Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T22:11:19.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bureaucratic Order and Special Children: Urban Schools, 1890s–1940s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Joseph L. Tropea
Joseph L. Tropea*
Affiliation:
George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historical research has contributed to our understanding of the evolution of juvenile justice and public school bureaucracies. Yet, these institutions remain an enigma as long as the rules guiding their actors cannot be identified with law, professional standards, or policy. Sociologists have used participant observation to disclose such “informal” or “backstage” understandings and rules, which are shared by organizational actors but not with the public. However, participant observation is limited, notably in its absence of historical and systemic perspectives. Because backstage rules have a history and are symbiotically related to bureaucratic evolution, a historical perspective may also contribute to unraveling this enigmatic aspect of public bureaucracies.

Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , Spring 1987 , pp. 29 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the History of Education Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Katz, Michael B., Class, Bureaucracy, and Schools: The Illusion of Educational Change in America (New York, 1971); Krug, Edward A., The Shaping of the American High School (Madison, Wis., 1972); Lazerson, Marvin, Origins of the Urban School: Public Education in Massachusetts, 1870–1915 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971); Swift, David W., Ideology and Change in the Public Schools: Latent Functions of Progressive Education (Columbus, Ohio, 1971); and Tyack, David B., The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (Cambridge, Mass., 1974) are examples from the school domain. Platt, Anthony, The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency (Chicago, 1969); Schlossman, Steven L., Love and the American Delinquent: The Theory and Practice of ‘Progressive’ Juvenile Justice, 1825–1920 (Chicago, 1977); and Rothman, David J., Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America (Boston, 1980) are examples from the juvenile justice domain.Google Scholar

2. For example: Levy, Gerald E., Ghetto School: Class Warfare in an Elementary School (New York, 1970); Skolnick, Jerome H., Justice without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society (New York, 1966).Google Scholar

3. Forest Chester Ensign, Compulsory School Attendance and Child Labor: A Study of the Historical Development of Regulations Compelling Attendance and Limiting the Labor of Children in a Selected Group of States (Iowa City, 1921), 234.Google Scholar

4. Swift, David W., Ideology and Change in the Public Schools: Latent Functions of Progressive Education (Columbus, Ohio, 1971), 38.Google Scholar

5. Philadelphia School Report (Philadelphia, 1909), 58.Google Scholar

6. Ibid., 1897; Baltimore Board of School Commissioners Annual Report (Baltimore, 1902).Google Scholar

7. Clapp, Mary A. and Strong, Mabel A., The School and the Working Child: Being a Study of the Administration of Certain Laws Pertaining to Children in Industry by Fifty School Departments of Massachusetts (Boston, 1928), 162; Ensign, , Compulsory School Attendance, 234.Google Scholar

8. Baltimore Annual Report, 1903, 43.Google Scholar

9. Philadelphia School Board Minutes (Philadelphia, 1902), 38–40; Ensign, , Compulsory School Attendance, 146–47.Google Scholar

10. See the discussions in: Detroit Public Schools Annual Report (Detroit, 1897); Baltimore Annual Report, 1903; Philadelphia School Report, 1909.Google Scholar

11. Philadelphia Minutes, 1898; Baltimore Annual Report, 1902, 39.Google Scholar

12. Enrollments increased by only 1 percent from 1897 to 1898 in Philadelphia and by only 4 percent from 1902 to 1903 in Baltimore. Baltimore's average attendance decreased by a percentage point from 1902 to 1903.Google Scholar

13. Baltimore Annual Report, 1902, 39.Google Scholar

14. Philadelphia Minutes, 1898, 124; Baltimore Annual Report, 1902, 39; Philadelphia School Report, 1909, 58, 1911, 52, 1916, 3; Detroit Annual Report, 1914, 145.Google Scholar

15. Baltimore Annual Report, 1902, 40.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., 1906, 1916; Detroit Annual Report, 1905, 1915; Philadelphia School Report, 1909, 1919.Google Scholar

17. Baltimore Annual Report, 1912; Lazerson, , Origins of the Urban School, 140.Google Scholar

18. Ayres, Leonard Porter, Laggards in Our Schools: A Study of Retardation and Elimination in City School Systems (New York, 1909), 31.Google Scholar

19. Baltimore Annual Report, 1913, 201 and 248; Philadelphia School Report, 1920, 107; Cooper, Richard Watson, Better Attendance in Delaware Schools (Wilmington, n.d.), 47.Google Scholar

20. Baltimore Annual Report, 1909, 1908, 42, 1912, 57, 1913, 71.Google Scholar

21. Detroit Annual Report, 1911, 44, 1898, 79, 1906, 81–82; Detroit Police Department Annual Report, 1917, 75.Google Scholar

22. Detroit Annual Report, 1914, 104, 1907, 75, 1911, 47, 1912, 78.Google Scholar

23. Baltimore also reported the overwhelming majority of its special room pupils did not return to the regular grades; for example, a three-year average of under 4 percent “restored” was reported. Baltimore Annual Report, 1932, 42.Google Scholar

24. Detroit Annual Report, 1911, 109, 1908, 75, 1914, 104, 1912, 75, 81.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., 1912, 76.Google Scholar

26. Lazerson, , Origins of the Urban School, 76.Google Scholar

27. For example, Detroit Annual Report, 1904, 190–91.Google Scholar

28. Detroit Annual Report, 1914, 106, 1914, 105–06, 1913, 67.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., 1914, 210, 1915, 178, 1915, 257, 1916, 90, 130, 1912, 74–81, 1913, 126–40, 1914, 104–19, 144–47, 1915, 137–47.Google Scholar

30. Ibid., 1912, 150–51.Google Scholar

31. Ayres, , Laggards in Our Schools. Google Scholar

32. Ayres, Leonard Porter, The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for Intelligence: Some Criticisms and Suggestions (New York, 1911), reprinted from The Psychological Clinic: A Journal of the Study of Mental Retardation and Deviation, 15 Nov. 1911.Google Scholar

33. Detroit Annual Report, 1915, 137.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1918.Google Scholar

35. Ensign, , Compulsory School Attendance, 143–44.Google Scholar

36. Detroit Annual Report, 1915, 144–47.Google Scholar

37. Ibid., 1898, 62, 1908, 86–87, 1909, 78–79; Baltimore Annual Report, 1901, 24.Google Scholar

38. Swift, , Ideology and Change. Google Scholar

39. Tyack, , The One Best System, 191.Google Scholar

40. Baltimore Annual Report, 1921–22, 46–47.Google Scholar

41. Ibid., 1921–22, 271.Google Scholar

42. Baltimore Annual Report, 1912, 57, 1927, 11; Detroit Annual Report, 1916, 90, 1918, 25–26.Google Scholar

43. Baltimore Annual Report, 1922, 42.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., 1928, 24, 1932, 44.Google Scholar

45. Ibid., 1927, 34.Google Scholar

46. Tyack, , The One Best System, 208–9.Google Scholar

47. Baltimore Annual Report, 1933, 81, 20, 1934, 1926, 78, 1933, 83.Google Scholar

48. Mirel, Jeffrey and Angus, David, “Youth, Work, and Schooling in the Great Depression,” Journal of Early Adolescence 5 (1985): 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Ibid.; Krug, , The Shaping of the American High School. Google Scholar

50. Kaplan, Albert J., cited in Krug, The Shaping of the American High School, 218.Google Scholar

51. Stuart, Mary, cited in ibid., 219.Google Scholar

52. Ibid., 219.Google Scholar

53. Ibid., 279–81.Google Scholar

54. Baltimore Annual Report, 1937, 24.Google Scholar

55. Krug, , The Shaping of the American High School, 218.Google Scholar

56. Baltimore Annual Report, 1926, 78.Google Scholar

57. Krug, , The Shaping of the American High School, 311–14.Google Scholar

58. For example, Baltimore Annual Report, 1928, 135.Google Scholar

59. Krug, , The Shaping of the American High School, 315.Google Scholar

60. Ibid., 307.Google Scholar

61. Baltimore Annual Report, 1938, 30–31, 1937, 47, 1938, 33, 1937, 47–49, 1938, 30–33.Google Scholar

62. Baltimore Annual Report, 1934, 107, 1940, 25, 27, 1941, 94.Google Scholar

63. St. Louis School Report (St. Louis, 1943), 137.Google Scholar

64. Baltimore Annual Report, 1938–43.Google Scholar

65. Ibid., 1931, 50, 1938, 32.Google Scholar

66. “Attendance Officers Work Report, 1930–1958,” Detroit Public School Attendance Office.Google Scholar

67. St. Louis School Report, 1941–48.Google Scholar

68. See for example: Children's Defense Fund, Children Out of School in America: A Report (Washington, D.C., 1974), particularly chapter 5, “School Discipline and Its Exclusionary Impact on Students”; and Children's Defense Fund, School Suspensions: Are They Helping Children?: A Report (Washington, D.C., 1975).Google Scholar