A STAFF REPORT OF THEU.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

September 1977

SCHOOLDESEGREGATION ENTEMPE, ARIZONA

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a temporary,independent, bipartisan agency established by Congressin 1957 and directed to:

• Investigate complaints alleging that citizensare being deprived of their right to vote byreason of their race, color, religion, sex,or national origin, or by reason offraudulent practices;

• Study and collect information concerninglegal developments constituting a denial ofequal protection of the laws under theConstitution because of race, color,religion, sex, or national origin, or in theadministration of justice;

• Appraise Federal laws and policies withrespect to equal protection of the lawsbecause of race, color, religion, sex, ornational origin, or in the administration ofjustice;

• Serve as a national clearinghouse forinformation in respect to denials of equalprotection of the laws because of race,color, religion, sex, or national origin;

• Submit reports, findings, and recommendationsto the President and the Congress.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

Arthur S. Flemming, ChairmanStephen Horn, Vice ChairmanFrankie M. FreemanManuel Ruiz, Jr.Murray Saltzman

John A. Buggs, Staff Director

SCHOOL DESEGREGATION

IN TEMPE, ARIZONA

A Staff Report of theUOS. Commission on Civil Rights

September 1977

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The investigation and report were the principalstaff assignment of William Muldrow, with writing andrevision assistance from William Levis and Maria Paresand support from Ester Johnson and Phyllis Santangelo.

The project was carried out under the overallsupervision of Dr. Shirley Hill Witt, Director of theMountain States Regional Office.

Appreciation is also extended to Emilio AbeytarJessalyn Bullockr Frank Knorr, Tom Watson, and EvelynChandler of the commission staff for assisting in thefinal production of the report. Preparation forpublication was the responsibility of Vivian Hauser,under the supervision of Bobby Wortman, in theCommission's Publications Support Center, Office ofManagement.

At the appointment of the Staff Director of theCommission, all activities that contrbuted to thisreport were under the general supervision andcoordination of William T. White, Jr., Assistant StaffDirector, Office of National Civil Rights Issues.

11

PREFACE

The United States Commission on Civil Rightsreleased on August 24, 1976f its report to the Nation:Fulfilling the Letter and Spirit of the Law:Desegregation of the Nation's Public Schools,

The report's findings and recommendations werebased upon information gathered during a 10-monthschool desegregation project. This included fourformal hearings (Boston, Massachusetts; Denver,Colorado; Louisvillef Kentucky; and Tampa, Florida);four open meetings held by State Advisory Committees(Berkeley, California; Corpus Christi, Texas;Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Stamford, Connecticut); asurvey of nearly 1,300 local school districts; and 29case studies of communities which had difficulties withdesegregation, had moderate success with desegregation,or had substantial success with desegregation.

Subsequent to the report's release, considerableinterest was generated concerning the specifics of thecase study findings, which, owing to space limitationsin the national report, were limited to a few briefparagraphs. In an effort to comply with publicrequests for more detailed information. Commissionstaff have prepared monographs for each of the casestudies. These monographs were written from theextensive field notes already collected andsupplemented, if needed, with further interviews ineach community. They reflect, in detail, the originalcase study purpose of finding which local policies,practices, and programs in each community surveyedcontributed to peaceful desegregation and which onesdid not.

It is hoped that the following monograph willserve to further an understanding of the schooldesegregation process in this Nation.

i i i

CONTENTS

I. Background 1Tempe Elementary School District No. 3

II. History of the District's Desegregation .... 4BackgroundImpetus for DesegregationDesegregation Plan EstablishedAtmosphere in which Desegregation Occurred

III. The Desegregation Plan 8Analysis

IV. Implementation of Desegregation 10The First Two YearsEffects of Desegregation

V. Conclusion 14

Figures

1. Map of Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 ... 2

2. Guadalupe Area Map 3

Appendix

Interviewees 17

V

I. BACKGROUND

Located directly east of and contiguous to PhoenixrTempe is the home of Arizona State University and theSalt River Project, the Stated largest utilitycompany. With a population of 62,907 in 1970, it isone of the most populous cities in the Phoenix StandardMetropolitan Statistical Area.1 Approximately 14percent of the population is of ethnic and racialminorities. The Hispanic (Mexican American) communityis the largest minority group, comprising 12 percent ofTemped population. Blacks are 1 percent of thepopulation and other minority groups, including NativeAmericans (Yaqui), comprise another 1 percent.2

Tempe Elementary School District No. 3

The Tempe Elementary School District No. 3.encompasses 36 square miles, an area much larger thanjust the city of Tempe, and has approximately 112,000residents. The district has a total of 20 elementaryschools (kindergarten through fifth grade) and 3intermediate schools (sixth grade through eight grade)but no junior or senior high schools. (See map ofTempe Elementary School District No. 3, figure 1.)

During the 1975-76 school year 2,710 minoritystudents accounted for 20.2 percent of the schooldistrict's 13,406 total enrollment. Of these, 2,058(15.4 percent) were Hispanic; 381 (2.8 percent) wereblack; 162 (1.2 percent) were Native American, and 109(0.8 percent) were Asian.

The faculty for the school district during 1975numbered 671. Hispanic teachers comprised 9 percent(61) of this total and black teachers accounted for 2percent (13). The faculty includes only 3 (0.4percent) Native American teachers and 2 (0.3 percent)Asian Americans.

1

Figure 1

MAP OF DISTRICT

TEMPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLDISTRICT NO. 3

Grades01 Bivins Administration Center02 McKemy Intermediate School 7-803 Gililland Intermediate School 6-7-804 Connolly Intermediate School 7-810 Frank School K-611 Carminati School K-612 Mitchell School K-613 Broadmor School K-614 ThewSchool K-615 Holdeman School K-616 Rural School K-617 Laird School K-618 MeyerSchool K-619 Evans School K-620 HudsonSchool K-621 ScalesSchool K-6

Grades

22 Curry School K-623 Arredondo School K-624 Bustoz School K-625 Ward School K-626 Nevitt School K-527 Wood School K-628 Aguilar School K-629 Rover School K-698 Getz School, Bus Garage

and Maintenance Center

FUTURE SCHOOL SITES

30 Elementary, now under construction05 Intermediate, now under construction

2

Figure 2 GUADALUPE AREA MAP

J56th

Street

BASELINE

Area 1 To Nevitt School

SONORA

Area 2 To Frank School

SAN ANGELOCHURCH

Area 3 To Evans School

GUADALUPE

Area 4 To Nevitt School

Area 5 To Frank School

Area 6 To Holdeman School

3

II. HISTORY OF THE DISTRICT'S DESEGREGATION

Background

The southwest corner of the Tempe Elementary SchoolDistrict No. 3 is called Guadalupe. Although it isnot part of the city of Tempe, this area was annexedinto the school district in 1953. The 2r100 residentsof the Guadalupe community are predominately MexicanAmericans (about 60 percent) and Yaqui Indians (about40 percent)3 The Veda B. Frank Elementary School,serving kindergarten through the fifth grade students,is the only school located in the community.Consequently, the student body of Frank school becamean ethnically identifiable or segregated pocket ofminority students. Sixth, seventh, and eight gradestudents also attended Frank school until the late1960s when they were reassigned to the centrallylocated Gilliland Intermediate School.

In 1972-7 3 Veda B. Frank elementary school had aminority student enrollment of 92 percent. Of thetotal student population, 90 percent were MexicanAmerican. Two other schools in the district also hadhigh percentages of Mexican American students. At ThewElementary on the west side Mexican Americans comprise42 percent of the total student enrollment and atGilliland Intermediate School near the university theyaccounted for 33 percent of the students.

Impetus for Desegregation

In January 1971, the U.S. Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, Office for Civil Rights (OCR),wrote the Tempe school district concerning an onsitereview in accordance with Title VI of the 1964 CivilRights Act. (The act prohibits race and nationalorigin discrimination by Federal Governmentcontractors.) OCR began its investigation of the Tempeschool district on February 22, 1971. Nearly 2 years

a

later, in December 1972, the Tempe Elementary SchoolDistrict No. 3 was found to be in. noncompliance withTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Office for CivilRights notified district school administrators inJanuary 1973 that Frank Elementary School must bedesegregated by fall 1973. After reviewing the facts,the Tempe School Board voted at its May 2f 1973 meetingto comply with OCR's findings and desegregate FrankElementary School. Responding in a positive manner,the board established the following guidelines forformulating a desegregation plan that would comply withthe 196U Civil Rights Act:

1. The concept of neighborhood schools should bemaintained to the extent possible...

2. The plan should be in keeping with thephilosophy of the school district...

3. The plan should be appropriate to the needs ofall the children in this school district.

4. The plan for desegregation should be long rangeand adaptable to population trends.

5. The shortest traveling distances to effectintegration should be used when possible.

6. Optimum use should be made of existingfacilities and resources.

7. The economic potential of the school districtmust be given definite consideration and the planshould be financially practicable.

8. The plan must be acceptable to HEW. Anyacceptable plan to HEW may represent a compromiseto various elements of these Guidelines.*

Desegregation Plan Established

The superintendent and some of his staff draftedtwo desegregation plans and the school board held apublic hearing on June 27, 1973, to discuss thealternatives. School district officials used the mediaeffectively to keep the public informed regarding the

5

OCR findings and the desegregation plans beingconsidered. Serveral meetings with the communityrepresentatives and OCR officials were held.

Both plans considered by the school board calledfor the division of the Guadalupe community into sixattendance areas. One plan paired two schools;kindergarten through third grade would attend FrankElementary School and grades four through six wouldattend Nevitt school. Nevitt was a new school, thenunder construction, about 3 miles from Frank. A secondplanr which was ultimately approved by the school boardand submitted to the San Francisco Regional Office ofOCR on July 7, 1973, called for a broader cross-distribution of students. One-third of the students inGuadalupe would remain at Frank school, one-third wouldattend Nevitt, and the remainder would attend two otherelementary schools also located about 3-1/2 miles fromthe Guadalupe community. The plan also anticipated theconstruction of another new school in the area in timefor the 1974-75 school year. This school, however, hasnot yet been built.

Atmosphere in Which Desegregation Occurred

According to interviewees, the desegregation plan,on the whole, was implemented in an atmosphere ofcooperation and positive support. There were positiveefforts, especially through the use of the media, toconvince parents, teachers and political leaders thatdesegregation must proceed immediately. The schoolboard, the superintendent, and his staff kept thecommunity informed of progress and an atmosphere ofopenness and honesty was established. The generalattitude became one of acceptance—"it is the law ofthe land" and "we can»t fight Washington (HEW)."

The Mexican American and Yaqui Indian studentsattending Frank Elementary School in Guadalupe,however, were most directly affected by the plan. Alarge majority of students from the Guadalupe areawould be bused to schools outside the community. Inaddition, drastic changes were to be expected to theschool, which until the desegregation effort had beentheir "own school," their one and only neighborhoodschool. Parents feared their children would no longerhave school teachers and a school environment that

6

would encourage the retention of their Native languageand culture. Guadalupe residents also protested thatthey were not consulted or involved in thedesegregation planning process.

Parents in Guadalupe organized to oppose thedesegregation plan. They enlisted the support of theirCongressman, John J. Rhodes, Minority Leader of theU.S. House of Representatives, in obtaining apostponement of the plan. Their efforts resulted inOCR granting a 1-year postponement of the desegregationorder. Nonetheless, Tempe school district officialsdecided to proceed with desegregation efforts with thebeginning of the 1973-74 school year.

Mexican American and Yaqui parents, who did notwish their children to be bused, strongly demonstratedtheir protest by organizing an alternative schoolcalled Itom Escuela, meaning "Our School." ItomEscuela, a trilingual-tricultural private school isstill operating with an enrollment of 55 students.

To minimize resistance to desegregation, some whiteparents who were concerned about their children beingbused to Frank School in Guadalupe were hired to workas aides in the school. Their jobs enabled them togain first-hand knowledge of their children1s schoolenvironment. Likewise, bilingual minority parents andteachers rode the buses with Mexican American and Yaquichildren and some were hired to work at other schools.

7

III. THE DESEGREGATION PLAN

The desegregation plan focused on the Guadalupecommunity (Veda B. Frank Elementary School) which wasdivided into six attendance areas. Other schoolssurrounding the Gaudalupe area also affected by theplan were Nevitt, Evans, Holdeman, Ritter, and a newschool to be constructed. The reassignment of studentsrequired by the plan affected Mexican American andYaqui children previously assigned to Frank school andwhite children assigned to Evans, Ritter, and Holdemanschools. Approximately 68 percent of the children whohad been attending Frank school were bused to otherschools and approximately 40 percent of the whitestudents originally enrolled at other schools werebused to Frank. This reassignment of students at thebeginning of the 1974-75 school year reduced theminority student population at Frank from 92 percent to36 percent.

The greatest distance involved in the studenttransportation plan was 3-1/2 miles. Accordingly, thelength of the bus ride and the time involved did notbecame a serious issues. Some parents expressedconcern, however, about the possibility of childrenmissing buses or having to wait for buses. Many moreparents were unhappy about the elimination of theneighborhood school concept.

Another result of the desegregation plan was thereassignment of approximately 22 percent of the Frankfaculty to one of the other target schools. Inaddition, psychologists, reading specialists, andteacher aides were added to the districts staff.. OnJune 20, 1973, the Tempe school board unanimouslypassed a resolution to implement an affirmative actionprogram to increase the number of minorities and womenon the faculty.

8

From 1974 to 1975r 112 new members were added to thefaculty. The number of Hispanic teachers increased by14 (from 47 to 61); four blacks, two Asian Americansand one Native American were added bringing the totals,respectively, to 13, 2, and 3. White teachersaccounted for the 91 other newly hired faculty members.

Analysis

The Tempe school district desegregation plan wasimplemented within a very short time. Thesuperintendents leadership was an important element inthe smooth implementation of the plan. His position,as well as that of the school board, was thatdesegregation is the "law of the land" and the districtmust comply. He consistently supported this officialposition in the face of opposition. In an interviewwith Commission staff, he noted that the short timeallowed for implementation did not permit seriouspolarization of the community.

District personnel involved in implementating theplan perceived it to be workable and simple. Severalinterviewees, however, stated that very few staffmembers had been involved with the superintendent inthe development of the plan. Despite some initialapprehensions among some regarding student disciplinaryproblems, teachers were generally cooperative andsupportive of the plan.

9

IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF DESEGREGATION

In preparation for implementation of the plan,school district personnel conducted a series of publicmeetings with parents, community representatives, mediarepresentatives, religious leaders, and teachers. Ateach meeting, they outlined the plan and explained howeach segment of the community would be affected.Parents, however, were not given a choice of schoolsthey wished their children to attend and they did notparticipate directly in the development of thedesegregation plan. The school district administrationneither appointed an advisory committee nor soughtassistance from the community during the implementationof the plan. An effort was made, however, to keep allsections of the community well informed during theplanning and implementation process by means of take-home material and objective coverage by the press andmedia.

A human relations workshop was conducted forpersonnel within the school district. Teachers werealso encouraged to enroll at Arizona State Universityin courses dealing with minority issues. Approximately20 percent of the districts teachers attendedinservice training programs focusing on the problems ofminority children. Special emphasis was placed oncultural differences between Anglo students on the onehand and Mexican American and Yaqui students on theother.

The school district publicized its efforts toimplement desegregation through the local media, itsown newsletter, and by direct mailing to parents ofchildren attending target schools. Persons interviewedstated that they felt parental support, thesuperintendent's leadership, and human relationstraining were the factors most responsible forfacilitating desegregation.

10

Aside from opposition, mainly from Mexican Americanand Yaqui parents in the Guadalupe community,implementation was relatively smooth and uneventful.According to most of the persons interviewed, the pressrelayed a factual, objective report to the public. Theeditor of the Tempe Daily News commented in aninterview that the school board and administrationdisliked the order to desegregate but complied anyway.He attributes the success of the plan to the prevalentattitude that "you do not fight city hall."

Tempe's business, religious, and political leadersfor the most part were neutral. They neither supportednor opposed the plan. Segments of the religiousleadership within the community did oppose portions ofthe plan: busing of young children and the lack ofprovision for bilingual-bicultural education. Thesereligious leaders had assisted the Guadalupe parents inefforts to stop implementation.

Members of the Guadalupe community commented thatthey would prefer to have quality bilingual-biculturaleducation for Mexican American and Yaqui childrenrather than the desegregation of their school. Theyalso expressed apprehension that the educational needsof Mexican American and Yaqui children would beoverlooked in a desegregated setting.

The First Two Years

After the initial hostile reaction by Guadaluperesidents, resistance to the desegregation plangradually dissipated. Implementation proceeded withoutviolence, white flight, or open interracial violence.

The school board and administration soughtadditional funds under the Emergency School AssistanceAct (ESAA) and Title I of Public Law 89-10 tofacilitate the desegregation process.

Most of the school district and communityrepresentatives interviewed agreed that there wasmarked improvement in the quality of education receivedby the districts children. They cited improvedstandardized reading scores as evidence of improvedquality education. The problem most frequentlymentioned facing the school district was teacher

11

attitudes which reflected some insensitivity to theneeds of minority children. School administrators andfaculty stressed the need for more intensive humanrelations training for district teachers.

Effects of Desegregation

Most persons interviewed reported thatdesegregation had a positive effect on the educationthat their children were receiving. Schooladministrators and teachers interviewed expressed thebelief that desegregation resulted in the introductionof innovative teaching methods to the Frank School, andencouraged teachers in other schools to experiment withsimilar methods.

The Tempe school district adopted a 24-point planto aid minority students. The school district addedbilingual-bicultural education and a remedialcurriculum designed to enhance the reading and languageskills of low-achieving minority youngsters. Otherinnovative academic programs included a preschoolprogram concentrating on concept and vocabularydevelopment of Yaqui Indian children, a remedialreading instruction program for target schoolsr and aspecial oral language and bilingual program. Theschool district instituted a bilingual-biculturalprogram in cooperation with a national televisionprogram.

Some members of the Guadalupe community alsocommented that the physical facilities at Frank Schoolhad improved. They believed this improvement resultedfrom white students being bused to this school.

Other positive effects reported were a decrease inabsenteeism among Mexican American students andincreased motivation of all students. Teachersfrequently cited the increased competition betweenstudents of different racial and ethnic backgrounds ascontributing to the improvement of motivation. Someteachers, however, expressed feelings that competitionamong students resulting from desegregation would bedetrimental to the self-image of some minoritychildren.

12

A few teachers stated that they felt the presentcurriculum, in spite of additions since theimplementation of desegregation, was not sufficientlycomprehensive to meet the needs of students from allracial and ethnic backgrounds.

Teachers and district administrators agreed thatexposure to children with different culturalbackgrounds and the necessity to study together wasbeneficial to all students. Parents generally feltalso that learning from teachers of different ethnicbackgrounds was a good experience for their children.Most persons interviewed reported increasedunderstanding between different racial and ethnicgroups in the community and believed that schooldesegregation facilitated this understanding.

13

CONCLUSION

In its national study, the U.S. Commission on CivilRights reached one conclusion which stood out above allothers: desegregation works. Although TempeElementary School District No. 3 is not without itsproblems, the Commission^ major conclusion regardingthe national picture applies to the specific situationin Tempe, Arizona.

In Tempe, there was a notable lack of violence anda minimum of community disharmony during implementationof the desegregation plan. In fact, dissentingfactions focused primarily on school boundaries, thedistance that children would have to be bused toschool, and the lack of bilingual-bicultural educationrather than dissatisfaction with the principle ofdesegregated schooling.

The superintendent and members of the school boardwere far-sighted enough to seize the opportunity todesegregate the schools. Such a decision deterredfurther sanctions, such as possible withdrawing ofFederal funds by HEW and the Justice Department. Theinvolvement of community groups and political leadersalso did much to keep a potentially disruptivesituation from developing.

Problems which covertly could jeopardize the goalof desegregation still remain in the Tempe schooldistrict. These problems include social isolationwithin the classroom, discipline problems, differentability ranges which must be dealt with by teachers,lack of sensitivity on the part of some facultymembers, and an underrepresentation of minorities onadministrative and teaching staffs.

In Tempe these problems do not appear to be severebecause school officials have acted affirmatively topromote the success of their program. The fact that

14

problems do exist, however, underscores a major pointin the Commission^ national report on desegregation:"Successful desegregation requires continualmonitoring, evaluation, periodic review, and perhapsupdating of the original plan."

15

NOTES

1. U.S.r Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,General Population Characteristics, 1970 Census ofPopulation, PC (1)-D4, table 23.

2. U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the census.General Social and Economic Characteristics, 1970Census of Population, PC (1)-CU, tables 112 and 123.

3. Yaqui refers to a Native American tribe.

4. Tempe School District No. 3, newspaper, June 21,1973.

16

APPENDIX

Listed below are persons interviewed for the surveyof Tempe Elementary School District No. 3.

Paul G. Chevarria, Ombudsman and AdministrativeAssistant - Tempe School District

Frank Connolly, Editor and Publisher- Tempe Daily News

Robert Covarrubias, Administrative Assistant toSuperintendent - Tempe School District

Robert P. Curryr Superintendent - Tempe School District

Rev. Guy A. Davidson, Pastor - Grace Community Church

Eleanor Earl, Elementary School Counselor - Nevitt andBroodmor Schools

Elias Esquerr Bilingual Education Instructor - ArizonaState University

Sam Fees, Assistant to the Superintendent - TempeSchool District

Myra France, Fourth-grade Teacher - Frank School

Father Elias Galvez, Paster - Guadalupe Church

Lauro Garcia, Guadalupe Organization

Doris Gorham, Mother

Carl Hunter, President - Tempe Elementary SchoolAssociation

Al Jauregui, Principal - Frank School

John R. Laidlaw, Principal - Nevitt School

William LoPiano, Mayor - Tempe

Jacqueline Manndt, Fourth-grade Teacher - Frank School

Angelita J. Mannheimer, Reading Teacher - Nevitt School

17

John Patterson, Counselor - Frank School

Dora Quesada, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth grade Teacher -Tempe School District

Marcella Roigr President - Frank School PTO

Carol Ann Sammans, President - PTO

George Sanchez, President - Tempe School Board

Arsenia Vacasequa, Area Coordinator - GuadalupeCommunity Action Agency

Mildred winemiller, ESSA Project Director - TempeSchool District

Dr. Lawrence D. Woodford, Member - Tempe School Board

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1977 729 2 1 9 / 5 6 4

18

U. S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTSWASHINGTON. D. C. 20425

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U S COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS