No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ethnicity, Religion and Class: Progressive School Reform in San Francisco
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2017
Extract
Much of the literature appearing within the past decade on the reform and centralization of urban school governance throughout America from 1890 to 1920 has dwelled upon the influence of bureaucracy and social class to the neglect of very significant ethnic and religious factors. Only token recognition, if any, is granted to ethnicity and religion by Michael Katz and others who depict the centralization movement nearly exclusively as a class effort displaying an anti-working class bias and born out of an elitist thrust for power. From this perspective, the contests for school reform as outlined for New York, Boston and elsewhere appear one-dimensional in nature and over simplified.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1981 by History of Education Society
References
Notes
1 For the growing body of literature which has emerged within the past decade on the centralization movement and its decided emphasis on elitism see Berrol, Selma Cantor, “The Schools of New York in Transition, 1898–1914,” Urban Review, 1 (December, 1966): 15–20; Cohen, Sol, Progressives and Urban School Reform: The Public Education Association of New York City, 1895–1954 (New York, 1964), Chapter I; Cronin, Joseph M., The Control of Urban Schools: Perspectives on the Power of Educational Reformers (New York, 1973), Chapters IV & V; Gersman, Elinor M., “Progressive Reform of the St. Louis School Board, 1897,” History of Education Quarterly, 10 (Spring, 1970): 3–21; Hammack, David C., “The Centralization of New York City's Public School System, 1896: A Social Analysis of a Decision,” (unpublished master's thesis, Columbia University, 1969), pp. 27–31, 51–78; Issel, William H., “Modernization in Philadelphia School Reform, 1882–1905, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 94 Google Scholar
2 For a more detailed account of the centralization movement in San Francisco see Shrader, Victor L., “Ethnic Politics, Religion, and the Public Schools of San Francisco, 1849–1933,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1974), pp. 118–87.Google Scholar
3 Hays, Samuel P., “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly, 55 (October, 1964): 157–69; Tyack, David B., The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (Cambridge, Mass., 1974), pp. 126–76; and Wiebe, Robert H., The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York, 1967) and “The Social Functions of Public Education,” American Quarterly, 21 (Summer, 1969): 147–64.Google Scholar
4 For the earliest twentieth century reform advocates and their proposals see Cubberley, Ellwood P., “The School Situation in San Francisco,” Educational Review 21 (January–May, 1901): 364–81; Denman, William, et. al., “Report on the Causes of Municipal Corruption in San Francisco, as Disclosed by the Oliver Grand Jury, and the Prosecution of Certain Persons for Bribery and Other Offenses Against the State,” The California Weekly, (January 5, 1910): 42–49; and the American Association of University Women, Some Conditions in the Schools of San Francisco: A Report Made by the School Survey Class of the California Branch of Collegiate Alumnae (San Francisco, 1914), pp. 1–8, 46, & 90–93. For the influential Claxton Report see Claxton, Philander P., et. al., The Public School System of San Francisco (U.S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin No. 46, 1917), pp. 83, 123, & 126.Google Scholar
5 San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Minutes (December 1, 1914) p. 2; “Schools of San Francisco,” Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California, 12 (December, 1917): 431; Dolson, Lee, “The Administration of the San Francisco Public Schools, 1847–1947,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1964), p. 414.Google Scholar
6 Commonwealth Club, pp. 470, 455, and 456.Google Scholar
7 “Charter Amendment No. 37,” Proposed Charter Amendments to be Submitted November 5, 1918 (San Francisco, 1918): 16–22. This document and other memoranda, letters, conferences and speeches included in this study can be found in the Papers of Mayor James Rolph held by the California Historical Society in San Francisco.Google Scholar
8 San Francisco Examiner , (November 3, 1918).Google Scholar
9 San Francisco Examiner , (November 6, 1918).Google Scholar
10 Saville, H. D., “American Legion Address,” Rolph Papers (September 30, 1920); Saville, H. D. to Rolph, James, November 9, 1920; Public Schools Defense Association to Superintendent H. P. Short, October 15, 1920; Saville, H. D. to Rolph, James, November 9, 1920.Google Scholar
11 California Vigilant Association to Roncovieri, Alfred, June 26, 1920; Petersen, J. A. —Alfred Roncovieri Conference, June, 1920.Google Scholar
12 For the conflict behind the Pierce case see Tyack, David B., “The Perils of Pluralism: The Background of the Pierce Case,” American Historical Review, 74 (October, 1968): 75, 74–98; for a complete account of the K.K.K. in the San Francisco bay area see Jackson, Kenneth T., The Ku Klux Klan in the City (New York, 1967), pp. 91 & 239.Google Scholar
13 San Francisco Chronicle , (August 6 & 7, 1920); San Francisco Bulletin, (August 31, 1920).Google Scholar
14 San Francisco Teachers' Association Circular, October 25, 1920 and Resolution #18392 of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, October 18, 1920. Both of these documents are in the Rolph Papers.Google Scholar
15 “Masons and The Public Schools,” San Francisco Leader , (October 2, 1920), p. 4; Leader, (September 25, 1920), p. 4; Leader, (October 9, 1920); Leader, (October 10, 1920); Leader, (October 23, 1920).Google Scholar
16 San Francisco Labor Clarion , (October, 1920); Saxton, Alexander, “San Francisco Labor and the Progressive Insurgencies,” Pacific Historical Review, 34 (November, 1965): 437.Google Scholar
17 Official Statement of the Vote Cast at the General Election held November 2, 1920 in the City and County of San Francisco (San Fransicso, 1920) gives the election returns by precinct and assembly district and can be found in the files of the Registrar of Voters, City Hall. Maps of assembly districts are in the same office. San Francisco Municipal Reports for the Fiscal Year 1916–17 (San Francisco, 1919) gives the numbers of foreign-born and native-born for each assembly district and their place of birth by ethnic group and state on pp. 334–36. The Index to the Great Register, I, II, & III (San Francisco, 1920) gives the names of voters in each precinct according to assembly district within the city and is held by the San Francisco Public Library. From these last two sources, I was able to determine particular ethnic concentrations within a given precinct and assembly district.Google Scholar
18 Rogin, Michael P. and Shover, John L., Political Change in California: Critical Elections and Social Movements (Westport, Conn., 1971). pp. 68–89.Google Scholar
19 Ibid., pp. 70–72.Google Scholar
20 Municipal Report, 1917, pp. 334–36.Google Scholar
21 Rogin, and Shover, , Political Change in California, pp. 76–78; Index to the Great Register; Municipal Report, 1917, pp. 334–36.Google Scholar
22 Allswang, John M., A House for All Peoples: Ethnic Politics in Chicago, 1890–1936 (Lexington, Kentucky, 1971), pp. 21–23, 95–101, & 118.Google Scholar
23 Saxton, , “San Francisco Labor,” 423–24.Google Scholar
24 Official Statement of Votes Polled at the General Election Held in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, November 5, 1918 (San Francisco, 1918) gives the election returns by precinct and assembly district and can be found in the files of the Registrar of Voters, San Francisco City Hall.Google Scholar