SHOCKS TO THE SYSTEM: THE POLITICS OF DECISION MAKING IN SANFRANCISCO PUBLIC SCHOOLS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREEE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY Michael Dunson May 2010 © 2010 by Michael Leon Dunson. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.edu/cj379jt8818 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Joy Williamson, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David Labaree, Co-Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Samuel Wineburg Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format.
An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii ABSTRACT I trace the history of two education policies in San Francisco that flared into public controversy during the onset of a major crisis. The first controversy, which transpired in the wake of the 1906 Earthquake, involved the San Francisco Board of Education’s attempt to segregate Japanese students. The second was the drive for school construction during the Great Depression.
School officials and other political actors resiliently pursued their agendas even when faced with the turmoil caused by the crises. Politics did not subside; in fact, politics gave meaning to chaos. Two generalizations help to explain this finding. First, political actors searched for opportunities in crisis.
When crises radically altered the physical and material infrastructure of the school department, people seized whatever resources they could to achieve their goals. Second, crises forced political actors to adjust their rhetoric by adapting their language to fit the circumstances. Prior to the earthquake and depression, political actors attempted to sway the public in their favor by defining the core values involved in segregation and school construction. The crises generated a new set of values.
Political actors adjusted their rhetoric by integrating new values into the old political discourse. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Earning a Ph. brings many personal accolades, but this accomplishment was a true community effort. Without the help and support of numerous people, I would not have completed the degree.
I begin with special thanks to the Stanford University Teacher Education Program (STEP). From the beginning, STEP supported me financially, intellectually, and emotionally. In particular Ruth Ann Costanzo, your support and understanding helped me work through some difficult times. And Rachel, I’m not going to try to summarize in one sentence all you’ve done for me.
You’re amazing. The history of education family is an amazing collection of brilliant scholars and genuinely wonderful people. Larry Cuban, Leah Gordon, Jack Schneider, thank you for all your support. Lori, we came in together and that’s how we’re leaving.
It was great to have you as a partner. To David Tyack and Elisabeth Hansot, thank you so much for your mentorship and friendship. I cherish our lunches and conversations. One reason I’m excited to stay in the Bay Area is that we will be able to spend more time together.
I want to send a special thank you to the Stanford IT staff, Debbie, Chris, Paul, and Tom. You four are awesome. To Tami Suzuki and the archivists at the San Francisco Public Library History Room, you helped make research a pleasant experience. You all do a great job.
Most graduate students are lucky to have an amazing advisor; I was blessed with two, David Labaree and Joy Williamson. David, you never gave up on me. You v trained me and patiently let me grow into a better writer and researcher. Joy, you brought me to Stanford and encouraged me every step of the way.
I am so thankful to have you as a mentor and as a friend. And Sam Wineburg, you pretty much adopted me as an advisee. When my aunt passed away and I wanted to quit the program, I called and you answered. Thank you all.
I’m a better scholar, teacher, and person because of you. I am blessed with an amazing collection of friends and family. My first reading group: Django, Laurie, and Heather. We’ve all made it through.
Nathalie, Ross, and Jeanette, you adopted me into the family and helped make the Bay Area feel like home. To the Ashby crew: You opened your doors to me. Thank you so much. Heather, you’re a spark of life.
Cullen and Jay, I would not have survived the first four years without you. The support, jokes, and encouragement gave me a way to escape the stress. Adrian and Carl, my guys. I can’t wait to come home and watch a game (graduate school stress free) with y’all.
Wes, Simone, Camden, and Jacobi. You have no idea how much I relied on you. On many occasions, I entered your home stress out and depressed, but each time, I left with my spirits up and recharged. Thank you so much.
You practically raised me. I love you both so much. Dave and Mike, we’re at 30 years together. That’s crazy when you think about it.
We’ve been through it all. You two are my brothers. Coach you helped me become a man. Todd thanks for the constant check-ins and support.
You made sure I stayed connected to home. Allen Temple: Ralph and Kathi, Reg, Willie, Mike and Judy. From the first time we met, you embraced me and you haven’t let go yet. To class 5, vi your spirit, faith and fellowship guided me through the final stretch.
To my 2003- 2007 BGSA crew, most especially Faruq, Christen, Jide, and Erica. You stayed with me through the craziness and long silences. Salina, you’ve seen me at my best and worst; you have the full picture. I thank you and IS for keeping me stable and giving me something to believe in beyond the research.
I love you dearly. To my aunts, uncles, and cousins, “It’s good to be a Johnson.” My sister, Joy D., we’ve been through a lot over the last few years and we’re still here. Love you so much. To my ladies, Carol, Shacole, and Sennice, you are my heart.
On my saddest days, thinking of you made me smile. Dad, thank you for all your support and help. You keep pressing forward. Reg, my big brother, my mentor, my role model.
When I see you, I see mom: her strength, her spirit. Love you with all my heart. Over the course of this journey, much as changed. Many wonderful people have entered my life; many I hold dear are no longer with me.
Steve and Spankie, even in spirit, I know you’re still fixing cars and painting graffiti. Joe, I still see your smile and hear your laugh. Weiner, a survivor in every sense of the word (Karen you are a beautiful person and you embody the spirit and strength of your father). Buckley, thanks for the great times at Jones Beach.
Aunt Gloria, the perfect Godmother. You believed in me more than I believed in myself. Mom, you and Aunt Gloria wanted to see me walk across the stage to accept the degree. I know you are looking down on me.
I’m fighting to be the man that you raised, and even though I often fall short, I keep going because of you. I miss you so much. vii CONTENTS Introduction 1 The Politics of Segregation: Japanese Segregation and the “Great Calamity” 19 Politics of School Construction: Progressive Reform and the Great Depression 76 Conclusion 154 Bibliography 170 viii Introduction Education and politics have historically made a volatile mixture. At the end of the 19th century, politics were branded as the scourge of education.
Americans criticized school officials for letting politics corrupt their decision making. Decisions ranging from school construction to hiring personnel were viewed as tainted by the twin evils of politics and patronage. In response, educational reformers proclaimed their intent to exorcize politics from the public schools. They vowed to create school systems that rejected self-interested politicians and embraced rational experts.
Nationwide, reformers erected bureaucracies to shield education from the vagaries of politics. Hierarchical systems of governance became the standard model for decision making in urban school districts. Bureaucracies were designed to establish boundaries and place constraints on participation. By restricting access, reformers hoped to streamline the decision making process by putting experts in charge and shunning laypersons.
With experts making the decisions, reformers presumed that research and science would replace politics as the mechanism for deciding educational policy. Reformers were certain that a corporate model of governance would transform urban school systems into rational, efficient, well- managed enterprises.1 The reformers were widely successful. By the middle of the twentieth century, they upheld bureaucracy as the preeminent model for urban school governance. Political scientists Michael Kirst and Frederick Wirt explain that educational bureaucracies established a uniform pattern of school governance across the country, a 1 David Tyack and Elisabeth Hansot, Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1820- 1980, (New York: Basic Books, 1982).
1 pattern so prevalent that it resulted in the establishment of a separate system of government. “Although few Americans realize it” state Kirst and Wirt, “the nation long has maintained one government for schools—comprised mainly of local and state boards of education and superintendents—and another for everything else.”2 The reformers, however, failed in one important aspect: while the rules of the game changed, the politics continued. Although formal structures were supposed to limit access to the decision making process, American citizens never relented their right to participate. Schools remained the site of contentious battles, as interest groups of various social classes, races, and religions continued to fight to control educational policy.
School boards and superintendents, the formal decision makers within the bureaucracy, were responsible for converting demands into policy. Their decisions were contingent on numerous factors that included the formal rules of the system, the power and influence of various interest groups, the availability of resources, and in general, the communities political will toward a particular policy. These were the components of educational decision making. The contours of school politics were shaped by the fluid interaction between the formal bureaucracy and interest groups, as well as the fluctuating availability of resources.
Under normal conditions, decision making is messy. Educational leaders struggle to function within a system that contains an array of divergent and conflicting groups, each insisting their needs, more than anyone other group, are most urgent. Superintendents and school boards face a steady stream of dilemmas requiring them to make trade-offs in how resources are distributed. The range and variety of issues are 2 Mike Kirst and Frederick Wirt, The Political Dynamics of American Education, 3rd ed.
Problems can be limited to a specific classroom, or they can be systemic, involving the entire teaching force or several schools across the district. But regardless of the variety and scope of the issues, they can be classified as part of the normal state of affairs; they are events that rightfully fall within the purview of the superintendent and school board.3 My study examines the educational system, but with a twist. The focus of the study is when the normal abruptly becomes abnormal, when educational policies are altered by the onset of a major crisis. The study is guided by three questions.
