In “Power, Protest, and the Public Schools,” Melissa F. Weiner writes about two protest movements in the history of New York City schools. Specifically she writes about the Gary Plan, which “was guided by the necessity of Americanizing the 63.4 percent of the children in the schools with immigrant parents, and the Harlem 9, which sought to increase experienced teachers and funding for African American students in schools (pg 35). The Gary Plan was defined almost entirely by the Jewish immigrants/community, meanwhile the Harlem 9 was defined by the African Americans. I believe that Weiner wrote about these two protest movements together like this in order to compare and contrast the struggles that two different ethnic/racial groups had to go through. Writing about these two protest movements together is powerful because it covers more flaws with the educational system in New York City schools than talking about each event separately would.
The Gary Plan “was designed to shape children’s behavior and produce what later critics called ‘loyal citizens and docile workers'” (pg 35). The plan saved money by utilizing the entire the entire school building by having students rotate through classrooms, playgrounds, auditoriums, etc. Each specialized teacher would teach in one room, and then send the students to another room, with another specialized teacher, for their next class; however, the plan did not preserve the language and cultures of the Jewish students, so the plan did not sit well with Jewish parents. Jewish parents began to worry about what their students would be learning in school, and if their religion would be preserved.
The Harlem 9 was designed to better the education system for African American students in New York City schools. African Americans were put in schools with “inexperienced teachers, district gerrymandering to promote segregation, overcrowded classes, dilapidated schools, and 103 classes for ‘retarded’ children to which African American children were assigned, illegally, based on the entire group’s test scores (rather than the individuals), but not a single gifted class” (pg 52). Not only were African American students provided with such low quality education, but also African Americans received almost a third of the funding that white students received.
A similarity among these two historical moments and groups is that the parents were fed up with the low quality of education their children were receiving, and realized that they had to fight (protest) for their children’s education and schooling situations. Jewish immigrants wanted the right to preserve their culture, and not have the schooling system force their children to learn the New Testament. Likewise, the African Americans wanted their children to have just as much access to a good education as white students did. Although both ethnic/racial groups were fighting for a better education, they were fighting for it in different ways; Jewish immigrants wanted the right to practice their religion in school, meanwhile, African Americans wanted funding for better resources to improve the quality of schooling. This difference is crucial because not having the ability or availability of resources to learn hinders education differently than course content does.
It’s important to understand why parents were upset with the education system and how the government reacted to their concerns, because then it helps us see a larger pattern in the government’s response to protesters.
Jewish parents opposed the implementation of the Gary plan because it specifically shunted Jewish student readiness for further education, restricted their access to jobs and Hebrew schools at the end of the school day, and tried to bring back Christian instruction in public schools. The Gary plan was designed to form vocational schools in Gary, Indiana, to train students for jobs as soon as they left the school. This plan was implemented in Jewish areas of New York City, and didn’t prepare them to receive further education. Immigrant parents were stressed that the schools were training their children to take over their jobs, keeping them from advancing further. The longer school day prevented students at Gary schools from working after school, and prevented Jewish students from attending Hebrew schools. When students asked to take morning classes so they can go to Hebrew schools later in the day, they were rejected. Jewish families didn’t protest for the right to practice their religion in schools like you said, just that the schools didn’t interfere with their own faith by restricting their access to Hebrew schools and by teaching them the New Testament.
African American parents protested schools because their children lacked equal opportunity at these schools, for the reasons you pointed out. The issue wasn’t that schools were segregated but that Black students were treated substantially worse than white students. Today’s argument to desegregate schools exists because segregated schools still receive lower funding, and we see the historical roots of that in this reading.
In both cases, the government was not responsive to the protests. They assumed a lack of intellectualism from the protestors, despite their specific claims. Jewish immigrants and African Americans were considered by our government to be lower class citizens not worth listening to. Ideally, New York City can learn from its past mistakes in treating marginalized citizens unfairly.
In your analysis of Melissa F. Weiner’s “Power, Protest, and the Public Schools,” I really like the comparison that you draw between the two different groups of people that joined forces under the first amendment to protest New York City public schools. The protests against the Gary Plan was really a force to be reckoned with since so many different organizations, neighborhoods, and Jewish groups banded together to protest this education policy. The idea that the Gary Plan was to promote a vocational education seemed a little misguided. I think these Jewish mothers and families were right to protest this plan which directly conflicted with their personal and religious values (e.g. the longer academic day and lack of religious instruction), but what was also important was that they were also protesting the teacher shortage and overcrowding problem; similar to the Harlem Nine. The Harlem Nine additionally protested for inadequate schooling, segregated public schools, and lack of financial funding. I also think that “This difference is crucial because not having the ability or availability of resources to learn hinders education differently than course content does,” really captures the different circumstances, but similar education barrier these groups face.
Both of these groups implemented public gatherings and protests to show their dissatisfaction. Though very different groups and different situations, they both sought to correct an injustice that lied within the education system. Whether meeting throughout the summer or spreading the news of these issues through town halls, these two groups brought a change. The Jewish parents got a new mayor and the African Americans got the mayor to establish the Open Enrollment policy. However, both of these changes truly addressed the issue. This was one of the tragedies in history where group protests that brought in results, lacked in any real change or improvement.
Thanks for all of your comments. It is difficult to compare two different moments in history, when the expectations for schooling were different. In the 1910s high school attendance was still not the norm in this city or country, whereas by the 1950s it was much more common – this is another crucial difference because the limited access each group was granted meant something different in each era — limited opportunity for the Jews and a limited right for the African Americans. Please note that while the Jews protesting religion in the schools in the early 1900s did want access to religious education for their children, they did not want it taught in the public schools – they just wanted time in the afternoon for their children to attend private religious schools that supplemented public schooling.