref. Gaines v. Canada, 302 U.S. 337 (1938). Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 (1948). Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950). McLaurin v, Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, (Brown I) 346 U.S. 483 (1954). Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955). Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 439 (1968). Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969). Swann v. Charfotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971 ). San Antonio School District v. Roderiquez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974). Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424 ( 1976). Milliken v. Bradley II, 433 U.S. 267 (1977). Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986). Riddick v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, 784 F.2d. 521 (4th Cir., 1986). Cronson v. Clark, 484 U.S. 871 (1989). Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991). Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992). Abbott v. Burke, 136 N.J. 444 (1994). Missouri. v. Jenkins, 115 S. Ct. 2083 (1995). Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995). Other Legal Articles of Confederation, 1878, Art. I, Section 2. Anti-Busing Amendment-Colo.Const. Art. IX, Section 8 (1974) (Prohibits busing for integrative purposes.). Poundstone Amendment-Colo Const. XIV, Section (1974) (Limits Denver's annexation capacity). Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene, City and County of Denver (1994):2-3. Plaintiffs Brief : Motion of Intervention of the City and County of Denver (1994):14 Board Brief : On the Impact of the Anti-Busing Clause of the Colorado Constitution (1994):5. Board Resolutions Related to Equal Educational Opportunity; 1490, 1520, 1542,1531,1533,2060,2233,2314,2529. Policy 51 00 261

PAGE 272

Newspaper Articles Denver Post, April 9, 1959. Denver Post, February 15, 1962. Rocky Mountain News, October 11, 1968. Denver Post, Sunday, May 5, 1974:77. Denver Post, August 30, 1974. Denver Post, January 14, 1879:40. Rocky Mountain News, January 14, 1979:8. Denver Post, November 13,1981:1b. Denver Post, March 3, 1981. Denver Post. February 10, 1984. Rocky Mountain News, February 16, 1984:8. Denver Post, March 5, 1984:7A Rocky Mountain News, April 15, 1984:1. Denver Post, May 22, 1985:1A Rocky Mountain News, January 4, 1992. Rocky Mountain News, September 22, 1992. Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 1994. Denver Post, August 18, 1994. Denver Post, August 26, 1994. Rocky Mountain News, May 1, 1995. Denver Post, January 23, 1992. Rocky Mountain News, April 2, 1992 Rocky Mountain News, May 5, 1993. Rocky Mountain News, May 19, 1994. Rocky Mountain News, August 18, 1994 Rocky Mountain News, August 19, 1994 Rocky Mountain News, August 21, 1994 Rocky Mountain News, August 25, 1994. Rocky Mountain News, August 28, 1994. Westward, January 1997: 18 Rocky Mountain News, January 7, 1998 262

PAGE 273

Archival Documents Special Study Committee on Equality of Educational Opportunity in the Denver Public Schools. Report and Recommendations to the Board of Education, School District No.1. Denver, Co.: Denver Public Schools, March 4, 1964: 1, 9, D-4, D-13, Appendix 36. Bardwell, George. Characteristics of Negro Residences in the Park Hill Area of Denver, Colorado-1966. Denver, Co: Denver Commission on Community Relations, April 1966. Advisory Council on Equality of Educational Opportunity in the Denver Public Schools. Final Report and Recommendations to the Board of Education, School District No.1. Denver, Co: Denver Public Schools, February 1967: 8, 182. Superintendent's Report (Gilberts). Planning Quality Education: A Proposal for Integrating the Denver Public Schools. Denver, Co: Denver Public Schools, October, 1968. Report From the Superintendent of Schools. John Finger Plan: Special Report. Denver, Co: Denver Public Schools, 1968. The Denver Public Schools. Report: Alternative Plans for lmplementiation of U.S. district Court Orders Stated in the Final Decree of June 1970. Denver, Co: Denver Public Schools, March 17, 1971. The Denver Public Schools. Interim Report: As Ordered By United States District Court on January 15, 1971 Setting Forth status of Defendant's Plan and Decision Regarding Implementation of Final Decree. Denver, Co.: Denver Public Schools, February 15, 1971. Bardwell, George. Segregation: A Social Account. Denver, Co.: Colorado Commission on Civil Rights (James Reynolds, Chair), March 1, 1971. Cardenas, Jose A. An Education Plan for the Denver Public Schools. San Antonio TX. National Education Task Force de Ia Raza, January 21, 1974. Office of the Superintendent. A Plan for Expanding Educational Opportunity in the Denver Public Schools: A Plan Submitted in Compliance With U.S. District Court Memorandum to Modfy Desegregation in School District No.1. Denver, Co.: Denver Public Schools, January 22, 1974. 263

PAGE 274

Desegregation Task Force. Report to the Board of Education on the Status of Pupil Assignments Related to the U.S. District Court Order. Denver Co: Denver Public Schools, March 1979. Ad Hoc Committee of the Board of Education Denver Public Schools. Unitary School System Plan:Final Report. Denver, Co.: Denver Public Schools, June 5, 1981. The Denver Public Schools, Pupil Assignment Plan for a Unitary School System as Directed by the United States District Court: The Concensus Plan of October 14, 1981 Combined with Educational enhancements Contained in the Total Access Plan. Denver, Co.: Denver Public Schools, March 30, 1981. Denver Public Schools. Report on Resolution #2233: 1989-90 School Year. Denver. Co.: Denver Public Schools, 1989. 264



PAGE 1

PREPARING SCHOOL LEADERS: A CASE STUDY OF PRACTITIONER GROWTH DURING A PRINCIPAL LICENSURE COHORT PROGRAM by Patricia Ann Browne-Ferrigno B.A., Florida State University, 1968 M.A., University of South Florida, 1996 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership and Innovation 2001

PAGE 2

by Patricia Ann Browne-Ferrigno All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Patricia Ann Browne-Ferrigno has been approved by Rodney Muth

PAGE 4

Browne-Ferrigno, Patricia {Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation) Preparing School Leaders: A Case Study of Practitioner Growth during a Principal Licensure Cohort Program Thesis directed by Associate Professor W. Alan Davis ABSTRACT This study describes professional growth of 18 educational practitioners participating in a principal licensure program. The main unit of analysis was a closed cohort within an urban-university's educational leadership program conducted in partnership with a local education agency. The case study was bounded in time, from January 2000 to December 2000. It began at the cohort's orientation and continued through completion of three of the four required content domains. A set of researcher propositions guided the focus of this mixed-methods study. Participants' career aspirations, awareness of leadership potential, role conceptualization of the principalship, and socialization into the community of practice were explored. Additionally, program effects that stimulated professional growth and real-time student assessments of learning in a closed cohort were examined. Findings reflect important implications for the professional development of schools leaders: (a} career aspirations of educators are linked to Ieamer engagement; (b) multiple factors influence personal awareness of leadership potential and feelings of competency to assume a principalship; (c) educators' role conceptualization of the principalship is related to number of years teaching experience; and {d) experiential learning and interaction with practicing school administrators are critical to the iv

PAGE 5

socialization process. Additionally, while the cohort model may stimulate collegial support and enhance student learning, initial and ongoing community-building activities are needed for optimum benefit. Differences in students' ages and professional experiences can negatively impact learning opportunities in a cohort. Data indicate that professional growth while participating in a principal licensure cohort depends upon multiple factors indirectly and directly related to the program. Students' reasons for pursuing licensure as a school principal are associated with their degree of engagement as learners and role-identity development as future school leaders. The K-12 principalship is changing to meet complex societal and educational issues, and thus, role conceptualization is difficult for aspiring principals. Therefore, experientialleaming must be the core element of principal preparation to ensure needed skill development and socialization into the community of practice. Career counseling is needed, especially for women, to assist teachers as they transition from classrooms to administrative offices. Using the cohort model requires careful attention to community-development and norm-building processes. This abstract accurately represents the content of the its publication. W. Alan Davis v

PAGE 6

DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated first to the educational practitioners in the principal licensure cohort who volunteered as participants for this case study, and in particular, to the five key informants whose detailed insights and perceptions added considerably to the rich description in this report. I wish all these individuals the best in the future as they carry their passions and convictions about educating our children and youth into their roles as educational leaders. My father, Hank Phillips, celebrated his 80111 birthday as I completed this thesis. Because we share a love for writing and because he always admonished me to "work hard," I dedicate this book to him as well. This dissertation represents the culmination of a great deal of hard work, Papa! Rnally, I dearly thank my husband, Darrell Ferrigno, for his tireless support and encouragement throughout my doctoral studies. He helped me work through difficult moments, listened to my ideas and offered constructive suggestions, and reviewed every page of this thesis. Without his unfailing loyalty and understanding, this study would never have been completed. This dissertation is dedicated especially to you, Darrell, for helping me achieve a long-held dream of earning a doctorate and for being my dearest friend.

PAGE 7

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This dissertation represents the combined efforts of many people on the faculty and staff of the School of Education and Graduate School who encouraged and guided me during the entire process. While too numerous to name, I wish to acknowledge their efforts in helping me through my doctoral studies. I especially acknowledge the following individuals who provided special assistance to me. Professor Alan Davis introduced me to qualitative inquiry and case study methodology, which I have learned to love, and supported my efforts by volunteering to serve as my dissertation advisor. I am deeply grateful to him for his support during the final stages of my doctoral program. My gratitude is extended to Professor Bruce G. Barnett, University of Northern Colorado, who offered ideas that enriched this case study and encouragement that sustained me. He served as my outside reader. I am very grateful for the assistance in learning to write academic papers that Dr. Marcia Muth provided in the advanced writing workshops that I took during my doctoral studies. I especially appreciate the advice and editorial critique she provided as I completed this study. Two members of my committee, Dr. May Lowry and Dr. Christian Pipho, provided ongoing guidance throughout my entire doctoral studies by serving as members of both my program and dissertation committees. They also directed two doctoral laboratory experiences that broadened my understandings about adult learning and educational policy and supported my professional growth beyond the university setting. My life has been enriched through knowing and working with them. Finally, I am deeply indebted to Professor Rodney Muth for his advice, wisdom, and guidance throughout my program. This dissertation may never have been completed without his assistance, constructive criticism, and moral support. He taught me to focus my energies and challenged me to achieve more than I ever realized was possible. I am especially grateful to him for the mentoring he provided toward my professional development and preparation for the professorship.

PAGE 8

CONTENTS Figures ........................................................................................... xviii Tables .............................................................................................. xix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 School Leadership Challenges: Complex Issues ............................ 2 Environmental Challenges ................................................ 3 Policy Challenges .......................................................... 4 Leadership Challenges .................................................... 5 Preparation of School Leaders: Conceptual Frameworks ................... 5 Leadership and Change Agentry ....................................... 5 Leadership and Culture ................................................... 6 Preparation of School Leaders: Significance of Study ....................... 7 Study Focus .................................................................. 8 Study Purpose .............................................................. 9 Study Value ................................................................. 1 0 Investigating Practitioner Growth: Case Study Design ..................... 11 Researcher Propositions ................................................ 11 Data Collection and Analysis .......................................... 12 Standards of Quality and Verification ................................ 13 Context: The Licensure Program ................................................. 14 Standards-Based Curriculum .......................................... 14 viii

PAGE 9

Cohort Structure ........................................................... 15 Integration of Information Technology ............................... 15 Authentic Assessment ................................................... 16 Program Tenets ........................................................... 16 Complications and Limitations: Potential Influences ........................ 17 Environmental Issues ..................................................... 17 Researcher Issues ........................................................ 18 Structure of the Dissertation ....................................................... 22 2. LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE AGENTRY .......................................... 24 Elements within Current Educational Debates ................................ 25 Reform versus Renewal. ................................................ 25 Two Views about Change ............................................... 26 Leadership for Change .............................................................. 27 Hall and Hord's Definition ............................................... 28 Fullan's Definition ......................................................... 29 Schlechty's Definition .................................................... 29 Operational Definition .................................................... 30 Collaborative Leadership: An Emerging Change Model.. ................. 30 Bums' Perspective ........................................................ 31 Schlechty's Perspective ................................................. 32 Others' Perspectives ..................................................... 33 Collaborative Leadership: Its Origins ........................................... 34 Collaborative Leadership: Its Use in Schools ................................. 35 School-University Partnership ......................................... 36 ix

PAGE 10

Four-Frame School Model.. ............................................ 36 Summary ................................................................... 37 Change Agentry: Struggles and Strategies .................................... 37 Struggles: Group Resistance .......................................... 38 Strategies: Group Inquiry ............................................. 39 Summary .................................................................... 41 The Principalship: New Role as Change Leader ............................ .42 Restructuring School Structure ....................................... 44 Restructuring School Govemance .................................... 44 Restructuring School Community .................................... .45 Restructuring School Leadership ..................................... 45 Summary .................................................................... 46 Future Trends: Predictions and Proposals ..................................... 47 Futurists' Vision ............................................................ 48 Policy Analyst's Vision .................................................. .49 Business Educator's Vision ............................................. 50 Leadership Educators' Proposals ..................................... 51 3. EMPOWERED LEARNING CULTURES ............................................ 53 Group Culture: Balancing Solidarity and Sociability ......................... 53 Empowered Learning Cultures .................................................... 55 Learning Organizations .................................................. 55 Learning Cultures ......................................................... 56 Collaborative Cultures .................................................... 57 Operational Definition .................................................... 59 Learning Cultures in Schools ..................................................... 60 X

PAGE 11

i i I I I I l i I I I I I i I I i i I i i I I i I I I i I I i I I i i I I Leithwood and Jantzi's Perspectives ................................ 60 Sergiovanni's Perspective .............................................. 61 Deal and Peterson's Perspective ..................................... 61 Learning Cultures in Cohorts ..................................................... 62 Influence of Group Dynamics ......................................... 63 Influence of Cohort Structure .......................................... 63 Influence of Mutual Support ............................................ 64 Influence on Learning ................................................... 64 Summary .................................................................... 65 Developing Empowered learning Cultures ................................... 65 Environmental Influence ................................................ 65 Risk-Safe Environment .................................................. 66 Experience-Valued leaming ........................................... 66 Varied learning Activities ............................................... 67 Experientiai Learning ..................................................... 68 Problem-Based leaming ................................................ 68 Summary .................................................................... 69 Acculturation: Preparing New School Leaders ................................ 69 Role Conception ........................................................... 70 Situated Leaming .......................................................... 71 Preparing School Leaders: Prelude ............................................. 72 4. MIXED-METHODS CASE STUDY ...................................................... 74 Case Study Design .................................................................. 75 Embedded Single-Case Design ........................................ 75 Data Collection and Analysis ........................................... 76 xi

PAGE 12

Standards of Quality and Verification ................................ 76 Entry and Changed Focus ............................................. .77 Potential Study Effects .............................................................. 78 Closed Cohort ........................................................... 79 Program Requirements .................................................. 79 Cohort Theme and Program Differences ........................... 80 Case Study Participants ............................................................ 81 Demographics and Diversity ............................................ 82 Professional Experience ................................................. 82 Educational Background and Aspirations ........................... 84 District Representation ................................................... 84 Informant Volunteers ..................................................... 85 Data Collection Methodology ..................................................... 85 Pre-Survey and Post-Survey ........................................... 86 Open-Ended Questionnaires ........................................... 88 Informant Interviews ...................................................... 89 Focus-Group lnterview .................................................. 90 Participant Observation .................................................. 91 Artifact Review ............................................................. 91 Organization of the Data ........................................................... 92 Data Collection Information ............................................ 93 Original Data Sources ................................................... 94 Informant Data ............................................................ 94 Online Interactions ....................................................... 94 Field Notes and Artifacts ............................................... 95 xii

PAGE 13

Orgarmization of the Case Study ....................................... 95 Data Analysis Methodology ....................................................... 97 Closelld-Ended Questions ............................................... 98 Open-Ended Questions ................................................ 1 00 lnterviiew Questions ................................................... 1 01 Online Interactions ...................................................... 1 02 Case Study: Quality and Verification Checks ............................... 1 03 Case Study Raeport: Rve Chapters ............................................ 1 05 5. ASPIRATIONS: PN\RTICIPANTS' CAREER GOALS ........................... 110 Practitioner Grrowth: Prologue ................................................... 111 Researcher Av.vakening ............................................................ 112 Participants' C:areer Goals ....................................................... 114 Aspiration: School Principalship ........................... 115 Aspiration: District Administration ......................... 120 Aspiration: Uncertain ......................................... 121 Aspiration: Ca::1alystfor Professional Growth ................................ 123 6. LEADERSHIP: PARTICIPANTS' UNDERSTANDINGS ........................ 125 Leadership Development.. ....................................................... 126 Participants' A.ssessment of Leadership Activities ......................... 126 Requitred Assignment ................................................... 127 Effectiive Activities ....................................................... 128 I Activities ..................................................... 131 Leadership A'II'Vareness: Catalyst for Professional Growth ............... 131 through Experience ..................................... 133 through Action ............................................ 135 xiii

PAGE 14

I I I I I I i I I i I l : I i i I I I i I i i i Leadership through Resourcefulness .............................. 137 Leadership through Confidence Building .......................... 138 Leadership through lnfluence ........................................ 140 Leadership Awareness: Summary .................................. 142 Leadership Definitions: Evidence of Professional Growth ............. 143 Leadership as Empowerment ........................................ 143 Leadership as Transformation ....................................... 144 Leadership as Challenge .............................................. 144 Leadership Domain: Participants' Concerns ................................ 146 7. THE PRINCIPALSHIP: PARTICIPANTS' PERCEPTIONS ................... 149 Participants' Perceptions about the Principalship ............... 149 Practitioner Experience: 5 or Fewer Years ....................... 151 Practitioner Experience: 6 to 10 Years ............................ 155 Practitioner Experience: 11 to 20 Years ........................... 161 Practitioner Experience: Over 20 Years ........................... 163 Analysis of Participants' Role Conceptions .................................. 166 Common Perceptions: All Subgroups .............................. 167 Common Perceptions: Three Subgroups ......................... 169 Common Perceptions: Two Subgroups ........................... 170 Differences among Subgroups ...................................... 171 Influences on Readiness to Assume Principalship ........................ 171 Age as Stumbling Block ............................................... 172 Gender as Stumbling Block .......................................... 173 Parenthood as Stumbling Block ..................................... 174 Redefining Principalship: Catalyst for Change ............................. 175 xiv

PAGE 15

Reflections about Practitioners' Role Conceptions ....................... 176 8. SOCIALIZATION : PARTICIPANTS' TRANSFORMATIONS ................ .. 178 Professional Behaviors: Measurement Challenges ... .................... 179 Data Collection Strategies ............................. ............. 179 Data Analysis Strategies .................. ........................... 180 Professional Behaviors: Analysis and Interpretation ...................... 181 Ensuring Quality Learning Experiences ........................... 183 Learning within School Community ................. . .......... ... 187 Behaving Ethically and Responsively ............................. 189 Linking Diversity and Equ ity ................ ....................... . 191 Engaging in Professional Development ................ ..... ..... 194 Managing School Environment ..................................... 197 Acculturation into the Principalship ............... . ................ 199 Professional Behaviors: Summary of Analysis ............................. 202 Mindset Shift: Transformative Professional Growth ................. ...... 203 Socialization: Catalyst for Professional Growth ............................ 206 9. THE COHORT: PARTICIPANTS' ASSESSMENTS ............ ... ............. 209 Positive Assessments of Cohort Experience ............................... 2i 0 Teamwork and Camaraderie .............. ............ . ... .. .. ...... 211 Peer Interaction and Collegial Support ............................ 212 Professional Relationships and Networking ................... .. 216 Online Interaction and Sharing ....... . .................. ....... . 218 Less-Positive Assessments of Cohort Experience .............. ......... 220 Frustrations about Group Work ..................................... 221 Frustrations about Age Differences ................................ 223 XV

PAGE 16

Frustrations about Experience Differences ....................... 224 Frustrations about Online Activities ................................. 225 Frustrations about Cohort Norms .................................... 227 Researcher's Assessment of Cohort Experience .......................... 228 Peer Interaction and Camaraderie .................................. 229 Collegial Support ........................................................ 231 Online Assignments ..................................................... 232 Cohort Norms ............................................................. 233 Professional Development .......................................... .. 234 The Cohort: Opportunity for Learning ......................................... 236 Professional Growth: Epilogue .................................................. 238 10. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH ........................ 242 Career Aspirations ................................................................. 243 Rndings .................................................................... 243 lmplications ............................................................ .. 244 Leadership Development ........................................................ 245 Findings .................................................................... 246 Implications .. ............................................................. 24 7 Role Conceptualization and Socialization .................................. 249 Findings: Role Perceptions ........................................... 249 Rndings: Professional Behaviors .................................. 250 Findings: Role Identity ................................................. 252 Implications ............................................................... 252 Cohort Programs .................................................................. 257 Findings ................................................................... 257 xvi

PAGE 17

i I I I .I I I I l I i I I I j I I I I I i I i I I I Implications ................................................. .... ....... .. 258 Case Study Summary and Conclusion ....................................... 261 APPENDIX A. HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL. .................... 263 B. PARTICIPANT PRE-SURVEY: JANUARY 2000 ..................... 264 C. QUESTIONNAIRE 1: MARCH 2000 .................................... 269 D. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW 1: APRIL 2000 ...................... 271 E. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW 2: JULY 2000 ....................... 273 F. QUESTIONNAIRE 2: AUGUST 2000 ....... .. ......................... 275 G. QUESTIONNAIRE 3: OCTOBER 2000 ................................. 277 H. QUESTIONNAIRE 4: OCTOBER 2000 ................................. 278 I. PARTICIPANT POST-SURVEY: NOVEMBER 2000 ................ 279 J. FOCUS-GROUP INTERVIEW: NOVEMBER 2000 ....... .. ......... 289 K. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW 3: NOVEMBER 2000 ............. 290 REFERENCES ...................... .. ........................................................ 292 xvii

PAGE 18

! II I I I i i I I I l I I i FIGURES Figure 4.1 Chronological Sequence of Data Collection ................................................. 87 4.2 Chronological Sequence of Cohort Program ............................................... 1 09 xviii

PAGE 19

: \ TABLES i Table 4.1 Record of Case Study Data Sources ......................................................... 96 4.2 Content Analysis Coding Key ................................................................. 1 02 5.1 Career Goal: School Principal. ............................................................... 115 5.2 Career Goal: Assistant Principal.. ........................................................... 118 5.3 Career Goal: District Administrator ......................................................... 120 5.4 Career Goal: Not Sure ......................................................................... 122 6.1 Participants' Perceptions about Leadership .............................................. 132 7.1 Perceptions of Teachers: 5 or Fewer Years Experience .............................. 152 7.2 Perceptions of Teachers: 6 to 10 Years Experience ................................... 156 7.3 Perceptions of Teachers: 11 to 20 Years Experience ................................. 161 7.4 Perceptions of Teachers: Over 20 Years Experience .................................. 164 7.5 The Principalship: Comparison of Role Conceptions .................................. 1 67 8.1 Effect Sizes: Standard 1 Self-Assessment Items ....................................... 184 8.2 Effect Sizes: Standard 2 Self-Assessment Items ....................................... 187 8.3 Effect Sizes: Standard 3 Self-Assessment Items ....................................... 190 8.4 Effect Sizes: Standard 4 Self-Assessment Items ....................................... 192 8.5 Effect Sizes: Standard 5 Self-Assessment Items ....................................... 195 8.6 Effect Sizes: Standard 6 Self-Assessment Items ....................................... 197 8.7 Effect Sizes: Standardization Self-Assessment ltems ................................. 200 xix

PAGE 20

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Leading K-12 schools amid the current complexities of educational reform and paradigm shifts is challenging (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach. 1999; Schlechty, 2001 ). The capacity of a school to respond appropriately to external change forces (Fullan, 1993; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998) or to initiate and sustain self-renewal (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996) depends upon a principal's ability to address multiple, sometimes conflicting, issues (Brewer, 2001; Fullan, 1999). Further, research on schools that are effective shows a direct link to effective principal leadership (Dosdall & Diemert, 2001 ; Lemley, 1997; Sergiovanni, 2001). Adding to the complexities is the dynamic evolution of a principal's role and responsibilities as the leader of a learning community (Peterson. 2001; Sergiovanni, 2001 ). Increased demands for teacher empowerment and shared school governance (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). renewed focus on instructional leadership (Blase & Blase, 2001 ). and expanded school functions based upon changing student populations and learner needs (Levine, Lowe, Peterson, & Tenorio, 1995) define new expectations for educational leaders and practitioners working in K-12 schools. Another emerging problem is finding leadership talent. The current pool of educational practitioners willing to assume positions as school leaders is small (Daresh & Capasso. 2000; Kelley & Peterson, 2000). As retirement rates of experienced administrators increase and numbers of qualified applicants choosing to become school principals decrease, the pool of candidates available to fill open principal positions is shrinking (Copeland, 2001 ). Although many practitioners participate in principal training 1

PAGE 21

programs, only a portion of the graduates assumes positions as a school leader (Daresh & Capasso, 2000; Lovely, 1999). ; Preparing new school leaders who understand diverse challenges and possess skills needed for "future-oriented work" (Lemley, 1997, p. 33) is critically important. Professional educators who provide leadership development (Barnett & Muth, 2000; Donmoyer, Monroe, Cordeiro, Getz, & Scherr, 2000; Kelley & Peterson, 2000) and district administrators who need leadership talent (Lemley, 1997; Lovely, 1999; Peel, Wallace, Buckner, Wrenn, & Evans, 1998) are exploring program revisions to improve principal preparation and leadership development. School Leadership Challenges: Complex Issues School leaders work in settings where conflicting assumptions about education impede the implementation of needed change. Outdated assumptions that narrowly limit the imagination and fail to focus on the realistic needs of children and youth cause the failure of many school reforms (Astuto, Clark, Read, McGree, & Fernandez, 1994). The abasic grammar of schooling" (Tyack & Cuban, 1995, p. 85) is another stumbling block to successful implementation of educational innovation. The public, which controls policy makers through the voting process and educational practitioners through the local taxing process (Cuban, 1990; House, 1998), holds an institutionalized perception of what schooling should be. Memories of the past clash with current realities and projected needs, thus making it difficult for educators to introduce new instructional practices or respond to changing student demographics (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Controversy even arises about the essential purposes of schools in 2151 century America (Glickman, 1998; Goodlad, 1997; Postman, 1995). Societal beliefs about 2

PAGE 22

! i i I I I I I I i I j i i education, historical customs of schooling, and legal mandates interactively create stumbling blocks for K-12 school leaders (Pipho, 2000; Pulliam & Van Patten, 1999; Smith & O'Day, 1990). Environmental Challenges Principals in urban districts face added challenges. Urban-situated schools are usually part of large centralized bureaucracies with limited resources and slow response times for meeting the needs of individual schools within the districts (Peterson, 1994). Additionally, students living in urban areas often bring into their classrooms burdening challenges to their learning created by the effects of poverty, limited English proficiency, and underdeveloped school readiness. These challenges for students and teachers within urban schools are less often experienced in suburban schools (Goodlad, 1984; Kozel, 1991 ). Per pupil funding discrepancies between urban and suburban schools further hinder learning opportunities. Oversized classes, lack of appropriate books and supplies, dearth of challenging courses and qualified teachers, and cramped and decrepit school facilities are common occurrences in many urban districts (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Kozel, 1991 ). Parental and local community support structures are not well defined or may even be non-existent, further increasing the challenges faced by urban school leaders (Goodlad, 1984; Peterson, 1994). The cumulative differences between urban and suburban schools create inequitable opportunities for learning and future opportunities (Goodlad, 1984; Kozel, 1991 ). However, the differences between urban and suburban schools also influence principals' responsibilities. According to Hallinger and Murphy (1983, as cited in Crow & Glascock, 1995), the geographic, demographic, and structural elements of schools create different role conceptions. Principals of low socioeconomic status (SES) schools 3

PAGE 23

i I I i often assume controlling and coordinating functions, whereas principals in high SES schools emphasize the coordinating tasks of leadership. Principals of urban schools often face tougher environmental influences than do their peers in suburban settings. Policv Challenges Another challenge currently faced by urban schools is the emphasis on content-focused curricula and high-stakes accountability. Many policy makers, business leaders, and educators posit that standards-based pedagogy and assessments create effective schools that improve the quality of teaching and learning (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Glasser, 1990; Schlechty, 1990; Sizer, 1992). Proponents of market-based education accountability recommend linking salaries, even the very jobs, of school principals to the quality of student performance on assessment measures (Finn, 1991; "The Teachers We Need," 1999). The process of systemic school reform is fraught with complexity, often caused by continual cycles of change (Cuban, 1990; Smith & O'Day, 1990). Repeating patterns of reforms generate resistance to change by veteran teachers responsible for implementation (Evans, 1996; Fullan, 1993; House, 1998). Thus, the current national focus on student achievement and effective schools creates a dynamic of resistance by some educational practitioners. Teacher resistance creates internal problems to be addressed by principals (Schlechty, 1997). External forces, such as (a) state-mandated accountability measures with accompanying political and public scrutiny of student performance, (b) limited resources for implementing school reform or renewal measures, and (c) poorly developed and economically stressed community support bases, further impact leadership in urban schools. 4

PAGE 24

Leadership Challenges Another dimension of educational reform affecting the principalship is empowerment of teachers through collegial activities and empowerment of stakeholders through shared decision making (Deal & Peterson, 1999; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Sergiovanni, 1992). Teachers extend their influence beyond the classroom by participating as equal partners with principals, students, parents, and members of the broader community in governance practices (Carr, 1997; Crockett, 1996; Hard, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987; Tye, 1998). As teachers assume greater leadership within schools and as more representatives of the broader school community engage in school governance, the roles and responsibilities of the principal change. The conflicting demands of accountability and empowerment require greater attention to moral and cultural components of leadership (Starratt, 2000). Preparation of Schoof Leaders: Conceptual Frameworks The complex interaction of multiple new paradigms for K-12 education expands the range of responsibilities for school principals and changes the roles assumed by school leaders. Out of the contextual challenges currently faced by school leaders, two conceptual frameworks emerged that shaped the focus for this investigation. Leadership and Change Agentry Because of the complexity of educational challenges, K-12 principals have difficulty leading schools alone. New models of leadership based upon building relationships and sharing responsibilities are being explored (Bums, 1998; Napier, 2000; Telford, 1996). Empowering teachers to engage in collegial activities and participate in shared school governance is changing power relationships in schools 5

PAGE 25

(Carr, 1997; Crockett, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1992; Tye, 1998). The implementation of site-based management, the use of school-wide action research, and the introduction of school-defined initiatives have been tried with mixed success (Brown, 1994; Dana, 1992; Riordan & da Costa, 1998; Short & Greer, 1997; Sidener, 1995). Sharing school leadership with representatives of stakeholder groups does not occur without careful preparation and implementation (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 1999; Schwahn & Spady, 1998b; Sergiovanni, 1998). Redefining the principalship from traditional top-down leadership to collaborative partnership through shared leadership and management (Lemley, 1997) involves time and patience and requires new perspectives and understandings about leadership (Barth, 1990; Fullan, 1993; Hoban, 1998; Wagner, 1998). The successful implementation of innovation through new leadership models also requires changes in how principals are selected, trained, mentored, and supported (Barth, 1990; Cline & Necochea, 1997; Lemley, 1997; Milstein & Kruger, 1997). Thus, the first conceptual framework shaping this research became the interrelationship of leadership and change agentry. A review of literature about school reform and renewal, leadership processes that initiate and sustain innovation, and redefined roles of school leadership is presented in Chapter 2. Leadership and Culture The second conceptual framework guiding this study is the reciprocal influence of leadership and culture: Leadership generates interaction among parties that creates a cultural dynamic based upon accepted behavior patterns (Collins & Porras, 1997; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Goffee & Jones, 1998). The resulting culture must be managed through leadership (Schein, 1992). Thus, an important function of the principalship is 6

PAGE 26

symbolic and cultural leadership (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Schlechty, 1997; Sergiovanni, 1998). Systemic change within organizations requires new types of organizational learning, core competencies, and individual responsibilities (Deal & Kennedy, 1999; Hendry, 1999; Stewart, 1999}. Reorganization from centralized authority to self directed work teams often generates learning cultures (Schein, 1992; Senge, 1990) or collaborative cultures (Fullan, 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi, 11990). Further, many universities are using learning cohorts to deliver professioonal development for future school leaders (Barnett & Muth, 2000; Kelley & Peterson, 2000; Milstein & Krueger, 1997). These unique groups of learners provide opportunities to explore multiple dynamics within the culture of learning communities. Hence, the second conceptual framework shapin!!J this study became the interrelationship of leadership and culture within learning c:ornmunities. Chapter 3 includes a review of the literature about organizational ancx:i school culture, a discussion about the effect of the cohort model on creating learning cultures, and an overview of instructional strategies that engage participants in active collaborative learning. Preparation of School Leaders: Significance of Study Sharing school leadership (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 1999; Sergiovanni, 1992) and creating empowered school cultures responsiwe to innovation (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; Schlechty frame this study. Implementation of collaborative leadership processes and:1 creation of empowered school cultures requires training and professional develoJDment. During the last decade of the 20th century, leadership education associations and state committees developed professional standards for the 7

PAGE 27

I I I I -I i preparation, licensure, and performance of school leaders (Sergiovanni, 2001; Van Meter & McMinn, 2001) The introduction of new professional standards for licensed school leaders required many university-based programs to adopt standards-based curricula and modify program delivery formats (Barnett & Muth, 2000; Kelley & Peterson, 2000; Muth, forthcoming). Study Focus Redesigning professional development programs for school principals in the midst of paradigm shifts is not easy (Milstein & Krueger, 1997). One reason is that district administrators often recruit potential candidates who fit profiles of the traditional principal (Cline & Necochea, 1997). Another reason is that many beginning principals report difficulty in balancing technical and managerial tasks while simultaneously performing as visionary instructional leaders (Daresh & Playko, 1997). Administrative internships (Duffrin, 2001; Krueger & Milstein, 1995) and mentoring programs for new principals (Crow & Glascock, 1995; Dosdall & Diemert, 2001; Willen, 2001) have been added to many leadership development programs. Research about the effectiveness of program redesigns, however, is limited. Additionally, many university-based principal preparation programs deliver instruction through cohort models (Barnett & Muth, 2000; Kelley & Peterson, 2000; Milstein & Krueger, 1997). A premise for using cohorts is that keeping students together as a unique group of learners enhances professional learning and skill development (Crow & Glascock, 1995; Norris & Barnett, 1994; Peel et al., 1998). However, most research about educational leadership cohort programs is based upon anecdotal evidence collected from participants at the close of programs rather than during active participation in the cohort (Barnett & Muth, 2000). 8

PAGE 28

Finally. fueled by special-interest-g;oup agitation for elimination of licensure or certification (Finn, 1991; Kanstroom & Finn, 1999; Thobum, 1986), policy makers are beginning to seek public accountability of effectiveness from university principal preparation programs (Kelley & Peterson, 2000). Current evidence is scant showing that what is learned in a principal preparation program transfers to professional practice (Barnett & Muth, 2000). This investigation describes and analyzes professional growth of educational practitioners participating in a leadership education and skills development program. The study began concurrently with a new principal licensure cohort. Data were collected in real time as the students were actively engaged in learning and as the cohort transitioned through program stages. Because the investigation spanned one calendar year, changes in participants' insights and understandings as learners and as practitioners were traced. Further, this study was conducted as research to understand the nature of these changes and the processes through which they occurred, rather than to evaluate a particular program of principal preparation. Study Purpose This case study about practitioner growth explored and analyzed changes in participants' perceptions and understandings while they were participating in a university-based principal licensure cohort program. Study participants were graduate students enrolled in a closed cohort formed through a partnership between an urban university and an urban school district Most cohort members were working as teachers or educational practitioners in urban schools throughout the study, and a majority of the participants aspired to become principals in urban districts. Program instructors during the bounded time frame of the study included two university professors and a practicing school district superintendent. 9

PAGE 29

I I I -I I I I ! i I I I I i l i I I I I I i I A unique feature of the sample cohort was its theme: to study collaborative leadership and explore ways to change the principalship. A cited goal for the cohort was to train practitioners with skills necessary for organizing community support and building collaborative initiatives with broad-based involvement and participation. The cohort provided an opportunity to explore a new conceptualization of the principalship. Study Value The five themes investigated in this study were (a) career aspirations, (b) leadership self-awareness and understanding, (c) role conceptualization of the principalship, (d) socialization into the community of practice, and (e) learning in cohorts. Each topic connects to other studies in the field and is important to the knowledge base concerning educational leadership and principal preparation. Evidence of practitioner growth was linked to influences created by program activities and experiences within a closed cohort. Data collection began at the first meeting of the cohort in January 2000 and continued through the final session of the third domain of study and final informant interview in December 2000. Triangulation of multiple data sources and analysis methods provided reliability and validity of findings. Further, data collected during this study will be integrated with additional data collected over time from the same participants after the conclusion of the program to explore transference of learning as students to professional practices as new school leaders. Additionally, data collection instruments developed in this study were used in other principal licensure cohorts within the same university-based program to generate a database for comparative studies. This study was not intended as a program evaluation of the university-based principal licensure program in which the sample cohort was a part. However, the conclusions and implications based upon the findings from this study have potential 10

PAGE 30

I I I i i ) i j t I ! I I I I i i I 1 I I I I I i I I l I i I I i I ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I value in the design of this and other educational leadership programs. Findings also have potential value to the broader body of knowledge about the recruitment and preparation of aspiring principals and the use of cohorts in higher education. Investigating Practitioner Growth: Case Study Design Transformation of student perceptions and understandings while participating in a principal licensure program was the phenomenon of interest for this inquiry. The case study design was selected because the inquiry met two important criteria (Yin, 1994). First, the investigation was bounded by time, from January 2000 to December 2000. Data were collected during the initial three domains of study in a standards-based licensure program. Second, the particular instance or case was a unique cohort within a specific university-based educational leadership program, formed through a new university-school district partnership. Composite responses provided by each participant became sub-units within the single case study. Additionally, because the goal of the licensure program was to prepare teachers for the principalship, the potential for interpreting program effectiveness existed. The case study design was selected because it can illustrate complexities of issues (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Researcher Propositions A set of researcher propositions guided the design and focus of this investigation (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995). One premise was that practitioners chose to participate in the professional preparation program to acquire basic knowledge and skills required for becoming members of an aspired group (Lave & Wenger, 1991 ). Thus, as participants expanded their knowledge bases and applied skills in their professional practice, transformations would occur in the participants' understandings and perceptions. 11

PAGE 31

I I l I ! i i I i I ' I i I I I I l The second proposition for this case study was that participants in the administrative licensure cohort would show evidence of their growth through selfreported changes in their perceptions of themselves as leaders and their understandings about leadership. Additionally, practitioner growth would become evident by changes in participants' (a) role conceptions about the principalship and (b) socialization through adoption of professional behaviors aligned with those of school leaders. The conceptualization of professional growth reported by study participants was developed using grounded theory techniques and procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) The final proposition was that various activities and assignments within the licensure program would provide stimuli for professional growth. Also, because participants remained together throughout the program as a unique group of learners the learning environment of the closed cohort would also influence practitioner growth. Data Collection and Analysis Data collection was triangulated through three different methods. First, practitioner perceptions and understandings were collected through (a) surveys, (b) open-ended questionnaires, (c) private interviews, and (d) a focus-group interview. Evidence of change emerged from comparisons of responses provided at different times throughout the study. Second, researcher insights and understandings were developed as a participant-observer of cohort sessions and through content analysis of online communication among cohort members. Third, program influences emerged through (a) a review of documents and artifacts generated during the yearlong study, (b) participant-observation of program transitions. and (c) student evaluations of learning activities. 12

PAGE 32

Data analyses drew primarily on case study methodologies (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Survey strategies suggested by Rshel (1998) and Fowler (1993) were used, and content analysis was conducted on selected data sources (Weber, 1990). Additionally, quantitative methodologies were integrated into a portion of the analysis process to understand magnitude of change over time (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996; Krathwohl, 1998; Mahadevan, 2000). The integration of qualitative and quantitative strategies created a mixed-method case study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) . Standards of Quality and Verification Multiple procedures were employed to ensure that the case study met standards of quality and verification (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995: Yin, 1994). Data collection was linked to the propositions guiding the study (Stake, 1995). An organized system of data management was carefully constructed and employed so that a chain of evidence could be constructed (Yin, 1994). The breadth of data sources and the use of mixed methods during analysis supported multiple forms of triangulation (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Yin, 1994). Draft copies of the reports were provided to key informants to review for accuracy of reporting and interpretation. The informants and primary investigator met as a focus group to discuss and evaluate the study report. This quality assurance strategy is known as member checking (Creswell, 1998; Kvale, 1996; Stake, 1995; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Yin, 1994). Extensive amounts of participant commentary were integrated into the report, and thus the required thick description detailed the unique case (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995). A complete description of the case study methodology is presented in Chapter 4. 13

PAGE 33

I .I I I i i I I i I I I I I I I .l r Context: The Licensure Program The case study was conducted within a unique cohort that was part of a university-based professional leadership program. Following the state adoption of professional standards in 1994, the educational administration faculty at the urban university in a western state progressively revised its principal licensure program into a problem-based (Ford, Martin, Muth, & Steinbrecher, 1997), active-learning (Muth, 1999), portfolio-assessed (Muth, Murphy, Martin, & Sanders, 1996) model. The leadership preparation program transformed from a series of on-campus courses into off-campus cohorts developed through school district partnerships. As a standardsdriven program (Ford, Martin, Murphy, & Muth, 1996; Murphy, Martin, & Muth, 1994), the goal is to endorse graduates as competent professionals ready to assume roles as licensed school leaders. Standards-Based Curriculum The university licensing program focuses upon all knowledge bases and performance benchmarks defined by the state's Principal and Administrator Professional Standards Board (Ford et al., 1996; Murphy et al., 1994; Muth, forthcoming). The program is a sequence of four learning domains that concentrate on specific areas of school administration and connect to concurrent field experiences Each domain usually spans an entire semester. Individual and group activities within the domains or "content umbrellas" (Muth, 2000, p. 60) center on four broad topics: (a) educational leadership, (b) school environment, (c) supervision of curriculum and instruction, and (d) school improvement. Domains of study overlap both to integrate subject matter across domains and to take advantage of cycles of events in schools relevant to the domains and standards to be met. 14

PAGE 34

Each domain has an integrated set of field-based learning activities to connect content to practice. A 135 clock-hour intensive internship provides additional immersion into practice and experience as a school administrator. Content learning is balanced with field experiences so that students gain clinical skill to recognize and solve problems of professional practice. Cohort Structure The faculty selected the closed cohort structure because it delivers instruction suited to the diverse needs of adults (Barnett & Caffarella, 1992; Mahoney, 1990), fosters collegial learning (Barnett & Muse, 1993; Reynolds, 1993), and increases student retention through empowering students (Teitel, 1995; Yerkes, Basom, Norris, & Barnett, 1995). A closed cohort keeps students together as a group throughout the entire program (Basom, Yerkes, Norris, & Barnett, 1995) and provides ongoing peer support and professional collegiality (Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, & Norris, 2000). Because most learning cohorts in the program are developed in partnership with local school districts, unique problems of practice emerge as potential projects and learning events (Martin, Ford, Murphy, & Muth, 1998). Partnership cohort sessions are held at district sites and jointly taught by university professors and administrative practitioners. Integration of Information Technology Adoption of a sophisticated online communication system by the university's school of education opened myriad opportunities to integrate online instruction and learning into the school's licensing programs. The FirstCiass Client e-mail and conferencing system provides statewide service to the school of education, area districts, and educational associations (Muth, 2000). The online system "permits 15

PAGE 35

I i ., I i I synchronous as well as asynchronous communications, easy file sharing, and Internet i l I i i I I i access" (Muth, 2000, p. 60). Additionally, this user-friendly system allows discussion sites known as conferences. Within a cohort conference, participants can post questions, comments, and responses viewed by all conference members. The electronic conferences provide an avenue for developing relationships outside the regularly scheduled cohort sessions and facilitating completion of special online projects. In addition, the communication system offers private electronic mail and live-chat opportunities. All program-related online communication housed in a conference is archived for three years. Authentic Assessment Mastery of learning is presented through defense of self-constructed portfolios (Muth et al., 1996). Artifacts included in portfolios are created through cohort activities developed through professional experiences that link to specific benchmarks. These artifacts are compiled into a portfolio and presented as evidence of expertise. Students who complete all licensing program requirements and successfully pass a state-approved examination are eligible to receive a provisional state license as a school principal. Students participating in the licensing program can earn a Master of Arts (MA) or Educational Specialist (EdS) degree by completing nine additional credits of specified coursework beyond the required 31 credits (Muth, 2000). Program Tenets The principal licensing program is structured upon principles of transformational leadership and empowerment developed through practitioner experience and reflection and expanded through intellectual consciousness (Napier, 2000). The curriculum integrates problem-based learning and action research, exploration of problems of 16

PAGE 36

I l i I I i I I I I I l i i I i i i i I ! practice through group projects. online mentoring and instruction, and personal reflection (Muth, forthcoming; Muth et al., 1999). The cohort provides an evolving, adaptable learning environment that allows participants to empower themselves through practical applications of knowledge and integration of personal and professional experiences in their own learning (Muth et al., 1999; Napier & Lowry, 1999). Complications and Limitations: Potential Influences Two types of influences potentially affected the findings in this case study. Complications emerged due to environmental issues: (a) passage of an omnibus educational bill by the state's general assembly, and (b) restructure of the licensure program by the cohort leader. Limitations due to researcher bias may also have infiuenced the findings. Environmental Issues Two important factors, one external to the licensure program and the other internal, influenced the findings in this case study. Rrst, during the early months of data collection, the state's general assembly passed an omnibus education bill that initiated dramatic changes to the system of public school accountability. Yearly high-stakes testing was expanded to all levels from third through tenth grade, and state-regulated school report cards were added. During the legislative process, the local media provided extensive coverage of political debates among policy makers, citizens, and educators. Passage of the contested legislation directly impacted the practices of all public school teachers and principals in the state. Data reflected the reactions and concerns of the participants as they wrestled with the implications of the new policy on their current professional practices and their future responsibilities as school leaders. 17

PAGE 37

-' i i I I I I I I i i Modifications that the cohort leader made to the university's licensure program I j created a second influence on the study. Because the theme of the sample cohort was I collaborative leadership, the cohort leader developed a unique action-learning project. Students were required to conduct research about collaboration in schools during the last two domains of their program. To provide time to conduct the research, the cohort leader eliminated the usual concurrent field-based learning experiences in each domain. Thus, students in the sample cohort did not have program-supported opportunities to integrate content learning with ongoing field experiences or to work directly with acting school leaders on authentic problems of practice. Findings suggest that the modifications to the university's principal licensure program directly influenced practitioner growth experienced by the study participants Researcher Issues I designed this case study as an exploratory inquiry about the transformations that educational practitioners experience and report as students in a professional development program. The propositions were developed to guide data collection and analysis and to report findings The assumptions were based on two foundations: (a) reviews of literature about K-12 school leadership, and (b) my personal experiences as a teacher, curriculum developer, researcher, and cohort instructor. My selection of the literature used to construct the conceptual frameworks for this study included elements of researcher bias. Also, my prior experiences as a teacher leader working with school principals on school renewal projects and as a national consultant working with educational practitioners in the adoption of new curriculum disposed me toward an interest in leadership for change. My recent work as a curriculum developer, researcher, and instructor in other i j university-based cohorts presented the greatest potential for creating researcher bias. I I I i 1 1a

PAGE 38

I I I I I While I support collaboration as an important element when implementing change, I believe collaborative leadership cannot be used all the time: Leaders often must make quick and firm decisions without seeking consensus. During the summer of this case study, I heard several principals talk about leadership styles with students in another licensure cohort. Their comments confirmed my perceptions that school leaders need to be adept at determining what type of leadership to use in a given situation. Several books about the principalship further confirmed my opinion. The introduction of the state's new accountability measures required immediate action, thus limiting opportunities for public schools to develop and implement broad-based collaborative leadership processes. While the literature supports collaboration within school settings, many authors and researchers posit that a time span of three to five years is needed to implement shared leadership. Unfortunately, public schools in the state where the study was conducted were not given time to make gradual changes. Based upon my observations as the graduate research assistant for the educational leadership division, I perceived that the principal licensure cohort I selected as my sample was formed quickly. The faculty did not engage in extensive program planning prior to orientation. Further, the change in the licensure program (splitting the leadership domain with law studies and eliminating concurrent field-based experiences) did not appear to be a faculty-wide decision. Fully aware of my dispositions, I attempted to maintain an objective perspective during the conduct of this case study. In the next three sections, I describe in greater detail what I perceive are sources of potential researcher bias. Program development and pilot study. During the year prior to beginning this case study, I worked closely with a professor from another division in the school of education and with professional practitioners to develop a new off-campus cohort 19

PAGE 39

., I I I i I I I l program for corporate trainers. For six months I participated in program design student recruitment activities, and implementation preparation for a new information and learning technologies (IL T) cohort. As a member of the network faculty, I attended planning and curriculum meetings with the cohort leader and a professional program designer. These two educators also served as co-instructors for the first course in the two-year program. observed the instructors integrating culture-building activities and team-building strategies during my weekly observations of the IL T cohort during its first semester. As a network faculty member, I also had the opportunity to conduct an action research study during the first semester of the new program. The inquiry focused on adult-student perceptions of psychological safety in a learning environment. Findings were shared with all cohort members at the close of the first semester to assist their professional development as corporate trainers and program developers. The action research study also served as a pilot for data collection methods used in this dissertation. I gained new insights into the challenges of designing cohort programs and new understandings about the value of collaboration among faculty in the design of a cohesive program. Findings from the pilot study also sensitized me to the critical importance of creating group norms and "risk-safe environments" (Juraschek, 1999, p. 1 0) within cohort programs for adult learners. Cohort instruction and ongoing assessment. Rve months after beginning this case study, I was invited by two professors in the administrative leadership division to join the instructional team for a new principal licensure cohort. The curriculum we adopted focused closely on the state's professional standards for the preparation of school leaders. Using findings from the pilot study described above, we integrated 20

PAGE 40

I I j culture-building activities to develop cohort cohesiveness and used problem-based learning strategies to help students identify problems of practice they wanted to address. Students engaged in related field-based learning experiences during each of the content domains. The following semester, another principal licensure cohort was developed in partnership with two other school districts and in collaboration with another local university's administrative leadership faculty. I was invited to serve on the instructional team for this new cohort as well. The faculty integrated many of the strategies used in the other cohort in which I taught. My experiences as the primary investigator in the earlier pilot study and this case study prompted me, as an instructor in the two principal licensure cohorts, to collect ongoing student assessments and reflections about their learning. Using the input from the students, the instructional teams modified the curriculum and learning environment when needed. Collaborative program development. Through my experiences as a curriculum developer, action researcher and cohort instructor, I learned that ongoing discussions with fellow instructors focused attention on the desired program goals and student outcomes. Team-shared focus and action resulted in observable evidence of learning. These experiences prejudice me toward the time-consuming and sometimes frustrating work of collaborative curriculum development. I believe that a shared vision among faculty creates a cohesive professional development program and provides the needed diversity to create engaging and meaningful learning experiences. I also believe ongoing program assessments by students ensure that the instruction and environment meet the needs of adult learners. Findings from this study further convince me that my perceptions are accurate. 21

PAGE 41

I I l I i i I I I I I I i I I I I Structure of the Dissertation Creswell (1998) and Yin (1994) provide guidance in reporting a case study, which I used to structure this thesis. The challenges faced by current K-12 principals open this chapter and set the broader context of this study. Environmental, educational policy, and school leadership issues serve as a prelude to the study focus: preparation of new school leaders. The description of the principal licensure program includes an explanation of the uniqueness of the sample cohort. Possible influencing complications and limitations are also presented. The study's conceptual frameworks serve as introductions to the research focus and to the purpose and value of this inquiry. Chapter 2, Leadership and Change Agentry, and Chapter 3, Empowered Learning Cultures, present expanded descriptions of the research and cited works supporting the two conceptual frameworks. This introductory chapter also includes an overview of the study methodology. Chapter 4, Mixed-Methods Case Study, provides a complete description of the sample cohort, data collection and analysis methodologies, and quality checks. The methodology chapter closes with an explanation of the formats for Chapters 5 through 9. The five chapters present findings related to the researcher propositions that guided this study. Chapter 5, Aspirations: Participants' Career Goals, opens with a prologue vignette tracing one participant's growth during the study. The next three chapters describe results in three different areas: Chapter 6, Leadership: Participants' Understandings; Chapter 7, The Principalship: Participants' Perceptions; and Chapter 8, Socialization: Participants' Transformations. Chapter 9, The Cohort: Participants' Assessments, closes with an epilogue vignette that encapsulates the study I participants' assertions about their professional growth during the study. I I -! I I I

PAGE 42

I I I I I I I i I I ! Chapter 1 o, Implications for Practice and Research, presentes interpretations and suggested implications for practice and future research. A copy of the university's approval to conduct the study, examples of all data collection instrurments and prompts, and a reference list of all cited works follow Chapter 1 0. 23

PAGE 43

l i i ., I i I I I CHAPTER2 LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE AGENTRY Effective leadership is the cornerstone of any successful organization, regardless of the nature of its work (Barker, 1997; Bennis & Townsend, 1995). Yet, despite a rich history of theory development and research studies, a single definition of leadership is still not universally accepted (Barker, 1997; Hall & Hard, 1987; Rost, 1991 ). While examining leadership from multiple and diverse perspectives adds to the body of knowledge of leadership practices that transcend all organizations (Cantor & Bemay, 1992; Luthar, 1996), exploring the full scope of the literature is daunting. Hence, the models and practices of leadership presented in this chapter are deliberately limited to a focus on leading change efforts. New leadership models are needed to implement and sustain successful innovation in schools. Change agentry requires leadership that builds relationships (Bums. 1998; Short & Greer, 1997) and engages representatives of various stakeholder groups in decision making (Fullan, 1999). The principalship is changing to meet this added dimension to school leadership (Barth, 1990; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 1997; Sergiovanni, 2001 ). To frame the context in which leadership and change agentry emerged as a conceptual framework for this study, the chapter begins with a short presentation of elements within current educational debates that is followed by a review of emerging models of leadership and discussion of change strategies. Rndings from studies about leadership for change in schools also are included. The closing section presents future 24

PAGE 44

projections about public education in America as a link between this literature review and the one that follows in Chapter 3, Empowered Learning Cultures. Elements within Current Educational Debates While multiple courses of action are used to address today's challenges in public education, an interesting paradox evolves within the semantics of proposed initiatives. Two words-reform and renewal-used in the context of educational change i i i seem to fuel continuing debates, instead of supporting consensus for action. i ! Reform versus Renewal According to dictionary definitions, reform means to improve by change of form or by removal of defects as measured against some standard of excellence. Renewal means to revive or bring back to an original condition of freshness and vigor (Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1999; Websters Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1963). Based upon a review of literature, it appears that advocates for reform are often government officials and policy makers, business leaders and special interest groups, and school board members. Usually, reform proposals are efforts directed toward correcting perceived shortcomings in public schools that cause broader societal or economic problems (Cuban, 1990; House, 1998; Napier, 2000; Smith & O'Day, 1990; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). In contrast. advocates for renewal are usually principals, classroom teachers, parents, students, education scholars who work in K-12 schools, and occasionally representatives of the local communities where schools are situated. Educational innovation through renewal is perceived as the primary responsibility of those groups that work in schools or that are most closely connected to schools (Glickman, 1998; Goodlad, 1984; House, 1998; Napier & Lowry, 1999). 25

PAGE 45

I I I I I I I I i i j i i I I j l I I I j i Even though a difference between the meanings of the two words exists, reform and renewal appear to lose clarity in the literature promoting educational innovation. Following are two examples of the confusion that can arise with regard to the use of reform and renewal. Two Views about Change An advocate for school reform, Schlechty (1997) believes that school renewal and improvement are too limiting perspectives for the types of systemic change needed in public education today. He calls for reexamination of the fundamental assumptions upon which the American school system is based and a willingness to modify those assumptions to meet the realities of the 21st century. A proponent of school renewal. Glickman (1998) suggests that the paradox surrounding educational innovation is that there is "not anything particularly new to learn about powerful educationa (p. 176). He believes that the purpose for school change has been lost in the confusion and distractions that fail to define what good education is with respect to the public democratic good. He proposes "revolutionizing America's schools" through implementation of a democratic pedagogy that would reconnect public education to its original purpose: the continuation of the work of the American Revolution. Schlechty specifically states that he is a reform advocate, and Glickman is an avowed renewal advocate. Both authors persuasively write about the need for systemic change and propose ways to redesign schools. However, trying to differentiate between the meanings of reform and renewal in the two proposals presented above is difficult. Therefore, despite differences in meaning and perspective, reform and renewal are used interchangeably in this chapter, as cited in the language presented in the literature. 26

PAGE 46

I l l 11 I I I I I I Leadership for Change Beyond semantics, multiple factors influence the success or failure of educational change efforts. At times the outcome depends upon the nature of the innovation and how it is introduced (Evans, 1996; Fullan, 1993; Schwahn & Spady, 1 998b) or the strategies used to implement the innovation (Oakley & Klug, 1991; Schneider & Goldwasser, 1 998; Short & Greer, 1 997). Success or failure of implementation can depend upon why change is introduced, what kind of change it is (procedural, technological, or systemic), and what training opportunities and structural support is provided to those required to impiement the change effort (Fullan, 1997; Schlechty, 1997). Other factors that influence change efforts include the character of the organization itself (Brown, 1994; Crockett, 1996; Deal & Peterson, 1999} and the role orientation of the individuals involved in the initiative (Bums, 1998; Cline & Necochea. 1 997; Evans, 1996; Schlechty, 1 997). Success or failure can depend upon the cultural orientation of the organization toward innovation and the alignment of the change initiative to a shared vision. The outcome of a change initiative can also depend upon the way in which individuals choose to engage in the process and how conflict is resolved and consensus is developed (Bums, 1998; Fullan, 1999; Oakley& Klug, 1991}. Additionally, the power of assumptions influences change initiatives in education and often stymies successful implementation. Outdated assumptions that narrowly limit the imagination and fail to focus on the realistic needs of children and youth are root causes for the failure of many reforms (Astuto et al., 1 994). Similarly, the "basic grammar of schooling" (Tyack & Cuban, 1995, p. 85) becomes another stumbling block to change. The general public holds an 27

PAGE 47

institutionalize perception of what school should be (Cuban, 1990; House, 1998). Memories of the past clash with current realities and projected needs, thus making it difficult for educators to introduce new instructional practices and respond to changing student demographics (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Historical customs of schooling, societal beliefs about education, and legal mandates interactively affect change efforts in schools (Pipho, 2000; Pulliam & Van Patten, 1999; Smith & O'Day, 1990). A common theme woven into many popular seminar workshops and books is that applied leadership is defined by situations or in the context in which it occurs (Fullan, 1997; Schwahn & Spady, 1998a: Smith, O'Connell, & Hughes, 1999). Because leadership and change agentry in schools is the focus of this conceptual framework, the breadth of literature was further narrowed. Hall and Hard (1987), Fullan (1997), and Schlechty (1997) are authors who connected leadership and change in their writings about educational innovation. Hall and Hard's Definition In their book about change in schools published in 1987, Hall and Hard devote an entire chapter to "leadership for change" in which they summarize portions of the then-current literature about leadership and change. The four reviewed leadership perspectives include "leadership traits, leadership styles, the interaction of the situation with the leaders' traits, and last, the interaction of the situation with the leader's behaviors" (p. 24). Hall and Hard conclude that while many hypotheses connect style, behavior, and situation to leadership, none has been carefully tested in practice to suggest a definition. Further, Hall and Hard determined that the then-current literature about change did not address leadership. Therefore, their literature review focuses on change models: (a) Havelock's three perspectives (social interaction models; research, 28

PAGE 48

l I l development, and diffusion model; and problem-solver model); (b) organizational I 1 development; (c) linkage model; and (d) the Rand Change Agent Study. Most of these I change models were designed with a teacher-proof orientation, which make them less i suitable for localized change efforts. Hall and Hord conclude that the critical aspect of I I leadership for change "is in the exercise of day-to-day actions that are required to i I initiate and sustain the change and improvement process" (p. 51). I i j Fullan's Definition I Another writer about educational change, Fullan (1997) uses the phrase "leadership for change" as an action plan for principals to use when (a) addressing advocacy and resistance, (b) leading whole school reform, and (c) working with school councils. He suggests that "leaders for change must immerse themselves in real situations of reform and begin to craft their own theories of change, constantly testing them against new situations and the accounts of others' experience" (p. 9). However, Fullan cautions that no standard techniques or tools exist that a principal can simply adopt and adapt in this new concept called leadership for change. Schlechty's Definition In his action plan for reinventing schools, Schlechty (1997) dedicates an entire chapter to "leading the change process." He presents differences between three types of changes (procedural, technological, and systemic) and offers four questions that leaders can use to guide the change process. Schlechty posits that procedural and technological change is commonplace in most organizations and that most empirical studies focused only on procedural and technological change efforts. Systemic change, however, challenges the fundamental roots and assumptions of the structure and culture of organizations, making this type of change "cataclysmic 29

PAGE 49

I ! i I I l I i I I ! i I I j l events in the life of the organization (p. 206) and not easily accessible for study. Schlechty advises educators to follow the practice of business leaders and engage in discussions about systemic change. He believes business leaders have learned that "the variance in performance of all organizations and of the people in those organizations has to do with the properties of the systems themselves rather than the attributes and motives of individual men and women" (Schlechty, 1997, p. 221). Thinking systemically redirects the actions of leadership for change. Operational Definition Scholars of leadership theory and practice have not crafted a definition for leadership for change; nonetheless, the concept needs a working description. For purposes of this conceptual framework, the following definition of leadership for change is provided: In the context of schools, leadership for change is the process of implementing educational innovation through collaboration with empowered stakeholders within the school community and through a continuing cycle of inquiry, evaluation, reflection, and proaction. Leadership for change that engages multiple stakeholders in designing, implementing, and sustaining innovation is viewed as means of building capacity and lessening the responsibilities of the principalship. The following sections present a review of literature about new leadership models, change processes, and findings from various studies about new forms of school leadership. Collaborative Leadership: An Emerging Change Model During the late 20th century, many leaders of organizations and institutions that engaged in restructuring processes discovered their leadership roles redefined as change agents (Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 1 996; Schwahn & Spady, 30

PAGE 50

! i I l i I I I I I I l I I 1998a). Successful reorganization often requires groups of individuals to engage collectively in leadership processes in order to achieve a defined goal. As empowered work teams in business replaced traditional hierarchical structures, leadership scholars began to explore a new phenomenon of leadership based upon collaboration. Collaborative leadership, although not yet a concisely defined construct, integrates change agentry with leadership processes. This new leadership model is also called collective leadership (Allen, Bordas. Hickman-Robinson. Matusak, Sorenson, & Whitmire, 1998), facilitative leadership (Sidener, 1995}, participative leadership (Hoban, 1998}, and webs of potential collaborative leadership (Bums, 1998}. Because collaborative leadership is an emerging theory, the current body of knowledge regarding the construct is open-ended and exploratory, rather than fixed and well defined (Rost, 1991 ). Bums' Perspective Twenty years after the publication of his seminal work, Bums (1998) is revisiting his earlier definition of leadership. Rather than viewing leadership as a mutually recognized relationship between a leader and followers, he now postulates that potential leadership exists within any body of individuals or "web" (p. 11) and depends upon the behavior of an initiator and the conditions that influence action. Bums' new understanding of leadership requires a "multiplicity of actors' roles" or "complex differentiation" (p. 13) determined by five different responses to stimuli. The roles include the Initiator [one who takes the first step toward change by breaking away from the state of equilibrium in a web and communicating with other potential actors to gain a positive response]; Partners (collaborators, co-leaders?) who respond positively to the initiator's original message; Opponents, who respond negatively; 31

PAGE 51

I i l I l i I I i I I l ; I I i I I I i 1 Passives, who initially do not respond but may be drawn into participation by the above actors; and Isolates, who share the motivations and attitudes of other persons in the web but who may stand aside because of apathy or anomie. (p. 13) Bums {1998) believes that the merging with others in a series of interactions is what constitutes collective leadership. Within this framework. conflict becomes the most critical component of the process, since it is through resolving conflict that the motivations of others emerge with regard to change actions. Further, Bums contends that leadership Qsupplies the most vital and central source of intended changeq (p. 31 ). Bums envisions collaborative leadership as a form of group change agentry that incorporates diverse perspectives and that requires fluidity and conflict as critical components of the process. Schlechty's Perspective Interesting parallels exist between how Bums (1998) and Schlechty (1997) describe the actors in a change process. Bums identifies the five roles in a change process. "Initiators" lead an agitation for change, "partners" respond positively to a change effort, "passives" eventually respond to a change initiative {p. 13). "Isolates" do not become involved in the change because of apathy or anomie, and "opponents" respond negatively to the attempted change {p. 1 3). Schlechty uses descriptive terms, borrowed from the era of westem expansion in America, to describe the five different roles participants play in change efforts. Despite the names given by Schlechty (1997) or Bums (1998), the actions of the groups of participants are nearly identical. In the following paragraphs, Schlechty's terms are enclosed in quotes and are followed by Bum's terms within parentheses "Trailblazers" (initiators} are risk takers, the first to take steps in the change process (p 210). While trailblazers have a clear, guiding personal vision that sustains 32

PAGE 52

I I I i I i I I I 1 l I them, they often need to be reminded that the change effort is a community venture, not a private quest. "Pioneers" (partners) are willing to begin innovation without much encouragement (p. 213). They need only some assistance with concept development and value clarification about the change effort. "Settlers" (passives) need to know what is expected of them in the change effort (p. 214). Because change for them is likely to create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion, settlers want skill development and continual feedback about their progress. "Stay-at-homes" (isolates) do not respond enthusiastically or compliantly to change efforts. They potentially can move either toward advocacy or toward resistance, or they can remain apathetic (p. 216). "Saboteurs"(opponents) actively commit to stopping the change, probably because they behaved as trailblazers or pioneers during a previous change movement and were betrayed for their efforts to agitate for change (p. 218). Schlechty (1997) posits that change leaders can learn a great deal from saboteurs and stay-at-homes by keeping them involved with the school community and the change-initiative planning and implementation. Others' Perspectives Leadership directed toward community action is another area in which collaborative leadership is being explored (Napier & Lowry, 1999). The dynamic trends predicted to emerge in the 21st century are perceived by Allen et al. {1998) to require collective leadership practices that build and sustain relationships and that seek diversity to find solutions to multifaceted problems. In their study of community activism, Chrislip and Larson {1994) found that collaboration is not simply a strategy or tactic to achieve an end. Instead, collaboration is a broad-based, committed involvement among stakeholders who work together and 33

PAGE 53

I I I I I I l I i I I I i I I I I ! share the responsibility, authority, and accountability for achieving the desired goals. In this context; leadership as a collaborative process engages appropriate stakeholders in facilitating and sustaining interaction (Chrislip & Larson, 1994). According to Barker (1997), the concept of leadership as a process involves much more than the action or behaviors of the one identified as a leader. Further expanding the process orientation, Dentico {1999) views collaborative leadership as a collective involvement of individuals who share common purposes, visions, and goals and who unite for the purpose of making a change. This collective interaction creates a community forum where people can derive meaning from their endeavors Cleveland (1997) posits that collaborative leadership is required as organizations and institutions change through integration of computer technology and telecommunications. The emerging trend of transforming hierarchical institutions into flatter organizations composed of self-directed work teams creates a sense of community that empowers individuals to participate in collective leadership. Collaborative Leadership: Its Origins Understanding the origins of the concept of collaborative leadership often helps in understanding how collaborative leadership is evolving into a construct. Most of the literature about collaborative leadership is set within the context of leadership studies (Barker, 1997; Bums, 1998; Rost, 1991) or within business and industry settings (Bennis, 1998; Bennis & Townsend, 1995; Patterson et al., 1996; Prestwood & Schumann, 1997). Discussion about creating collaborative groups or collaborative processes is usually a topic included as part of leading change efforts in corporate settings (Bennis & Mische, 1995; Harper, 1998; Schneider & Goldwasser, 1998; Senge, 1990) or in community action (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; London, 1995; Lowry, 2000). 34

PAGE 54

i I I I I j I I i I I I Expanding leadership from power vested in position to power residing within individuals is an important element of collaborative leadership. The purpose for transforming from traditional hierarchical leadership models to "webs of potential collaborative leadership" (Bums, 1998, p. 11) or uparticipative leadership" (Hoban, 1998, p. 2) is to engage multiple stakeholder groups in empowering processes. When implemented within an educational setting, these new forms of leadership are perceived as a means of creating a collaborative school culture that successfully addresses the needs of all (Fullan, 1999; Sergiovanni, 1998}. Groups beyond the physical school boundaries often provide the diversity needed to enrich change activities. Thus, potential community members involved in participative leadership include parents and members of student families, educators from universities and colleges, representatives of social service agencies and local commercial enterprises, and school district administrators and policy makers (Fullan, 1999: Goodlad, 1997; Hoban, 1998). Collaborative Leadership: Its Use in Schools Reports of using collaborative leadership as a model for change agentry within the field of education are limited because site-based management is often mistakenly equated with collaborative leadership. While site-based management engages teachers in collective interaction, the model gives teachers only limited decision-making power in selected areas of school management (Brown, 1994; Riordan & da Costa, 1998; Tye, 1998). Current literature about the changing role of a principal also addresses changing the culture of a school and empowering teachers and other stakeholder groups (Carr, 1997; Koll, Robertson, Lampe, & Hegedus, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1992; 35

PAGE 55

I I I i I I I I I I I I Sidener, 1995; Short & Greetr. 1997). Educational leadership literature suggests that engaging multiple groups in sshared decision making and collegial activities creates collaboration. However, only.two studies conducted in K-12 schools specifically used the term collaborative leader::ship. Following are summaries of those two studies. School-University Partnershim For three years, a teo.am of university researchers (Clift, Veal, Holland, Johnson, & McCarthy, 1995) worked together to create a model for collaborative leadership within a school-university partnerstwip. The project began as an initial teacher preparation partnership but expanded over time into a multifaceted project that integrated teacher inquiry, collaborative leadersl.hip, action research, and professional reflection. Among the multiple aobstacles encountered, the researchers found that the structure of educational institlutions and professional work made collaboration very difficult. Further, their findings suggested to them that collaborative leadership creates a great deal of ambiguity, requires time-intensive maintenance, and changes significantly as participants and exit the process (Clift et al., 1995). Four-Frame School Model Telford (1996) reportis findings from a second study about collaborative leadership in K-12 schools. '"While conducting a qualitative study of five schools in Australia, Telford explored ttne qualities that made the schools successful models of collaborative cultures. UsinQ;;J a concept borrowed from organizational theory (Solman & Deal, 1991), she organized mer study into four main frames: (a) structural, (b) human resources, (c) political, and (_d) symbolic. Based upon the worik of Solman and Deal (1991 ), Telford adapted their four frames in the following manmer. The structural frame focuses on the centrality of 36

PAGE 56

I i i l i ! I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I l l I i I I I I j I I I teaching and learning and uses the structure of the school to enhance individual student achievement. The human resource frame seeks the skills and talents of school community members to match roles to aspects of needed leadership. From a human resources orientation, collaborative leadership responds to the needs of individuals and accommodates diverse talents as appropriate to the overall vision. Collaborative leadership viewed through the political frame involves active participation by all sections of the school community in the decision-making processes. The symbolic frame draws attention to institutionalization of attitudes and norms into the school culture. Telford (1996) posits that although each frame requires different strategies to achieve different outcomes, the result of using all four frames is collaborative leadership. Summary Even though the two studies cited above focused somewhat on the same phenomenon, the findings did not lead to consensus about what collaborative leadeiship is within educational settings. Just as leadership has no universally accepted definition (Rost, 1991). collaborative leadership may depend upon the situation and the participants involved in the process. Currently, theories and practices related to collaborative leadership lack common fundamental elements. Change Agentry: Struggles and Strategies The literature related to change agentry often describes chaos and confusion as partners in the change process, causing participants to experience discomfort and loss. sometimes disillusionment and frustration. Leaders attempting to establish collaborative efforts must see the connections between their actions as change agents and the incredible ripple effect on the whole system (Smith, 1999). 37

PAGE 57

I i i I I I i l I i I I I i i I I I i l I i i i I I I Preparing individuals to participate in shared leadership activities requires crucial training in how to integrate inquiry and reflection as ongoing practice, to use strategies in consensus building, and to know when to act independently and when to seek collaborative support (Cleveland, 1998). A twelve-step conceptual model for skill development is proposed by Rubin (1998) as a successful way to engage participants in collaborative leadership. Struggles: Group Resistance Transforming schools into learning communities with collective forms of leadership increases opportunities for teachers to participate more directly in shared governance and collegiality. Yet, efforts to change school governance are often resisted by the very individuals who seem theoretically to benefit most from the change. Two writers provide their understandings about why change in schools is difficult. Evans' perspective. A clinical and organizational psychologist, Evans (1 996) explored educational change from the human perspective. He suggests that many types of change efforts fail to engage teachers in leadership activities. Teacher leadership requires an alteration in teachers' role conception, a change to which many teachers are resistant. First-order changes do not significantly alter the day-to-day features of the work in schools or how individuals perform their roles. Modifications of this type are intended to improve efficiency or effectiveness of the work already being done. Second-order changes, however. alter the entire structure and culture of an organization. These systemic changes are much more difficult because people are required to alter their assumptions and roles, "not just do old things slightly differently" (Evans, 1996, p. 5). Resistance to change by "reluctant faculties" (p. 91) is intensified by differences in ages, career stages, and experiences of a school's faculty. Evans posits that a 38

PAGE 58

I ., I I I i I i I l I i I I i I I I I I I I i I I I i i I i I I chronic problem in school improvement is the failure of change agents to build readiness for innovation. Carr's perspective. While teachers often appear resistant to increased empowerment efforts and leadership responsibilities, Carr (1997) suggests that resistance is linked to low self-confidence. She provides thoughtful insights into possible reasons why teachers seem to prefer the status quo. Too many teachers have survived the challenges of teaching by finding comfort in the isolation of their classrooms. There, they can avoid challenges from their peers and maintain a comfort zone with their students. When a teacher learns to step out of that comfort zone, however, and gains the self-confidence required to accept challenges-to reach beyond the day-to-day routine--a collegial leader emerges. It takes a special person to assume such a school leadership role outside of an administrative position. And unfortunately, within the teaching profession, there is little to nurture such potentiaL (p. 240) Successful adoption of innovation in schools requires practitioner growth and changed perceptions that result in a variety of responses by those involved in the process (Carr, 1997}. Strategies: Group Inquiry Change leaders need to become cognizant of the potential responses of others to systemic reform efforts (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998; Schein, 1992; Smith, 1999; Schlechty, 1997). Among suggestions offered in the literature by change proponents, Schwahn and Spady (1998b) identified five strategies that help to guide change efforts within organizations or institutions. First, organizational values, mission, and vision surrounding the innovation must be so clearly understood that people can state them simply and enthusiastically. Unless people share a compelling reason to change, they will not accept it. Second, all stakeholder groups need to be involved, either directly or indirectly, in the development 39

PAGE 59

l I i i I I I I I i i I I I of the vision and strategic design. People do not change unless they have ownership of the sought change. Third, leaders need to use the change vision in every important action and decision (agenda planning, communication, and resource use). Leaders who embrace the innovation repeatedly model to others that they are serious about the change effort. Fourth, every individual's role and responsibility needs to be linked to the innovation. Without a concrete picture of what the change will look like, people are unlikely to accept the change personally. Rnally, every structure, policy, procedure, and practice in the organization needs to be linked to the new vision. Without receiving organizational support for the change, people cannot successfully implement it (Schwahn & Spady, 1998b). Initiating school reform or renewal efforts requires careful and cautious preparation. Appreciative inquiry and comprehensive action research are two strategies that ease resistance to change and engage stakeholders in the process of identifying needed innovation. Appreciative inquiry. A traditional strategy used to formulate a change agenda is problem solving, a methodology that unfortunately often results in a negative mindset (Lowry, 2000). Appreciative inquiry offers an alternative model for designing organizational change, based upon a constructivist view of the reality of the organization. In contrast to problem-solving strategies that assume something is wrong and needs fixing, appreciative inquiry is based upon an assumption that simultaneously "something is going wrong AND something is going right" (Lowry, 2000, p. 6) within the organization. Appreciative inquiry uses recursive steps similar to the process used in 40

PAGE 60

problem solving; however, the significant difference between the two models is the type of questions asked and the resulting outcomes. A broad-based group of authentic practitioners must engage in appreciative inquiry in order to collect the breadth and depth of data needed. Using appreciative inquiry, shareholders seek solutions through four essential steps: (a) discovery to determine what is, (b) dream to envision what might be, (c) design to create a plan of action, and (d) delivery to guide implementation of the desired change. Research suggests that appreciative inquiry can provide engaging and empowering opportunities for principals, classroom teachers, students, parents and staff to discover the positive elements of their school (Lowry, 2000). Community-based action research. Another systemic change strategy is community-based action research (Stringer, 1996), which is similar to appreciative inquiry (Lowry, 2000) but which focuses on problem solving through action. The basic framework for action research involves three processes Stringer (1996, p. 16) calls "look" (gather relevant information and describe the situation), "think" (explore and analyze, interpret and explain), and "act" (plan, implement, and evaluate). Action research becomes a continually recycling process of observation, reflection, and action that can be a complex process involving large groups or be an individual process of reflective practice. The value of community-based action research is that it shares power and often leads "toward more cooperative, consensual ways of living" (Stringer, 1996, p. 160). Summary Appreciative inquiry and community-based action research are two systemic change strategies that can be used to build school cultures that are open to shared decision making and supportive of collaboration. Because both appreciative inquiry and 41

PAGE 61

I I I l ! I I I I I i I I I i i I I i I I i I l I l l action research use current data collected within the setting, outdated assumptions (Astute et al., 1994) that often guide decision making can be challenged with the realities of the present. Another outcome of using appreciative inquiry and community-based action research in schools is that principals must face and resolve the paradox of their changing roles as school leaders Since schools represent what Schein (1992) calls mature organizations, introducing new models of principal leadership can be quite difficult. The Principalship: New Role as Change Leader According to Wagner ( 1998), effective school reform requires a very different type of leadership than is usually found today in most educational systems. While new styles of leadership have been successfully implemented in corporate change efforts, Wagner believes uthus far there has been very little discussion in our schools and d i stricts of the new roles and skills educational leaders must learn" (p. 514). To be effective and credible, Wagner believes that educational leaders must develop genuine collaborative relationships with teachers, parents, union leaders, and other invested stakeholders through a constructivist approach to change that is based on collaboration. His model of an alternative to the compliance strategy of top-down school reform initiatives is defined as a multifaceted, integrated process involving many participants. A constructivist approach to change ... is a process of action research and development in which everyone works to understand the problem, engages in discussion to reach agreement on the goal, and shares in the responsibility for implementing change, assessing progress, and achieving results. Ultimately, a constructivist change process helps to create and becomes embedded in a new school and district culture that values continuous learning and improvement both for adults and for students. (Wagner, 1998, p. 516) 42

PAGE 62

I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I j I I I i I I I I I I I I I I Berliner and Biddle (1 995) express concern about redefining the principalship in the current era of standards and accountability, which usually pinpoints the principal as the person whose job is on the line. Additionally, Pool (1998) believes parental involvement, inclusion programs, school choice, and vouchers are among many recommended ways for improving student performance levels that impact the principalship in new ways. With regard to the current accountability movement, Hoban (1998) posits that redefining school leadership from the traditional autocratic model with the principal at the helm into a collaborative empowering model involving multiple groups can be viewed as a clash of paradigms. He openly expresses his struggle to find balance between the ideology of new school leadership designs and the "major onus of improvement" (Hoban, 1998, p. 5) of student performance and achievement expected today from school administrators. I still remain convinced. from an idealistic position, there really is a place for participative leadership and that Dewey was right in his call for democracy and school administration .... But, I also am coming to the conclusion that what we teach about leadership and what is actually being practiced, and maybe even desired, are two different things. (p. 8) Rethinking the role of the principal as a change "initiator" (Bums, 1998, p. 12) cannot be viewed as an easy solution to educational reform. Transforming the principalship from the traditional position as the primary school leader into the role of an actor within a collective leadership process requires new understandings and clarity of purpose and responsibilities. Not only the person assuming the role as the school principal, but also all others within the entire organizational community must understand the redefined roles and expectations (Barth, 1990; Cline & Necochea, 1997; Fullan, 1999; Koll et at., 1996) 43

PAGE 63

! I I f j I i i I i I I I I I I i I I I I I I Within the research about educational change, four studies presented evidence that both principals and teachers struggle to reconcile their new roles in collaborative processes. Reviews of those four studies follow. Restructuring School Culture In a dual role as university researcher and teacher educator, Dana (1992) served as the primary investigator in a collaborative study with the principal and teachers at an elementary school. The group sought to initiate a change from a school culture of isolation and seclusion to one of collegiality and caring. The teachers, principal, and university researcher used action research to explore, initiate, implement, and document change in the school related to teacher leadership and teacher voice. Dana (1992) reports a negative response toward the process by those not participating in the effort and difficulties encountered by the principal in relinquishing power as the primary school leader. Restructuring School Governance In a second school research project. Sidener (1995) conducted a seven-year study about participants' beliefs concerning the distribution of authority and the nature of work during the transition from a traditional hierarchical leadership model to site-based management in a high school. Sidener discovered that successful restructuring requires (a) a change in the entire organizational culture, (b) a shift in the core beliefs and assumptions by all members of the school community, and (c) a clear definition of new roles for all participants at every level. Sidener supports transforming the principalship into a model of facilitative leadership that encourages participant ownership. However, she asserts that systemic change must be understood to be an emerging, dynamic process requiring consistent 44

PAGE 64

i j i I I I I i I I I I I I I i I j i i I I I I I I I l i I i I I support from the district as well as sufficient time and ongoing assistance to make the goal a reality. Restructuring School Community Brown (1994) reports a third perspective about the challenges principals and teachers face when redefining roles and responsibilities to develop collaborative interactions in schools. Serving as a participant-observer in an 18-month qualitative inquiry, Brown studied an elementary school's transition to site-based management. He investigated the issue of trust, the value of commitment and collaboration among members of the school community, and the confusion created from introducing new roles and responsibilities. Based upon the findings of his study, Brown recommends that a school community clearly determine the level of its commitment prior to initiating a change in its leadership model. Two critical implications are that (a) transitioning school leadership into a more collaborative model requires support both during and following the process and (b) training and integrating new teachers into this emerging style of school leadership must be ongoing. Restructuring Schoof Leadership A fourth study about actions taken by principals and teachers that contributed to effective collaborative work in Canadian and Australian schools was reported by Riordan and da Costa (1998). Their findings suggest strategies a principal can use to create a school culture that supports a collaborative leadership model. First, by recruiting teachers with experience in collegial work and by allowing teachers the freedom to choose their assignments and work groups, Riordan and da Costa found that the principal establishes an atmosphere of teamwork. Additionally, by 45

PAGE 65

I I I i I l I I I I I I i I providing early and continuing collegial interactions and group leadership among beginning teachers, the principal demonstrates a commitment toward empowerment. Rndings from this study also suggest that by encouraging professional development activities with educators from other schools, the principal supports opportunities for the development of collaborative networks. Finally, Riordan and da Costa (1998) discovered that by supporting mentoring between experienced and beginning teachers and by clearly delineating supervisory and collaborative relations, the principal creates a climate where collegial and collective work becomes expected. Summary As these four studies conducted in K-12 schools have shown, leading systemic change often introduces chaos and confusion, causing even the principal to experience discomfort and loss. Change leaders who introduce or support collaborative efforts must see the connections between their actions as change agents and their modeled responses (Schein, 1992; Smith, 1999). This caution may be easier to suggest than to practice in the day-to-day demands of school administration. A school leader's focus traditionally has been managerial in nature; thus, a principal often spends more time addressing ways to solve small issues rather than focusing on broader leadership activities (Barth, 1990). Another challenge faced by school principals actually may begin with the very process by which they are selected and developed (Cline & Necochea, 1997). Mentoring has long been a method for inculcating the beliefs, values, and norms of an organization, and school systems regularly use this method of leadership development for prospective and new school principals. Cline and Necochea (1997) posit that those who are selected for mentoring are those who most closely resemble those already in administrative positions. This can 46

PAGE 66

create for many principals a confusing dilemma: how to be visionary leaders while at the same time conforming to the norm. Further, while literature about change in schools suggests that the central administrative office should act supportively and help facilitate change, school principals rarely receive that kind of assistance from district level administrators (Barth, 1 990). Based upon a review of recently published books and articles about school leadership, it is evident that the role of the principal is changing. The current movement to increase involvement by all groups within a school community (classroom teachers, parents, staff, and even students) requires principals to learn new skills in relationship and community building. In the current era of demands for educational innovation and accountability, the converging point for action and results lands on the principalship. Today's school leaders assume awesome responsibilities in meeting divergent demands and expectations (Brewer, 2001; Lemley, 1997; Sergiovanni, 2001). Challenges presented by school communities, policy makers, business and industry leaders, and the public are changing this key educational role (Fullan, 1997, Peterson, 2001; Schlechty, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2001) and creating evidence of personnel shortages to fill vacancies (Copeland, 2001; Daresh & Capasso, 2000; Kelly & Peterson, 2000; Lovely, 1999). Future predictions indicate that even greater changes lie ahead for educators. Future Trends: Predictions and Proposals Just as the past affects what is happening today in schools, present actions impact the future direction of public education. While we cannot accurately predict the future, trending forecasts emerge by using numerous futurist strategies (Pulliam & Van Patten, 1999). 47

PAGE 67

I i I l i I I I l i I l Using a variety of research methods, futurists produce anticipated developments, predictable probabilities within a time span, and consequences of _possible alternatives. The informed forecasts generated by futures research then can be used to guide strategic planning and policy making (Pulliam & Van Patten, 1999). Three brief descriptions of predicted trends in education that have impact on the principalship and the preparation of future educational leaders follow. Futurists' Vision Pulliam and Van Patten (1999) are historians, not futurists. Yet, in their most recent edition of a textbook about the history of American education, they report five trends in education predicted by futurists. These projections were made in the absence of major global disruptions, such as war or a new invention. First, the pattern of education will change from chunks of formal education to continuous streams of lifelong learning. Rather than job training, adults will move through cycles of knowledge acquisition and skills development. Second, because of multiple new learning-delivery systems such as distance learning, large traditional university campuses will cease to exist. Third, although fewer classroom teachers will be needed, a greater number of people will be engaged in teaching and learning within differentiated staffs. Because lifelong learning will be the norm, the distinction between the teacher and the taught will diminish. Additionally, those who are allowed to manage a future learning environment will have completed long years of training. A fourth future trend predicted by Pulliam and Van Patten (1999) is that "knowing how to learn in an efficient and joyful way will be a very highly prized future skill" (p. 304). In the ideal future, learning will be less competitive, less standardized, less grouped by ability, and less pressured for the student. 48

PAGE 68

i I i l Their fifth prediction has significance for the future of K-12 schools: the demise of "age-specific compulsory learning institutions" (p. 304). In place of schools, a variety of learning environments will emerge where children, youth, and adults will work together in the same learning situations. Thus, a "learning society will emerge, one in which most people will spend a great deal of every day of their lives in some kind of learning environment" (Pulliam & Van Patten, 1999, p. 304). Policy Analysfs Vision Based upon his nearly 30-year career of studying educational policy, Pipho (2000) offers his "probable developments in the 21st century'' (p. 16). Many are similar to those projected by Pulliam and Van Patten (1999). Rrst, changes in educational policy will create more choices for students and parents. Choice will require that compulsory attendance laws be removed and that all education providers be required to adhere to uniform achievement standards. Second, constituent lobbying for modification in school-funding policies will make access to education monies available to a wide variety of providers. Third, the responsibility for teacher training and professional certification will extend beyond the current domain of higher-education institutions and state boards of education. A variety of providers, including private forprofit groups, will engage in the business of teacher training and professional development. Further, Pipho (2000) predicts that new governance models will evolve. Because information technology crosses boundaries, the federal government may develop an commerce model to substitute state responsibility for public education. Pipho's sixth prediction for the 21st century is that the federal government also will assume a greater role in providing day care for young children and community 49

PAGE 69

I I j I i I i i I I j I ! l I I I l l I I I centers for senior citizens And last, traditional professional associations that often take a status-quo stance will be replaced or dissolved. As the number of for-profit educational providers increases, new professional organizations will emerge (Pipho, 2000). Business Educator's Vision A professor of management and communications asserts that education in America is "ripe for revolution" (Buchen 2000, p. 34) The predicted revolution, however, will be unofficial and will emerge from many sources. Buchen (2000) forecasts that the future model of education will emerge from three essential elements: (a) new organizational structures; (b) new advancements and monitoring systems: and (c) new roles for teachers, students, and administrators. His model does not discard current goals of education but extends them based on the needs of students and society. Since one goal of education is liberation, the process of education should transport students from dependence to independence, then from independence to ninterdependence" (p. 31 ). Buchen posits that his model emphasizes multiplicity in how intelligence is measured, success is defined, and goals are achieved. Like Pipho (2000), Buchen envisions new governance models for schools. In the future school administrator positions will be eliminated and replaced by teacher committees that manage learning, curriculum, assessment, discipline, and development. All administrative duties that principals now have (such as purchasing, finance, maintenance, and security) will be handled by professionals hired by the school. Teachers will seek advice from "futurists, educational technology innovators. experts in problem solving, psychologists and group dynamics experts, community 50

PAGE 70

i i i I I t I leaders, social analysts, environmental experts, and a global network of other teachers and students" (Buchen, 2000, p. 33). Leadership Educators' Proposals Based upon emerging trends for the future of education in the 21st century, all educators need to become skillful collaborative leaders and change implementers. To meet ever-increasing demands, Schlechty (2001) calls for "shaking up the schoolhouse" through restructuring and systemic change. He believes, as a society, we must begin the educational change process through "a quest for what we have in common rather than the celebration of what divides us" (p. 226). Thus, school leaders must arrive at consensus about (a) the purpose for public schooling, (b) the identification of school clients, (c) the products for school customers, and (d) the necessary current school improvements and future creations. Unless leaders of public education initiate wide-sweeping innovation, Schlechty (2001) envisions a privatized system of schools that would change the fabric of America's democratic society. Based upon four broad trends (social, economic, technological, and political), both centralizing and decentralizing forces are stimulating change in schools. Thus, Leithwood et at. (1999) advocate strongly for "changing leadership for changing times" through envisioning future schools. Today's schools can begin evolving by meeting three important criteria through imagining schools in three different models. The three criteria and models are (a) inclusiveness through "schools as community" (p. 211 ), (b) efficiency and effectiveness through "schools as high-reliability organizations" (p. 213), and (c) adaptability through "schools as learning organizations" (p. 2.14}. The leadership focus becomes different for each of the three school models. 51

PAGE 71

I ! I I I I I I i I i 1 I I I I i I I I I I i I I i While the authors advocate sweeping changes in the basic structure of schools, they recognize that fundamental restructuring is highly unlikely. Therefore, Leittflwood et al. (1999) posit that school leaders must learn to maneuver "the swampy proll>lem of moving their present schools towards a defensible vision of future schools" (p. 223). They believe that the tools for schools transformation into the future are principals. Preparation to face the unknown and the unexpected comes through continual professional improvement to guarantee high-quality learning opportunities (Lellllley, 1997). As new roles emerge for all educational stakeholders, not just principals;, the ability to work collaboratively becomes critically important (Fullan, 1999). Howewer, working together requires organizational learning and shared understandings. Lambert (1998) views leadership as an energy flow or synergy that buila:ls capacity in schools for flexibility and adaptability. She defines leadership as pthe reciprocal learning processes that enable participants in a community to construct meaning toward a shared purpose" (p. 18). The organizational environments neecessary to support continuous learning for all are empowered learning cultures. Culture is the powerful, sometimes hidden, "stream of norm, values, traditions, and rituals" (Peterson & Deal, 1998, p. 28) that defines an organization or group. Thus, school leaders need to understand the important link between lea.dership and culture if they hope to transform schools into learning communities. Chapter 3 presents a literature review about the interrelationship between culture and empowered learning. 52

PAGE 72

CHAPTER3 EMPOWERED LEARNING CULTURES All organizations have a culture, a system of shared beliefs and assumptions. rites and rituals, and corporate identity that influences the work within the organization (Collins & Porras, 1997; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1992). Organizational culture, as well as the culture of subgroups within the organization, is important since a positive culture creates effectiveness and responsiveness, while a negative culture decreases levels of productivity and can ultimately destroy the organization (Collins & Porras, 1997; Patterson et al., 1996; Schein, 1992). Maintaining a strong organizational culture requires new employees to go through a process of orientation and acculturation that is intended to align the values and assumptions of new members with those of the organization (Collins & Porras, 1997). Additionally, factors in the external environment can alter the culture within an organization (Fullan, 1999; Schein, 1992). thus requiring organizational leaders to be ever involved in a balancing act to meet the needs of various groups both internal and external to the organization (Patterson et al., 1996). Group Culture: Balancing Solidarity and Sociability According to Goffee and Jones {1998), corporate culture is social architecture determined by levels of solidarity and sociability, which in tum identifies the character of the organization and its greatest strengths or weaknesses. They define solidarity as an intermittent form of relationship that does not have to be sustained by face-to-face interactions and is inconsistent over time. Sociability is the intensity of friendliness 53

PAGE 73

I I I I i I I i I i i I I i i 1 I I I i I I among people within an organization and the extent to which members mingle their work and non-work lives. The interactive levels of solidarity and sociability create four types of cultures: (a} fragmented, (b) networked, (c) mercenary, and (d) communaL When people work autonomously, the focus becomes the reputation of the individual and the prestige of the affiliated organization. Thus, a fragmented culture displays low levels of both solidarity and sociability. Goffee and Jones suggest that journalists, lawyers, academicians, and consultants work in fragmented cultures. The second type of culture is defined by display of low solidarity and high sociability. People working in a networked culture help each other through strong communication networks. Sometimes, however, a networked culture in a work environment can degenerate into politicized cliques that can become too consensusdriven and thus the organization fails to take action when needed The third type of culture defined by Goffee and Jones (1998} is a mercenary culture. In this type of work environment people are not particularly friendly, but everyone knows the goals and objectives, how to achieve the goals, and who the "enemy" is. Goffee and Jones liken teamwork in a mercenary culture to eagles flying in formation. The high solidarity, low sociability factor of a mercenary culture can result in an organization where protecting corporate interests is so focused that creativity is lacking and resistance to change is high. The fourth type of culture is characterized by intense emotional, personal relationships inside the system. An organization that has a communal culture outwardly displays a very clear focus on its mission. This communal culture, often cult-like and hard to maintain, manifests high levels of both solidarity and sociability. Goffee and Jones (1998} posit that successful organizations exhibit elements of all four types of cultures. 54

PAGE 74

i i I i I I i I I I i I I I I I i i I i I i I I i i I I I l Empowered Learning Cultures Another influence on organizational culture can be the transition from traditional hierarchies of power to innovative work-group structures that require new types of organizational learning, core competencies, and individual responsibilities (Deal & Kennedy, 1999; Hendry, 1999; Stewart, 1999). Restructuring organizations from frameworks of centralized authority into self-directed work teams generates challenges and requires new working relationships in what are called learning organizations (Senge, 1990) or learning cultures (Schein, 1992). The following reviews of the theories by Senge and Schein are presented as background for Fullan's (1999) concept of a collaborative culture. Learning Organizations In presenting his vision of the practice and art of a learning organization, Senge {1990) postulates that creating empowered learning organizations is accomplished through the collective awareness and capabilities of its members. Senge defines five disciplines that form the core of a teaming organization and thus instill a sense of systemic awareness within a team of people. The first discipline, personal mastery, expands an individual's capacity to create desired results. Mental models (the second discipline) reflect, clarify, and improve internal pictures of the world to shape the actions and desires of each team members. A shared vision, built communally by developing images of the desired future, is the third discipline. Team learning (the fourth discipline) is a transformation of conversational skills and collective-thinking skills that together create the sum of the group's ability that is greater than that of each individual. The fifth discipline in a learning organization is .. 55

PAGE 75

systems thinking, the understanding of interrelationships that shape the behavior of a system (Senge, 1990). Learning Cultures According to Schein (1992), the culture in a learning organization supports perpetual diagnosis and self-management of transformations needed because of changes in the external environment. Schein argues that well-established traditional organizational cultures often discourage and inhibit adaptability and responsiveness to change. In a learning culture there is a shared core assumption that the organization has some level of control over environmental influences. Schein (1992) posits that a learning culture exhibits ten different characteristics. The first five characteristics include (a) a core corporate assumption that the environmental context can be managed to some degree, (b) evidence of proactive human activity, (c) a pragmatic search for truth, (d) a corporate perspective of human nature as basically good and mutable, and (e) a structured balance between authoritarian and collegial relationships. The continued list of Schein's ten characteristics of a learning culture are (f) a shared pragmatic understanding of time, (g) a fully connected communication and information system based upon truth and trust, (h) evidence of high levels of connected diversity, (i) a balanced orientation between tasks and relationships, and (j) a systems-thinking orientation. Further, Schein posits that changing the culture of a mature and potentially declining organization requires a break from "the tyranny of the old culture" (p. 379). Changing the culture of an organization is extremely challenging because organizational culture is complex, an often hidden pattern of shared assumptions that guides the thinking and actions of organizational members. Schein (1992) also believes that 56

PAGE 76

I I } i I i I i I I l I I ! j i j I l I I j I I I I i I I leaders of the future will experience an "inevitable pain of learning" (p. 392) during the process of creating a learning culture in which everyone participates. Collaborative Cultures Theories about learning organizations (Senge, 1990) and learning cultures (Schein, 1992) are integrated into Fullan's (1999) description of a collaborative culture Fullan posits that it is impossible to create a simple model for organizations to adopt when transforming into a learning organization-the transformation is too complex and unique for each setting. Further, Fullan believes that learning is only part of the synergy needed to create the dynamic forces for change within an organization. The key to change is "effective collaborative cultures for complex times" (p. 36) that evolve from unique local conditions and transform organizations through capacity building. Nonetheless, Fullan suggests that exploring the three major characteristics of collaborative cultures can provide insights for how collaborative cultures can be developed. Diversity and conflict. Rrst, the myth that collaboration means like-minded consensus must be dispelled. Fullan (1999) suggests that individuals who work together within collaborative cultures value diversity and actively seek alternative viewpoints and different perspectives The diversity creates the necessary conflict that members within collaborative organizations use to provoke learning, clarify understanding, and guide the moral purpose of the organization. Conflict is supported within the culture because trust and compassion are developed through intense interactions and information sharing. Open-endedness and relentless pursuit of complex problems are two additional elements of collaborative organizations. Anxiety and cohesiveness. Second, Fullan suggests that while conflict generates group anxiety, anxiety produces the cohesiveness that holds the collaborative 57

PAGE 77

I I I I i I I I I I i I I i I i culture finely balanced. A culture that is too structured becomes stagnant and one that is too chaotic becomes fragmented. For members of collaborative organizations, athe quality of relationships is central to its successp (p. 37). Members share a commitment and energy to pursue complex goals, and thus they encourage passionate emotions and provide the necessary emotional support for one another. In order to remain adaptive to changing memberships and external demands, collaborative organizations continually strive to balance coherence and discord. Knowledge generation. The third characteristic of a collaborative culture is the generation of quality ideas, the creation of knowledge and expertise, and the continuous development of best practices. Knowledge creation in a collaborative organization is different from learning which Fullan (1999) suggests is the acquisition of best practices created by others Collaborative organizations create new ideas from explicit knowledge (numbers and words that can easily be shared) and tacit knowledge (beliefs and skills that are not easily communicated). According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, as cited in Fullan, 1999 p. 15), Tacit knowledge is highly personal and hard to formalize, making it difficult to communicate or share with others. Subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches fall into this category of knowledge. Furthermore, tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in an individual's action and experience, as well as in the ideals, values or emotions that he or she embraces. A collaborative culture structures itself so that tacit knowledge is shared among organizational members through multiple methods (such as observing others at work) and opportunities (such as participating in dialogue with others). Tacit knowledge is converted into explicit knowledge, and then the explicit knowledge is tested against new ideas and knowledge created outside the organization. 58

PAGE 78

Fusion. Fullan believes that a collaborative culture is more complex and exciting than a collegial or professional learning community. Three powerful change forces work together to energize and sustain a collaborative culture. Fullan (1999) writes, Moral purpose (the spiritual) gains ascendancy. Power (politics) is used to maximize pressure and support for positive action. Ideas and best practices (the intellectual) are continually being generated, tested and selectively retained. In collaborative cultures these three forces feed on each other. They become fused. (p. 40) Fusion involves creating coherence amid the necessary discord, the joining and connecting of differences that strengthens the work done and knowledge generated within a collaborative culture. Because interaction and communication is so intense, members of collaborative organizations develop confidence to explain their work and knowledge to others beyond the boundaries of the organization. Thus, a collaborative organization purposefully seeks connection and involvement in the larger diverse environment, what Fullan describes as a two-way "inside-outside" collaboration (p. 43). This reciprocal flow of information across boundaries opens the exchange of ideas and provides opportunities for continual improvement and development. Operational Definition The definition of an empowered learning culture for the second conceptual framework for this study integrates components of theories offered by Senge (1990), Schein (1992), and Fullan (1999}. Further, the operational definition for an empowered learning culture is set within an educational setting. Thus, an empowered learning culture is the shared set of explicitly stated and implicitly held beliefs assumptions, and norms made evident by the ways in which everyone in the learning setting works together in trusting and supportive relationships. Members of the group collaborate to 59

PAGE 79

I i I I I i l I j l I I l I I i create and test knowledge that is integrated into practice, and they act collectively and proactively to initiate and sustain needed innovation. Learning Cultures in Schools The purpose for building collaborative capacity through empowering stakeholders in the school community is often linked with successful reform efforts. Leithwood and Jantzi {1990), Sergiovanni (1998), and Deal and Peterson (1999) suggest ways that schools can create empowerment. Leithwood and Jantzi's Perspectives Leithwood and Jantzi (1990) conducted a study of Canadian schools to investigate the strategies used to develop collaborative school cultures. Findings from their comparison study suggest that the degree of culture change in a school is affected by four broad factors. The change indicators include (a) the endorsement by the district board, (b) the type of innovation support by the school administration, (c) the effectiveness of external experts in guiding staff development, and (d) the degree of staff inertia. Based upon their findings, Leithwood and Jantzi posit that successful implementation of innovation depends upon "significant changes in staff members' individual and shared understandings of their current purposes and practices" and "an enhanced capacity to solve future professional problems, individually and collegially" (p. 30). However, they caution that changing a school's culture in order to integrate innovation requires a span of two to three years, as teachers and staff confront the dissonance about processes and practices. 60

PAGE 80

I I I I I I i I I I i I I l I i I i Sergiovanni's Perspective A second perspective about building empowered school cultures is provided by Sergiovanni (1998). He is exploring pedagogical leadership as a way to cultivate a deep culture of learning and teaching that presents a strong and clear commitment to academic achievement. In Sergiovanni's model, the school becomes the center of communities of practice that generate professional capital for educators. Teachers are active learners who model intellectual practices for students. Among the ten tasks of pedagogical leadership, three connect directly to building empowered learning cultures. "Purposing brings together shared visions into a covenant understood by administrators, teachers, students, and parents. "Maintaining harmony" builds consensual understanding of school purposes and functions and of individual roles and responsibilities within the culture. "Institutionalizing values" translates the school's covenant into workable procedures and structures to accomplish the school's purposes. According to Sergiovanni (1998), The source of authority for leadership is found neither in bureaucratic rules and procedures nor in the personalities and styles of leaders but in shared values, ideas and commitments. Those who identify with this ... structure are members of a community of mind. This membership both empowers them and requires them to accept responsibility for providing leadership and for helping the leadership provided by others to work. (p. 43) Deal and Peterson's Perspective A third perspective linking school culture and educational innovation is offered by Deal and Peterson (1999). The principal is the culture manager, a responsibility of leadership that Deal and Peterson call the heart of leadership." To shape positive school cultures, a principal assumes eight symbolic roles As the "historian" (p. 88), the principals seeks to understand the social and normative past of the school, while in the 61

PAGE 81

! i I I I I I I role as "anthropological sleuth" (p. 88), the principal analyzes and probes the realities of the currentschool culture. Working as a "visionary'' (p. 89), the principal leads the school community in defining a deeply valued picture of what the school will be in the future. The principal is the "symbol" (p. 90) of the school who continually must affirm cultural values by always modeling them in every action taken. As a "potter" (p. 92), the principal shapes the school culture, and as a "poet" (p. 95), reinforces the school's cultural values through language (Deal & Peterson, 1999). The principal assumes the role of "actor" (p. 97) to improvise the inevitable dramas, tragedies, and comedies that occur within the school. In the role as "healer" (p. 98), the principal helps to heal the wounds of conflict and loss that occur during the transitions and changes within the school community. Deal and Peterson (1999) posit that by assuming the various eight symbolic roles of leadership, a principal can create an empowered school culture where teaching and learning are woven intricately together. To prepare future educational administrators for the challenging task as culture manager, students aspiring to the principalship need opportunities to engage in activities that develop skills in creating collaborative cultures. A recent trend in higher education in response to this professional preparation need is the conversion from separate-course programs to cohort programs. Learning Cultures in Cohorts Learning cohorts are organizational structures used in higher education to deliver instruction suited to the unique needs of adults and to foster collegial learning (Barnett & Muse, 1993). Based upon research findings, the cohort model appears to foster 62

PAGE 82

interpersonal relationships. create caring climates, and support students' competence and sense of well being. As several studies cited below indicate, the culture of a well-functioning cohort increases the level of learning for all participants. Further, most studies described in this section involved learning cohorts in university-based administrative leadership development programs. Influence of Group Dynamics In order to determine if scheduling structures created differences in group dynamics, Reynolds (1993} compared cohort programs, in which students took all or nearly all courses together, with intensive-schedule classes that met in time blocks of four or more hours for each session. Three group dynamics variables were selected: (a} group cohesiveness, (b) group interaction, and (c) instructional style. Reynolds found that cohort programs provide higher levels of cohesiveness and group interaction than traditional separate-course programs. Influence of Cohort Structure The influence of the cohort structure in developing learning communities was the focus ot a study conducted by Basom et al. (1995). Anecdotal evidence suggests that cohorts provide advantages to both students and instructors, making worthwhile the additional time and cost required in planning and coordination. Student members of well-functioning cohort groups reported greater feelings of inclusiveness, more opportunities for collaboration and networking, and enhanced academic performance. Advantages for using the cohort structure cited by faculty members included improved student-faculty relationships and opportunities for professional growth through increased intradepartmental cooperation. 63

PAGE 83

I I i -I I i I I I I I I I I As a result of their expansive research on the effectiveness of educational cohort experiences, Basom et al. (1 995) conclude that the structure of cohorts provides adult students with feelings of inclusiveness that benefits their learning by promoting collaboration. Group affiliation and collaborative learning enhances academic performance for all. Influence of Mutual Support Using data derived from an analysis of reflective journals, Norris and Barnett (1 994) sought evidence of interdependence, group interaction, and purpose in student writing. Analysis indicates that students participating in cohorts reported (a) mutual support and solidarity that increased group interdependence, (b) significant personal growth and enhanced knowledge, and (c) increased contributions to group development through greater individual empowerment. Further, in a national study conducted by Yerkes. Basom, Norris, and Barnett (1 995), faculty who taught in cohort programs reported using instructional strategies to encourage independent student learning and empowered learning environments. Students reported, as outcomes of their cohort experiences, (a) a sense of belonging and social bonding, (b) enhanced professional confidence, (c) new collaboration and networking opportunities, and (d) a strengthened ability to reflect on practice. Influence on Learning Wesson (1 996) also explored the impact of cohort structure on student learning. Through student interviews, Wesson discovered that group dynamics changed over time and that each cohort developed its own personality. Students reported that collusion shut down learning, whereas cohesion facilitated higher levels of mental processing and introduced new ways of constructing knowledge. Wesson 64

PAGE 84

I I I I l I i I I I I I I I i I I I I I i I I i I j asserts that findings from his study validate the positive benefits of the cohort structure and the application of principles of cognitive learning theory. Summary A well-functioning cohort represents a learning community as defined by Senge (1990) in his seminal work. Senge posits that team learning occurs when group members perceive one another as colleagues. Treating one another "as colleagues acknowledges the mutual risk and establishes the sense of safety in facing the risk" (p. 245). Through learning how to dialogue and discuss different perspectives, some supportive and some conflicting, members of a learning team feel free to share views openly. Within a safe environment, learning becomes "playful" (p. 246) and new ideas -can be presented, examined, and tested by the group. Team learning is further enhanced when learner-centered instructional strategies are implemented. Developing Empowered Learning Cultures Adult students bring their distinctive perspectives and frames of reference into a learning environment. Thus, it is critical that multiple factors be attended to and respected so that everyone can participate actively. Environmental Influence Adult learners can influence the learning environment through two broad types of "adverse baggage" (Mahoney, 1990, p. 51) that can interfere with the learning process. External influences include situations related to family, work, and community obligations, while internal influences refer to an individual's health, interpersonal conflicts, and attitudes toward a problem or situation. Issues related to a Ieamer's perception of self-worth and ability as a returning student can also influence the 65

PAGE 85

I I I I I I I i I I l I I l l I i learning environment. Mahoney believes that educators of adult students must be cognizant of such potential sources of interference and take necessary steps to diminish any negative influence in the learning environment. Expanding upon the concept of external influences that can impede the learning process, Ortman (1995) addresses the concerns of commuting adult students. He maintains that university professors and instructors must take into consideration adult student work responsibilities and the challenges of travel during high-density commuter hours as well as the challenges of balancing coursework with managing households and caring for family members. Risk-Safe Environment Achinstein and Meyer (1997) recommend providing opportunities within a caring environment for students to deliberate about and make sense of difficult situations. When this process is extended further by providing students with guidance in how to constructively critique their own work and the work of their peers, it leads to the creation of critical friendships and collegiality within the group. Further, since teaming in a classroom-like environment nis as much a socially shared undertaking as it is an individually constructed enterprise" (Lambert & McCombs, 1998, p. 39) social interactions interpersonal relationships, and communication with others influences learning. It is crucial that the environment be stable and built upon trust and caring among the group members. Experience-Valued Learning Additionally, instructors of adult learners who design educational programs need to be cognizant of and address the special characteristics of adult students (Barnett & Caffarella, 1992) The special attributes of adult learners include the need 66

PAGE 86

for acknowledgment and use of students' experience, active involvement of the students in the learning process, implementation of a variety of learning techniques to meet the multiple styles of experienced learners, and need for group affiliation. Barnett and Caffarella (1992) suggest four strategies that instructors can use to address the special characteristics of adult students in a cohort program. To build group cohesion and enhanced learning opportunities, cohort instructors should integrate (a) initial group development activities, (b) reflective seminars, (c) individual learning opportunities, and (d) long-term involvement with all members of the cohort. Varied Leamino Activities Adult students occasionally develop blocks to learning and therefore instructors need to stay attuned to that possibility and make necessary program adaptations to eliminate or diminish the learning blocks. Warren (1968) proposes that adult learning programs be structured to foster both the acquisition of facts, skills, and attitudes and the development of inner potentiaL By integrating a variety of classroom strategies, an instructor can eliminate blocks to learning while also developing group synergy and providing novelty and variety within the program (Warren, 1968). Examples of such strategies include the use of portfolio assessments that requires reflection about professional practice and engagement of students in collaborative group learning and teaching (Geitner, 1994). Glickman {1998) advocates for adult students and instructors working together to create course curricula that covers the required content in ways that actively engage adult learners. 67

PAGE 87

I I I I I I ., I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I Experiential Learning Learning that is relevant and conducted as a fundamentally natural process engages students (Bruner, 1960; Dewey, 1938; Lambert & McCombs, 1998). One of the challenges in designing a cohort program based upon teaming through experiences is the selection of the kind of "present experiences that live fruitfully and creatively in subsequent experiences" (Dewey, 1938. p. 27). Relevant learning requires the acquisition of principles and attitudes and the development of skills that can be transferred to other settings (Bruner, 1960}. With regard to experiential teaming, Dewey (1938} believed that the "greatest of all pedagogical fallacies is the notion that a person teams only the particular thing he is studying (p. 48}. He advocated teaching for understanding through the use of educative experiences in the classroom. Dewey cautioned, however, that active teaming requires careful and purposeful planning of instructional strategies that engage students in experiences that connect to larger goals. Activities without purpose are not educative, but simply meaningless (Dewey, 1938). Problem-Based Learning Citing the theories of Dewey and many others, Muth (2000) presents a comparison of traditional and contemporary viewpoints about aspects of teaming, such as what is to be learned, how it is to be teamed, what process is to be used, and what teachers and students should do. The comparison frames Muth's three-point argument for a revision of learning activities and teaching strategies utilized in educational administration cohort programs. By using problem-based teaming activities linked to real problems of practice in K-12 schools, students begin early to use theories and develop skiJ[s needed in their future roles as school leaders. By integrating group action research projects and 68

PAGE 88

I I l I I i i I i i I i I I I I I 1 j appreciative inquiry activities into the curriculum, students learn the power of collaborative inquiry and the importance of careful use of data and reflection. By working together in a variety of small group and whole class settings, students learn the challenges of group dynamics when membership changes. Muth (2000) posits that "collaborating on problems of practice is fundamental to learning to be a professional" (p. 15). Summary Although bountiful anecdotal data exists, empirical evidence currently is lacking on the effect that participation in a learning cohort has on future practice as a collaborative leader in an empowered school culture. Transference may be a variable impossible to measure. Nonetheless, the integration of experiential activities and the modeling of exemplary teaching strategies within educational leadership cohorts may help future school leaders understand the importance of creating empowered learning cultures in schools. Acculturation: Preparing New School Leaders The preparation of new principals, ready to assume leadership of schools challenged by change forces both external and internal to the building, has become critically important. Kelley and Peterson (2000) assert that "the quality and improvement of American public schools is threatened by a crisis in school leadership" (p. 2). Statistics indicate that a shortage of qualified principals may occur in the near future (Daresh & Capasso, 2000; Kelley & Peterson, 2000), and thus, the preparation of new school leaders has become a high priority. Many university-based leadership development programs have evolved into administrator preparation programs with coherent, sequenced curriculum delivered 69

PAGE 89

I i I I I l I I i I i I I I i I i I l l i through cohorts of about 20-25 students (Barnett & Muth, 2000; Kelley & Peterson, 2000; Milstein & Krueger, 1997). In many programs faculty work collaboratively with local practitioners to balance theory with practical reality. Additionally, professional standards for the preparation, licensure, and practice of school administrators guide many professional development programs (Ford et al., 1996; Sergiovanni, 2001; Van Meter & McMinn, 2001 ). Six elements have been identified as necessary for effective preparation of aspiring principals: (a) selection and screening of potential candidates, (b) coherence of curriculum and pedagogy, (c) cohesive program vision and goals, {d) learning in cohorts, (e) clinical experiences, and (f) effective internships (Kelley & Peterson, 2000; Milstein & Krueger, 1997). Mentoring programs for new principals (Dosdall & Diemert, 2001; Willen, 2001) and continuous professional development for experienced administrators (Kelley & Peterson, 2000) are used to broaden and strengthen leadership development. Becoming a school principal requires socialization into the profession through phases of role conceptualization and through phases of interaction within community practitioners. Descriptions about these two important socialization processes follow. Role Conception Crow and Glascock (1995) posit that restructuring schools requires new understandings about the role of the principalship, achieved through a multifaceted socialization process. The process of socialization required to become a principal requires three phases. The first step is making the decision to become a principal and then acting upon it. This step may be as simple as deciding that becoming a principal is a real possibility, or the process may take extended time for investigation, research, and 70

PAGE 90

reflection. The second phase requires giving up one's previous role as a master teacher and becoming a novice in a new position, often a major hurdle to an individual's self-esteem. This role conceptualization may be the most difficult step because it requires divestiture of long-held norms of behavior and adoption of new ones. The third phase requires adjusting to oneself in a new role and learning professional and organizational behaviors (Crow & Glascock, 1995). In their study about socialization of principal candidates during a cohort program, Crow and Glascock (1995) found that three groups influenced role conceptualization: (a) college faculty who emphasized the future of education, (b) mentor principals who emphasized the present reality, and (c) cohort peers who validated the individual's values and sense of mission. Prior experiences as teachers created tensions for the candidates: Their vision of the principalship changed dramatically while working with their mentor principals during the program (Crow & Glascock, 1995). Situated Learning According to Lave and Wenger (1991), the socialization process of becoming a new member in an aspired community of practice begins by the creation of a new identify as a practitioner. Lave and Wenger posit there is "a difference between talking about a practice from outside and talking within it" (p. 1 07). They contend that learning to speak the language and model the behaviors of the practice is critically important. Therefore, community-based learning can only be accomplished while working with experienced practitioners (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Learning involves the integration of understandings and linkage to applications, as well as the "construction of identities" (p. 53) that implies a transformation of the individual. Further, Lave and Wenger assert that the development of a new identity is 71

PAGE 91

i I I I I I I I I I i I i I I I I I I l i I "central to the careers of newcomers in communities of practice" (p. 115). They call teaming within a community of practice "legitimate peripheral participation" {p. 29). Interestingly, the interactions between new entrants and old-timers create change dynamics that also transform the community's practice. Legitimate peripheral participation becomes both learning experiences for newcomers and renewal processes for the professional community. Preparing School Leaders: Prelude The literature about leadership, change agentry, and learning cultures indicates that the core technology of schools is changing, and thus, the purpose of the principalship is changing. Further, while preparing prospective administrators to assume leadership roles in K-12 schools is the goal of university-based principal licensure programs, multiple factors both external and internal to the programs affect whether graduates seek school leadership positions. Preparing school leaders cannot be encapsulated into a single leadership education and skills development program because the process of becoming a principal often begins years before action is taken toward preparing for the role. Future leaders can emerge through self-determination or through encouragement from others, and thus, the decision to enroll in a principal preparation program may be purposeful or exploratory. Factors that influence program graduates' decision to seek a principalship include the practitioners' (a) professional aspirations, (b) leadership self-awareness and understandings, (c) role conceptualization of the principalship, (d) socialization into the community of practice, and (e) learning experiences during the program. This study explored these five elements related to practitioner growth during a university-based principal licensure cohort program. The literature reviewed that 72

PAGE 92

supports the study propositions is presented in Chapter 1 0 within the discussion of suggested implications for practice and research that emerged from the findings. 73

PAGE 93

I I I I i I i I I I I I I l i I I i I i l ! I I i l ! i I I i I l I l I I I .I I CHAPTER4 MIXED-METHODS CASE STUDY A set of researcher propositions guided the design and focus of this investigation (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). One supposition was that most students who enrolled in the professional development program sought basic knowledge and skills needed to become licensed school leaders. As the learners expanded their knowledge base and applied skills in their professional practice, personal transformation and acculturation would elicit insights about the principalship (Lave & Wenger, 1991 ). Thus, a second assumption for this investigation was that participants in the administrative licensure cohort would evidence professional growth over time through self-reported changes in perceptions about themselves as leaders. These transformations would be demonstrated further by changes in (a) the participants' understandings about leadership and (b) their perceptions about the roles and responsibilities of a school principal. The adoption of new professional behaviors that align to the behaviors modeled by school principals would provide additional evidence of professional growth. A final proposition was that program activities and assignments would provide stimuli for professional growth. Because the program was delivered through a closed cohort model, peer interactions would influence the learning experiences within the cohort. Thus, the group would exhibit changes in professional relationships and behaviors as well. 74

PAGE 94

I I I I i ! l I I I I I i i I I j I i I i i I l l I Case Study Desian The case study design is the most appropriate methodology for study of a phenomenon within a particular instance or case (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1 995; Yin, 1 994). The main unit of analysis for this investigation was a closed cohort within an administrative licensure program conducted in partnership with a local education agency. Practitioner growth while participating in the cohort was the phenomenon of interest. Additionally, the case study design is used appropriately when the phenomenon studied is bound by a specific time period and encapsulated in a particular structure (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1 995; Yin, 1 994). This study of the sample cohort from January 2000 to December 2000 met both criteria. Because the goal of the administrative licensure program was to prepare educational practitioners to become school principals, the case study provided an opportunity for interpretive analysis of professional growth of practitioners from their perspectives (Stake, 1 995; Yin, 1 994). Additionally, mixed methods for data analysis were employed (Fowler, 1 993; Kvale, 1996; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Weber, 1990). While most data collection and analyses employed qualitative methodologies, analysis and interpretation of forced-choice responses on surveys relied heavily upon descriptive statistics and magnitude of change ratios. Embedded Single-Case Design Adopting suggestions by Creswell (1 998), Stake (1995), and Yin (1994) for designing a case study, I constructed the investigation of the cohort as an embedded single-case design. The rationale for such a model was based upon the uniqueness of the cohort and its focused attention upon a specific theory of leadership. The embedded sub-units of the single-case study were the study participants who volunteered to provide 75

PAGE 95

viewpoints and perceptions about thei r experiences during the initial three domains of the licensure program. Data Collection and Analysis Data collection and analysis included triangulation of both qualitative and quantitative approaches, making this a mixed-model study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Analysis of interview transcriptions, questionnaire responses, and online interactions included qualitative strategies (Kvale, 1996; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999), grounded theory techniques and procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), and content analysis (Weber, 1990). A variety of survey methodologies (Ary et al., 1996; Fishel, 1998; Fowler, 1993; Krathwohl, 1998) were used in construction and analysis of the pre-survey and post-survey. Although some analysis was conducted by hand, both QSR NUD*IST Vivo 1.1 for Microsoft Windows (NVivo) software for qualitative research and SPSS Graduate Pack 10.0 for Windows (SPSS) software for quantitative research were used for most of the analyses. Microsoft Excel was used to compute one statistical measure. Standards of Quality and Verification Multiple procedures were employed to ensure that the case study met standards of quality and verification (Creswell. 1998; Stake, 1995; Yin. 1994}. Data collection was linked carefully to the purpose for conducting the study and the specific research questions (Stake, 1995). Information was collected from multiple sources: (a) surveys and questionnaires, (b) interviews, (c) participant-observations, and (d) reviews of artifacts and documents (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). A system of data management was carefully constructed and employed so that a chain of evidence could be constructed (Yin, 1994}. The breadth of data sources and the use of mixed methods 76

PAGE 96

I I I I l I l I j i I I I I I l i I I I i I during analysis allowed for multiple forms of triangulation (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Yin, 1994). The case study spanned one calendar year during which I engaged with the cohort and various study participants in a variety of activities on an almost weekly basis. External checks were provided through peer reviews of my progress during doctoral lab meetings and debriefing conferences with my dissertation advisor. Member checking is a quality assurance strategy used in qualitative inquiry: A researcher provides study participants with draft copies of reports for them to review for accuracy of reporting and interpretation (Creswell, 1998; Kvale, 1996; Stake, 1995; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Yin, 1994). Extensive amounts of participant commentary were integrated into the report. Therefore, I asked the key informants to review the findings presented in the case study reports. Further, the case study report was written with thick description in order to detail the program and participants (Creswell. 1998; Stake, 1995). Entry and Changed Focus Opportunity for me to conduct this case study arose through an invitation from a faculty member in the administrative leadership division where I was conducting my doctoral studies. We shared a common interest in the study of leadership models that support and sustain innovation. The professor assumed responsibility as the cohort leader in a cohort that was forming. Because collaborative leadership was the theme of the cohort, the professor suggested that I might want to select this particular cohort as the sample for my dissertation study. Thus, entry into the cohort was easy. With complete support from the cohort leader, I recruited study participants during the cohort orientation meeting in January. The cohort leader introduced me to the other instructors who supported my regular presence at cohort sessions as a participantobserver. All cohort instructors provided me with copies of handouts and allowed me to 77

PAGE 97

l I l I I i I I I I I I : i j i make an occasional announcemaent about data collection during classes. Access to conduct this case study was ope-n. My original intent was to focus on practitioner growth during a leadership education and skills developme111t program, with collaborative leadership as the phenomenon of interest. Early dlata analysis indicated to me that the richer phenomenon of interest was the transformati01n of teachers and other educational practitioners into school leaders while participating in the program. Therefore, in August 1999 I reordered my research propositions. How -educational practitioners changed perceptions about themselves as school leaders while participating in a principal licensure cohort became the overarching focus. How practitioners changed their understanding about leadership became a secondary propositio111 that guided data collection and analysis. All other components of my original reseaarch design remained the same. Potential Study Effects The participants in this s;tudy were graduate students who remained together as a learning community in what is a:alled a closed cohort. They began the licensure program together and completed the four content domains together. The participants engaged in a variety of learning activities that individually and collectively focused specifically on leadership education and skills development. The theme of the cohort with its emphasis upon the studY' of collaborative leadership and empowerment was a significant change in the usual format for the licensure program. Thus, participation as a Ieamer in a closed cohort, the re-quirements of the program, and the emphasis upon collaborative leadership became potential study effects. 78

PAGE 98

I I I I i I I l I I I I I I I t I I i l i I !, Closed Cohort As members of a closed cohort, study participants began the principal licensure program together as an identified group, took all coursework together as a group, and completed the required domains of study at the same time. The elements of interest about learning cohorts were the effects that differences in age, professional experience, and career aspirations had on group dynamics. The effects were measured in changes over time in (a) peer support and relationships and (b) peer interactions and teamwork. Program Requirements A variety of constructivist learning strategies were used by the three instructors who directed the domains of study conducted during the time frame of this study. Each instructor organized the content domain and presented information in a very different manner. Although the teaching techniques differed with each change of instructor. the program requirements remained somewhat consistent. During each domain, the instructional activities included (a) problem-based learning through completion of group projects, (b) integration of computer technology. (c) research and production of academic papers, and (d) personal reflective writing. Throughout the case study, students performed as members of small groups and as individuals to complete assignments and make formal presentations. Cohort members were expected to participate in class discussions and online asynchronous dialogues, research and analyze professional literature, and reflect about their experiences. Additionally, as participants in the university's administrative licensure program the cohort members were required to develop an individual leadership plan and a portfolio containing artifacts and products. The leadership plan served two purposes: (a) to assist aspiring educational leaders in identifying personal core values and 79

PAGE 99

I I I I l I I i i I I I I l I I I l l \ I i i I l professional passions, and (b) to demonstrate to licensing program instructors the attainment of knowledge and skills with respect to the state standards. During the study, students were expected to begin construction of their individual portfolios used as the main assessment tooL Documents required for the final portfolio included a completed three-part leadership plan, reflections about activities and learning throughout the program, examples of project products, and internship logs. Portfolio artifacts were created through cohort activities or developed through professional experiences that linked to specific state standards and benchmarks. At the beginning of the leadership program, the cohort leader applied for a grant to underwrite the costs of a longitudinal study about collaborative leadership. One of the budget items included funds for the cohort members to conduct extensive action research during the program and then present their findings at a conference they coordinated. This activity was intended to replace the portfolio requirement. When notification arrived in late spring that the grant had not been funded, students were told that they had to construct a portfolio. Frustration about this change in course requirements emerged in the data. Additionally, several participants were highly critical of the portfolio method of assessment. Cohort Theme and Program Differences The cohort used as a sample in this study was different from other program cohorts in two important ways. First, a goal to which the cohort leader aspired was that practitioners develop skills in community-based organizing and experience first-hand the complexities of collective processes. The curriculum originally was developed to research collaborative leadership processes and the changed roles for principals in schools where such processes are used. While collaborative leadership was not a 80

PAGE 100

I I l l I I i I i I I : I l I l I I i I i I i l I I I r I i I i I I phenomenon of interest for this inquiry, the data reflected the cohort's orientation toward that one model of leadership. Second, the cohort leader changed the program format by replacing the usual field experiences during each domain with one long-term action-learning project. The university's program usually balances content learning with ongoing field experiences in each domain. These field experiences provide opportunities for students to gain clinical skills in recognizing and solving problems of professional practice in K-12 school settings. Rather than integrating content learning with the usual 45-hour field experiences, the cohort leader created an action-learning project. The project was designed without student input and introduced to the cohort via an e-mail message in late July. The action-learning project explored the perceived impact of public school leadership on school outcomes and was framed upon Telford's (1996) exploratory model of the nature of leadership in schools. Data collection strategies were based upon Telford's models. which were highly structured. Students were scheduled to begin collecting data during the third domain (Fall 2000 semester) and complete analysis during the fourth domain (Spring 2001 semester), after the close of this case study. Because this action research project replaced the concurrent internship hours in each content domain, the students in the sample cohort did not engage in ongoing field experiences. Data reflected the consequences of this program modification. Case Study Participants Participant attrition over time was problematic for this case study. Twenty of the 22 original members of the cohort agreed in January to participate in the yearlong study. During the ensuing months, three students withdrew from the program. One left in the spring due to a debilitating illness, and another dropped out in the fall because of a 81

PAGE 101

planned relocation to another state prior to the end of the program. Both students were study participants. The third exiting student, who enrolled in the cohort late and chose not to participate in the study, withdrew during the summer and subsequently enrolled in a licensure program at another university. At the close of data collection in December, the cohort was composed of 19 students. Eighteen students completed both the pre-survey administered in January and the post-survey distributed in November. Fifteen of the 18 participants (83%} consistently responded to the other four data collection instruments during the study. The 18 students who volunteered to be study participants comprised 95 percent of the cohort membership. Demographics and Diversity The participant group included seven men and eleven women. The diversity of age, a range from 25 to 61 years, influenced the learning environment. The cohort as a whole was not ethnically diverse. The only African American member of the cohort was also a study participant, and one of the two students of Hispanic origin participated in this inquiry. The remaining students identified themselves as Caucasian, although one also proudly claimed Italian descent. Marital status was almost equally split: Eleven participants were married, and seven were single. Additionally, 1 0 participants reported having children under the age of 18 living with them. Professional Experience Professional experience within the field of education was quite diverse. Six of the group had been teaching for five years or less. Five other participants had taught between 6 and 1 0 years. Another group of 5 participants had worked in the field of 82

PAGE 102

education between 1 1 and 20 years. Two study participants had completed over 20 years as educational practitioners. The reported length of time in current positions at the beginning of the study provided another type of diversity. On the pre-survey administered in January, 12 participants reported that they had worked in their current positions since 1997 or later. Two others began their current positions in 1994 or 1 995, while three other practitioners had been in their positions since 1990 or 1991. One participant with extensive experience in the field of education had relocated from another state just prior to beginning the licensure program; she remained a full-time student throughout the study. A total of five participants had taught outside the state where the study was conducted. During class discussions, these five cohort members shared stories about their teaching experiences in Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin. Additionally, 8 of the 18 participants reported that they also had worked full time in non-education careers. At the midpoint of data collection, which was the beginning of a new school year, nine participants changed positions by (a) transferring to new schools in different districts, (b) changing grade levels or teaching assignments in the same schools, or (c) assuming positions of leadership. When data collection began, two participants were teaching in elementary schools, eight in middle schools, and four in high schools. Two other students were serving in district administrative positions. The full-time student from another state had been a university instructor, and another student was a middle school teacher on maternity leave of absence. At the close of data collection, two participants were teaching in elementary schools, six in middle schools, and two in high schools. One high school teacher had been appointed as the principal of a new private K-8 school. Another high school teacher 83

PAGE 103

i i i I I I I l ' I I I I I I l I I I I I i I I I I I i and two middle school teachers served on their schools' administrative teams as assistant principals or as the site coordinator for teacher candidates. These positions were special assignments for the teachers, and thus they had limited authority as acting administrators. Two cohort members continued working as district-level coordinators, and two others were full-time students. Educational Background and Aspirations The highest degree of formal education completed by 12 study participants was a Baccalaureate degree. Six other participants had earned a Master's degree prior to enrolling in the cohort. All participants, except for one student already holding a Master's degree, reported goals of advancing their degree level through the program. Earning a Master's degree was an education goal for seven participants. Three others set goals of earning an Educational Specialist degree, while eight participants aspired to earn a doctorate sometime in the future. District Representation Another element of diversity was the representation of public school districts and private schools within the cohort itself. The specific purpose for the university-district partnership organizing the cohort was to develop leadership capacity at the secondary level within the local education agency. At the beginning of the program 8 of the 22 students in the cohort were from the partnering district. Two of those students withdrew from the program and one transferred during the summer to another school district. f:'ience, only five cohort members held positions within the partnership district at the close of data collection. The remaining 14 cohort members served as teachers or district-level coordinators in 8 other public school districts and 2 private school systems within the 84

PAGE 104

i i I i I t r I I I I I i i I I l i I I I same metropolitan area. One cohort member had recently relocated from another state and had not worked in education in the state where the program was conducted. Informant Volunteers Six of the 18 study participants volunteered as informants to participate in a series of personal interviews. Unfortunately, due to a host of personal hardships, one of tl)e six informants did not complete the four questionnaires administered during the data collection period. Without additional intermittent data, tracing professional growth of this student over time was Jess definitive. However, elements of this individual's interview responses were included in the findings. The five remaining informants represented the diversity of the larger group of study participants in gender, professional experience, and professional goals. However, with the loss of the sixth informant, the group no longer included a representative of the youngest subgroup within the cohort. Data Collection Methodology According to Yin (1994), a case study must follow three principles of data collection in order to increase the construct validity and reliability of the study. Rrst, multiple sources of evidence must be used to show convergence on the same set of facts or findings through triangulation. Data sources need to span a range of historical, attitudinal, and behavioral issues. Second, a formal, presentable database of evidentiary sources needs to be developed. The evidentiary base should include original responses to surveys and questionnaires, interview transcriptions, case documents and artifacts, observational field notes, and memos. The database needs to be organized and stored in such a manner that information can be retrieved efficiently. Finally, the case study report should include sufficient citations to specific elements in the database so that a chain of evidence is maintained. An external observer should be able to trace the 85

PAGE 105

derivation of evidence from initial data collection to final conclusions. Proof that Yin's (1994) first principle, the use of multiple data sources, was met is provided in this section. Descriptions about how the second and third principles were met are presented in the ! following section of this chapter. I I Multiple sources of evidence were employed and excess data were available for I I analysis. Data collection strategies in this case study included the administration of I I questionnaires, the conduct of individual and focus group interviews, participant! 1 observations, analysis of online exchanges generated during the leadership domain, and I I review of artifacts. With these ample data sources, "potential problems of construct l validity" (Yin, 1994, p. 92) were addressed through data triangulation. I I j Data collection began January 24, 2000, and continued through December 1 i i 2000. Multiple methods were used to gather data from a variety of sources. Rgure 4.1 i presents a chronological sequence of the process. Pre-Survey and Post-Survey The first survey was distributed to all attendees at the cohort orientation meeting in late January. I asked students who wanted to participate in the study to sign the consent form, complete the survey, and return both documents to me via self-addressed stamped envelopes I provided. Study participants returned their signed consent forms and completed pre-surveys within two weeks of the orientation meeting. The data collected in the first survey served as baseline information (Fishel, 1998; Fowler, 1993; Krathwohl, 1998; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993) about participants' self-perspectives as leaders, their assessments of professional experience, and their understandings about leadership prior to beginning the program. Both closed-ended and open-ended questions were used on the pre-survey. Participants completed an inventory of 36 professional behaviors using a rating scale (Ary et al., 1996). The instrument also 86

PAGE 106

:::0 CD "'0 a a. c: () CD a. ::E ;:+: ::T -g -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 u; CJl a ::::l 0 ::T CD () 0 "'0 '< ..., ce ::T "'0 CD 3 u; CJl a ::::l Figure 4.1 Chronological Sequence of Data Collection Jan 00 Feb 00 Mar 00 Apr 00 May 00 Jun 00 July oo Aug 00 Sep 00 Oct 00 Nov 00 Dec 00 Pre-Survey 1/24/00 Participant Observation 1/24/00 to 6/20/00 Questionnaire 1 2/26/00 Key Informant Interviews 4/6/00-5/5/00 Key Informant Interviews 6/29/00-8/28/00 Participant Observation 8/28/00-11/27/00 Questionnaire 2 8/20/00 Post-Survey 11/20/00 Questionnaire 3 10/11/00 Questionnaire 4 10/20/00 Key Informant Interviews 11/27/00-1211/00 Focus-Group Interview 11/27/00

PAGE 107

I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I i gathered demographic data about cohort composition (age, gender, ethnicity, years of teaching experience, prior higher education experiences) and potential external influences (current work assignment, extracurricular activities, educational goals, membership in professional networks and collegial groups). A post-survey was distributed to all participants during a cohort session in mid-November and returned by the end of November. Many of the questions on the post-survey were identical or nearly identical to questions posed on the pre-survey so that comparative analysis was possible (Ary et al., 1996; Rshel, 1998; Fowler, 1993; Krathwohl, 1998; LeCompte & Preissle. 1993). Participants were also asked to evaluate their learning experiences in the program and offer their suggestions for improvement (Brainard, 1996). See Appendix 8 and Appendix I for complete surveys. Open-Ended Questionnaires A series of four open-ended questionnaires (see Appendices C, F. G, and H) were administered to assess changes in participant perceptions at certain points in time during the study (Fowler, 1993; Krathwohl, 1998; LeCompte & Preissle. 1993; Schensul et al., 1999). Questions on all four of these instruments were open-ended and delivered to participants as multi-formatted attachments to e-mail messages. Because some participants reported difficulty in downloading the first questionnaire, I also pasted a copy of the questionnaire into the body of subsequent e-mail messages. Using the university's e-mail and conferencing system, I sent each of the four messages to my private account with America Online with blind copies to all study participants. Cohort members then had the opportunity to download the questionnaire on their computers, write responses to the prompts using their word-processing programs, and print hard copies to return to me via self-addressed stamped envelopes. Some participants chose to print a copy of the questionnaire and write their answers rather than 88

PAGE 108

word-process them. Over the course of the study, as participants became comfortable with me and began to trust my promise of confidentiality, many returned their completed questionnaires to me personally during a class session or as an attachment to an e-mail message they sent only to me. The one exception to this procedure was the third questionnaire that was administered in October (see Appendix G). This instrument focused specifically on student reactions to the use of the university's online messaging system as an instructional tooL Because all members of the cohort gave their consent to allow me to analyze their online messages, I sent an open e-mail message to the entire cohort in early October. The following evening during a cohort meeting, those students who did not have time to respond electronically were given time during class to complete the questionnaire. This particular questionnaire provided an additional rich data source to triangulate with field notes taken during the opening weeks of the cohort and with the content analysis of asynchronous virtual interactions among members of the cohort (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998}. Informant Interviews Six student members of the cohort were randomly selected from the group that volunteered to participate in a series of in-depth interviews (Krathwohl, 1998; Kvale, 1996;_LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Stake, 1995). The interviews were conducted shortly after the beginning of the program (April-May), near the mid-point of the study (July August), and at the close of the study (November-December). The interviews were held at mutually agreeable times and locations for the informants and me. Some were held in classrooms, media centers, or school administrative offices during conference periods, lunch breaks, or after school dismissaL Others were conducted in private rooms at a local public library. Most of the interviews were approximately one hour in duration. 89

PAGE 109

I I l I I I I I I I j I i ! i I I I I I i I I I I Open-ended questions asked during the interviews were formally structured to ensure that, as much as possible. any difference in answers could be attributed to the differences in responses and not to the way the questions were presented (Krathwohl, 1998; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Schensul et al., 1999). Many interview questions duplicated questions asked on the surveys and questionnaires (see Appendices D, E. and K). All interviews were recorded both by audiotape and by the researcher's notes. This six-member group of interviewees was formed to provide a collective voice of students participating in the cohort. The intention was to form a sub-unit of analysis composed of these six students who represented one-third of the study participants and the diversity of the cohort membership. Unfortunately, one informant did not complete any of the four questionnaires, and I opted not to conduct a third interview with him. Thus, the informant sub-unit was composed of only five students. Focus-Group Interview At the close of the study, six study participants who were not informants were invited to participate in a focus group interview (Fowler, 1993; Krathwohl, 1998: LeCompte & Preissle, 1993;). This group had consistently responded to all data collection instruments throughout the study. Invitations were mailed to each of the perspective interviewees explaining that their participation in the focus group breached the promise of anonymity as study participants. Nonetheless, all six participated in the focus group interview conducted in the media conference room at the middle school where regular cohort meetings were held. This interview was both audiotaped and videotaped. The camera was set up behind me so that the video recording was presented from my perspective as the interviewer. The interaction of focus group members and their spontaneity in responding to both my questions and comments by their peers created a snapshot reflection of the 90

PAGE 110

cohort's history (Kvale, 1996). Interesting revelations also emerged that added significantly rich data for analysis. See Appendix J for focus-group interview prompts. Participant Observation With full support from the three cohort instructors, I was able to observe the participants in the natural context of 28 of the 37 cohort meetings between January and November. l adopted the role as participant-observer with only limited involvement during the cohort sessions (Krathwohl, 1998; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Schensul et al., 1999; Stake, 1995}. Reid notes were recorded in two spiral notebooks. References were noted with regard to the seating arrangements, arrival times of cohort members, topics of discussion, and course assignments and due dates. During some cohort sessions, I was able to script class discussions. However, this was not always valuable because large portions of the cohort sessions included delivery of content by instructors or students, viewing of videos, small-group activities or work on projects, and presentations by guest speakers. I used a researcher-designed contact summary sheet to document what I observed and heard and to note what I might look for during the next cohort session (Miles & Huberman, 1994}. The focus of these field observations was how the cohort members changed over time in their (a) relationships with one another and as a group, (b) participation in class discussions and the content of their comments, and (c) questions about the future. Artifact Review The final data sources were artifacts generated during the course of the case study (Schensul et al., 1999; Yin, 1994). I collected and reviewed (a) the cohort notebook distributed during orientation and (b) calendars, domain syllabi, assigned reading materials, class handouts, and other documents distributed during class 91

PAGE 111

meetings and generated electronically. Artifacts were filed chronologically in my copy of the cohort notebook. I designed a document summary form (Miles & Huberman, 1 994) to note the purpose and content of each artifact as it related to the five research categories. I also reviewed most of the cohort conference messages in the university's online messaging system. All 157 messages in the leadership subconference were printed and analyzed. This data source provided a rich context in which to explore early cohort interactions and developing peer relationships. The content of the e-mail messages (Weber, 1990) in many instances rivaled the onsite discussions observed during cohort meetings. Organization of the Data Case study data and evidentiary sources were organized into a manageable system that provided efficient retrieval and derivation linkage. Thus, this case study met Yin's (1994) second and third principles of data collection: (a) creation of a case study database, and (b) maintenance of a chain of evidence. Although not proposed in the same language, Stake (1995) also cautions case study researchers to develop a reliable and manageable data storage system. Further, Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest multiple strategies and provide sample forms to manage large-scale qualitative studies. Through careful management of data, I constructed a case study database described below that other investigators could use to reconstruct this study. The creation of such a database "markedly increases the reliability of the entire case study" (Yin, 1994, p. 95). Additionally, the careful construction of data collection instruments specifically connected to the research questions maintains a chain of evidence, which is Yin's (1994) third principle of data collection. Further, study participants coded each of their 92

PAGE 112

completed data collection instruments by using a unique four-digit identification number. The coding of responses allowed individual patterns and changes over time to be traced. During the data analysis stage, the coding process that I used maintained the identities and the time when their responses were made. Triangulation with the calendar of program events linked participant responses and program effects that established possible causal connections. Maintaining such a chain of evidence increases "the reliability of the information in the case study" (Yin, 1994, p. 98). Using suggestions from Yin (1994), Stake (1995) and Miles and Huberman (1994), I carefully and deliberately developed a data storage system. Throughout the conduct of this case study, I organized the data and documentation in different notebooks depending upon the type of data source and its purpose in the study. The first page of each notebook included a description of the purpose for this study and a copy of the research questions that guided data collection. I intentionally kept this information at the forefront so that my attention would remain focused during the many months in which data were collected (Stake, 1995). Data Collection Information One notebook contains all critical information related to data collection. Included in this notebook are (a) a copy of the approved human subjects review application, (b) originals of signed consent forms from all study participants, (c) correspondence with participants who withdrew from the study, and (d) copies of cohort rosters and contact information. Copies of all data collection instruments, distribution e-mail messages, and journal memos were also filed in this notebook. I recorded the dates that the instruments were administered and what I observed during cohort sessions that were conducted at the same time. I also filed copies of the structured interview questions in this notebook. 93

PAGE 113

l I i I I I I I I I Original Data Sources Another notebook contains ori!Qinals of all data collection instruments completed by study participants. The instruments;; were organized into sections according to the participants' identification codes. I tramscribed all hand-written instruments into Microsoft Word documents that were saved bottn on my computer hard-drive and on floppy disks. carefully compared the computer-baseed documents I created against the original instruments to be certain that my trans-criptions were accurate. Informant Data For each of the six informants_ I created a separate notebook of all data that they provided. These notebooks contain (a.I) copies of their original responses to the surveys and questionnaires, (b) professionally 11>repared transcriptions of each of their taped interviews, and (c) part one of their plans developed during the first six months of the program. The transcription serv:-ice I used provided floppy discs of each interview transcription, and the informants sent electronic copies of their leadership essays to me as attachments to personal e-mail messages. I also saved copies of the leadership plans on my computer hard drive and on flopopy disks. At the conclusion of data anai)Wsis and report writing, I sent to each informant electronic copies of the contents of theeir data notebooks. The data were provided to the informants to use as a reference sourc:=e during their review of the study report. Online Interactions Information related to online interactions was organized in another notebook. The notebook contains (a) copies of al iJI 157 messages in the leadership domain and (b) a copy of the code key and analysis matlrix that I created to record coding information. 94

PAGE 114

i i I j i I I i I I I I I I I I i I i I I I I i I I I I I I i I i I i I Because coding and analysis of the e-mail messages were conducted by hand, all documents related to those processes were filed in this notebook. Reid Notes and Artifacts All field notes and artifacts were filed in my copy of the original cohort notebook distributed to students during the orientation meeting. Field notes and artifacts were dated and placed into the corresponding content domain section (leadership studies, school environment, and supervision of curriculum and instruction). The information was placed in chronological order beginning with the first regular cohort meeting on January 31,2000. Organization of the Case Study In order to trace the progress of my study, I created three different organizers (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). First, I used a month-by-month calendar to record all cohort meetings, noting those that I attended and those that I missed. On this calendar I also recorded the dates that I administered data collection instruments and conducted personal interviews of informants. This calendar clearly shows the distribution of data collection activities throughout the case study. Second, I created a matrix of student responses to data collection instruments. This matrix indicated who had returned completed documents during the data collection phase. When response returns were slow, I sent a second or third request to the study participants. Last, I organized into a table all pertinent information about the sources of data used in this case study. Information included the type of data sources available, the dates when data were collected, and the content or purposes of the data source. Table 95

PAGE 115

I i I I I I l I I I I I I I I I j i I i 4.1 condensed the content of the various notebooks I had created into a quick reference that was immensely helpful during the analysis phase (Stake, 1995). Table 4.1 Record of Case Study Data Sources Data Source Participant Pre-Survey (Appendix B) Questionnaire 1 (Appendix C) Key Informant Interview 1 (Appendix D) Key Informant Interview 2 {Appendix E) Questionnaire 2 (Appendix F) Questionnaire 3 (Appendix G) Questionnaire 4 (Appendix H) Participant Post-Survey (Appendix I) Date(s) Administered 1/24/00 2/26/00 4/6/00-5/5/00 06/29/00-08/28/00 8/20/00 10/8/00 10/20/00 11/20/00 96 Content or Purpose Demographic information Professional behaviors Career goals Open-ended questions using research propositions as guide Open-ended questions using research propositions as guide Open-ended questions using research propositions as guide Open-ended questions using research propositions as guide Online activities Cohort interactions Peer online sharing Ready to be principal Professional growth activities Demographic information Professional behaviors Careers goals Program evaluation

PAGE 116

Table 4.1 (Cont.) Record of Case Study Data Sources Data Source Focus-Group Interview (Appendix J) Key Informant Interview 3 (Appendix K) Reid Notes: Observation of Cohort Sessions Artifacts Date(s) Administered 11/27/00 11 /27/00-12/1 /00 1/24/00-11/27/00 (28 of 37 classes) 1/24/00-12/1/00 Content or Purpose Professional growth Cohort experience Program improvement Comments in prior interviews Professional growth Cohort experience Program improvement Seating arrangements Class discussions Class activities Student presentations Guest speakers Domain syllabi Project assignments Reading assignments Information handouts Miscellaneous information OERI grant narrative Cohort leader's vision for cohort (memo. paper) Data Analysis Methodology Expansive amounts and types of data were available for analysis in this yearlong case study. Thus. thoughtful consideration about how to use the information was required to trace effectively practitioner growth over time. Because both qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted, this case study utilized mixed-method strategies 97

PAGE 117

(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Yin, 1994). Portions of analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data were conducted by hand and by computer. Closed-Ended Questions The surveys administered at both the beginning and end of the study required counting responses on only 18 instruments each time. Most analysis of demographic data and responses to yes-no questions was conducted by hand. The results were compiled on a spreadsheet. and selected demographic data were transferred to attribute tables in both NVivo and SPSS. Thirty-six statements about professional behaviors were developed for which respondents were required to select an answer from one of four ordinal scale choices: (a) never, (b) rarely, (c) sometimes, and (d) often (Ary et al., 1996; Fowler, 1993). The same 36 questions were included on the pre-survey administered in January and the postsurvey administered in November (see Appendices B and I). For analysis using SPSS, the responses were converted to numbers. A "never" answer was equivalent to 1 and "often" was equivalent to 4. Thus, the greater the engagement in the activity, the higher the number. Descriptive statistical measures for each pair of professional behaviors were computed in order to determine significant levels of change during the time frame of the case study. The magnitude of change statistic was computed using Microsoft Excel. The "magnitude of effect statistic" (Mahadevan, 2000) or simply "effect size" (Ary et al., 1996) is an estimate used to explore the significance of change. Cohen (1967, 1977, 1988, as cited in Mahadevan, 2000) posits that effect size is a suitable measure to compare two groups. This descriptive statistic d is the difference between the means of the treatment and control group items divided by the standard deviation of the control group item. The formula for effect size (Ary et al., 1996} is 98

PAGE 118

d= (MEMc)I6C where dis the estimated effect size, ME is the mean of the experimental group, Me is the mean of the control group, and 6C is the standard deviation of the control group. Effect size is used in this case study to measure significance of change over time. Thus, the control group is the set of responses on the pre-survey inventory items, and the experimental group is the set of responses on the post-survey inventory items. Cohen defined effect size in terms of being small (0.1 < d < 0.29}, medium (0.30 < d < 0.69), or large (d?:. 0.70). The greater the effect size, the more significant the change. Another series of 1 0 questions on the post-survey assessed participants' attitudes about the licensure program (see Appendix 1). In the first set of responses, the students used a rating scale to describe how the program was actually delivered. In the second set of identical scales, they provided opinions about how it should be delivered. The five-scale response choices for both sets of attitudinal questions were (a} not this way at all, (b) slightly this way, (c) more this way than not, (d) largely this way, and (e) completely this way (Brainard, 1996}. Again, I used SPSS and Microsoft Excel to compute descriptive statistics and effect sizes to analyze the differences among responses for the 1 0 questions. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies were used to analyze changes in professional behaviors and attitudes about program effectiveness (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). I used effect sizes to assess the significance of change in reported professional behaviors against responses to open-ended questions about professional behaviors provided by participants on questionnaires and during interviews. The effect sizes for program elements were triangulated with respondents' concerns abm1t the program and their suggestions for program improvement. 99

PAGE 119

! I I i I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I J I i I i I I Ooen-Ended Questions Five major categories, as defined by the research questions for this case study, framed the open-ended questions posed in the two surveys and the four questionnaires (Stake, 1995). The five categories included inquiries about participants' (a) perceptions of self as a leader, (b) perceptions about leadership, (c) perceptions about the roles and responsibilities of a school principal, (d) reported changes in professional behaviors, and (e) opinions about program effects on learning and professional growth. Several questions were repeated multiple times on questionnaires administered to the entire group and during personal interviews with the informants. Additionally, probing questions were included to facilitate a smooth transition from one category of questions to the next. Participant responses to open-ended questions in the six data collection instruments were transcribed using my word-processing program and saved as separate documents identified by the first name of the participant and the type and number of the instrument. This allowed me to trace over time the responses for each individual (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Once the participants' documents were transported into NVivo, I coded the documents using grounded theory strategies (Kvale, 1996; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). I discovered that my first failed attempts using NVivo proved quite useful in developing and defining the free nodes I eventually adopted. I created multiple document sets using various demographic statistics (gender, age, marital status, number of years teaching experience, professional aspirations, and such). Once I completed the free-node coding of all the documents, I created document reports in NVivo by triangulation of demographic characteristics with participant responses in the coding nodes. 100

PAGE 120

l I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I i i Interview Questions Several of the questions asked during interviews were repetitions of questions posed on questionnaires or in previous interviews. Although I allowed the interviews to flow somewhat freely, I created a framework of structured questions for each of the interviews (see Appendices D, E. and K). Before beginning the interview, informants were given time to read the questions and formulate some of their thoughts. I asked all of the structured questions to maintain consistency in the focus of the interviews and to allow for later comparison of responses (Kvale, 1996). Prior to our last interviews, the informants provided me with electronic copies of the first part of their individual leadership plans. Before meeting with each of the informants, I carefully reviewed their essays. These reflective papers contained identification of their core values and sources of their professional leadership passions. The essays were drafted around responses to a set of probing questions determined by the licensure faculty as important elements in the professional development of effective educational leaders. I did not code these essays or include information taken directly from the papers in my analysis. Only the informants' responses to probing questions during the taped interviews became part of the data available for analysis. This agreement was made with the informants when I asked if they would share their personal reflections with me. Analysis of interview data followed the same system used for the responses to open-ended questions on the data collection instruments (Kvale, 1996; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Informants were given copies of their interview transcriptions and a draft of the case study report in order to edit the narrative for interpretation and to suggest revisions (Creswell, 1998; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Further, the 101

PAGE 121

I I I l 1 i I I I i I I I I I I informants met with me as a group to assess the accuracy of my reporting and interpretation. Online Interactions Online activities constituted 30% of the instruction during the leadership studies domain. Therefore, I determined that the content of online messages provided a rich data source related to peer interaction and cohort norm development during the early months of the program. I printed copies of all 157 e-mail messages in the leadership subconference of the cohort conference and hand coded each message. Table 4.2 lists the content codes and descriptions developed to analyze the e-mail messages in the cohort's leadership subconference. Table 4.2 Content Analysis Coding Key Code a g n c p r s t L E-mail Message Content Description Reference to assignment (clarification, redirection, reminder, wrap-up) Greeting and/or closing Suggestion for action Reference to cohort activities and/or studies Reference to personal matter and/or personal message Reference to professional responsibilities and/or experiences Self disclosure: I agree, I believe. I disagree, I feel, I found, I think Reference to technical support and/or trouble Reference to leadership theory and/or practice Permission to analyze online messages was obtained from all members of the cohort, including those students who had withdrawn from the program or who were not study participants. Reviewing all messages created a context for the analysis. I 102

PAGE 122

designed a matrix to record the content of each message generated by all cohort participants. To help me understand the results found in the content analysis (Weber, 1990) of online interactions, I devoted one of the open-ended questionnaires specifically to reflections about the students' early experiences with virtual learning. The results displayed on the analysis matrix were triangulated with (a) NVivo analysis of the open-ended responses on questionnaires and during interviews and (b) analysis of field notes taken during observations of early cohort sessions (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Yin, 1994). The content of the electronic messages was quite different from the observed behaviors and comments of participants during cohort sessions. Case Study: Quality and Verification Checks Extensive verification is required for a case study (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Thus, multiple standards of quality and verification were employed. First, I realized that conducting a case study required that I use multiple sources of evidence to support both data source triangulation and methodological triangulation (Stake, 1995; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998: Yin, 1994). The use of diverse evidentiary sources diminishes potential problems of construct validity (Yin, 1994}. Descriptions of the types of data sources used have been provided earlier in this chapter. Further, a system of data management was developed to support establishing a chain of evidence (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). According to Yin (1994}, reliability of a case study depends upon the investigator carefully documenting the procedures followed by making "as many steps as possible as operational as possible" (Yin, 1994, p. 37). Doing this helps to minimize the errors and biases in a study. I documented and organized my study so that "an auditor could repeat the procedures and arrive at the same results" (Yin. 1 994, p. 37). 103

PAGE 123

Careful construction of a database that links data to study conclusions increased the reliability of this case study. Second, in order to build trust with study participants and capture the true essence of the cohort culture (Creswell, 1998}, I purposefully engaged in observations of the cohort and interactions with participants throughout the bounded time. By observing and participating in 28 of the 37 cohort sessions, I was able to check for possible misinformation by talking with instructors and students. If I felt that I misunderstood something, I asked questions. Additionally, as greater trust was created, study participants felt safe to contact me via e-mail or telephone about various matters. Third, I understood that potential researcher bias must be clarified at the outset of the study (Creswell, 1998). Limitations based upon my past experiences and connection to the university licensure program were presented in the introductory chapter to this study. However, I knew that researcher bias could develop during the course of the study through prolonged engagement with the informants. The potential for becoming "schizophrenic" (leCompte & Preissle, 1993, p. 97) during the yearlong association with the cohort was a real possibility. Therefore, I established a careful balance between subjectivity as a participant and objectivity as a researcher. My personal knowledge about the university's principal licensure program served as an auxiliary source of data and enhanced my understanding of what usually occurs in a licensure cohort (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Additionally, as an instructor in two other licensure cohorts, I was able to collect data using the instruments developed for this case study. By comparing data taken from two other cohorts in the licensure program, I was able to discern to some extent the importance of findings in this case study. Last, I understood the critical importance of having participants review the draft of the case study report for accuracy of reporting and interpretation. All five informants 104

PAGE 124

conducted a member check of a draft of the report (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995). We met together as a focus group in February 2001 to discuss the findings and interpretations and to make needed corrections to the report. Further, the case study was written in "rich, thick description" (Creswell, 1998, p. 203), supported by extensive use of the participants' own words. Presenting the case study as a detailed story allows readers to transfer information from this case to other settings that may share common characteristics. Finally, as a last step to insure the quality of the report, I assessed the features of the finished dissertation against Stake's "critique checklist for a case study report" (1995, p. 131 ). Case Study Report: Five Chapters Describing complex phenomena experienced by educational practitioners preparing to become school leaders required the blending of two interpretations. First, exploring phenomena from the viewpoint of the study participants was one approach used to report findings. This ernie perspective (Krathwohl, 1998: LeCompte & Preissle 1993) assigns subjective meanings to the phenomena studied Insider interpretations were provided by participants through their written responses on questionnaires and their comments recorded during interviews. These captured words gave glimpses into the participants' understandings about their experiences as learners in the principal licensure cohort Second, as an outsider to the group being studied, I assumed an objective viewpoint. This approach allowed me to make conceptual sense of the case and report the findings through linkage to the existing literature base. This outsider viewpoint is called an etic perspective (Krathwohl, 1998; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). By observing 105

PAGE 125

i I I ! i I I i I the participants during cohort sessions and visiting their work settings to conduct interviews, I explored phenomena from an outsider perspective. In presenting evidence of practitioner growth, I used both the words of the participants and my understandings as a participant-observer. My task as the reporter was "to reveal participant ideas of reality and truth" (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, p. 329} as I could discern them. Thus, findings were based upon a variety of sources collected throughout the nearly yearlong case study. Weaving subjective perspectives provided by the participants with my objective interpretations as the researcher resulted in a balanced reporting of the phenomena studied. Further, the expansive use of participants' own words provided the "thick description" (Creswell, 1998, p. 203) needed to report fully the results of the case study. Preliminary data analysis indicated that transformations from teacher to principal were stimulated by a variety of catalysts. Evidence of change appeared in chunks of data that often emerged through patterns of comparison or through an unexpected event reported by a participant. Because practitioner growth from the participants' perspective required the extensive use of quotes, the report became too long to present in a single chapter. Thus, in order to make reading the report easier, I divided the findings into five separate chapters that focus on specific themes related to the study propositions explained earlier. The five chapters were linked together by the overarching focus on practitioner growth during a principal licensure program. I began analyzing the data for evidence of changes over time by comparing the participants' initial and later purposes for enrolling in the licensure program. Findings indicated that aspirations linked participants' career goals to their readiness to assume positions as school leaders. Analysis of the reasons practitioners enrolled in the licensure program is described in Chapter 5, Aspirations: Participants' Career Goals. 106

PAGE 126

'I I I I I I I I i I I I The next phase of analysis explored the HJarticipants' self-concepts as leaders and their understandings about leadership. of data suggested that the influence of program activities on professional growth varie .. d among the practitioners. Those findings are presented in Chapter 6, Leadership: (Participants' Understandings. The purpose of the administrative leadership program was to prepare educational practitioners to apply for provisional s;tate licensure as school leaders. Hence, the third organizer was framed around the principalship and what perceptions the participants had about the position they hoped to assume. Although most students in the licensure program aspired to become school prinacipals, findings indicated the practitioners' understandings about the did not change during the program. Analyses of participants' understandings are described in Chapter 7, The Principalship: Participants Perceptions. Evidence of changes in professional behaviors became the last major theme about professional growth. Comparative analysis; of participants responses on the selfinventory required computations and of descriptive statistical measures. The findings are presented in Chapter 8 Socialization: Participants' Transformations. A discussion about the significance of an identity miindset shift from teacher to principal as a catalyst for practitioner growth closes that chaptter. The cohort was the environment from wh1ich many stimuli emerged to prompt transformation The fifth chapter in the series (CI"7lapter 9, The Cohort: Participants' Assessments) describes the participants' learning experiences as members of a closed cohort. Figure 4.2 displays the chronological seqauence of program activities and assignments in which the participants engaged dwring the case study. Some words in the text of the following fi\./e chapters are italicized and others are enclosed within quotes. Italicized words represemt the prompts or statements that were 107

PAGE 127

printed on data collection instruments or posed during interviews. Words encased within quotation marks or presented in single-spaced indented paragraphs are participants' words written on questionnaires or spoken during interviews. 108

PAGE 128

;o CD "0 a c. c (') CD c. :if: ;:::;: ::::r "0 CD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 c;, CJl a :::l 0 ::::r CD (') 0 "0 '< .., <0" ::::r 11 c ;:::). ::::r CD .., Cil "0 a c. c a :::l "0 a ::::r 0' ;:::;: CD c. :if: ;:::;: ::::r 0 c "0 CD 3 u; CJl a :::l Figure 4.2 Chronological Sequence of Cohort Program I Jan 00 I Feb 00 I Mar 00 I Apr 00 I May 00 I Jun 00 I July 00 I Aug 00 I Sep 00 I Oct 00 I Nov 00 EDUC 5700 Leadership 1/31/00-2/28/00 Domain Activities Text: Matusak Group-building activities Self-discovery (passion statement, life-map, leadership survey, lead journey, carousel reflections) Online discussions Class activities Shadowing activity Begin Leadership Plan EDUC 5710 School Law 3/6/00-5/8/00 Domain Activities Text: state school law, Alexander & Alexander Guest speaker (OCR) Lectures Class discussions Case methods study Group presentations In the News activity "LA Law" activity (review) Scenarios (canceled) Cohort member withdrew EDUC 5700 Leadership 5/9/00-6/1/00 Domain Activities No text No classes 6/21/00-8/20/00 Lecture: leadership theories, dialogue v. discussion Class discussions, small group work Videos (decision-making In juries, groupthlnk, Postman) Book Club (Instructor-provided list) Leadership Plan Part 1 due Online problem-solving activities Cohort member withdrew EDUC 5710 School Finance 6/3/00-6/20/00 Domain Activities EDUC5720 Supervision 8/21/00-11/20/00 Domain Activities Benchmark definitions Required books: Brainard, Glickman, Glatthom, Snowden & Gorton Class discussions, small group work Videos (supervision, curriculum, brain theory, marginal teacher, teacher evaluation) Guest speakers (CSAP, McREL) Group/individual presentations Readings and scenarios Conferencing/observation packet Cohort member withdrew Lectures about school finance and budget Individual issues management papers Group PowerPoint budget presentations EDUC 5930 Action Learning Project 7/20/00-517/01

PAGE 129

CHAPTERS ASPIRATIONS: PARTICIPANTS' CAREER GOALS My first researcher assumption was that students enrolled in the professional development program to gain the basic knowledge and skills required for provisional state licensure as school leaders. Over time, as learners expand their knowledge base through program activities and apply new skills in their professional practices, personal transformations occur. These transformations lead to beginning acculturation into the ranks of the principalship. When I developed my research propositions, I did not consider career aspirations as a significant influence on professional growth. I believed that teachers who enrolled in principal preparation programs intended to change their careers by moving from classrooms to administrative offices. The findings about future career plans surprised me in two ways. Rrst, prior to conducting this study, I did not realize that significant numbers of qualified graduates of educational leadership programs never assume positions as school leaders. After the close of data collection, I conducted another literature review to help me understand the findings from my case study and thus learned about the diminishing pool of potential principal candidates and the growing concerns within the field of educational leadership. Careful recruitment and selection of teachers to participate in principal development programs may be important keys to increasing the candidate pool. Implications relating career aspirations to principal preparation are discussed in Chapter 1 0. A second awakening occurred for me during this study. I did not consider that increased confidence served as an important stimulus and by-product of professional 110

PAGE 130

I I I I I I I l I I i I i I I I I I I j growth. I began data analysis by looking at patterns of growth within the four themes I created when I originally designed my study. Then, I explored the phenomenon of professional growth within the sub-cases, the responses and reflections provided by each participant. I aggregated all data each student provided and sought patterns of individual growth within their written responses and recorded comments. That is when I discovered the richest evidence of changes. The transformation presented in the following prologue is an example of one individual's professional growth during the study. Practitioner Growth: Prologue "Pursuit of leadership and responsibility" was the reason a cohort member gave in January when asked why she aspired to earn licensure as school principal. Six months later, she assumed a position on the leadership team of the school where she h_ad been teaching for many years. At the beginning of the new school year in August, she shared reflections about her new responsibilities: "I have insecurities, but I have been forced to lead by my [new] position. I enjoy the challenge, but I have a long way to go before I feel I am an effective leader." On the fourth open-ended questionnaire distributed in mid-October, I posed the question, If you received a phone call today to become a school principal tomorrow, would you accept the position? The same participant wrote this answer that included her underlined emphasis: "Yes, but with much apprehension and a humble attitude. I am ready to take on the leadership role, but I lack knowledge about laws and theory. I would still be learning as I took on this position." Then at the end of November, she responded to another probe about what prompted her decision to assume responsibilities as a school principal: During my professional career. principals and some teachers have said I should become a principal. I did not have the confidence or even the desire while I was still enthusiastic in the classroom. My current principal gave me specific reasons 111

PAGE 131

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and encouraged me-relentlessly! ... I am gaining confidence, but I would like to be an assistant principal first, learning and practicing leadership with a mentor. Her principal did more than encourage "relentlessly!" She nominated this teacher as a participant in the licensure program and then supported her nominee by providing ongoing opportunities for professional growth. The participant explained the support provided to her by her mentor: "My principal solicits my feedback and help on many issues. I am part of the administrative team in our building." My purpose for sharing this vignette as an opener to the report that follows is to prepare the reader to discover-as I did-that practitioner growth was demonstrated in many ways. Transformation was different for each individual in this study. Researcher Awakening Evidence of professional growth sometimes emerged through action and assertion, and other times as awakenings and reflections. Professional growth also developed through growing self-realization of leadership potential. Often that growth was stimulated by encouragement from others who saw leadership potential that was not yet evident to the individual. A participant wrote about this truth quite simply: "If others feel I am capable, in spite of my own insecurities, I must be capable to lead as a principaL" Sprinkled throughout the data was evidence that support and encouragement by others provided needed momentum to stimulate and sustain professional growth. Leadership development did not occur only through participation in the licensure program. I discovered that some practitioners arrived as cohort members possessing bold confidence in their leadership abilities and definitive career goals. Previous successful leadership experiences fueled their feelings of competence. Other participants grew professionally during the initial stages of the administrative leadership program in ways that were often private, hidden in the reflections they seemed to share only with me. At 112

PAGE 132

i i I I I I i I I l I I I j I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I other times, evidence of their transformations was public, visible during cohort sessions. A few students, however, reported little professional growth as a result of participating in the program. At the close of the study, their career goals remained unclear. Students in this study became candidates for the program either through nominations by an educational administrator or through self-nomination. Within this group of 1 8 study participants, 1 5 enrolled in the program by initiating the admission process on their own behalf. I began the study by asking the participants what prompted them to seek licensure as a school principaL The catalyst for my exploring more about what compelled these educational practitioners to seek a career change was a response provided by a student in March on the first open-ended questionnaire. He used the words "my destiny" as part of his answer to what was stimulating his thinking about himself as a leader. I am ready to make the next step in my career. I feel comfortable enough in my job to make things happen that I feel are right or needed ... it is my destiny to help children realize their dreams. I want all children to see the future and feel good about themselves. I added destiny as a coding node in the software program I used to analyze the qualitative data to explore further this concept about career purpose. I learned that this student used destiny only once as a descriptor for what was stimulating his thinking about himself as a leader. Only one other participant in the study used the word destiny in a response. On the questionnaire administered in August she wrote, "I have learned that leadership is a passionate call to lead others on the quest that fulfills a cause or destiny." Making sense of the purposes students gave for participating in the licensure program became an important first step in interpreting the data. Therefore, I began analysis by exploring the reasons students gave for pursuing licensure as a school leader. 113

PAGE 133

Participants' Career Goals Almost all students in the administrative licensure program worked in urban school districts challenged by multiple environmental factors. High-stakes accountability, increasingly diverse student populations, and diminishing school resources were common topics for discussion and debate during many cohort sessions. Some students reported at various times that few of their fellow teachers wanted to become principals. One informant disclosed in an interview that principals from both public and private schools were discouraging her from seeking a principalship. Even a guest speaker, the supervisor of assessment for a large school district, advised the students three times during his presentation not to become school administrators. Given this information, understanding what motivated these educational practitioners to enroll in the licensure program became an important consideration during the analysis phase. Comparing their reasons given at the beginning and end of the study provided one opportunity to assess professional growth. A second strategy was analysis of responses to a question posed on the final survey: Within the two years following completion of the principal licensure cohort, what type of school leadership role will you seek? Three groups emerged as a result of the participants' selected career goals. The students separated themselves into groups of practitioners who hoped to become (a) a school principal or assistant principal or (b) a district administrator or who were (c) not sure at the close of the study. The indicated career goals within the first two years following completion of the licensure program became the determining factor for group membership. The reasons for pursuing licensure were compiled into tables in order to examine possible related factors in the participants' career objectives. 114

PAGE 134

! I I I I i I I l i I i i i I l Career Aspiration: School Principalship A total of nine participants, including the cohort member whose professional growth was presented in the prologue at the beginning of this chapter, indicated that becoming a principal was their next career goal. Table 5.1 displays the pre-and post-survey responses to the probes about what prompted the students to enroll in the licensure program. One set of participant's reasons were presented earlier, and thus, only the responses by the other eight practitioners a presented in the table. Table 5.1 Career Goal: School Principal Pre-Survey Response I joined the program because I have a desire to lead. I enjoy the challenges of creating an environment where people work together to solve issues. I also love working with kids and families. I substituted as a full-time dean of students for a semester and enjoyed it. [I want] to become a change agent. I want to ensure success of educational programs and ensure linkages with the community and business environment that are circular and not one-way conduits. I love the business of education. I am often described as a natural leader. Post-Survey Response I am drawn to leadership and positions [that] make broad impact. I wanted a license as a district administrator, but now I am very interested in becoming a school principal. [The principalship] is the next level, and I had some experience being a dean of students before I started the program. I enjoy leading organizations and taking [them) to a higher leveL Being a principal will allow me to do that in a way that impacts the whole society. My passion to lead and recommendations [from others]. 115

PAGE 135

Table 5.1 (Cont.) Career Goal: School Principal Pre-Survey Response I want to make a difference in schools. [I currently work in a district position] and desire to be connected to a single school versus involvement in several schools. [I want] to have an opportunity to positively affect larger groups and organizations. Post-Survey Response I always wanted to lead a school! I desire to be an administrator in a school building. At first, it was to provide myself a chance to get out of "professional poverty. n Now it is to support others in helping as many students as possible to achieve. This group was composed of educators who had gained significant leadership experience prior to entering the principal licensure program. One respondent was a middle school teacher and athletic coach who had served as a local sheriff in the district where he taught. For a time, he worked as a mid-level manager in a Fortune 500 company. Another middle school teacher, who was also completing his alternative teaching licensure requirements, was a retired business executive who held an MBA degree He regularly served as the acting principal whenever his school's administrative staff was out of the building. One member of this group had 27 years teaching experience. She was the director of a Catholic elementary school at the beginning of the program. During the summer, she voluntarily returned to the classroom as a first-grade teacher. The participant who had substituted as a dean was a middle school mathematics teacher and district trainer. Although she was on maternity leave throughout the study, she remained closely connected to her school and district. 116

PAGE 136

During the summer, three participants in this group were promoted to administrative positions. One was a high school mathematics teacher who was selected as the principal of a new private K-8 school scheduled to open in August 2001. Another middle school teacher was promoted to an assistant principalship, serving as a teacher on special assignment until he completed the state licensing requirements. The third participant to assume an administrative position was a veteran middle school English teacher. During the summer, she assumed the responsibilities as the school's site coordinator for teacher candidates. Her reflections about professional growth were presented in the opening prologue. A somewhat interesting finding was that two members of the group who aspired to become school principals held positions at the district level when they began the program. One participant had worked several years as a technology coordinator. The other had completed 20 years of varied work in the field of education and coordinated a district's pre-school program. One shared attribute among the nine participants in this group was their focus on a specific career goal: to be working as a principal within two years after the close of the program. All nine participants actively sought opportunities to work with school administrators in a variety of settings and reported receiving support and advice from educational leaders. All three students nominated to the program by school administrators were members of this group who aspired to become principals. In response to probes about their professional growth during the licensure program, they shared how they regularly participated in field-based learning experiences. Several sought opportunities to participate in district meetings for school administrators, shadow principals whenever possible, and engage in discussions with school leaders 117

PAGE 137

I I i I I I I I I i l I I I I I I I I i I I i I I I i I I I I I I I i about the work required for the principalship. Seven of the nine completed their intensive internship requirements before the close of the study. Another shared attribute was the content of their responses to why they were pursuing licensure as principals. A desire to assume leadership, implement change, and make a difference in schools is woven through their pre-and post-survey responses. Three participants wrote "assistant principal" as their response to the probe about future career plans, although that answer was not listed as a choice on the post-survey instrument Table 5.2 compares their beginning and closing reasons for pursuing licensure as a school leader. Table 5.2 Career Goal: Assistant Principal Pre-Survey Response i really want to make positive change in schools. I was frustrated with trying to make change as a special education teacher and not having enough power to make enough change. [I want] the opportunity to provide leadership. I believe I possess the skills necessary to lead in a school setting. Post-Survey Response I desire to promote and encourage school change. Schools need to be adequately funded so teachers have the opportunity to pursue their educational ideal. I love challenging adults and children to excel or change as the situation dictates. It is a [district] requirement, if I want to be an administrator. I worked under a horrible principal and saw I could do a better job than he [did]. The participants who wanted to become assistant principals had less prior leadership experience than their other peers did in this grouping. Before becoming a special education teacher three years earlier, one participant served as an Outward 118

PAGE 138

i l I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I i I I 1 Bound instructor. During the early months of the study, he testified before a state legislative subcommittee to advocate for additional funding for special education. The second participant was a high school athletic coach and mathematics teacher with 10 years experience in the classroom. During the summer she assumed responsibilities as an assistant principal, serving as a teacher on special assignment until she completed the licensing requirements. However, she had to take a short maternity leave from her administrative duties following the birth of her second child during the fall semester. The third cohort member who aspired to become an assistant principal was the youngest member of the cohort. She was completing the first half of her third year of fulltime teaching when the study closed. During the summer she transferred from a K-8 parochial school to a public elementary school. By the close of the study. she began to voice uncertainty about her career direction. During the focus-group interview that was held a week after she completed the final survey, this participant cited her youth, gender, and limited teaching experience as reasons why she planned to delay seeking a principalship. Unlike their peers who hoped to become school principals, the three members of this group did not report seeking opportunities outside the program or beyond their daily work to engage in field-based learning activities. The only member of this sub-group who completed the intensive internship prior to the close of the study was the acting high school assistant principal. The absence of reported support by current supervisors is another noticeable difference in comparison to the previous sub-group. 119

PAGE 139

I i I I I i I I I i i i I I I I I I I i I I I I i l I I i I I i I I i Career As;piration: District Administration T\tWo study participants selected district administrator as their future career goal on the post-survey. A comparison of their pre-and post-responses to why they were pursuing !Licensure as school leaders is presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 Career Goal: District Administrator Pre-Survey Response I would lik.e to work as an administrator in special eclucation. I am interested in curriculum development. Post-Survey Response [I originally] wanted to help lead special education departments as a district administrator, but now I have considered a principal's job also. I felt it was time to move to the next level as an educator. Dt uring the summer, the special education teacher transferred to a newly opened high schoeol where she assumed responsibilities as a department chair. Although she expressed confusion about whether to seek a principal or district administrator position, her principal at the new school provided some assistance. The support included "information about conferences for administrators" and a recommendation to "a summer school priW1cipal and district administrator" for her upcoming internship. Tile other member of this group was a high school English teacher who transferrettd during the summer from the school where she had interned and taught for eight year.-s to a high school in a more affluent district. As she progressed through the licensure ;Jrogram, she became less involved in the cohort activities and missed many class sessions. She participated in the closing focus-group interview where she shared 120

PAGE 140

i I I i I 1 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I j l I l i i I i I i I l I that she planned to remain in the classroom before seeking a district-level position. Becoming a school pnncipal was not a career goal for her. Both participants who aspired to become district administrators planned to complete their intensive internships during the summer after completing the fourth content domain. Only the special education teacher regularly engaged in cohort discussions. However, her focus remained on special education issues, not the principalship. Career Aspiration: Uncertain By the close of the study, four participants remained uncertain about their career directions. Table 5.4 displays their early and later responses to the probe about their reasons for enrolling in the principal licensure program. Two members of this group taught at the same middle school where cohort sessions were held. One was an art teacher who had completed five years of teaching. Her disclosure on the post-survey about her father and grandmother being principals was surprising because she had not mentioned that fact earlier in the study. During observed cohort discussions about accountability issues, she voiced frustration about feeling excluded because she was as an instructor in the electives program. The current state accountability program did not include elective courses. The other middle school teacher had taught science for 12 years. As the father of three young boys, he devoted most of his time outside of school to coaching and supporting his sons' activities. Although his confidence as a leader grew during the program, he remained indecisive about his future career goals. His early claim about his "destiny" of becoming a school leader seemed to wane at the close of the study. 121

PAGE 141

l I -I I I Table 5.4 I 1 Career Goal: Not Sure Pre-Survey Response [I want to] earn a master's degree for higher pay, while at the same time learn more about school climate and all that it affects. I have an interest in the position. I believe I would make an excellent administrator and that I can make a positive difference in education. I recently moved to [this state] and am unfamiliar with its education laws and requirements. I am eager to learn if there are many similarities to other states. Post-Survey Response I entered this profession later in life and feel the need to advance quickly. Another reason is that my father and grandmother were both principals. It is a career goal. I was intrigued by the role of the principaL wanted something new for my master's degree and to strengthen a weak knowledge base in this area. I wanted to expand my understanding of education [here]. The participant who began the licensure program with optimism about his potential as an "excellent administrator" appeared to lose his enthusiasm during the program. At the close of the study, he reported that as a newlywed participation in the cohort created time management problems and "conflicted priorities" that made the balancing act between his personal and professional life quite difficult for him. His frustrations are evident in a comment he wrote on the final survey in November. "This fall has been tough with other influences. I am not as motivated to learn and [look forward to] the day when I finish the program." The lack of a specific career aspiration became a perplexing, even troublesome, concern for the cohort member who had recently moved to the state when her husband 122

PAGE 142

i I I I 1 j I i i I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I l received a promotion. Because the participant was also one of the study informants, I learned many things about her personal frustrations and struggles as a student in the cohort. During our second interview that summer, we talked about her early frustrations and how these affected her participation within the cohort. I am not from [this state]. I'm not teaching now, and I've never taught [here]. was at a different level of education [in my home state]. I was always able to relate to the teachers very well; they knew me or knew of me. So there's a difference I had to re-establish my expertise, where I come from. My background is really not well known here. I guess thafs my fault. I really haven't shared much with everybody. But it was kind of nice to come into the program with a clean slate and just start where I want to be, ... [but now] I'm starting to want to be heard ... Maybe now that I am better known for who I am, my words are taken in a different light. I asked her directly if she felt like an outsider in the cohort because she had never worked as an educator in the state. Her response was, "Definitely." Our conversation then proceeded into an exchange about how the relocation had affected her career as an educational leader. She shared, "I have no credibility" in this state's educational system. By the close of the study, she was convinced that becoming a school principal was definitely not a career goal for her. Aspiration: Catalyst for Professional Growth As the words of the participants have shown, their purposes and future goals differed considerably. The comparison between responses given in January and those in November suggested that goal statements specifically related to leadership and change agency provided a focused purpose for participating in the licensure program. Ancillary to the students' aspirations was the type and amount of support provided by professionals within the field to which the participants seek membership. Opportunities to work and socialize with school principals appeared to influence significantly the professional growth of many participants and to hasten their acculturation into the principalship 123

PAGE 143

I .I I I l i I I Educational practitioners who were recruited for future leadership positions or who were mentored during their leadership development set definitive career goals. Their enthusiasm tor seeking a new career sustained them as learners during their professional development. Thus, the career aspirations of applicants to principal preparation programs have important implications for practice and future research. Enrolling in an administrative licensure program was the action that followed the decision to seek greater responsibilities as a school leader. Taking such action suggested that each individual in this study had a self-perception of being a leader prior to beginning the program. One of the participants explained this succinctly when she wrote, "Leadership begins long before an individual realizes or publicly acknowledges he or she is a leader." Exploring participant understandings about leadership and their self-awareness of leadership abilities is the second theme for describing professional growth within the cohort. Throughout the case study, the participants shared their varied responses to the introspective activities used during the first content domain of the program. A discussion about leadership from the participants' perspectives is presented in the next chapter. 124

PAGE 144

CHAPTERS LEADERSHIP: PARTICIPANTS' UNDERSTANDINGS The second assumption for this investigation was that participants in the administrative licensure cohort would evidence professional growth over time through self-reported changes in perceptions about themselves as leaders. Professional growth would also be demonstrated by changes in (a) the participants' understandings about leadership and (b) their perceptions about the roles and responsibilities of a school principal. In this chapter, reported changes in participants' awareness of themselves as leaders and their understandings about leadership are presented. Participants' perceptions about the principalship are presented in Chapter 7. Professional growth related to leadership is presented in two ways. First, a set of vignettes illustrates the unique differences in leadership awareness among members of the cohort. Rve participants framed their leadership perceptions in terms of experience, action, resourcefulness, confidence building, and influence. Second, professional growth is evident through changes in leadership definitions. Three participants presented their learning through expanded definitions of leadership based upon new understandings of empowerment. transformation, and challenge. Because the participants often linked their learning to specific elements within the program, the chapter begins with an overview of the licensure program requirements and follows with a summary of the participants' assessment of the leadership development activities. The five vignettes about leadership awareness and the three descriptions of leadership definitions follow. The chapter closes with a presentation of the participants' concerns about the leadership domain. 125

PAGE 145

l I I I i i j I I l I I I l I I I l i I I i I I I I i I I i i i I I i 1 i I I I I i I Leadership Development Each cohort in the university's administrative leadership program begins with an introductory seminar about educational leadership, which is called simply the leadership domain. The curriculum includes topics about educational organizations, organizational behavior, and school culture. Emphasis is placed on two of the state's professional standards for school administrators that relate to the knowledge base school administrators need to lead learning communities and to behave ethically. A concurrent 45-hour field experience provides opportunities for learners to practice using their knowledge about leading educational organizations in authentic settings. A goal of the licensure program is to develop principals who are reflective practitioners. Thus, during the first domain students learn to write reflectively by creating artifacts to include in their assessment portfolios. These artifacts must link to the state's professional standards for school administrators and include a reflective essay about what the student learned through the readings or activities. Journal writing is also assigned to encourage reflection. The leadership domain was presented differently in the cohort used as the sample for this case study. The domain opened with four weeks of concentrated attention on self-awareness activities. Then leadership studies were stopped for two months while the cohort studied school law. In mid-May the emphasis returned to leadership studies during five additional cohort sessions. Additionally, the concurrent field experience was replaced with an extended action-learning project introduced in July. Participants' Assessment of Leadership Activities During the early weeks of the licensure program, the students engaged in a variety of introspective activities to stimulate discovery of their core values and 126

PAGE 146

educational passions related to leadership. The activities were both private and public: (a) reflective essays in response to assigned readings, (b) journal writing in response to probing questions, (c) paired-sharing and model-building activities during cohort sessions, and (d) online reflections posted in the cohort's conference within the university's telecommunication system. The intent of these introspective activities was to stimulate practitioners' self-discovery of their leadership abilities and to assist them in developing their personal educational philosophies. Their reflections became elements of the first segment of a three-part leadership plan required by all students' in the administrative leadership program. Required Assignment In part one of their leadership plans. the practitioners shared their beliefs. ideas, and perceptions about schooling and their roles in the educational process. A set of guiding questions were provided to help them define individual core values, articulate assumptions about the leadership process, address passionate convictions about educational issues, and identify personal strengths and weaknesses. This first section of the leadership plan was due at the end of the leadership domain that summer. i Students completed the other two parts of their leadership plans at the close of I !1 the licensure program, which was after the close of this study. Almost all participants' comments reflected only their opinions about the first part. Part two was a conceptual framework based upon a critical review of the literature, due at the close of the fourth domain of study. Part three focused on application: Students combined their educational philosophies, critiques of the literature, and internship experiences into an action plan. The resulting leadership plan became an educational platform for each practitioner. 127

PAGE 147

I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I i 1 i i Effective Activities When asked to describe the program activities that had been most useful to them, many students wrote positive descriptions about specific leadership activities. Descriptions about some of those activities follow. Passion statement. After writing answers to a series of prompts provided by the instructor, students then analyzed their responses by looking for patterns in their life events. The premise was that personal beliefs emerged that together formed an individual's passion, which was encompassed in a passion statement. During an early cohort session, students developed individual and group models of their passion statements One student described how much she enjoyed that specific class activity. One of the most exciting nights ... [was when] we all presented models of our passion as individuals and then as a group of four. It was a very creative and enthusiastic night where many passions about education were shared .... The life mapping activity was the most useful so far. It was very helpful to see how I arrived at the place that I am right now concerning leadership Another student also remarked about the significance of sharing individual passion statements with the entire cohort: "Modeling our passions was a great way to see passions from a collective perspective." A third participant shared the value of the activity from a more personal perspective: [I enjoyed] the passion statement and the ideas behind it. I had never thought about "passion" and although I had a passion, I now realize that it is important to act on it ... I had never considered who I was or what I stood for before. For one participant, creating the passion statement made a lasting impression. Several times throughout the study, she mentioned it as one of the most useful learning activities. Even during the focus group interview in November. she elaborated upon its value to her: "For me [the most valuable activity] was the passion statement. I mean having it all articulated and realizing that whether I stay in education or not, this is my passion. That was interesting for me." 128

PAGE 148

., I I I I I .I l i I I I I I I I i I I I I I l j I I I I Online sharing. Online activities were used throughout the licensure program as an instructional tool to enhance learning. The first online assignment was given in late January during the cohort's first semester. Students were to reflect upon assigned readings and post their thoughts in the cohort's electronic conference. Several participants wrote that sharing personal beliefs and reflections about readings was one of their favorite activities in the leadership domain. One student explained, "The online communication has been extremely helpful. The honesty and openness in communication via computer is less intimidating. I think it allows one to think and reread thoughts before sharing them." Another participant described the online activity metaphorically as "a place at the table of discussion." I work hard to articulate and be humbly introspective and thoughtful. Therefore, these types of discussion are great venues to exercise those goals. I am also confident in my perspective and feel that I have a place at the table of discussion. During the focus group interview at the close of the study, another participant explained why the online activity was a particularly valuable learning experience for him. I think the online part is an important piece because it gives you. not necessarily anonymity, but a shield. You're in your own home, in your own office or study or wherever you have your computer, and you can say what you feel with trusted friends and colleagues, but you're not staring them in the face. That medium is a great way to share things relating to our personal lives as well as issues we talked about in class. It was a great way for us to kind of develop our own opinions as well as for learning what other people have to say. Leadership plan. Completing the first part of the leadership plan was considered one of the most valuable assignments of the entire licensure program. Throughout the study, participants mentioned how much they had learned about themselves through drafting their personal philosophies. While many reported that reflective writing was difficult for them, most participants agreed with a student who wrote, .. in the long run it's been helpful to sit back and analyze and look at that I believe." 129

PAGE 149

. i I i i I i I l I I I I I I i I I I l I I I I l i One student shared a creative and enthusiastic description about writing his leadership plan. He further articulated how he intends to use his educational platform in his future practice as a school leader. I began to articulate what was curing in my head and spirit. It was a magical experience of self-discovery and refining of perspective. I spent a great deal of time on this project and reaped the benefits accordingly. Furthermore, I am now able to courageously lead by standing on a firm, thought-out personal philosophy. During the focus group discussion at the close of the study, the leadership plan became a lengthy topic of discussion. Participants shared how they grew professionally from the experience of writing about their core values and educational passions. A portion of the transcription of that discussion follows The names used in the transcription printed below are not the participants' real names. Phillip: I spent a lot of hours on my leadership plan. I had a lot of people review it, and then we'd get together and discuss it. They would give me all kinds of feedback. These people weren't just educators; in fact. only one of them was an educator. These were people in church, business, and political leadership. It [became} a great time for me growth-wise. Jared: I'd like to echo Phillip's sentiment about the leadership plan. Of all the assignments, that was probably the most challenging for me to do. I spent a lot of time writing it, probably 20 hours on my first draft, and then I just threw it away. I started over again and then asked a trusted friend to read it. Even then, selfdisclosure was a challenge. I gave it to my friend and left her apartment. Then I went back in an hour, just grabbed it from her, and went home. That was a hard part for me as far as personal growth. However, the leadership plan really helped me to see myself as a leader. As challenging as it was, I think it was probably one of the most rewarding activities I've done in all of my college experience. Bonnie: I could echo that, Jared and Phillip But unlike you two, I was a chicken and I didn't share mine with anybody .... I've been an English teacher for fifteen years so I didn't feel like I needed anybody to proof it. But that doesn't mean [the instructor] didn't find some errors! It was like a soap opera to me ... (I wondered} why [I had} to share it? But after writing 15 pages later, I grew a lot. The reflection in part one was a great process and a great assignment. During an interview with an informant, she offered a thoughtful, yet concerned, reflection about her leadership plan. She appeared to have been working on the second 130

PAGE 150

I 1 i i I I I I I I I I i I i I I I I I I part, which was a critical review of the literature and identification of the major debates and key issues in education Her response is different from her peer's presented above. As I continue to complete my leadership plan and respond to the numerous articles, I sometimes become discouraged about the reality of the education system and society at large. There seems to be so much work to be done, and I'm unclear if the support is there. I admire the individuals in this cohort and pray they keep the energy they will need to create change. Because the leadership plan was considered an extremely effective assignment, an additional discussion is presented in Chapter 9. The purpose for presenting this section here is to help the reader frame what stimulated some of the participants' comments presented in the next section of this chapter. Ineffective Activities Not all cohort members enjoyed the introspective activities. Some students explained why particular activities failed to achieve the desired outcomes for them. Others felt that posting personal reflections in the public online conference was too riskladen. A few students reported feeling disheartened and ignored when none of their peers responded to their posted reflections. Further. one participant complained several times during the study that too much time was wasted during the early cohort meetings. Descriptions about the participants' frustrations and concerns about the learning environment are presented in Chapter 9 Leadership Awareness: Catalyst for Professional Growth The decision to change careers begins before an individual takes an action toward change, such as enrolling as a student in a professional development program. Over 80 percent of the participants investigated the university administrative leadership programs available and then enrolled themselves in the graduate licensure program. 131

PAGE 151

I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I i i I I To explore how participation in the licensure cohort changed their leadership perceptions, a series of questions were posed on the survey administered in November at the close of the study. Table 6.1 presents the responses to four of those questions. Table 6.1 Participants' Perceptions about Leadership Questions Posed on Post-Survey Responses Are you a leader? Before you began the licensure cohort. did you perceive of yourself as a leader? Has participating in the licensure cohort changed your perception of yourself as a leader? Has participating in the licensure cohort changed your understanding about leadership? Yes 18 17 14 16 At the close of the study, which coincided with the end of the third content domain, all 18 participants affirmed that they were leaders. Only one cohort member No 0 1 4 2 admitted to "not really" perceiving of himself as a leader at the beginning of the program. Most participants (78%) reported that their perceptions about themselves as leaders changed as a result of participating in the professional development program. The assessment by the four cohort members whose self-perceptions had not changed was summarized best in a statement by one of them: "I have had many leadership experiences; however, participating in the cohort has re-enforced what I have learned or practiced." Almost all students (89%) reported that their understanding about leadership changed as a result of participating in the licensure program. 132

PAGE 152

I I I I I l I I I ! I I i I I I l i I I The contrasting responses to the cohort experience provided by study participants gave valuable insights into their transformation from teachers into principals. To show the differences, a series of five stories framed by the words of the participants are presented next. The series begins with reflections by two students whose selfperceptions as leaders did not change. These two informants repeatedly shared their dislike for the introspective process, perhaps because they perceived themselves to be leaders long before enrolling in the program. The third story contrasts with the first two: This participant consistently reported enjoying the introspective activities from the beginning of the study to its end. The fourth practitioner shared his growth as a leader through gaining confidence in his abilities and convictions about needed action. The last story exhibits how the program developed a reflective practitioner who believes that leadership is influence. Leadership through Experience One of the three nominated participants in the cohort, this teacher and athletic coach had clear purposes for being in the program: to eam a master's degree and licensure as a school principal. While he had worked in other professions prior to entering teaching, he had grown up in the school district where he taught and had strong connections to the community. He displayed an assured and unflappable temperament, perhaps developed during his years in law enforcement. His caring spirit for humanity was easily discerned in his speech and behavior. However, he made no pretense about his forthright assessment of his leadership abilities: I believe that I am a good leader. Sometimes I am hardheaded and ambitious, but the bottom line with me is kids, so I try to promote that part as much as possible .... I believe I am a very good leader at facilitating and focusing the task at hand and utilizing the gifts and talents of those around me. 133

PAGE 153

I I I I i I I I I I i I I I i l I i i i I I I I I I I I I l i I i I I During our first interview in April, we discussed his response to the introspective activities during the early months of the program. He explained at length why the leadership domain had not been particularly enjoyable for him. I'm a leader now, and I want to be a more effective leader so I don't really delve into the past to see why I want to become a leader. I'm already a leader. I need to find ways to better myself as a leader and to have more people involved in the vision and the process. I listen to other people [in the cohort] and their ideas about leading, but they haven't really changed my ideas .... I'm not trying to be boastful, just frank that I am a leader .... I learned different leadership techniques, not necessarily through coursework or knowledge base, but by getting up every morning and doing it. Now I'm learning the names of some of the things that I've done for so long, [and that's} interesting. Further in the interview, I asked him to define leadership and to share how the licensure program had changed his definition. Leadership is a position that one would take to help facilitate change or growth. A person doesn't necessarily have to be the final or ultimate voice. [A leader is] a person who sees a vision and recruits people to partake in that vision and see it through .... No, my definition has not changed. I've just been thinking about it more, about specific things dealing with leadership .... I didn't learn these lessons in class. I learned them through the different things that I've done in my life. During our second interview a few months later, our conversation again returned to his perception of himself as a leader and his definition of leadership. While he admitted to becoming more aware of himself, he continued to be quite assertive. This time, however. he spiced his assertion with a humorous comment about himself. I guess I'm more open to input and that's a bad thing to say, but it's true. [I'm] trying to learn better interpersonal techniques to motivate people .... When you're put in a position of leadership, you know that you're the one who's going to take the fall for specific loses or the reward for gains in your organization. You always want to have the final say. I don't think that will ever change for me. Maybe I didn't teeth long enough as a child or something, I'm not sure. It's just something that I believe. I asked him to share his current definition of leadership and explain how participation in the program had changed it over the months since our previous conversation. I still see it the same way. A person is either put in a role of responsibility or assumes a role of responsibility and creates a focus or direction .... You create 134

PAGE 154

j I -I I I I I l I' I I I I I I I I I I I i I l i l I i a philosophy about what you would like to see that organization become. And then you find the people and the resources that would support those ideas to further the organization or further the idea. Then you'd sit back, evaluate what's happened and the direction you're going. [If it is not] achieving what you ultimately set out, you go back and start again. Even at the close of the study, he reiterated his self-awareness of his leadership skills and how participation in the program had affected him. In response to probes on the final survey, he continued to assert that he was already a leader. Not trying to be bold, but I am a leader. The fact that people often look to me for leadership is hard because I do not have the answers; however, I seem to find a path that puts us in the right direction .... [Participating in the program] has helped me to groom my skills and start focusing on my future. In some regards, it has opened my mind to the diversity of ideas that exit, ... [however] my definition of leadership, what I want to accomplish, hasn't changed. While the student's words appeared bold and forthright in writing, he radiates a calm assurance and patient manner. He took the state licensing examination during the summer and received notification in the fall semester that he had passed the test. He planned to apply for a principalship as soon as he completed the fourth content domain. Leadership through Action Another cohort member whose self-perception as a leader never changed during the leadership development program was also a teacher and athletic coach. She called herself an "in the know" teacher because over the ten years that she had taught, she developed an expansive network with fellow educators throughout the state. She often shared with me interesting tidbits of information about licensure programs at other universities and about activities in other administrative leadership cohorts. Although somewhat quiet during class, she spoke with authority whenever she contributed to discussions. She often sent me e-mail messages about concerns that she heard from other cohort members. While I was writing this case-study report, she regularly sent e-mail messages filled with encouraging words for me. 135

PAGE 155

I I I j I I I I I i i 1 I Unlike her fellow colleague in the cohort who de$cribed his leadership expertise based upon experience, her assessments about herself .as a leader were based upon action. Her responses to questions about leadership on the first questionnaire in March reflect her action orientation and self-assurance. I consider myself a leader because I am an initiaator [who is] self-motivated and consistent. I follow through with projects. I believe in myself .... I don't think there is anything the program] to stimulate thinking. I am just that way, raised that way .... [I am learning] that it is impoartant to know who you are, what you value and how your values affect your leadership style. It is exciting to be with peers that have similar values and want to rmake a difference in education. During her first interview in early May, she again described herself as a leader through her actions as a mentor for other teachers, a member of district-level committees, and a team member of an instructional growp. When I probed about ways in which the program had changed her definition of leaderg;hip, she stated: "I don't think it has changed. I may think more about my core values, vwhich I never really thought [about] before. I didn't see the purpose of that ... My definition didn't change." Throughout the remainder of the study, her resp0o0nses to prompts about leadership on questionnaires and during interviews remaained similar to her earlier ones. A few of her comments follow. I think I am a good leader. I initiate many ideas and voice my opinion when I think it needs voicing .... I have participated in many committees [where] I have had to voice the concerns of my school and then rep0o0rt back to my faculty. If I had not been there, then our voice [as a school] woulld not be heard .... In small groups, I would rather sit back and let other peoRJie do the job at times. But it never fails, if no one is willing to step up and stallt things, I usually step up and start the small group. I think this is a leadership quality I am an initiator . [and] I think that I can make a difference in a school. I have innovative ideas, and I enjoy sharing them with others. Near the close of the study, I asked participants what they needed to learn in order to feel competent, confident and comfortable to lead a school. This participant replied succinctly, "At this point I would feel comfortable in the position. I feel I'm just doing my time." Although she was ready to assume leadership of a school, she had two 136

PAGE 156

I I I I i I I I I I I I I i l I i I I young children at home. During our final interview, we talked about her conflicting emotions: remain home with her children another year or continue with her career as a new principal. Leadership through Resourcefulness In contrast to her peers, the introspective activities during the leadership domain made a deep and lasting impression on this study participant. From the first questionnaire through the focus-group interview, her remarks reflected how important she felt that leadership be grounded in morality. When asked in March to describe the activities that had been most helpful to her learning, she provided a lengthy description. The life-mapping activity helped me to see a recurring theme in my life. I realized that when it comes to core values, you must not be afraid to stand alone. The carousel activity revealed to me that where there is mutual respect amongst group members, a lot could be accomplished. Finally, the passion model allowed me to see where I was inwardly and how much our cohort has in common. Her definition of leadership at the beginning of the program linked her learning through cohort activities to her belief that leadership is modeled through resourcefulness. Likewise, her early self-assessment of her leadership talent mirrored the importance she consistently placed on resourcefulness. Leadership begins with morality. Leaders will be most effective when given the opportunity to use their strengths. To compensate for weaknesses, leaders need to be resourceful. Leaders must realize they cannot do it all. They are to do what they do well, so to speak .... [I am] a leader who helps people fulfill their purpose in life and reach greater levels of productivity, ... I am an active listener and resourceful, as well as one who likes to provide solutions to problems. For the first eight years of her teaching career, this participant had worked in an urban district where student needs were great and resources were small. During the summer, she transferred to a more affluent school district. As a participant in the late November focus-group interview, she described the differences between the two student populations and explained how her teaching responsibilities differed in her new position. 137

PAGE 157

I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I Nonetheless, the change in work locations did not alter her understanding of leadership or her perception about her strengths as a leader. As a leader, whatever you bring to it is what you bring to it. Good leadership is not so much trying to do everything as much as it is doing what you do best, and then being able to recognize where you can go for the things that you don't know . . I am one who is resourceful. People come to me for helpful and accurate information. [Through participating in the program] I realize that there is room for what I know and excel in. For that which I do not know, it is my job to know where to go for the answers. This participant was one of the cohort members who enrolled in the program with unclear career goals. At the close of the study, she stated that despite her interest in leadership and enjoyment of the program, she was not planning to leave the classroom. Leadership through Confidence Building This fourth vignette about professional growth presents a very different story from the previous three. In written responses provided throughout the case study, this student shared an emergent perspective about his understanding of leadership and his role as a leader. As time passed, his insights and statements became deeply reflective, indicating a remarkable level of introspection. The responses he wrote on the later data collection instruments became somewhat like journal entries. I was deeply moved by his candor. He was among the more experienced teachers in the cohort, involved in a variety of school-and community-based activities for children and youth. His busy professional and personal life and the demands of the program created tremendous time management problems for him. Despite his demanding schedule, he responded thoughtfully to most prompts on the questionnaires, which he returned on a timely basis. At the close of the study in November, he was the only respondent to write "no, not really" when asked if he had perceived himself to be a leader before beginning the licensure program. As his confidence increased, he assumed leadership positions at his school and in community groups. 138

PAGE 158

! I I l i j I I I I i I I I i By combining his responses to several prompts about leadership, the pattern of growth became evident. In March, he reflected about what he had learned about leadership and himself. I am learning now that any person can be a leader. A leader is not a magical person. A leader is a person who has a passion about something and is willing to do anything to make it work .... I think up to this point I am a quiet leader. I have always tried to lead by example. Some of my colleagues understand me, and others ignore me. I have developed strong beliefs about what is right and wrong, what the needs of children are. I think it is time to quit sitting on my hands and start putting these ideas into action. When the new school year began in August, he continued to describe himself as a "quiet leader" who was dedicated to the needs of children. However, his words reflected a decision to be more action-oriented. I have learned that leadership is not an easy task. I can have great ideas about where I want to go, but I also must have a staff with me that will accept my ideas . . My desire to put my ideas into action [is stimulating my learning about leadership]. As I get [further] along in my career, I have opinions and ideas about how I think a school can be more effective. I would really like to see some of these ideas happen .... I am a quiet leader. I do not engage in lengthy conversation with peers. I am not a person to talk 'theory.' I am a realistic, concerned-about-students type of leader. I think one of the most important things we can do is to build relationships. In the post-survey administered in November, I asked the students to reflect upon their experiences as members of the licensure cohort. The same participant wrote I teamed that leaders are people who believe in themselves and work to make their visions into realities. I realized through cohort activities that my thoughts, feelings. beliefs, and worries are similar to others. If they can lead, then so can I. Another response on the final survey further demonstrates his newfound confidence as a leader. At this point, I feel good about my ability, but I have not had the opportunity to demonstrate it. I have taken on leadership positions since I started the program. I am currently a board member of [a community organization and] have had the opportunity to apply techniques I have learned .... I believe in myself as a leader. 139

PAGE 159

I I i I I I I i i I I I I I l l I I i _j I I l Despite his confidence building during the program and assumption of leadership responsibilities, this participant remained a "quiet leader" during the cohort sessions. The father of three young boys, he remained committed to providing leadership that directly affected children. Leadership through Influence This fifth story about changed leadership understandings is different from the others because it shows the professional growth of an experienced educational practitioner. This study participant had almost 20 years experience in the field of education when she enrolled in the program. Yetfrom the start, she immersed herself intensely into learning new knowledge and applying her learning to her professional practice. She too questioned the value of some of the introspective activities and described how writing the personal reflections was very difficult for her. She also shared in detail the incredible difficulties she experienced learning to use the university's electronic communication system. Despite these hurdles, she continually focused on her learning and understanding about leadership. With support from her supervisor, she was able to engage in a variety of district meetings and professional development activities for principals. She originally enrolled in the program to complete licensure as a district administrator. However, during the ensuing months she discovered a calling to become a school principal. Her written remarks and recorded comments show how hard she worked to grasp the meaning of what she was discovering. I feel really "out of the box" when it comes to a leadership style (becauseJI feel that ownership belongs in each individual's arms. I believe every institution needs a leader, but that leader should have the skills to expand the leadership across the environment. [A leader] should not feel threatened by people who are smarter, more skilled, or more talented--but instead, pull them around to help. 140

PAGE 160

! l I I -I i I I I I i I I I l I i I I j I I i I I I i i During our first interview in April, she described how her definition of leadership had not changed, only expanded. She used her hands expressively as she explained that she viewed leadership across a horizontal "continuum rather than top to bottom" as in a hierarchy. Her deep convictions about responsibility to others were often evident in her remarks. I think that leadership is a desire to help a community, group of people, or individuals achieve goals .... Good leadership comes from people who have a sense of direction about where they're going and what they'll be doing. I believe that people come into leadership with inherent qualities that make them good leaders. But I don't think that leaders are bom. I think they're made .... But I also believe that leadership can be a gift or calling, and that's how I think about myself .... I believe I have good leadership qualities, but I don't think I have arrived. Later in the study she shared how she had read extensively about leadership, reviewed studies about leading schools, and reflected about leadership perspectives provided by others. She further reported various ways in which she transferred her learning into her current practice. The successful results increased her desire to continue learning and experimenting. I think that my leadership skills are growing as I see myself working in buildings and feeling comfortable in my progress .... I feel so immersed both on the job and at school that I am feeling like a leader and attempting to act like I know what I am doing. During our final interview In November, I read portions from the transcriptions of our earlier conversations, including her visual representation of leadership across a horizontal continuum in which she used her hands. Then I asked her if her definition remained the same as she had described it in April. I think so. I don't think that leadership is where you are on the ladder or a position you hold. I still think that influence is the key. What is your influence among the people that you're working with? Influence can't be evidenced unless you're touching a lot of people. I mean it has to be broad. I believe that's why I used the word "horizontal." [Leadership] has to go across several continuums. It can't be just a position on a ladder. 141

PAGE 161

i ; I i I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I i I I i i I I I i I ! At the close of the study, she wrote an extensive response to a question about noticing a changed perspective about herself as a leader. She shared that, between the end of the summer session in mid-June and the beginning of the new school year in August. she realized how much her competence and knowledge had grown. She described how writing her portfolio artifacts had changed from being simply the completion of class assignments to becoming critical analyses of her supervisory experiences and patterns of leadership. "I have gone from completing work in a way that is a robot response to one of a thinking process about what this means to me." Her growth was evidenced in her concise written answer to a question posed on the final survey about her leadership abilities: "I believe a leader is one who exerts influence over situations and people. I also believe a leader is a continual Ieamer, a reflective practitioner. I think I am exhibiting leadership in these areas." Another mother of four young children, this informant was ready to assume leadership of a school. However, she decided to wait two years until her youngest child was in school before interviewing for a position. Leadership Awareness: Summary The five vignettes in this section show the breadth in leadership development that occurred during the study. Although most participants perceived of themselves as leaders prior to beginning the professional development program, to some degree, all participants in the study experienced growth. For some, the transformation was significant as they discovered over time the extent of their potential as school leaders. The introspective activities used at the beginning of the program provided stimuli for their continued reaming about themselves. Others began the program with a great deal of prior experience in positions of leadership and held strong perceptions about their leadership abilities. For many 142

PAGE 162

I I I I I i I I i I i I i I l I i I i I i I practitioners in the cohort, the leadership-development activities did not address areas of needed growth for them. However, analysis of data indicated that even the most experienced, self-assured participants admitted to some new understandings about leadership. In the following section, three such individuals share in their own words how they developed new understandings about leadership during the program. Leadership Definitions: Evidence of Professional Growth The second assumption for this investigation was that professional growth would be demonstrated through changes in understandings about leadership. Although several participants did not report significant change in their self-awareness as leaders, their words indicated evidence of changes in their thinking about leadership. The following three examples indicate that professional growth did occur, when measured by new understandings about leadership. Leadership as Empowerment This informant was a former Outward Bound instructor who had spent 78 days on a solo survival wilderness experience. Despite his youth, his strength of character and self-assurance was evident in his thoughtful assessments about schools and how he believed they needed to change He shared this definition of leadership during our first interview in April. I think leadership is the ability to empower others to achieve beyond their internal expectations and limitations and being able to lead through difficult situations. Ultimately, a leader has to make decisions. As long as those are informed decisions, I think people respect a leader who can make a difficult decision, stick with it, and move forward. His theme of leadership as empowerment remained consistent when he shared his definition with me during our summer conversation. However. in this second statement. he changed the role of the leader from one who makes decisions to one who 143

PAGE 163

I I I I I I I l I j I I I I -I j I I I l I l I encourages others. He explained: "I think leadership is really about empowering people. It's encouraging people to go beyond what they think their limitations are, encouraging them to stretch themselves to be able to accomplish more in a balanced way." Leadership as Transformation The cohort member who enrolled in the program to learn about the state's educational system had relocated from an area of the country where unions are strongly entrenched As a full-time student, she had time to conduct extensive literature reviews beyond the readings assigned in the program. She spent a great deal of time searching information about leadership over the Internet and discussing leadership with her husband who was a business executive. During our first interview in April, she talked at length about her new thinking about leadership outside the realm of rules. regulations, and hierarchies. She shared her emerging understandings about leadership: "Leadership is more than following rules. The values and morals of a leader are often shown in his or her actions. It is essential for a leader to understand oneself." Several months later, she admitted that her old understandings about leadership had changed. She began to use the new terms for different types of leadership that she had discovered as a student in the licensure program. She admitted that her "antiquated definitions of leadership have been redefined and broadened." She explained further: "A true leader needs to be secure in delegating leadership responsibilities to others. The terms 'transformational leadership' and 'transactional leadership' were new to me." Leadership as Challenge This third example of rethinking leadership emerged during interviews with a cohort member who had served as a noncommissioned officer in the military. He later 144

PAGE 164

earned an MBA and engaged in ongoing leadership development activities throughout his career as a business executive. During our first recorded conversation, he shared colorful stories about his first years in the military and how he studied leadership through observing his superior officers. To be a leader, one must leam to follow. One must also leam to listen and hear, to evaluate all the data prior to making a decision. A decision made by all involved has a better chance of being implemented and supported, thus ensuring its success. During an interview several months later, he talked about how he enjoyed opportunities for leadership that made significant changes in organizations. To him, leadership meant having the frame of mind to identify a problem and seek multiple answers, to face the challenge with determination and commitment. He stated assuredly: '"Leadership is a state of mind as well as a state of being. One cannot walk away from a challenge that one has accepted." Our last interview was conducted on a Friday afternoon in early December. We met in the principal's office of the school where he taught because that day he had served as the "acting principal." He was still wearing a badge proclaiming him as such. His enthusiasm for meeting the multiple challenges presented by middle school children that day was etched in a broad grin that remained on his face throughout our interview. Eventually, our conversation returned to the topic of leadership, and I asked him if his definition had changed as a result of participating in the licensure program. He replied It's changed [because] it's been broadened. In the beginning when somebody asks what leadership means to you, you to get [a meaning from] Webster's Dictionary. It's not that simple. There's much more to it. I think the word "collaboration" and "diversity" all now coincide .... Yes, [my definition has] changed; it's been expanded. Even this highly educated and very experienced cohort member admitted to gaining new understandings about leadership during the study. 145

PAGE 165

I I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I j Leadership Domain: Participants' Concerns During the final series of interviews, each informant was asked to clarify comments made sometime earlier in the study. One participant had stated during the summer interview that she believed that the leadership domai n was too short. She elaborated about her concerns during our closing conversation. The most important position that principals (assume] are as instructional leaders; they're going to have influence over people. If they don't really understand the different techniques to use with people, then they're still missing a critical piece You can understand curriculum and law and finance. but if you don't have the most important piece under your belt, you're still lacking .... (The study of] leadership should be ongoing, should never stop .... To me it should be something like the internship: It goes all year long and you discuss it constantly. As our interview continued, the topic of principal burnout arose. She shared with me that principals in both public and private schools had discouraged her from assuming a principalship. Further, she explained that she had recently observed a district-level principal meeting in which an occurrence created a new concern for her. I don't think that in the leadership domain we had enough [practice to be] able to make decisions qui ckly, to put groups of people into processes where they think and brainstorm. I don't feel adequate to do that .... I'm not in a hurry to graduate Do I sit through another leadership cohort? What do I do? A second informant. who was trained in strategies to facilitate meetings, echoed her colleague's concerns during her final interview. She shared her ideas about the practical tools that principals need to know in order to be effective leaders. During earlier interviews she talked about the committees she had chaired and the skills she had developed as a meeting facilitator. Her assessment shared during our final interview was that the leadership domain failed to provide important skills development. I think this [cohort] is still missing something about leadership. I think we understand law, finance, curriculum and instruction but as far as leading I think there's something missing. We could have [learned] how, as a leader, you develop norms as a group and facilitate a meeting I think those are leadership qualities that should fall under the leadership domain. I don't think we covered [topics like], How do you stay focused on an agenda? How do you not go out on 146

PAGE 166

I i I I i I I I I l I I I I I I I I I i I I I I tangents? How do you keep the group, the staff as a whole, focused? I think those are things that needed to be addressed that weren't addressed. Another informant shared his opinion, quite different from his two previous colleagues. that the format of the leadership domain had not met the learning styles of many of his peers. He perceived that some cohort members expected the instruction to be directive and straightforward. He also suggested that the design of the instructional strategies used in the program required prior experience. We operate at two levels: an abstract level and a concrete level. The concrete is where we do things in sequential order because that's safe and you can' t really screw it up. That's the piece that I heard a lot of my peers talk about: Give me some guidance, give me some direction or tell me what to do. The course is designed for you to find out what to do and [experience] the struggles that go along with that .... (But my peers] were expecting the normal "it's in the textbook, read chapter 3, follow what it says" stuff. The leadership domain didn't follow that model. You [had to] pull out the nuggets that can work for you, [which is] hard to do if you have not had experience. Other specific criticisms about the leadership domain emerged in statements written by experienced teachers who attended a licensing exam review session with students from other principal licensure cohorts. One student expressed concern about not being prepared to take the state licensing examination: I went to the exam review workshop and all the other students seemed to have a great deal more background knowledge about leadership theory and practice. I enjoyed [the leadership] presentations and activities, but I do not feel ready to lead. Another student shared her assessment that the leadership domain was not an i enriching experience She further voiced concern about the specific type of leadership l i j that the cohort was supposed to explore. I I I did not care for the leadership part of the class; I just did not get much out of it. I did not know where we were going. I do not think we really ever addressed the collaborative part that the class is supposed to be based on We had a book group, but I do not think the books addressed the real issue of collaboration. A similar disappointment about the focus of the cohort was made by another experienced practitioner. 147

PAGE 167

I I I I I I I ' I I I I I In the beginning of the cohort, I believed that we were all trying to find new ways to look at [the principal] position that is obviously high in stress and demands. Lately, I believe that we are not looking at it in that same vein, that we are back to the traditional modeL That is disappointing to me and makes me feel out of sync with the group at times. I understand the traditional roles and responsibilities; I would like to think about new ones and begin to live in that thought process. During the first weeks of the program, the cohort leader provided verbal explanations during classes about how she hoped this cohort would accomplish something unique. Students were provided an electronic copy of the narrative for a federal grant to which she applied to support a three-year research project about collaborative leadership. Her vision was that the overarching theme for the cohort would be an intensive study of collaborative leadership and community development. An aspired goal was that students in the cohort would redefine the principalship from its traditional positional leadership model to a facilitator of collaborative processes. References to collaboration and collaborative leadership were woven into participants' responses throughout the study. While many participants seriously doubted the reality of being able to change the principalship, others expressed hope that the principalship can be restructured to spread responsibilities throughout the school community. The following chapter presents the participants' perceptions about the principalship. 148

PAGE 168

i I I i I I 1 I l I I J I ICHAPTER 7 THE PRINCIPALSHIP= PARTICIPANTS' PERCEPTIONS The second proposition for investigation was that participants in the administrative licensure cohort evidenaced professional growth through their changed perceptions about the principalship. Findings indicated that no discernible change occurred. Further, a lack of consensuJs about the roles and responsibilities of a school principal was evident in the data. Eighteen students enrolled in .a professional development program that prepares teachers and other educatiomaJ practitioners to apply for provisional state licensure as K-12 school principals. 'ret at the close of the study and near the end of the program. the 18 cohort members did not share many common perceptions about a principal's responsibilities. Also, only :J of the 18 students in the licensure cohort reported that they hoped to be a school principal within two years following the close of this case study. Therefore, the finding;s may have important implications about candidate recruitment for licensure programs that prepare school leaders and about the curriculum and design of professional development for educational administrators. Participants' Perceptions about the Principalship Practitioner perceptions about! the principalship were gathered through questions posed on several instrumemts and during recorded interviews. The prompts and questions about the principalship aremained consistent throughout data collection. At the beginning and ending O"'"f the case study, participants were asked almost identical questions about a principal's lleadership style. On the first survey administered 149

PAGE 169

i I I "I i I l I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I i ; in January, the students were given a quote from an article by Urbanski (1999) in which he cited seven critical factors that principals need to address in order for schools to be more effective for all students (see Appendix 8). Study participants were asked to prioritize the seven factors. Then they were asked to describe what they believed would be the most effective leadership style a school principal could use to address the challenges listed in the quote. On the final survey, participants again were asked to describe what they considered to be the most effective leadership style a principal could use to address the challenges in schools today. The second survey did not include a quote or request to prioritize critical issues (see Appendix I). Participants were also asked to describe their understandings about the roles and responsibilities of a school principal on two open-ended questionnaires (see Appendix C and Appendix F) and on the survey administered at close of study (see Appendix I). Similar questions were used as prompts during informant interviews held during the summer months (see Appendix E). Analysis strategies included cross-referencing the responses according to gender, readiness to assume a principalship, and years of teaching experience. Cross-referencing the participants' responses according to years of experience generated the most interesting patterns for discussion. The four subgroups of participants used in analysis were developed according to the number of years that practitioners had worked in the field of education. The range of years selected was based upon research findings that indicate almost 50 percent of new teachers exit the field during their first five years as teachers (Chase, 1999). Further, Sanders (1999) posits that throughout the first decade of their career, teachers continue to grow professionally and are adaptable to experimenting with new instructional strategies. During the second decade, professional growth of teachers 150

PAGE 170

I I I I I I I I I I I I I begins to plateau. As teachers develop greater tacit knowledge over the years, they began to become less inventive and adaptive. By the third decade as a classroom teacher, Sanders found that teachers generally begin to decline in their growth and efficacy as classroom instructors. Evans (1 996) describes similar relationships to teacher responses to systemic change initiatives. Almost all study participants remained classified as classroom teachers during the case study. On the post survey, 9 of the 18 participants indicated that they were ready to assume leadership of a school. However, when asked on the same instrument what type of school leadership role they hoped to seek within two years after completing the program, only seven selected school principal as their choice. Four other respondents wrote assistant principal, even though that choice was not provided. Therefore, grouping responses about the principalship into four subgroups based upon years of practitioner experience (5 or less years, 6 to 10 years, 1 1 to 20 years, and over 20 years) seemed plausible. Subgroup findings are presented in this section. The next section in this chapter describes the findings generated by conducting cross-subgroup comparisons. Practitioner Experience: 5 or Fewer Years The subgroup formed by the six participants who had been teachers for five or less years was quite diverse in ages, prior work experiences, and current work assignments. Both the oldest and youngest members of the cohort were in their third year of teaching at the close of the study. The 36-year range in ages created vast differences in professional work experiences as well. Three of the six participants had worked full-time in non-educational positions prior to becoming teachers. Further, gender differences were noticeable within this subgroup. Of the seven men in the 151

PAGE 171

i I I I I j I i I l I I I I i i l i I I study, four were among the six participants who had five or fewer years of teaching experience. Table 7.1 is a summary of responses provided by the participants on four data collection instruments. The prompt used in March and in August was Describe your understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a school principal. The prompt included on the preand post-surveys was Describe what you consider to be the most effective leadership style a principal can use to address the chalfenges in schools today. One of the members of this subgroup was an informant who provided expanded responses to the questions during interviews. Table 7.1 Perceptions ofT eachers: 5 or Fewer Years Experience Actions A principal must: Assume fiduciary responsibility Be involved in the community Focus on students Keep an open perspective Listen, hear and then act Manage front office Provide solid structure in school Set high academic standards Stand up for school staff Attributes A principal must be: Assertive Collaborative Communicative Courageous Extremely flexible Multifaceted Strong Passionate Principled Roles A principal is a(n): Assessor Decision maker Disciplinarian Educator Facilitator Goal setter Leader Organizer Resource person Role model Visionary Of the six practitioners in this subgroup, five reported at the close of the study that they were ready to assume positions as principals or assistant principals. This group included the new principal of a private elementary school, a teacher on special 152

PAGE 172

I l I I I l I I I I I I i i I j I assignment as a middle school assistant principal, and a middle school teacher who served as the acting principal from time to time. Analyzing responses over time indicated understandings about of the principalship did not change significantly for one participant as a result of her participating in the licensure program. Principal is school representative. At the beginning of the program, an elementary teacher wrote: "A principal is a person who represents the student body, the staff, and administration. A principal is a decision-maker, organizer, and facilitator." During the summer the teacher transferred from a parochial school to a public school. Yet when the new school year began, she continued to describe the principalship mainly as a representative role: "'A school principal represents the teachers. He or she acts in many roles to run a sound school where everyone is respected." Twice the students were asked to describe the most effective leadership style a principal could use. On the pre-survey administered in January, the novice teacher expressed her opinion that a principal needs to "listen to teachers, staff, parents. and students," and after listening to everyone's views and opinions, the principal can "make a judgment [that takes into consideration] every issue." In her response in November, the same participant wrote, "[A] principal needs to work collaboratively with the staff to make the teachers feel that they are appreciated and that their opinions matter." Although she used the word "collaboratively" in her response at the end of the study, the essence of her ideas about leadership style remained the same. The elementary teacher's motivation for pursuing licensure as a principal was tied to her valuation of a former supervisor. She explained that she had "worked under a horrible principal" and believed that she "could do a better job than he." Her 153

PAGE 173

I I I i I I perception about the principalship appeared to remain linked to her assessment of the actions by a former principal and her purpose for wanting to become a school leader Principal is community liaison. A similar example of consistent understanding about the principals hip was found by tracing over time the responses by another participant in the group of novice teachers. The linking word throughout all his responses is "community." On the pre-survey, the participant wrote that he believed "a principal must be involved in the community where the school is located." In his long response, he explained that community involvement meant "visiting homes on a regular basis" and "informing parents of global and local expectations." He connected community outreach to "higher academic standards that are beneficial to both the student and the community at large." His descriptions about the roles and responsibilities of a school principal provided at different times during the study continued to tie the principal to the larger community. On the questionnaire administered in March, he wrote, "The principal is a go-between for the administrative and teaching staff, as well as an educator, a disciplinarian, [and] a community advocate." The same prompt used on the questionnaire in August generated a similar response: "The principal has to lead; be an example to parents, students, and teachers; and has to know and understand the community." Although he expanded upon his understanding of the principalship during three interviews, he continued to assert that the principal is "a facilitator between school and the community." Like his peer, his understanding was framed upon his reasons for pursuing licensure as a principal. His purpose was "to become a change agent, to ensure success of educational programs, and to ensure [that] linkages with the 154

PAGE 174

I I I I I i I I I I i I I I ! community and business environment are circular and not one-way conduits." Further, in our final interview, I asked him directly if his understanding about the principalship had changed since beginning the licensure program. He responded, "Not really." Summary. The teachers with the fewest years of experience presented a wide range of understandings about the principalship. The descriptors they used for the role of a principal included "decision maker, goal setter, disciplinarian, organizer, role model." The terms connote the principal as a positional leader with a great deal of authority. As the next section shows, the teachers with a few more years of experience working in schools presented different perceptions about the principalship. Practitioner Experience: 6 to 1 0 Years The five participants who had been teaching between six to ten years were less diverse than the first subgroup. Their ages ranged from 32 to 42 years. Gender distribution was more evenly split: two men and three women were in this group. Four of the five participants had worked full-time in non-education positions sometime during their adulthood. All the teachers taught core curriculum courses. Three participants worked in middle schools and another in a high school. The fifth member of the group was a district coordinator. Three members of this subgroup expressed a desire to assume the position as a principal or assistant principal as soon as possible. Table 7.2 summarizes the responses provided by the participants to the prompts about the principalship. One respondent in this subgroup wrote that describing the roles and responsibilities "would take a long time with a long list." However, his responses about leadership style appeared to change overtime. On the pre-survey, he provided his forthright opinion about the leadership style that a principal should use, which included his underlined emphasis. 155

PAGE 175

I l i i I I I I I I i I I I I I ! i I I I I I i I believe (the leadership style] would have the characteristic of caring about people and education. I have seen too many administrators with their own agenda. instead of doing what is best for all the students I believe if someone truly cares about people, he or she will be led to do what is best for them. Interestingly, his response to the same question on the post-survey was somewhat different: "Any leader leading from his or her own values and passions will be successful." The influence of the introspective activities during the early weeks of the program appeared to have left a lasting imprint. Table 7.2 Perceptions of Teachers: 6 to 1 0 Years Experience Actions A principal must: Act as liaison between school and community Be final decision maker Facilitate staff in helping students as best they can Guide the staff, students, community to function together within school board's requirements Have mindset to be a principal Attributes A principal must be: Active listener Collaborative Flexible Knowledgeable about educational policy Open to new ideas Strong Roles A principal is a(n): Advocate Coach Communicator Director Educator Evaluator Facilitator Leader Mediator Organizer Problem solver Role model Supporter Visionary Another cohort member remained faithful to her belief that leadership is connected to "understanding [one's] passion" and "moral values." However, she expanded upon this theme further by explaining how a principal's actions depend upon why the individual chose to become a school leader. Word emphasis was supplied by respondent. 156

PAGE 176

It depends on whether or not the individual was supposed to be in that position-as opposed to moving into that possibility because it SEEMED like the next best position to take. Once that has been determined, it would be a matter of outlining what they hope to accomplish as a principal-a matter of vision. Another practitioner in this subgroup wrote that the most effective leadership style a principal can use is "collaborative decision making." "Teacher buy-in is a must'' and thus the principal needs to involve "all staff in decisions relating to the education of students." Additionally, focusing on the needs of all students was identified as a responsibility of a principal by four of the five practitioners in this group. Two participants within this subgroup provide remarkably parallel understandings about the principalship. One middle school teacher was nominated to the program by his principal who began mentoring the participant from the beginning of the cohort. The other middle school teacher had served as a dean of students prior to beginning the licensure program. Their real-world experiences, coupled with their strong self-awareness of leadership abilities and their desires to become school leaders, seemed to have instilled shared understandings about the principalship. During individual interviews, both informants initiated discussions based upon their perceptions that a principal must address issues about (a) meeting students' needs, {b) dealing with high-stakes accountability, and (c) providing ongoing teacher development. Shared focus on children. In response to questions about the most pressing demand on schools today and how principals should respond to the current challenge, both respondents expressed their beliefs that schools should serve the needs of children. One respondent explained that principals "need to be leaders not only of schools, but also communities." Further, the participant believed that principals should "look at the student-child as a whole and create not just an academic institution, but a place where the child-and in some cases the parent--can grow." The other 157

PAGE 177

I ., I i I I i I I I I I I i I i I I I I I i participant wrote a remarkably similar response: "Principals need to bring more parental involvement in a school." She explained further that "schools need to have more student-parent activities after hours." She believed that the activities should be positive and engaging because "parents that are not involved in their children's schools often were not successful themselves in school." During their interviews, both informants also shared their views about the purposes of schooling and their deep commitments toward children. The first participant asserted that the vision for a school should be "student achievement." He then contrasted the differences in problem solving and goal accomplishment between the business world, where he once worked as a mid-level manager, and the education world. In education we don't look to see how we're going to become better. We just say, "little Johnny's mom doesn't care, he's not doing good in school, and he'll never do good in school." We put up roadblocks. In the private sector, they knock the roadblocks down. His colleague detailed what she had learned that summer in a psychology class about risk and resilience. The classroom topics discussed in that graduate seminar awakened a new understanding for her about how student needs connect to their success in school and how schools must face the reality of student needs. Our problems in schools stem from students [whose] basic needs aren't being met. They've lost trust or learned to mistrust, or they don't have their basic survival needs such as food, shelter, and water met .... [Students] don't bring their homework to school because that's not their first priority, which may be getting food that morning or something else .... I think [the students] would be more successful knowing that they could come to school and not be humiliated in class .... I think that if [we] help students meet their needs, they would be more successful in the school setting. Shared focus on accountability. Both informants made reference to the highstakes accountability created through passage of the governor-initiated omnibus education bill during the first semester of the licensure program. The first teacher 158

PAGE 178

I i j I i I I viewed accountability as a "test on schools." He perceived that the challenge created by the increased number of tests to be "'a system problem" because "not everybody wants to reach the goal" of student achievement. The other teacher considered the state's testing program as the most pressing demand upon principals. She elaborated that "how their school is going to rate, what new action plan [will] meet the needs of the school, and how [the schooij will look with the [student test] scores" to be the major concerns. She also expressed a personal hope that the accountability system would be dismantled: "I am hoping that by the time I'm a principal, we've done away with it." Shared focus on staff development. Staff development linked to accountability was the third common theme of the two participants' understandings about the principalship. Both informants viewed staff development as capacity building. One perceived the role of the principal as a leader whose responsibility was "to orchestrate people and bring out the best in them." He stated further that "bringing out the best [in] different people [would] make the organization thrive." The other informant explained that as a principal she would "make sure that the teachers had whatever staff development and resources they needed." Similar response to collaboration. In response to the same prompt on the post-survey, the two students again wrote answers displaying common ideas that also reflected the theme of the cohort. The first participant explained that a principal needs to "be collaborative, get as many ideas and opinions as possible to guide the staff." The second participant wrote her response in first person, thus expressing her plans for collaboration when she becomes a school leader: I would use strategies of a collaborative and informational leader. I would like the staff to have a voice in how the school is run. They would form the committees needed to meet their needs, and I would help facilitate those meetings, if necessary. I would listen and together we would run a school. 159

PAGE 179

I I I I I i I i i I l I I ! Dissimilar response to learning experiences. Differences emerged in their responses to questions about how the licensure program had changed their understanding about the principalship. The respondent with six years teaching experience said his perception changed because "once you start to focus on something, you kind of understand it a little bit more." Prior to beginning the program, he explained that he had an outsider view, but by the midpoint of the study, he had developed an insider view. "You understand how some decisions are made and the different implications in arriving at certain solutions." The additional four years in the field of education, which included a semester as an acting dean of student. created a different response about the licensure program for the other teacher. Her confidence in understanding the principalship was clearly stated at the midpoint of the study. I think I am just putting the time in towards the license. First, I don't mean to be cocky, but I have a pretty good understanding of the position [because I was a dean]. Second, I'm always in the know about whafs going on in the school building .... I'm learning things [such as law and finance], but I already have an idea of what the role of the principal is, how things operate, and what a principal needs to look at. Summary. The students in the cohort who had been teachers for six to ten years appeared to have a balanced understanding between the leadership and management responsibilities of the principalship. Their descriptors for the principal's role in the school environment included "advocate, coach, communicator, mediator, supporter." Their words to describe a principal represented a perception toward shared leadership, which was not perceived by the group of novice teachers. However, as the next section will show, teachers in their second decade as educational practitioners place much greater emphasis on the instructional leadership role of a principal. 160

PAGE 180

I I I I I I I I i I I j I I I I I I I l I i I I i i I l I I Practitioner Experience: 11 to 20 Years The five practitioners in this subgroup shared similar attributes with their colleagues who had six to ten years of experience in education. The range of age was from 32 to 44 years. Four of the five participants were women. The group was composed of two middle school teachers, two high school teachers, and a district coordinator. All the experienced teachers had taught or were teaching core curriculum subjects. One of the middle school teachers was on special assignment as the site coordinator for teacher candidates, and one of the high school teachers was an acting assistant principal. Two teachers had taught outside the state. Table 7.3 indicates how the more experienced teachers viewed the principal as a colleague. Their years in the field appeared to influence strongly their perception that the principal is the instructional leader of the school. Table 7.3 Perceptions of Teachers: 11 to 20 Years Experience Actions A principal must: Allow autonomy for staff Believe all students can learn Facilitate learning to improve education for all Have high academic standards Make staff content Provide resources to reach desired outcomes Work with teachers, students, other schools, and the community Attributes A principal must be: Able to deal with set backs Good listener Empathetic Flexible Knowledgeable about curriculum Open to new ideas Problem solver Strong 161 Roles A principal is a(n}: Communicator Evaluator Facilitator Friend Implementor of new programs Instructional leader Motivator Visionary

PAGE 181

Fi11dings. One difference between the members of the previous subgroup and this subgroup was that only two practitioners with 11 to 20 years of experience had worked full-time in a non-education position. Another difference was gender related: Only one male was a member of this group of more experienced teachers. In comparison to the previous two groups. these teachers oriented the roles and respo11sibilities of the principal toward teaching and learning. One participant in this subgroup wrote: "The number one responsibility of a principal is the students. Every decision must be made keeping the students in mind." The most experienced practitioner stated during an interview. "I think principals make a huge difference in kids' lives." Uke their colleagues with six to ten years in education, the practitioners in this subgroup addressed the principal's responsibilities within the state's new high-stakes accountai>ility program. One participant shared her concerns about the "mix and match brain wires" a principal needs in order to interpret test score data correctly and know what types of interventions or actions to implement. Another practitioner presented a straightforward new truth for school leaders in the state: "[The principal] must raise about the fact that those principals and teachers [whose students] do not score proficient on [the state's tests] will be replaced." 011e participant described a principal's responsibilities systemically: "to facilitate a school improvement plan, to incorporate a school-wide safety plan, to promote staff development. to research curriculum that best matches the school population, and to promote a leadership style in which all teachers can grow." Expanding on her written words. the participant explained in an interview that principals "don't know everything and [sometimes need to] lock themselves in a room to concentrate." She asserted that a principan simply could not have the expertise needed to meet all the demands of the 162

PAGE 182

I I i I I j I I I I I I I I I I I l i I i I position. One of her peers in this subgroup shared a similar viewpoint. She wrote, "I believe it is the responsibility of the principal to provide direction and resources to those who will work to reach the desired outcomes." Almost all members of this subgroup used the words "'collaborative" to describe the most effective leadership style a principal can use. One teacher explained that an effective leader "'must first model the practices" to be implemented. Then, by sharing the leadership, a principal gets buy-in from the staff members who feel the goal is "'their vision and mission." Empowering teachers by giving them responsibility and autonomy was viewed by four participants as the only way a principal could accomplish all that needs to be done. Summary. Educational practitioners who have worked in the field from 11 to 20 years focused on the instructional leadership role of the principaL Additionally, they reported that their understandings about the principalship did not change as a result of participating in the licensure program. A review of their responses throughout the program supports their assessments. This subgroup used the words "communicator, friend, motivator" to describe the principal, which indicated they had worked closely with school principals over the years and perceived the principal as a supportive colleague. Additionally, three of the five practitioners in this group expressed a hope to be working as a school principal or assistant principal within two years of the close of the study. Practitioner Experience: Over 20 Years The two women in this last subgroup had completed 27 or more years in the field of education at the time they enrolled in the licensure program. One had served as the director of a small Catholic school and was anxious to assume the leadership of a schooL The other practitioner had worked as a teacher, college instructor, and coordinator for student teachers in another state. At the close of the study, she 163

PAGE 183

I i -I I I i I i i I I l i I I I i I I i remained uncertain about her future career plans. Both were in their late 40s, and neither had worked full-time in a non-education position. Table 7.4 presents a summary of their perceptions about the principalship. Table 7.4 Perceptions of Teachers: Over 20 Years Experience Actions A principal must: Communicate openly Create team approach Deal with community and School board Lead community with mission and philosophy Model high standards Supervise staff Think logically Attributes A principal must be : Able to empathize with others Attentive to varied dilemmas Good listener Roles A principal is a(n): Decision maker Facilitator Findings. Because this group consisted of only two participants, the summary of their responses provided in Table 7.4 is quite short. At first, I considered grouping the two participants with the practitioners who had completed 11 to 20 yours of experience. However, as the chart indicates, their responses were different from their peers in the previous subgroup. Therefore, maintaining this fourth subgroup appeared to be important. The most interesting contrast between the responses given by these two educators in this last subgroup and all other subgroups is the difference in their focus. The participant uncertain about her future professional goals used a variety of words to describe a principal's responsibilities: "immense, enormous, quite overwhelming, extensive, demanding, expansive She explained at the midpoint of the program that 164

PAGE 184

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i I participating in the licensure program had raised her understanding of education to a national perspective. By the close of the progiam, she shared that she recognized now the similarities and differences between the systems of education in two states where she had lived. During our recorded conversations, she began to formulate possible career directions that would allow her to assist principals. However, by the end of the program she was convinced that becoming a school principal was not a career choice for her. The other cohort member, while enthusiastic about becoming a principal, indicated a realistic understanding about the demands she would face. What is interesting about her response to the prompt about the roles and responsibilities of a school principal is her use of a first-person pronoun. I believe that the roles and responsibilities of a school principal are to lead the community with [one's] mission and philosophy. I believe that they will need my strengths as a facilitator. I know that I have many jobs to delegate and that the parents, staff and the state all want to have schools run successfully. It will be a very demanding role. She expressed a hope that the school where she will one day serve as the principal will believe in collaboration: "I want to see the model of the school set up in a cooperative spirit." Further, her colleague with 28 years experience shared her belief that collaboration is an important strategy to relieve the "overburdened responsibility of a principal." The two most experienced practitioners in the cohort shared very different viewpoints about the principalship, which were based upon differing motivations for enrolling in the licensure cohort. Yet they both shared a belief that collaboration was a style of leadership that would be effective for a principal to use. Summary. An interesting paradox emerged concerning the only two words this subgroup used to describe the principal's role: decision maker and facilitator. First, 165

PAGE 185

I l I I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I i I I I I I I j i neither participant used the word "collaborator" although they both strongly believed in collaboration. Second, the women used descriptive phrases rather than words to describe the principalship which is different from responses in the other three subgroups. Their peers in the other groups used a variety of one-word descriptions. Third, the only descriptors used by the most experienced teachers also appeared on the list generated by the novice teachers. These two subgroups were the only ones to identify "decision maker" as a principal's role. The most experienced practitioners shared few similar perceptions about the principalship with their peers in the subgroups composed of educators with 6 to 20 years of experience. Yet, their responses indicated common understandings held by novice teachers. Perhaps because the women entered teaching almost 30 years ago, their viewpoint was framed by the autocratic leadership displayed by principals in the era prior to shared decision making and site-based management. Without data, however, that explanation can be only speculative. Analysis of Participants' Role Conceptions The participants in the subgroups used a variety of descriptors for roles assumed by a principal. A comparison of their role descriptors indicated that perceptions about the principalship changed according to experience as an educational practitioner. Table 7.5 summarizes the last column in the four tables (Tables 7.1 through 7.4) presented earlier. Placing the role descriptors together in one table allowed interesting patterns of understandings and beliefs about the principalship to emerge quickly. Comparisons of role descriptions, actions taken by school principals, and attributes ascribed to the principalship are explained in the follow sections. 166

PAGE 186

Table 7.5 The Principalship: Comparison of Role Conceptions Role Descriptors Used by Teachers in Four Subgroups Based upon Years of Experience 5 or less Years A principal is a(n): Assessor Decision maker Disciplinarian Educator Facilitator Goal setter Leader Organizer Resource person Role model Visionary 6 to 10 Years A principal is a(n): Advocate Coach Communicator Director Educator Evaluator Facilitator Leader Mediator Organizer Problem solver Role model Supporter Visionary Common Perceptions: All Subgroups 11 to 20 Years A principal is a(n): Communicator Evaluator Facilitator Friend Implementor of new programs Instructional leader Motivator Visionary Over 20 Years A principal is a(n): Decision maker Facilitator The only role descriptor used by cohort members in all subgroups was "facilitator." However, further analysis of the attributes and actions added other common perceptions that link to facilitation. Three groups made references to a principal being a "listener" as an attribute. The adjectives attached to the word listener were "active" for the second subgroup and "good" for the last two subgroups. Within the group of least experienced teachers, the reference to a principal as a listener was included in the action category: A three-year teacher wrote that a principal should "listen, hear, and then act" 167

PAGE 187

I I I i l I I l i I I I i i i I l j Additionally, "communicator" was a role descriptor used by the practitioners within the middle two subgroups (6 to 10 years and 11 to 20 years of experience). A teacher with five or less years used the word "communicative" was an attribute desired for a principal, while a teacher with over 20 years experience wrote "communicate openly" as a responsible action by a principal. Another common reference in each subgroup was the use of the word "community" in describing actions of a principal. In addition to one lengthy explanation about a principal's responsibility to connect to the broader community, another member of the first subgroup explained that a principal needed to "be involved in the community." Two participants within the second subgroup provided their understandings about the importance of a principal maintaining ties with the community. Teachers with 6 to 10 years experience wrote that a principal should (a) "act as a liaison between the school and community" and (b) "guide the staff, students. and community to function together within the school board's requirements." Further, a practitioner who had worked in the field of education between 11 and 20 years perceived that a principal should "work with students, teachers. the community, and other schools." Both experienced teachers viewed working with the "community" as an important action by a principal. The perception that a principal needs to be "collaborative" was an attribute identified by several cohort members in all subgroups A 28-year veteran further viewed collaboration as a way to diminish the scattered responsibilities of a principal. On the first questionnaire administered in March, she wrote, "The idea of collaborating, although it may be time-consuming, may be helpful to the overburdened responsibilities of a principal." 168

PAGE 188

Common Perceptions: Three Subgroups Educational practitioners who had completed 20 or fewer years of experience shared several common perceptions about the principalship One interesting difference was how often perceptions held by the most experienced practitioners differed from the understandings of participants in the other subgroups. Principal is visionary. In the first three subgroups participants specifically used the word "visionary" as a role descriptor for the principal. A teacher in the fourth subgroup made an indirect reference to vision in her action statement: "lead community with mission and philosophy." However, the word visionary was not used by either of the most experienced educational practitioners. Principal is leader and educator. The principal's role as a "leader" was identified by responses found within the first three subgroups. However, teachers with 11 to 20 years used the phrase "instructional leader" as a role descriptor. Closer analysis of their combined responses indicated a strong emphasis upon the teaching and learning aspects of school leadership. One teacher wrote that a principal needed to "have high academic standards and believe all students can learn." The use of "educator" as a principal role descriptor by the first two subgroups could be taken as a link to instructional leadership. However, the two descriptors, "leader" and "educator," were not connected in any responses provided by participants within the first two subgroups. Somewhat surprisingly, the most experienced practitioners did not use the words leader or educator in any of their comments about the principalship. Principal is flexible Another shared attribute among members of the first three subgroups was the ability of a principal to be "flexible." A new teacher emphasized the importance of this attribute by writing "extremely flexible." The need for flexibility was not mentioned by the most experienced teachers. 169

PAGE 189

Principal is strong. The first three subgroups shared an understanding that a principal must be "strong, .. and most respondents simply used the word "strong" in describing an attribute of a principaL A practitioner with 20 years of experience elaborated upon her beliefs about principal strength. In a written response to a prompt on the first survey, she wrote: "Principals should have great abilities to lead people to find their own strengths and skills. I believe every institution needs a leader, but that leader should have the skills to expand the leadership across the school environment." Common Perceptions: Two Subgroups Participants who had worked in the field of education between 6 to 1 0 years and 11 to 20 years used the word "evaluator" as another role a principal assumes as a school leader. While the subgroup of new teachers may have meant the same thing, a participant used the word assessor. The use of "assessor" was puzzling because the term is defined as a person who makes assessments, especially for tax purposes, or who serves as an advisor or assistant to a judge (Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1999). Neither of the most experienced practitioners mentioned evaluation as a responsibility of a principal. A surprising finding is that only the least experienced and most experienced practitioners described a role as "decision maker." The descriptor seemed appropriate for use by the new teachers who perceived the principalship as a position of authority. Interestingly, the responses provided by both practitioners with over 20 years of experience also seemed linked to positional authority, which is a more traditional view of the principalship. Responses given by participants placed in the middle two subgroups are significantly different with respect to power and authority residing outside the principalship. 170

PAGE 190

i i i l i i i i i I I I I I Differences among Subgroups Analysis of some role descriptors used by study participants in the first three subgroups presented interesting patterns. The perceptions changed most noticeably for two chains. Rrst. with regard to control issues, the least experienced teachers used the descriptor "disciplinarian." With a few more years of experience, the control role for a principal changed to that of a "mediator." Finally, teachers with 11 to 20 years perceived the principal as a "motivator." One teacher in this subgroup explained further that a principal must "allow autonomy for the staff." Findings suggest that the greater the number of years in education, the greater the desire for independence and autonomy as a teacher. The second chain of comparison centers upon the responsibility of a principal for providing guidance. The least experienced teachers perceived the principal as a "goal setter," while teachers with a little more experience described the principal's role as a "coach." The greatest difference about guidance was made evident by the perceptions provided by teachers with 11 to 20 years of experience. This group considered a principal's role relationship as a "friend." Further, a member of this subgroup explained that the principal "must try hard to make the staff a content one" because "a teacher is more productive if he or she is happy." Influences on Readiness to Assume Principalship During the design phase of this case study, I did not consider the possibility that demographic characteristics would influence the findings. My observation of another principal licensure cohort suggested to me that most educational practitioners who enrolled in such a program were somewhat close in age and years of teaching experience. The cohort that I selected as my sample, however, had a significant 171

PAGE 191

differential on two demographic factors The age span between the youngest (age 25) and oldest (age 61) members of the cohort was 36 years Further, the difference in years of experience in the field of education was 25 years (from 3 to 28 years). Some students were completing only their third year of teaching at the close of the study, while others had 27 or more years of experience. As I analyzed the data, both of these issues emerged in remarks made by various members of the cohort. Age as Stumbling Block Among the youngest members of the cohort, age was an expressed concern about opportunities for being hired or accepted as a school principal. The youngest male participant shared his assessment in a response written on a questionnaire administered in March. He was responding to a prompt that asked him to describe what he thought about himself as a leader. People have told me I would make a good leader because of my ability to work with a lot of people. I consider myself an emerging leader. My age (25) and my inexperience leave me with a lot to learn, although I am eager to learn. A male peer and close friend in the cohort expressed a very similar viewpoint during an interview in April This participant believed that his youth and inexperience would negatively affect his career advancement in the near future. I'm getting into principal leadership early. I'm 31 years old and I've taught for only three years. So it's early as far as getting into the principalship. But I think if you re motivated and passionate and doing what you want to do, then why not start as early as possible. When I complete the program, I will have taught four years which probably will make it more difficult for me to get a job over someone who has more teaching experience. The youngest member of the cohort also believed that age and inexperience would hamper promotion to a position as a principal. While the participant expressed confidence in being able to work effectively she believed that her youth, inexperience and gender would create almost insurmountable roadblocks. 172

PAGE 192

Gender as Stumbling Block On the first survey administered in January, the novice female teacher wrote. "My inexperience (few years of teaching) is a hindrance to my professionalism." On the questionnaire administered in March, she described what she learned from a past experience as a participant in school leadership: As part of a middle school team, I am the only female teacher. I am younger and willing to serve as a voice for the children of our school. I am repeatedly struggling with other teachers [for them] to hear or see the students' point of view. I have learned to stand my ground. During the program, however, she seemed to have lost some of her earlier bravado. First, she purposefully sought a new teaching assignment at a different school during the summer. Second, when reflecting in October about her response to the first online leadership activity, she wrote: "I struggled with this assignment because I truly had not seen myself as a leader. I was apprehensive to put those words online for all to read." Her reticence to share her thoughts with her peers was also evident during cohort sessions. On the closing survey, she described the professional hardships she had experienced while participating in the licensure program: ul struggle with balancing my life as a teacher and a future principal. I find myself being pulled in two directions: I want to succeed as a teacher and a soon-to-be principal." She also shared her dilemma with some of her cohort peers during the focus group interview. I think as a principal, you have to pay your dues as a teacher in order to get respect ... I'm young and I'm a female. I mean there's all these different elements. I'm not married. and I don't have a family. [Therefore], I need to go through all of that to earn the respect I think teachers will give you because you've "been there," because you've been "in the trenches." The irony of this young woman's perception about being married and having children was evident in the voices of two female informants and the real-world experience of another female peer in the cohort. 173

PAGE 193

I I I I I I I I I I I i I j I I l i i I I I i Parenthood as Stumbling Block Two informants enrolled in the licensure program because they set specific career goals to become school leaders. Both were confident in their leadership abilities and well aware of the roles and responsibilities of today's principalship. Both engaged in a variety of outside activities during the cohort to enhance their professional growth. During interviews throughout the study, both women shared their understandings about the myriad challenges found in schools today. They both provided lengthy descriptions about how they envisioned addressing those challenges as future school leaders. When asked in October if they were ready to assume leadership of a school immediately, both responded positively, but with conditions. As mothers of young children who were not yet school-aged, both women realized that the demands of the principalship would create hardships on their families. One mother explained the tug-of-war she was experiencing between her professional goals and her personal realities. She was ready to assume a principalship; however, she was committed to waiting until her youngest child entered school before taking a position. The other mother of young children was on an extended maternity leave from her middle school teaching assignment The recent birth of two children had curtailed her career advancement for approximately two years. When asked if she was ready to assume a principalship, she wrote: "I would want to start as an assistant principal at the elementary level. [My decision to accept a position would depend] upon the responsibilities. I would prefer a part-time or half-time position During the fall semester, two other cohort members became new parents. Ironically, both participants had daughters born only 12 hours apart who were each named Sophia. Both cohort members were also acting school administrators, one as a school principal and the other as a high school assistant principal. The cohort member 174

PAGE 194

who became a new father missed only a few days of work following the birth of his daughter. However, the cohort member who became a new mother missed over three months of work due to maternity leave. The reality of motherhood as a hindrance to assuming school leadership positions was encapsulated in the lives of at least three women in the cohort. Thus, the comment by the youngest, unmarried female participant during the focus group interview showed her naivete. Redefining Principalship: Catalyst for Change While other members of the cohort expressed appreciation for the idea of changing the principalship through collaborative leadership, the two mothers of young children were especially interested in the prospect. During interviews and casual conversations, both informants consistently expressed their beliefs that collective school governance would increase the pool of potential principals. One informant provided this explanation during our recorded conversation in July: "I think [the principalship] should be specialized with key people around this person who specialize in certain areas. I think we would see dramatic changes in many areas." Her peer in the cohort shared a similar sentiment during our second interview. She relayed how changes in the principalship were becoming noticeable in her district. My district is open ... and working towards a collaborative model of leadership. Old principals who have the "ifs my way, this is how we're doing it" ideas are retiring. Things are changing toward a more collaborative type of model of shared decision making. Later in the same interview, she explained her vision and reasons for wanting a new principalship model. 175

PAGE 195

i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I i I I l I I i : I i I've got this idealistic school in my mind. and I'm ready to go with it. I could even pick the person that I know I can work well with as a collaborative leader. And I can see us doing really great things together. But I think it takes [a certain] person to do it. I think it's going to be hard to find such a person. [There's] another question: How are we going to change to a more collaborative way? The reason I say that is I have a young family at home. I don't want to be spending every night at school, so I have a reason for wanting this. During our final recorded conversation, we again discussed her vision of the principalship. She stated simply, "I want a principalship with a group of people that feel comfortable sharing a lot of responsibilities." These two practitioners perceived that the responsibilities of the principalship were too vast and varied for one person to handle effectively. Both informants also expressed disappointment that the original focus of the cohort did not remain a constant theme throughout their professional development as future school leaders. They had hoped the program would fuel needed reform in redefining the principalship. Reflections about Practitioners' Role Conceptions Two important factors may have contributed to a lack of consensus about what a principalship entails. First. students did not engage in class activities together that included interaction with acting school principals or assistant principals. They did not have opportunities as a group to ask questions or discuss issues with current school leaders. Most classroom topics were addressed theoretically with only hypothetical links to the real world. Additionally, analyzing scenarios and debating possible courses of action did not begin until the third domain. The topics covered in those scenarios, however, linked only to instructional leadership issues. Second, students did not engage in concurrent field-based learning experiences during the licensure program. Therefore, as a group, they did not apply their growing knowledge base or develop specific skills while performing tasks 176

PAGE 196

alongside practicing principals. The absence of ongoing socialization with a variety of school leaders working in all three levels of K-12 schools minimized opportunities for students to observe principals working in different settings. On the fourth open-ended questionnaire administered in October, the participants were asked what else they needed to feel competent, confident, and comfortable to lead a school. The most common response (62%) was "experience." One informant commented during an interview in July about linking application to leaming: "A fellow cohort member is doing his internship as he goes through the program, which I think is the best way." The students who assumed positions as acting administrators, engaged in their intensive internships during the fall semester, or were mentored by their principals were the most confident and goal-oriented students in the cohort. The findings that further support the need for more clinical-experience opportunities are presented in Chapter 8, Socialization: Participants' Transformations. 177

PAGE 197

I -I I ' I I I I i I j \ i I I I I i I I I I I i I I I l i I I \ CHAPTERS SOCIALIZATION: PARTICIPANTS' TRANSFORMATIONS The adoption of new professional behaviors that align with behaviors modeled by school principals and district administrators was proposed as another evidentiary source of professional growth. The litmus test of professional expertise is knowledge used in practice through demonstrated behaviors that match those of qualified practitioners in the field (Lave & Wenger, 1991). At the close of this study, none of the participants had assumed positions as regular school administrators. The cohort member who was named as a private school principal worked on pre-opening tasks for a school under construction. Selecrtion of the faculty and staff was planned for late spring in 2001 and the school was not scheduled to open formally until the following fall. While he worked closely with several educational administrators, he had not yet experienced the full range of responsibilities arud challenges of the principalship. The two students who were promoted to positions as assistant principals during the study remained classified as teachers. They engaged in on-the-job trainimg for their positions but worked under the supervision of licensed practitioners. Until the-y successfully completed the licensure program and passed the state licensing examination, their authority as school administrators was limited. The fourth participant who served in an administrative leadership position had assumed responsibilities as the site coordinator for teacher interns in her school. Along with her school principal and site professor from the partnering university, she: coordinated the field experiences for students enrolled in the initial teacher ecliucation 178

PAGE 198

program. This quasi-administrative post was a two-year commitment for a teacher on special assignment. While the opportunity greatly enhanced her professional development as a school administrator, she remained classified as a teacher. Like her peers in the cohort who were designated as acting principals from time to time, authority to act independent from the school principal was limited. The remainder of the study participants continued working as classroom teachers or district coordinators. Opportunities to engage in administrative duties or to observe the practice of administration differed according to the support provided by their direct supervisors. The two cohort members who were not working in school settings had even fewer opportunities to implement their learning into professional practice. Professional Behaviors: Measurement Challenges The replacement of the 45-hour field experience in each of the content domains eliminated a potentially rich data source for examining changes in professional behaviors. Usually, students in the program prepare a log for each field experience within a content domain and identify performance benchmarks to be developed. These logs provide detailed information about the clinical experiences including location, number of hours, and task engagements. The field-experience logs also include reflections in which students write about what they learned while working with school administrators. Since the students did not engage in the traditional field experiences, logs were not available for analysis. Data Collection Strategies Measuring changes in professional behaviors relied solely upon the participants' reporting changes through instruments I created and through observable changes during cohort sessions. One strategy for collecting information about changes in professional 179

PAGE 199

l i j I I I I I I I I I I behaviors was through open-ended questions on the instruments developed for this case study. A total of seven questions related to changes in professional behaviors were posed in four of the six instruments (see Appendices C, F, H, and I) and during the focus-group interview (see Appendix J). Participant responses to open-ended questions were triangulated with statistical measures computed using responses to a self-assessment inventory. On the pre-survey (see Appendix B) distributed to the cohort at the orientation meeting, baseline information about the participants' professional work was collected. In addition to questions about demographic factors, participants were asked to share information about (a) family and financial support as a graduate student, (b) level of computer expertise, (c) level of post-secondary education, and (d) involvement in athletic, extracurricular and community activities. An inventory of 36 professional behaviors was also included on the first survey. A similar survey was given to the participants at the close of the study. The identical inventory was included on the post-survey thereby making comparative analysis possible (see Appendix 1). Almost all inventory statements aligned to selected performance benchmarks, although the inventory item language did not match the benchmark language. Because most participants were classroom teachers at the beginning of the study, the inventory items related only to activities in which teachers might engage. Those unique to a principal's practice were not included among the inventory statements. Data Analvsis Strategies Participants were asked to self-assess their professional behaviors as educators by rating how often they engaged in each activity described. To measure change in professional behaviors, responses on the pre-survey became control scores and responses on the post-survey became treatment scores. The magnitude of change ratio 180

PAGE 200

(effect size) for each inventory item was calculated. In addition, frequency statistics (median, mode, range, minimum value, and maximum value) for each item were computed. When necessary, frequency statistics were used to interpret the meaning of the effect size statistic. When completing the inventory, respondents selected an answer from five possible choices: (a) never, (b) rarely, (c) sometimes, (d) often, and (e) not applicable or possible. In order to conduct quantitative analysis, the responses were converted to numbers from 1 to 4. A "never" answer was equivalent to 1, and "often" was equivalent to 4. Therefore, the greater the engagement in the activity, the higher the number. The participants not working in school settings were the only respondents who selected "not applicable or possible" as their answer to some items on the inventory. The "not applicable or possible" responses were excluded from the computation of statistical measures. A detailed description of the analysis methodology was presented in Chapter 4, Mixed-Methods Case Study {Closed-Ended Questions). Effect size is reported as small (0.1 0 < d < 0.29), medium (0.30 < d < 0.69), or large 0.70) according to descriptors developed by Cohen (1967, 1977, 1988, as cited in Mahadevan, 2000). That is. the greater the effect size value, the more significant the change. Cohen's labels are used throughout the remainder of this chapter to describe magnitude of change. Professional Behaviors: Analysis and Interpretation Measuring evidence of practitioner growth through self-reported changes in professional behaviors proved to be a somewhat challenging undertaking. My perception while drafting my study proposal was that behavior meant an observable activity or the way in which an individual acts. However, responses to open-ended questions indicated 181

PAGE 201

that participants perceived behavior to mean a new way of thinking, a greater awareness of the environment in which they worked. Many comments included in this section were not descriptions of changed activities: instead, the statements described differing ways of viewing or understanding things. The words provided by the participants reflected their interpretations of how their behaviors changed over time. Thus, the findings reflect both an objectivist perception measured by statistical comparisons of inventory responses and an interpretivist perception provided by participants as they constructed their own interpretations (Hall & Hard, 2001) Because the participants brought to the program a broad range of prior experiences and professional expertise, many reported changes in behaviors for the entire cohort were negligible. This finding was not totally unexpected. Additionally, at the midpoint of data collection, which was the beginning of a new school year, nine participants changed work assignments. Assuming new work responsibilities appeared to influence negatively the adoption of some professional behaviors. Further, several students reported that limited time was the reason they did not engage in outside learning activities. Some study participants were taking additional graduate courses in order to complete the required nine additional credits toward earning a master or educational specialist's degree. Several students reported financial hardships due to the costs of tuition, books, and technology-related purchases. Despite these circumstances, growth as evidenced by changes in professional behaviors was significant in some areas. Since the six standard statements were used as a framework to develop the items, they served as organizers for the presentation of findings. Each subsection begins with a table that links the standard statement to specific inventory items on the surveys. The estimated effect sizes for each self-assessment statement are also displayed in the 182

PAGE 202

' I I I I I I I i I i I I I I I I l I l I i I I ' ' ; table. The items are grouped together according to selected performance benchmarks within each professional standard. A discussion about the changes in professional behaviors follows each table. Participants' written responses, interview comments, and researcher observations further support the findings. In cases where the effect size was surprising or confusing, frequency statistics are also presented and discussed. Ensuring Quality Learning Experiences The first professional standard for school principals emphasizes the importance of aligning the school's curriculum, student assessments, teacher performance appraisals, and change processes to the academic standards-based education approved by the state's board of education. A total of nine inventory items, which are displayed in Table 8.1, relate to several performance benchmarks under this standard. Almost all the changes in items related to Standard 1 were small to medium. The two lowest effect sizes appeared puzzling at first, but become plausible upon further analysis. Statistical measures for the statement, I mentor (or have recently mentored} a new teacher, was an instance of a negative influence created when practitioners changed work location. Among the nine who changed jobs, five transferred to different schools in different districts. The answers selected by two of the respondents changed from "often" to "sometimes," thereby lowering the mean for the treatment group responses. Transfers to new schools made the respondents new teachers themselves. Also, frequency statistics show greater engagement in mentoring in January than in November. On the i pre-survey, the mean was 3.06, median and mode were both 4, and the range was from i 1 to 4. On the post-survey, the mean was 3 and the median was 3, while the mode and j range remained unchanged. i l I I 183 I I

PAGE 203

i i i I i I I i I I i I I I I I I I I l I i ! Table 8.1 Effect Sizes : Standard 1 Self-Assessment Items Standard 1. The principal models and sets high standards to ensure quality learning experiences that lead to success for all students. I participate in activities that relate to school accountability issues. I participate in curriculum development activities. I function as an effective change agent in school improvement. I participate in school-wide action research. I supervise (or have recently supervised) a preservice teacher. I mentor (or have recently mentored) a new teacher. I share with colleagues new knowledge learned from electronic sources. I explore the Internet for new ideas to improve my practice. I participate in education-related Web chat room discussions. Effect Sized 0.33 0.11 0.38 0.28 0.42 -0.05 0.57 0.47 0.28 Based upon the frequency statistics for the statement, I participate in curriculum development activities, most respondents selected "often" as their responses on both surveys. The mean equaled 3.5, the median and mode were both 4, and the range was from 1 to 4 on both surveys. The study participants appeared to have been actively engaged in curriculum development projects prior to beginning the licensure program. The fact that the frequency statistics were identical on the post-survey item indicated that the participants remained actively engaged in curriculum development throughout the case study. Participation in the licensure program appeared to have initiated greater involvement by the cohort members in the learning experiences at their schools. Some 184

PAGE 204

i I I i I I I I I i i i I I I I I I participants reported specific examples about how they conducted studies to evaluate new curriculum. One wrote, "I initiated an independent study of teachers' perceptions about the new P-2 curriculum." Another explained how she engaged in action research to evaluate a new program: "I created an action research project where I field-tested the positive effects of implementing a reading skills curriculum into our students' reading and writing activities." Their involvement with curriculum development and teacher mentoring was reported in other ways. One cohort member shared that during the program, he volunteered to "serve as a member of a committee that is rewriting the district's curriculum for technology integration." The site coordinator explained her responsibilities: "I conference with, coach and evaluate intern teachers. I am on the school's literacy team (creating and implementing curriculum), and I mentor two new teachers in the building." For other participants, professional growth emerged through greater awareness of strategies that ensure quality learning experiences. One participant stated simply, "I am more aware of 'best practices' in the classroom." Another described increased knowledge and confidence as evidence of his changed professional behaviors: "I have become more knowledgeable in many areas and feel more confident and able to discuss and explore decisions backed by research." Another participant disclosed his expanded understanding of the challenges that principals sometimes face: "I am much more aware of professional and pedagogical practices in the classroom ... and I am much more sympathetic to decisions made by building leaders." The effect of using the university's telecommunication system as an instructional tool in the principal licensure program was evident by the magnitude of change in two items. Effect sizes for both statements, I share with colleagues new knowledge learned 185

PAGE 205

from electronic sources, and I explore the Internet for new ideas to improve my practice, indicated a somewhat medium change. During many of the cohort sessions. students were observed sharing information taken from the Internet and providing Web addresses for educational and professional leadership sites. Because behavior was observed among colleagues within the cohort, the possibility exists that similar behavior occurred in school settings. However, learning to use the university's telecommunication system was not easy for some cohort members, and becoming proficient users was a major accomplishment for them. Two study participants reported experiencing major difficulties during the early months of their licensure program. Even near the close of the study, one informant recalled the problems she encountered and provided a lengthy description in response to a survey question. Nonetheless, both students overcame their challenges and integrated the use of computer technology and telecommunications in their professional practices. One participant wrote near the close of the study, "I am more likely to use the computer (email and online activities). My level of proficiency with computers has increased." The other described how she adapted one of the online leadership activities to use as a staff development activity. I asked my staff to begin reading Finding Your Voice [a required book for the licensure cohort]. This book was 1 00 times better than sending them to a supervision crash course through Career Track. I also set up a discussion thread on the district email system so that we could dialogue about our feelings. I thought this activity would stimulate teacher sharing. The online activity described above was a replication of the first online activity assigned in the leadership domain of the licensure program. During an interview that spring, the informant elaborated further about the expertise she had developed in using 186

PAGE 206

j I i I f I I I I I I the telecommunication system. She transferred that learning into her professional practice. Learning within School Community The second professional standard for principals encompasses knowledge bases about the theory of leadership, group processes such as conflict resolution strategies and decision making, vision-building strategies, and the political environment of the school and district. Performance benchmarks relate to building strong school cultures through involvement and empowerment of stakeholders and through vision building and renewal. Table 8.2 lists the five items on the self-assessment inventory that relate to the themes in this standard. Table 8.2 Effect Sizes: Standard 2 Self-Assessment Items Standard 2. The principal leads and supports a school community that is committed to and focused on learning. Effect Sized I work as a member of a learning community. 0.51 I involve parents when creating new projects or programs for the school. 0.44 I involve other faculty members when creating new projects or programs for 0.17 the school. I involve students when creating new projects or programs for the school. 0.00 I seek support for school activities from community and business sources. 0.34 The largest change among these five inventory items occurred for the statement, I work as a member of a learning community. One interpretation for the medium effect size could be that the participants learned a definition for learning community during the 187

PAGE 207

I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I course of the program. However, review of field notes and syllabi did not indicate that the topic was covered in the curriculum. Many participants reported doing extensive outside reading and thus the concept of a learning community could have been discovered through the additional readings. Another possible reason for the significant change could be that five practitioners relocated to new schools in different districts. Based upon the positive comments the teachers shared about their new working conditions, the transfers achieved a desired change in work conditions. The cultures in the new schools may have represented the attributes of a learning community. Whatever the reason for the change, written responses on questionnaires indicated that the participants were more engaged in their school's community. One participant described how the leadership development activities improved his professional practice: "Finding and developing my leadership qualities has helped me as a teacher and as a co-worker. I am more involved in my schooL" Another explained that she perceived changes in her relationships with peers: "I have noticed [that] others' responses to me are generally more positive. My relationships are more fun because I am not so intense." A third participant wrote assertively about her growing confidence as a leader and how that affected a peer. I am a stronger, more active, and more aware leader in my cluster [group] and in my grade level and department ... I just had a cluster member walk down the hall with me yesterday and say he really appreciates my support and leadership these past few months. He said he had felt isolated and alone before I joined his team. I think the program has made me more aware of my leadership strength. Other participants shared instances during cohort meetings of their transferring learning to their work settings. They described how they used observational skills to understand situations in which they were engaged and then transferred the learning to their practices. One participant wrote, "I am observing our cohort meetings to watch how 188

PAGE 208

dialogue is handled. I use the conflict dispute methods that were taught to us." Another described how he was adopting skills as a reflective practitioner. I pay close attention at meetings, not only about the matter at hand, but also [about] group dynamics." Written comments from the participants did not provide information to explain the effect size estimates for the statements about seeking support from the community or businesses. The same was true for involving parents, students, and other teachers in the creation of new projects or programs for the school. Behaving Ethically and Responsively Standard 3 encompasses understanding of one's personal convictions and implications of one's actions, ethical leadership responsibilities, and sensitivity to culturally diverse school communities. The performance benchmarks require examining one's personal beliefs, matching behavior to educational values and convictions, and exercising judgment and responsibility for one's actions. One performance benchmark stipulates that principals need to examine their personal beliefs and articulate their educational values. I purposefully did not ask a question connected to this performance benchmark because the students were required to develop their individual leadership plans to include in their program portfolio The effect that drafting a leadership plan had on their professional growth was discussed in the earlier chapter about leadership. Table 8.31ists the items and effect sizes for the statements falling under this standard. Effect sizes for three of the four items indicate moderate change. Greater awareness of systemic or environmental issues emerged in some responses provided by the study participants. One respondent wrote simply, "I am more involved in school meetings, and I act on what I feel is right." Additionally, growing sensitivity to the 189

PAGE 209

challenges a principal sometimes faces was evidenced in responses provided by the students. Table8.3 Effect Sizes: Standard 3 Self-Assessment Items Standard 3. The principal behaves ethically and creates an environment that encourages and develops responsibility, ethics. and citizenship in self and others. I display enthusiasm and interest in my work. I try new ideas and/or strategies in my practice. I challenge rules and/or policies when I believe an educational or professional issue is at stake. I attempt to influence educational decisions in the district. Effect Sized 0.38 0.28 0.14 0.31 One participant shared her understanding of how administrators and teachers often respond differently to circumstances: "I understand the decisions administrators make and the reasons why teachers occasionally feel so isolated or even when an 'us vs. them (administration)' mentality sometimes emerges." Another explained how he was more aware of the difficulties a principal faces when trying to make change. That awareness led to greater support for the principal. I now realize what our principal is up against. I know she does not get support for every idea she has. It has been interesting to watch her work around these problems. I have also been more supportive as I try to realize why she made the decision she did. Another respondent wrote about how defining his passion statement during the leadership domain made him aware of his convictions and gave him strength to stand firm. 190

PAGE 210

I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I i I When other teachers try to "sabotage" [a school activity I sponsor], I do not let them swa")d me from what I know is right I work through the problems and realize that this is ; good for children. This is my passion. One partic::;ipant consistently responded throughout the study that her professional beha\.1/iors had not changed. However, in the following statement she admitted to a greatler awareness of her values. She also shared here that she was reflecting upon actions taken by her principal and was considering alternatives. While she may not have perceived that her own behaviors had changed, she used observation and speculation as tools for learning about professional behaviors. I don't thinak I'm doing anything differently, but I may be more aware of my values and how I respond to something. I put myself in the principal's position and think how I woulld do it, or I play "what if." The neglig:Jible effect size for the statement, I challenge rules and/or policies when I believe an .educational or professional issue is at stake, however, provided a perplexing finding. Frequency statistics on the preand post-surveys were identical: The mean, media, and mode were 3, and the range was from 1 to 4. Therefore, analysis indicated no signifi=icant change in behavior on this item. The participants identified their core values and educational passions during the leadership domain and several wrote about assuming greater leadership responsibilities during the study. \.iNhen the post-survey was administered, the students had completed three-fourths of the content domains. Yet, data did not reflect growth in demonstrating professional convicctions. In the current era of educational challenge, the practitioners that assume positieons as school leaders need this skill. Linking Diversity amd Equity The fourth standard statement emphasizes the importance of supporting diverse stakeholders in the school community and providing equitable treatment and consideration. DiV:9ersity items were not included on the inventory because almost all 191

PAGE 211

ll study participants worked in urban districts with diverse school communities. I mistakenly assumed that school districts in the metropolitan area provided extensive training about diversity issues. As shown in Table 8.4. the three items on the inventory only addressed methods of communication and community outreach. Table 8.4 Effect Sizes: Standard 4 Self-Assessment Items Standard 4. The principal recognizes, appreciates, and supports ethnic, cultural, gender, economic and human diversity throughout the school community, while striving to provide fair and equitable treatment and consideration for all. Effect Sized I contact media to report school activities and successes. 0.13 I prepare or assist with production of the school newsletter. 0.00 I assume professional leadership positions outside the school, such as PTA, 0.00 community organizations. The effect sizes for the three items within this standard indicated little to no change in professional behaviors. Communication and community outreach were not covered in the licensure program until the school improvement domain, which was completed after the close of the case study. Low effect sizes on these three items seemed somewhat reasonable from a curriculum perspective. However, the frequency statistics provided some surprising findings. The inventory statement, I contact media to report school activities and success, produced low frequency measures on both data collection instruments. On the pre-survey, the mean was 1 71, the median and mode were both 1 and the range was from 1 to 3. The only changes on the post-survey were an increase in the mean to 1.82 and an expanded range from 1 to 4. Clearly, the most typical response was "never." This finding 192

PAGE 212

seemed somewhat surprising because most participants were involved in school activities (clubs, competitions, productions, and sports). With the recent passage of an omnibus education bill and its expanded accountability, it seemed advisable that schools increase media coverage about their activities and successful achievements. Even more surprising was the lack of involvement that future principals had in the production of a school newsletter. Based upon the frequency statistics for the item, little change occurred during the program. The mean remained at 2, the median and mode at 1, and the range from 1 to 4. Like the previous item, the most frequent response was "never." Although the third item showed a zero effect size, analysis of the supporting frequency measures indicated that the study participants held leadership positions in outside activities. The most common responses on both surveys were "often" and "sometimes," thus generating a mean, median and mode at 3. Despite the challenges of balancing their personal lives and professional responsibilities with the demands of the licensure program, participants maintained their connections to their communities beyond their schools. A middle school special education teacher provided one of the richest examples of a changed behavior. I've taken an active role in being a leader within my school, at the district level, and at the state level. Within the school I'm on a number of different committees; I'm the special education team leader. At the district level, I'm a member of the special education advisory committee. Through my involvement in that advisory committee I have testified in front of [a state legislative committee] to advocate for additional special education funding. There aren't many people that would try to effect positive change in that way. I asked colleagues to go with me, but I didn't have anyone from my school go with me, [only] people on the district-level committee. Another participant shared during an interview that she recently had run for a position on the advisory board for her children's charter school. Placing herself on the ballot was her first attempt ever to run for an elected office. Although she did not earn 193

PAGE 213

i I I i I I I sufficient votes to gain a position on the board, she volunteered to chair a major board committee She attributed this change in behavior to her participation in the licensure program. Although the inventory items did not address diversity issues, some respondents provided answers to open-ended questions about changed behaviors that connected to this particular standard. As before, the comments related more to awareness than action. One participant described how she looked "at my students and staff differently, with a broader perspective than I used to have." Evidence of sensitivity to diversity issues appeared in other ways. One teacher voiced his desire to provide learning opportunities for students: "I want to make sure that the kids have the best this country has to offer, no matter where they come from." Another participant wrote about how her increased use of reflection helped her to assess changes needed in her practice : "I now look closely at my weaknesses in communication and focus on moving people toward change and accepting change. I also try to change my own leadership practices to be more effective: Engaging in Professional Development The fifth professional standard directs the principal's attention to the need for continuous learning, both for self and other. A total of eight items in the inventory shown in Table 8.5 relate to continuing professional development. A large effect size for the statement, I maintain a reflective journal related to my practice. was expected for students participating in the university's administrative licensure program. In addition to developing an intensely reflective essay as one part of their leadership plan, students were required to write reflections for each of the artifacts included in their licensure portfolios. A small effect size would have indicated cause for concern. 194

PAGE 214

Table 8.5 Effect Sizes: Standard 5 Self-Assessment Items Standard 5. The principal is a continuous Ieamer who encourages and supports the personal and professional development of self and others. Effect Sized I maintain a reflective journal related to my practice. 0.89 I read professional books and/or journals to improve my practice as an 0.42 educator. I belong to professional education organization(s) at the local, state, and/or 0.38 national/eve/. I seek feedback from others regarding my effectiveness as an educator. 0.26 I evaluate my own performance as an educator. 0.00 I attend professional education meetings and/or conferences. 0.00 I share with colleagues new knowledge learned from reading professional 0.53 books and/or journals. I share with colleagues new knowledge learned from attending professional 0.18 meetings and/or conferences. The effect sizes for statements about reading professional books and journals and about sharing new knowledge with colleagues implied anticipated changes for practitioners actively engaged in learning. The statistical measures indicated changes in professional behaviors on those inventory items. The two items with zero effect sizes, I evaluate my own performance as an educator and I attend professional education meetings and/or conferences, appeared strange in the context of this standard. However, on both surveys, the means for both statements were almost 4, and the median and mode were 4. That is, almost all 195

PAGE 215

responses were "often" on both items in both surveys. Hence, the zero ratios were accurate statistics. Responses to open-ended questions about changed behaviors as evidence of professional growth mirrored the statistical findings. Student responses displayed commitment to continuous learning for self and others, evidence of growth in selfawareness and control, and purposeful action. One participant asserted that ongoing professional development was critically important: "Professional growth is never ending. constantly have to challenge myself to learn new and creative ways to deal with personnel and situations. I need to stay at the forefront of educational theory." Greater understanding of self and interpretations about changed behaviors were described by another participant: "I am more aware of ramifications of actions and decisions. I am less likely to respond to a situation emotionally and more likely to think about long term effects and the big picture." A third respondent explained specifically how she had changed her professional behaviors in her practice. I practice (what I have learned] in my own job. I practice bringing together those around me who have different skills and strengths. I have just backed oft a little bit and watched what people were able to do. And I've seen the results: It works much better than when I try to do it all myself. Reading material that supported professional development was another strategy that participants adopted to enhance their learning during the program. One shared how her selection of reading materials had changed dramatically since beginning the licensure program: "I read about leadership all the time now. I buy four leadership and education books to one fiction book these days-that used to be reversed!" One participant who had assumed an administrative position during the summer described how he was using reading to support his practice: "I read journal-type material that revolves around current practice. I find this to be intellectually engaging and useful in my daily practice as a young administrator." 196

PAGE 216

I i I i I I I I I i I I I I I i ! I I While many participants supplemented their learning in the program by reading additional resources and joining professional organizations, not all did. Umited time and money prohibited some students from engaging in such endeavors. Their frustrations about such hindrances emerged through their written responses and recorded interview comments. Some frustrations were voiced during cohort sessions and during casual conversations with me. Managing School Environment The final standard delineates the organizational and managerial responsibilities of the school principal. Most of the knowledge bases and performance benchmarks refer to school environment issues (human resources, finance, law, maintenance, and safety). Only two items on the inventory relate to this standard; they are presented in Table 8.6. Table 8.6 Effect Sizes: Standard 6 Self-Assessment Items Standard 6. The principal organizes and manages human and financial resources to create a safe and effective working and