In June, the New York Times, in a year-end summary of the state of our city's public schools, reported that most of the groups active on the school scene believed that school decentralization was a success. Such expressions of approval were of course to be expected, in light of the fact that in the past few years the virtues of decentralization and community control have been put forth as absolute dogma. Anyone who expressed doubts, or sought to replace emotional sloganeering with rational discourse, or saw fit to withhold judgement until all the evidence had come to hand, was isolated by those with decision-making power, castigated as a racist bent on denying greater power to minorities, denounced as defender of the selfish interests of the "professional establishment" against the outcries of children and parents. A consensus had been established by the press, writers on education, government agencies and tax-exempt foundations.
Today almost every big city school system is moving toward decentralization. Few have paused long enough to take a hard look at the two systems which have already decentralized: Detroit and New York. The Detroit experience is stunningly revealing. It is reported fully in the Summer 1971 issue of The Public Interest, in an article, "Community Control vs. Integration - the Case of Detroit." by William R. Grant, education editor of the Detroit Free Press. For those city officials now rapt in awed contemplation of decentralization as sacred cow, Mr. Grant's detailed account is must reading.
In 1964, a liberal-labor-civil rights coalition gained a majority on the Detroit Board of Education. "In the years that followed," Grant relates, "the board changed boundaries to promote integration, hired black teachers and administrators, and demanded from publishers textbooks giving a fairer portrayal of the races. Every decision, every appointment, every statement reflected the board's overriding commitment to the goal of racial integration." The board employed Norman Drachler as superintendent. Drachler, generally recognized in recent years as the top school superintendent, pressed for integration and educational reform and displayed great skill in winning the support of teachers, supervisors and the public.
In 1968 the decentralization fever hit Detroit. Decentralization legislation was introduced, and a Citizens Committee for Community Control "organized a number of conferences," Grant reports, "in which participants in New York City's Ocean Hill-Brownsville experiment spoke." The conferences culminated in a demand for total community control. Though the Citizens Committee had only a small following, the fever spread quickly, with everyone from the school superintendent to the Detroit NAACP calling for some type of community control or decentralization.
Tragic Aftermath in Detroit
When the Michigan legislature passed and the governor signed a school decentralization bill in the summer of 1969, the Detroit board of education drew up district lines to promote sweeping integration. Hostile reaction to the plan followed immediately. There were school boycotts and massive protests. As a result, a new decentralization bill was passed rescinding the board's power to establish district boundaries. A petition campaign calling for recall of the board of education gathered 130,000 signatures. In the subsequent recall balloting, 60% of the voters approved the ouster of the board. At the same time a governor's commission announced new decentralization boundaries along racial lines.
When elections were held for a new central board and the eight regional boards, the elections, Grant informs us, "produced a clear victory for the conservatives. The new 13-member central board included six staunch anti-integrationist conservatives and only three blacks ... giving the board the smallest proportion of blacks in 15 years. Contrary to all expectations, blacks won a voting majority on only two of eight regional boards, although black students were in the majority in six of the eight regions." (Especially interesting was the fact that Detroit's black communities defeated militant black separatist candidates, while many white communities elected white separatists.)
For Detroit the tragic consequences of community control were all too evident. A conservative board replaced a liberal one. An outstanding superintendent resigned. Contrary to predictions, blacks ended up with reduced power and influence. Racial polarization and backlash are now rampant. Grant concludes that while it may not be quite accurate to say that the song is "community control" but the tune is "Dixie," "the Detroit experience does offer convincing evidence that integration and community control are not easily compatible."
The press was quick to give nationwide publicity to the instant "successes" of community control in I.S. 201 and Ocean Hill-Brownsville demonstration districts in New York. How many more Detroits must there be before the press permits unhappy faces to replace simplistic dogma in both its news and editorial columns?