School Desegregation in Waterloo, Iowa - Weebly

SCHOOLDESEGREGATION INWATERLOO, IOWA

A STAFF REPORT OFTHE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONON CIVIL RIGHTS

August 1977

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

WATERLOO, IOWA

A Staff Report of theU.S. Commission on Civil Rights

August 1977

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Staff of the Commission's Midwestern RegionalOffice in Kansas City, Missouri, conducted the researchfor and prepared this report.

Larry Riedman of the Commission staff wasresponsible for final editing.

Preparation for publication was the responsibilityof Vivian Washington, Vivian Hauser, Deborah Harrison,Audree B. Holton, and Rita Higgins, supervised by BobbyWortman, in the Commissions Publication SupportCenter, Office of Management.

At the appointment of the Staff Director of theCommission, all activities that contributed 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, 1976, 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; Louisville, 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.

Subseguent 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 publicreguests 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.

iii

CONTENTS

I. Background 1The Roots of Segregation

II. School Desegregation in Waterloo 5Desegregation before 1972-73Secondary School RealignmentFurther Desegregation PressuresWaterloo RespondsThe PlanDebate and Decision

III. Desegregation in Retrospect 18Quality of EducationIowa Department of Public InstructionReportsProspects

IV. Conclusions 33

Tables

1. Waterloo Demographic Data: 1970 2

2. Racial Distribution at the 11 WaterlooSchools with Minority Enrollment,1967 6

3. Minority Faculty Distribution inWaterloo Schools 25

4. Minority Enrollment, 1970-76 26

V

I. BACKGROUND

Waterloo, in northeastern Iowar is the county seatfor Black Hawk County. The city's 1970 population was75,523;l of that total nearly 9 percent were black andapproximately 1 percent Hispanic.

The Cedar River divides the city into an easternsection containing the city hall, downtown stores,railyards, and older industrial plants, and a westernsection with hotels, residential areas, and the JohnDeere tractor plant. With more than 11,200 employees,the John Deere Company is the principal localemployer.2 Industry is important in Waterloo: only 3percent of the city's labor force makes its living fromagriculture.3 (For a statistical profile of Waterloo'spopulation, see table 1.)

The Roots of Segregation

Until 1910, when the Illinois Central Railroadbrought several hundred black workers to Waterloo asstrikebreakers, no more than three or four blackfamilies lived in the city. The new arrivals settledaround the railroad's shopyards in east Waterloo. Fewadditional blacks settled in the city until the SecondWorld War created job opportunities in the localfactories. Since the war, migration has doubledWaterloo's black population to the current figure ofnearly 9 percent of the total.

The settlement pattern established early in thiscentury has led to severe housing segregation*Waterloo's west side is 99.9 percent white, and mostblacks live in five east side neighborhoods. In 1967the local human rights commission reported that:

...Negro housing, mostly in an old part ofthe city, is a highly segregated affair. Ithas been quite impossible for any family tomove into a good housing district althoughmany have made such attempts.•

1

TABLE 1

Waterloo Demographic Data: 1970

Total Population 74,545

Level of EducationMedian years of schooling 12.3Graduated high school 60.1Graduated college 8.2

FamiliesTotal 18,949With female heads 140

EmploymentTotal 28,688By principal occupations (some occupations have been omitted)Construction 1,224Manufacturing 9,327Wholesale 1r304Eating and Drinking Places 1,162General merchandise 1,205Other retail trade 1,652Entertainment 1,379Schools 1,036

PovertyPercent receiving public assistance 5.4Percent families below poverty line 7.6

Movement into the countyPercent who were born outside the State 18.6Percent blacks 61.0

Proportion of population which is black 8.5

SOURCE: U.S., Bureau of the Census.

2

Waterloo has suffered poor race relations foryears. In addition to housing problemsr blacks tend tohold low-paying, low-status, blue-collar jobs and fewwhite-collar positions.5 In the summer of 1967, blackyouths demonstrated to protest their parents1

acceptance of segregated housing and education inexchange for "good" jobs,6 As the result of thesedemonstrations, the Waterloo Human Rights Commissionheld a hearing which revealed the extent of segregationand lack of opportunity for blacks in Waterloo.7

According to a former member of the city council,the black community views the council as particularlyhostile to measures to improve the lot of minorities.8

One member of the council serves as president of theNeighborhood School Association (NSA), a group opposedto busing for desegregation. The council abolished thelow-rent housing commission when it persisted inproposals to establish such housing, which might beoccupied by blacks, on the predominantly white side oftown. Also, the black community has expressed concernabout the distribution of community development funds,alleging insufficient benefit to minorities and thepoor.9 Charges of inequity first made in 1969 wererepeated in 1971 by the director of the WaterlooCommission on Human Rights.*o

Some community leaders, including the heads oflarger organizations and businesses, are reportedlydetermined that greater opportunities for minorities bemade available in Waterloo. For example, businessgroups grew concerned about the racial situation afterthe 1967 disturbances when they found that whitemanagers and professionals were reluctant to move toWaterloo, a problem that continues.»*

This long and growing frustration over racialtension and related problems appears to have been animportant inducement for civic leaders and the generalpublic to work seriously for the success of schooldesegregation when the time arrived.

3

Notes to Chapter I

1. U.S.r Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus, 1970 Census of Population, General Social andEconomic Characteristics# Iowa, PC 1-C17.

2. Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, Community QuickReference (October 1974).

3. Ibid.

4. Waterloo Commission on Human Rights, Hearing,Sept. 7, 1967, p. 14 (hereafter cited as 1967 Hearing)

5. 1967 Hearing, p. 62.

6. Ibid., p. 44.

7. See 1967 Hearing.

8. Mary Berdell, former member of the city council,telephone interview, Sept. 16, 1976.

9. Ibid.

10. Willie L. Mosley, former director, WaterlooCommission on Human Rights, letter to staff. Mar. 30,1971.

11. B.J. Fergerson, director, Waterloo Commission onHuman Rights, telephone interview, Sept. 13, 1976.

4

II. SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IN WATERLOO

Desegregation before 1972-73

In 1976 student enrollment in Waterloo publicschools was slightly over 16,000.l Of this total, over15 percent were black and less than 1 percent Hispanic.Of the total faculty of 938, 56 (6 percent) were black,5 were Asian American, and 5 were Hispanic. Thedistrict1s 36 schools included 27 elementary, 6 juniorhigh, and 3 senior high facilities.

Segregated housing and school attendanceboundaries contributed to significant racialsegregation in Waterloo1s public schools. In 1967, 81percent of white students attended schools that were atleast 90 percent white, and 30 percent of the blackstudents attended schools at least 90 percent minority.Although 11 of the 33 Waterloo schools had blackstudents (see table 2), 66 percent of the blackstudents attended schools with black majorities.2

The average academic performance of students inWaterloo was better than the national norm. However,test scores for 1966-67 suggested that students inpredominantly black schools were not learning at thesame rate as students in other Waterloo schools.3

Waterloo's four black elementary school teachersalso taught in predominantly black schools; there wasone black teacher in each of the two high schools.Although Waterloo had first hired a black teacher in1952, its six black teachers in 1966 constituted only0.8 percent of the faculty.*

In response to the demonstrations of 1967, theWaterloo School Board issued its first statement ofsupport for school desegregation. The board followedthis announcement with a series of experiments inlimited desegregation; these modest initiativescontinued until the school board—at the behest of the

5

TABLE 2

Racial Distribution at the 11 Waterloo SchoolsWith Minority Enrollment, 1967

East High 18.5 percent

Logan Junior High 29.0

McKinstry Junior High 36.0

City View Heights Elementary 83.2

Grant Elementary 99.7 (1 white pupil)

Frances Grout Elementary 22.0

Hawthorne Elementary 36.0

Lafayette Elementary 0.0 (1 black pupil)

Longfellow Elementary 63.8

Maywood Elementary 9.1

Roosevelt Elementary 41.2

SOURCE: Waterloo Human Relations Commission.

6

Iowa State Department of Public Instruction (DPI)—developed a comprehensive desegregation plan in 1973.

In fall, 1968, the school board proposed openenrollment (allowing children to attend any school withspace) as the principal means to desegregate. Ineffect, however, this only permitted the more daringblack parents to send their children to predominantlywhite schools in other attendance areas.5

A school board member observed at the time:

The intent of the school administration andthe school board is to proceed very graduallyand with great caution. The Waterloo schooldistrict will probably do only a little morethan it is forced to do to achievedesegregation of its schools. The schoolsystem has no plan for desegregating itsschools, nor is it trying to develop one. Atthe present time this system buses somethingless than 300 children to white schools inwhat is Called "voluntary open enrollment":the children only go to schools where thereis available space—and only those whovolunteer to participate.6

Two other desegregation efforts initiated in 1968-70 involved the Price Laboratory School (of theUniversity of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls) and themore complex and imaginative Bridgeway magnet schoolproject.

In the 197 0 Bridgeway project, the poorlydesigned, predominantly black (99.9 percent) GrantElementary School, located in the heart of a blackresidential district, became the Waterloo system'sschool for educational innovation. An experiencedprincipal was assigned to oversee the transition andwas provided with $120,000 to make the neededalterations and given the authority to recruit a stafffrom the entire district.

According to school officials. Grant (Bridgeway)now has a balanced enrollment (half white, halfminority), a superior staff, and committed parents.While it offers such innovations as open classrooms.

7

learning centers, ungraded classes, and team teaching,traditional elements remain. The qualities of GrantSchool—desegregation among them—are evidentlyattractive to white parents: the school boardpresident, who was a leader of the antibusingNeighborhood Schools Association, sends his child toGrant School,

Secondary School Realignment

In the fall of 1972, the school board andadministration took additional limited desegregationsteps with the opening of the new Central High School.Intended to replace a rural high school and to realignattendance at the two existing segregated city highschools (East and West) , Central would include portionsof both existing high school attendance zones and wouldtherefore be desegregated.

Through this realignment, school authoritiesdesegregated all three high schools. When Centralopened, the river was crossed, through open enrollment,by black students going to Central and West and by afew white students going the other way to attend East.Wes^s minority enrollment grew to 4.3 percent. AtEast the figure was 21.9 percent and at the new school(Central) blacks composed 11.4 percent of enrollment.7

The black percentage at East has since been reduced to19.0 while the percentage at West has climbed to 9.2and at Central to 16.2.

There has been no attempt to deal with segregationon the junior high level. Plans are being readied topossibly eliminate this problem through magnet schools,middle schools, and 4-year high schools.

Further Desegregation Pressures

Meanwhile, many in the black community in Waterloowere not satisfied with these limited desegregationmeasures. In January 1972 Dr. Robert Harvey, a blackdentist and member of the school board, recommended thehiring of more black teachers and administrators, theuse of texts that met minority needs, and theestablishment of an inservice training program. Theboard was not receptive.8

8

At Hawthorne School in March 1972, there wereprotests that the school had too few minority staffpersons and insufficient resources for the needs forblack students.9

In April 197 2 Dr. Harvey objected that the plan todesegregate the high schools would only involve a one-way movement of students. Black demonstrators alsoprotested that the plan served white rather than blackstudents.*© A Coalition of the Black Communitydemanded an end to open enrollment because it placedall the burden of desegregation on black students.*l

Dr. Harvey further argued that the realignment of highschool boundaries should have been accompanied bydesegregation at the junior high and elementary schoollevels.

In the same month, the League of Women Voterscirculated a petition and obtained 900 signatures insupport of desegregation of the high schools. Theleague urged that further measures be taken todesegregate.l2

Black groups supporting more extensivedesegregation then began a boycott of stores in a localshopping center. The boycott, which attracted nationalattention,13 was triggered by the use in a junior highschool class of a text that was considered extremelyderogatory toward blacks.14

Black students walked out of predominantly whiteschools in protest against the alleged insensitivity oftheir teachers and fellow students and conducted a sit-in at the superintendents office. Several principalsurged that schools be closed so calm could berestored.15 Although the boycott had little immediateeffect,16 it was followed in June by a publicendorsement of desegregation by the local chamber ofcommerce.

In July 1972 a local group called ConcernedParents of Waterloo protested to the Iowa StateDepartment of Public Instruction about the absence ofequal educational opportunity in Waterloo and asked theState to obtain further desegregation and theelimination of racist teaching materials.17 Also inJuly, the local chapter of the NAACP filed a suit

9

against the Waterloo schools, charging that they weresegregated. (The suit was later dropped when thedesegregation plan was implemented.)18

In November 1972 the Iowa State Board of Educationissued nondiscrimination guidelines that called forending racial isolation in Iowa's public schools.These guidelines required any district in whichindividual schools exceeded by 20 percentage points thepercentage of minority enrollment in the districtgenerally to submit reports detailing efforts to reduceminority isolation. In Waterloo, the guidelines thusaffected all schools more than 34 percent black. Oneblack member of the state board criticized theseguidelines as too weak.19

The accompanying policy statement from the IowaDPI noted:

In this State there should be no barrier toeducation based on the fact that a child maybe the member of any minority group.Segregation deprives all segments of society,both the minority and the majority, of thevital life experiences without which they areculturally and educationally disadvantaged.20

The statement called for "an explicit, unqualifiedcommitment by the local board" to use all possiblemethods to end discrimination.21

In February 1973 the department of publicinstruction reported that eight Waterloo schools didnot meet the criteria set out in the guidelines.22 Thedistrict was ordered to submit a report by May 31,1973, indicating what it proposed to do.23 The Stateeducation staff was, however, hopeful: one staffmember commented at the time that, in all Iowa, onlyWaterloo had already exhibited "measurable change."2«

Waterloo Responds

On February 14, 1973, James Sage, president of theWaterloo School Board, asked the superintendent todevelop a set of comprehensive proposals either for oragainst desegregation efforts, school closings, andfiscal economies.2« The board then decided to develop a

10

desegregation plan under Title VII of the EmergencySchool Aid Act (ESAA).2*

This decision resulted from several conditions.In October 1972 the school board faced theinevitability of school closings. Seriousconsideration of this problem began in 1973 with therealization that enrollment had dropped and would dropby another 1,600 pupils by 1976. The president of theschool board reported that "in a few years we may notneed 50 or 60 of our present elementary classrooms."2*The superintendent pointed out that the closings wouldsave money, ranging from a high of $363,500 fromclosing two schools to a low of $327,200 from closingone school and transporting pupils.28

By March 1973 the superintendent and the presidentof the board were making clear that along with theschool closings would go a realignment of elementaryschool boundaries—a natural outgrowth of the previousreadjustment of high school boundaries. SuperintendentGeorge Diestelmeier pointed out that the district coulduse Federal funds to close its schools and to complywith State regulations if it developed a comprehensivedesegregation effort under Title VII. He also stressedthat the loss of Federal funds for even such a limitedprogram as the lunch subsidy because of failure todesegregate would be a tremendous blow to thedistrict.29

By March 11, 1973, preliminary proposals had beendrafted that would comply with ESAA Title VII thedesegregation guidelines.3° The next day it becamepublic that the proposals called for the closing ofsome primary schools.31 when some school board membersprotested the closing of certain schools,Superintendent Diestelmeier urged that the board eitheraccept these recommendations or indicate new prioritiesto be used in determining school closings.32

The Plan

School authorities attempted to prepare a detaileddesegregation plan that would answer the concerns ofWaterloo's citizens, while satisfying the standards setby the State. The board quickly rejected two proposeddesegregation plans that would have involved only east

11

side schools. It gave more attention to two proposals.Plans A and B, which centered on the Emerson,Lafayette, and Maywood Elementary Schools.

Plan A involved the closing and pairing of schoolsin 13 of 35 attendance areas. These included theprincipal minority attendance zones and the contiguouswhite zones. This arrangement would provideconsiderable desegregation but also would for the mostpart preserve neighborhood schools. On the other hand,the plan did not involve every elementary school andcould not therefore achieve total desegregation.

Plan B called for the joining of groups of schoolswith contiguous boundaries. It too would involveminimal transportation, and it would meet Federalrequirements. Plan B, however, would not havesatisfied the State guidelines,33 might have allowedresegregation, and provided for only limitedinvolvement of the elementary school attendance areaswithin West High Schoolfs attendance zone.34

The school board began preparations for theimplementation of Plan A, though the program had notyet been officially adopted. Although legally mandatedtransportation under the plan would be minimal (Iowarecommends 2 miles as the maximum distance for schoolbusing), the plan proposed as a matter of convenienceand safety six new bus routes costing a total of$49,500.35 The increased busing would result from theproposed blending of City View Elementary School, whichhad a high minority concentration, with nonminorityschools on the west side. Also, students in LafayetteElementary would be reassigned to Hawthorne, Grout,Lowell, and Jewett; those in Emerson would be assignedto Longfellow, Whittier, Irving, Lowell, or City View;and Greenbrier and Lincoln were to be paired with Kriegand Van Eaton.36

In preparation for desegregation, the school boardappointed an advisory committee to help prepare theTitle VII ESAA proposal. The committee includedrepresentatives of the Waterloo Education Association,human rights commission, Waterloo Chamber of Commerce,University of Northern Iowa, the Center for UrbanEducation, NAACP, African Palace, East Side Citizens1

Committee, Neighborhood Schools Association, PTA,

12

parochial schools, League of Women Voters, SHAREf andparent representatives from all of the schools in thedistrict.3* The Waterloo Commission on Human Rightswas designated as the proposed recipient of the TitleVII funds. A community organization, "the consortium,"was also formed with representation from most of theabove groups as well as Catholic charities, YMCA,United Services, American Association of UniversityWomen, and the Welfare Rights Organization.38 These twocommittees overlapped to allow development of athorough proposal.39

The Title VII proposal outlined the services andpersonnel the district believed necessary to provideeffective implementation of Plan A. These includedremedial services beyond those conducted under otherprograms, enlarged libraries with increased services,recruitment of desegregation experts, additionalteacher aides, and desegregation training for allstaff. An important segment of these efforts was to bea contract for inservice faculty and staff training.The contract provided for 5 days of training before thebeginning of the school year and another 36 days duringthe school year. The program would includesimulations, group dynamics, minority languagedifferentiation, and discussions. At least 2 days ofinservice training during the year were to be given tostaff in every school—not only to teachers andsubstitute teachers, but also to supervisors, custodialand cafeteria workers, and typists.40

Debate and Decision

Most groups that had been involved with thedesegregation struggle backed Plan A. Many hadrepresentatives on the ad hoc bodies that developed theTitle VII proposal for funds to end desegregation.

Although the Neighborhood Schools Association wasalso represented on the advisory committee, itannounced its opposition to the Title VIIapplication.41 Its opposition centered on busing,although the proposal required the busing of only about1,000 more pupils than were being bused at that time.42

At a March 1973 meeting of the school board, severalNSA speakers attacked the administration proposals asunnecessary and unreasonable.43 The Waterloo Courier

13

reported on April 1 that the NSA appeared to have widesupport at community meetings sponsored by the schooldistrict. The NSA benefited from the hostility ofparents whose children attended schools scheduled to beclosed under the plan.44

The NSA position was stated at the April meetingby its attorney, Hugh Fields. He denied that there wasa dual school system in Waterloo or that there had beensegregation in the past. He protested that the courtshad not yet ruled on de facto desegregation (the U.S.Supreme Court had not yet ruled on the Keyes case inDenver). Mr. Fields argued that, because there was nosegregation, there was no need to desegregate.45

In April 5, 1973, the school board met to vote onthe official adoption of Plan A. Writing to thepresident before the meeting, one board member notedhis concern about the problems of desegregation butconcluded:

If some form of integration of the schools inWaterloo causes me trials and yet will helpinsure this city for my children's children,letfs get on with it.46

However, opinion was not united: the motion toimplement Plan A passed by a a 4-3 vote. One boardmember who voted against the plan told Commission staffthat she favored desegregation but wanted a year ofinservice training first.

NAACP spokesperson Joy Lowe, present at themeeting, commended the board for its choice.47

14

Notes To Chapter II

1. Data on school enrollment and faculty obtainedfrom the Waterloo School District (hereafter cited asWSD) .

2. Waterloo Commission on Human Rights, Hearing,Sept. 7, 1967, p. 26 (hereafter cited as 1967 Hearing).

3. Ibid., pp. 33ff.

4. Ibid., pp. 30ff.

5. Iowa Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights, Walk Together Children (May 22, 1971), p.7.

6. Ibid., p. 8.

7. Data obtained from the U.S., Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, Office for Civil Rights.

8- Waterloo Daily Courier, Jan. 25, 1972.

9. Ibid., Mar. 23, 1972.

10. Ibid., Apr. 25, 1972.

11. WSD.

12. Waterloo Daily Courier, Apr. 11, 1972.

13. New York Times, June 29, 1972.

14. Ibid., May 30, 1972.

15. WSD.

16. Waterloo Daily Courier, May 31, 1972.

17. Waterloo Daily Courier, July 21, 1972; see alsoNew York Times, Sept. 3, 1972.

18. WSD.

19. Des Moines Register, Feb. 25, 1973.

15

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.


24. Jess High, head of the Urban Education Section,Iowa Department of Public Instruction, quoted inWaterloo Daily Courier, Apr. 18, 1973.

2 5. James Sage, president, Waterloo School Board,letter to George H. Diestelimer, Waterloosuperintendent of schools, Feb. 15, 1973.

26. Under this program Federal funds are available toschool districts provided that nondiscriminationassurances dealing with faculty assignments and hiring,student extracurricular activities, student discipline,and class assignment practices are filed with theadministrating agency, the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare (HEW).

27. WSD.

28« Waterloo Daily Courier, Jan. 23, 1973.

29. Ibid., Mar. 18, 1973.

30. Ibid., Mar. 11, 1973.

31. Ibid., Mar. 12, 1973.

32. WSD.

33. State guidelines state that Waterloo's minoritypercentage in any school could not be 20 percentagepoints over the district's total minority percentage.Waterloo's minority percentage is 16 percent,therefore, a 36 percent limit in any school would bemaximum. Federal guidelines are at 50 percentagepoints. Plan B would have allowed some schools to beover 56 percent.

34. Waterloo Daily Courier, Mar. 13, 1973.

16

35. WSD.

36* Waterloo Daily Courier, Mar. 13, 1973.

37. Ibid., Jan. 31, 1973.

38. Ibid., Jan. 29, 1973.

39. WSD.

40. Ibid.

41. Des Moines Register, Mar, 20, 1973.

42. WSD.

**3- Waterloo Daily Courier, Mar. 28, 1973.

44. Ibid., Mar. 26, 1973; Mar. 29, 1973.

45. Hugh Fields, attorney for Neighborhood SchoolsAssociation, statement to board of education, Apr. 4,1973.

46. Ibid., Apr. 5, 1973.

47. Ms. Joy Lowe, interview in Waterloo Daily Courier,Apr. 7, 1973.

17

III. DESEGREGATION IN RETROSPECT

Despite the longstanding racial tensions inWaterloo and opposition to desegregation that wouldinvolve busing, Plan A was implemented in districtelementary schools in September 1973 without violenceor disruption. Commission staff interviews withnumerous individuals involved in the desegregationeffort revealed a number of factors responsibile forthis positive development.

First, widespread support for desegregation wasevident in key elements of the community. Theleadership of these elements was of paramountimportance in encouraging peaceful desegregation in thecommunity.

For example, the media supported desegregationstrongly, and many letters to the Waterloo DailyCourier and its staff complained of noncoverage of theactivities of local antibusing groups and theirleaders.1 Both Robert Buckmaster, chairman of BlackHawk Broadcasting, and Robert J. McCoy, executiveeditor of the Waterloo Daily Courier, told Commissionstaff that they and their media arms supporteddesegregation actively. Both believed that had theynot done so, desegregation could not have occurred assmoothly as it did.

Station KWWL-TV editorialized on March 20, 1973:

We are going to have to close some schoolsone of these days, and we will certainly haveto integrate those that are left. The onlyquestion is can the transition be made in anadult fashion with sober thought and honestconcern on both sides?

On April 2, 1973, KWWL declared:

The board should adopt a plan which wouldaccomplish that objective [reduction of

18

racial isolation] or at least make asignificant start on it. We do NOT thinkthat •Plan E1 [one of several beingconsidered by the board at that time], whichwould simply transfer students to the nearestbuilding...is the way to go about it.

Similar support came from the Waterloo DailyCourier, 2 and the Des Moines Register, the principalpaper in the State, commented:

School boards cannot undo the discriminationthat causes all-black neighborhoods, but theycan see to it that segregation is rooted outof educational systems that are expected toteach children about such democratic valuesas equality, tolerance and justice. TheWaterloo school board1s stand deservessupport.3

The Waterloo Defender, the principal blacknewspaper, was somewhat skeptical, noting that pastefforts to obtain change had been ignored by the schoolboard.4

Rev. Wayne Hoffman, chairman of the Waterloo HumanRelations Commission, complained in March 1973 that theboard had been moving too slowly to end desegregation.5

The commission had become active in supportingdesegregation as had several biracial and predominantlywhite groups.

Industrial, commercial, and media leaders inWaterloo generally supported desegregation effortsduring this period. Some business leaders paid foradvertisements supporting desegregation. Businessleaders perceived their peers as moderately supportiveof the changes.

As for other community groups, most politicalleaders remained neutral, reluctant to become involvedone way or the other in the desegregation issue.Support from the Catholic Archdiocese was particularlyuseful: the head of the parochial schools not onlyvocally supported desegregation, but also took steps toensure that his schools would not serve as havens forfleeing whites.

19

Many teachers in Waterloo also supported thedesegregation measures. President David Miller of theWaterloo Education Association said officially that thesavings from school closings, the funds that could beused to improve programs, and the opportunity todevelop flexible and innovative programs were importantto teachers.

He added:

But more important than saving money would bethe opportunity to take another necessarystep toward ending racial isolation. Thisisolation leads to misconceptions,misunderstandings and even fear of otherhuman beings.6

Another teacher told the school board at its April5 meeting that he was:

...tired of hearing parents pretend to be soconcerned about having their child go to theschool close to home so they know they aresafe, and who, at the same time, often haveno idea where their child is at night, or whohe is with, or what he does at school when heis there... . 7

Some key school officials in Waterloo, notablyGeorge Diestelmeier, superintendent of the Waterlooschools, responded to the intensifying pressure todesegregate with strong leadership. Commenting on hisrole, the Iowa Department of Public Instructionobserved:

Diestelmeier rather modestly attributes someof the success of Plan A to "luck." But it israther obvious that a massive desegregationprogram with strong opposition cannot beinstituted without a strong commitment by thedistrict. In order to be successful, certainelements have to be present: strongleadership and careful planning by theadministration and the school board, teacherdedication and human relations training, andparental involvement at every stage in theplanning process.8

20

Other key members of the administrative team indesegregation planning were the director of school-community relations, the assistant superintendent incharge of the division of personnel, and coordinator ofprogram planning. All supported the desegregationefforts.

The administration could not have planned orimplemented desegregation without the support of theschool board. The strongest support came from JamesSage, then president of the board. On February 13r1973, he wrote to his fellow board members:

My personal feelings at this time lead me tobelieve that we must make a strong andconcerted effort to make our schools andhopefully the community a better place inwhich to live.

We cannot continue to rear our children in acommunity which has so much distrust and fearbetween races. You may say why should theschool district attempt to make progress inthis area? My answer is, who else, who has,or who will attempt to lead the way.9

Mr. Sage pointed out that desegregation wasnecessary if people and industry were to be attractedto Waterloo. He argued that whites were alreadyfleeing the city, but contended that "they cannotcontinue to run forever." He concluded: "I feel wemust develop a strong, positive, and constructivestatement, and back it up to the people in thecommunity, which will state our school system must beintegrated on all levels."*°

The groups that supported desegregation and workedhard to ensure successful implementation made the taskof the schools that much easier. The fact that many ofthe leading proponents of desegregation had alreadyplaced their children in Bridgeway was powerfultestimony to their commitment.

Along with this support, of course, there wassteady opposition to Plan A from the beginning. TheNeighborhood Schools Association (NSA) organized in1972 to oppose the high school realignment claimed to

21

have 7,000 predominantly white members in March 1973.The appearance of an NSA advertisement asking parentsto cast straw ballots "against forced busing of ourchildren" and "in favor of the neighborhood schoolconcept," was followed by a turnout of more than 400persons at a school board meeting. Harold Getty, theorganization's president, stated that the associationfavored desegregation but opposed busing to achieveit.»» In addition, individual white parents sentletters to the Daily Courier opposing "forced busing,"school closings, and similar desegregation measures, aswell as desegregation, per se.12

NSA appealed the decision of the school board toimplement Plan A to the Black Hawk County Board ofEducation. The appeal was based on Chapter 290 of theIowa Code, which describes appeals procedures forpublic school transportation disputes. It was denied.The county board rejection was appealed to the Stateboard of education; this was also denied. The NSA alsoproposed to obtain a temporary injunction prohibitingthe school closings and transfers,13 but did not havethe necessary funds to pursue a court action.

The Neighborhood School Association, despite theselosses, remained a potent political force. In the 1973school board elections, the pro-Plan A majority of fourlost one member and became the minority. The majoritywas again reversed in the September 1976 elections,when an NSA board member was defeated.

Despite the shifting political tides,desegregation has occurred. The NSA-majority board didnot try to turn the clock back. In interviews duringFebruary 1976, four board members expressed a range ofopinions. One member supported what had happened;another was neutral. Some complained that the qualityof education had dropped but offered no proof; othersbelieved that the quality, at least of achievement, wasbetter. Some thought white flight had occurred and wasquite noticeable. Although not completely hostile todesegregation, several expressed the simple convictionthat nothing much had been accomplished and that a lotof money had been spent for nothing. In 1975 the boardvented its frustration by refusing to renew its TitleVII application.

22

In general, community leaders interviewed reportedthemselves to have been initially more favorable todesegregation than the community at large. Mostreported that public support increased afterimplementation. This may be due to the exertions ofthe department of community-school relations, which haspromoted community contact in a variety of ways. Itsnewsletter. The Red Apple, encourages active parentparticipation in the schools.14

Only a few opponents of the effort still perceivedmassive community hostility. Most of those questionedbelieved that Waterloo would continue to desegregateits schools regardless of what transpired nationally(for instance, antibusing amendments) .

Quality of Education

Few of the changes brought about by Plan A boredirectly on the quality of education. There wasgeneral agreement that race relations had improved, ifonly because white and black children now interactedwhere in the past they had not. It was difficult todetermine whether several instances of interracialfighting were actually racially inspired, for schoolsaround the Nation were experiencing higher levels ofstudent violence generally.

The staff inservice training component of the planhas been judged by inhouse evaluation to be generallysuccessful. The department of school-communityrelations retained the services of nationally knowndesegregation experts until 1975-76, at which time itbegan to rely on local consultants and its own staff.The programs were judged particularly helpful intraining white middle-class teachers, many of whom hadnever met a black person, to teach black working-classpupils. There was little evidence, however, of blackmaterials and the black experience being incorporatednaturally into the teaching.

The department continues an active inserviceprogram that includes training of cadres in theschools, developing new curricula, and textbookselection. The annual reports of the department revealincreases in the number of schools participating insuch programs and the range of activities provided.15

23

Iowa Department of Public Instruction Reports

The Iowa Department of Public Instruction's urbaneducation section issued reports in 1975 and 1976 onprogress toward desegregation in the State's publicschools.

While the 1974-75 report provided data concerningracial and ethnic distribution generally and in specialclasses, suspension, and retention,16 the 1976 reportmade specific recommendations. The 1976 reportindicated that, although further study is necessary inWaterloo,17 in most of the 13 elementary schoolsaffected by the plan the minority proportions hadstabilized. The report found at Hawthorne Elementaryand Logan Junior High Schools that minority enrollmentshad declined between 1974-75 and 1975-76, but that atfour other schools (Longfellow, City View, and GrantElementaries, and McKinstry Junior High) racialisolation had increased.18 Longfellow, City View,McKinstry, and Logan were thought to show no signs ofcoming within the State's desegregation guidelines (nominority concentration in excess of 35 percent).19 Thehigh schools, however, were judged fullydesegregated.20 Complete statistics on changes in boththe faculty and student racial composition ofWaterloo's public schools for the period of 1970-76appear in tables 3 and 4.

The DPI noted with approval that the inservicehuman relations program for school staff was continuingdespite the loss of Title VII funding (owing to theschool board's decision not to apply for 1975-76 aid).It also noted that cadres of human relationsfacilitators had been trained in each school.

In addition to its desegregation guidelines, theIowa Department of Public Instruction later issuedguidelines on affirmative action and multiculturalcurricula.21 The DPI's 1976 report noted that theWaterloo district had appointed a full-time coordinatorof multicultural education and was providing inservicetraining in the use of the materials the district hadpurchased. The district also issued a monthlymulticultural newsletter. The DPI commented that thedistrict seemed committed to equalizing minority staff

24

TABLE 3

School

Central HighEast HighWest HighBunger Jr.Logan Jr.McKinstry Jr.West Jr.Castle HillCity ViewCresthavenGroutGrantHawthorneIrvingJewettKingsleyLongfellowLowellRooseveltOrangeWashburnWestridgeExpoFollow-ThroughHooverCentral Admin.RevonshireKriegElk RunVan EatonHooverGreenbier

TOTAL

Minority Faculty Distribution inWaterloo Schools

School Year

1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 197J-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77

42 56 58

12

"68* 66 62

25

- 4 4 5 6 610 10 13 9 9 5 52 2 3 2 3 2 11 1 1 1 11 2 1 3 4 5 42 4 5 5 4 5 5- - 2 2 3 4- 2 2 2 21 2 2 2 3 1 11 2 1 1 2 1 1- 1 2 2 2 25 6 5 4 6 5 3I 3 6 7 7 6- - 3 1 1 11 4 5 2 3 3 3I I 1 1 1 1 13 5 5 3 3 6 5- 1 2 11 1 1 1 1 11 1- 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1_ _ _ _ _ _ i

- 1 - 1 1I 1I I 2 3 3 3 31 i _ _ _ _ _

1 1 - - 1- 1 1—> — 1 — — — —

- 12

TABLE 4

Minority Enrollment 197 0-76

1970TotalMinorityMin. *

1971TotalMinorityMin. %





19 76TotalMinorityMin. %

\

%

6063

0.5

5465

0.9

5295

0.9

4873

0.6

4574

0.9

46112

2.6

3868

2. 1

o

\

4451

0.2

4566

1.3

4227

1.7

40631

7.6

40241

10.2

39547

11.9

38965

20.1

o

(0

1420

0.0

1270

0.0

1331

0.8

1374

2.9

1200

0.0

951

1. 1

960

0.0

o

%%

119108

90.8

121112

92.6

110101

91.8

9048

53.3

10441

39.4

9251

55.4

8537

43.5

\

\

30642

13.7

29838

12.8

25234

13.5

27462

22.6

26253

20.2

24838

15.3

26736

13.5

•o

\

\

2110

0.0

2370

0.0

2380

0.0

2340

0.0

2210

0.0

2190

0.0

2120

0.0

%

\

\'*

4710

0.0

4460

0.0

3920

0.0

37127

7.3

25025

10.0

25434

13.4

27035

13.0

%

%

5050

0.0

4730

0.0

4280

0.0

3936

1.5

3413

0.9

3242

0.6

3061

0.3

X%34115

4.4

35826

7.3

34737

10.7

---

---

---

---

\

1075

4.7

1273

2.4

1753

1.7

1513

2.0

1383

2.2

1480

0.0

1352

1.5

•Denotes schools affected by 1972-73 and 1973-74 boundarychanges.

Source: Waterloo School District.

26

TABLE 4—cont inued




1973TotalMinorityMin. X




\

424232

54.7

426223

52-3

45122 2

49.2

45 523050.6

430225

52.3

420239

56.9

428233

54.4

2 234

1.7

23410

4.3

21710

4.6

25720

7.8

24325

10.3

24 330

12.3

2 2731

13.7

Q *rs «

% °

345111

32.2

3 17121

38. 1

309106

34.3

29122

7.6

28124

8.5

29732

10.8

29534

11.5

\

\

\

430223

51.9

354175

49.4

328180

54.9

314144

45.9

270105

38.9

277107

38.6

273114

41.8

I

52617

3.2

51437

7.2

50137

7.4

52837

7.0

49642

8.5

45733

7.2

42136

8.6

(0

%

74148

6.4

64945

6.9

62337

5.9

67236

5.4

66029

4.4

59822

3.7

61328

4.3

\

39851

12.8

36735

9.5

35236

10.2

36727

7.4

35422

6.2

35319

5.4

33916

4.7

\

V74627

3.6

67919

2.8

644243.7

62121

3.4

56019

3.4

52312

2.3

50311

2.2

t

17841

23.0

16539

23.6

15547

30.3

1694b

26.6

17538

21.7

18144

24.3

16439

23.8

2301

0.4

2040

0.0

2040

0.0

-

--—

--—

---

*Denotes schools affected by 1972-73 and 1973-74 boundary changes.

27








\40020.5

3868

2. 1

3883

0.8

329112

34.4

315110

34.9

287100

34.8

282102

36.2

I\512

33365.0

545372

68.3

4343 29

70.0

475234

49.3

44020546.6

411192

46.7

362149

41.2

\56800.0

5443

0.6

5322

0.4

529151

28.5

489135

27.6

476130

27.3

432123

28.7

too%132

2518.9

1259

7.2

1227

5.7

---

---

---

---

o\298

00.0

2680

0.0

2560

0.0

2 963

1.0

2959

3. 1

31210

3.2

35516

4.5

to%

47321645.7

453235

51.9

41022454.6

401131

32.7

367139

37.9

361126

34.9

374142

38.0

%\147

21.4

16324

14.7

%

15922

13.8

13535

25.9

13231

23.3

11528

24.3

10036

36.0

\58000.0

5570

0.0

4620

0.0

4320

0.0

3940

0.0

3862

0.5

3461

0.3

CO\%

181

00.0

1820

0.0

1870

0.0

2053

1.4

2254

1.8

2114

1.9

2177

3.2

%%39113

3.3

3694

1. 1

3683

0.8

3345

1.5

3127

2.2

2827

2.5

30014

4.7


28

*****

O

TABLE 4—continued

TABLE 4—Continued








I514

00.0

50212

2.4

5060

0.0

4727

1.5

48614

2.9

46311

2.4

4299

2. 1

5312

0.4

5500

0.0

5622

0.4

5874

0.7

70333

4.7

69849

7.0

6 5050

7.7

%

°«

74024

3.2

75441

5.4

83226

3.1

89328

3. 1

82219

2.3

78543

5.5

760709.2

CJQ

%

681241

35.4

724255

35.2

653253

38.7

70929040.9

751324

43.1

729303

41.6

70628740.7

\

%628215

34.2

57522439.0

572248

43.4

51925348.8

524264

50.4

525270

51.4

527240

45.5

r*.

1, 16426

2.2

1,193463.9

1,091433.9

1,034555.3

1,04257

5.5

1,084645.9

1,06251

4.8

o

\

<

-

992113

11.4

1,005144

14.3

967171

17.7

1,04515414.7

1,091166

15.2

?»

1,556361

23.2

1,535404

26.3

1,36 3299

21.9

1 ,179237

20.0

1,10 5190

17.2

1,02020019.6

999190

19. 0

o

1465

00.0

4590

0.0

-

-

-

-

-

(0

2,048301.5

2, 148351.6

1,698735.2

1,6231187.3

1,5741348.5

1,5371459.4

1,570173

1 1.0


29

as well as enrollment, having hired additional minorityteachers during the past year.22

Prospects

There is still pressure to turn back fromdesegregation, but there appears to be little prospectof such a development. The superintendent and hisstaff appear committed to further efforts to ensureeffective school desegregation. The school board nowhas a pro-desegregation majority. The desegregationprocess has produced institutional arrangements thatare likely to lead to further progress in the provisionof equal educational opportunity for all Waterloo1sschool children. As Waterloo1s families becomeaccustomed to desegregated education and students livewith it from the earliest grades, the prospects ofsuccessfully improving race relations in the school andthe community increase.

30

Notes to Chapter III


2. Ibid., Mar. 4, 1973; Apr. 4, 1973; Apr. 15, 1973.

3. Des Moines Register, Apr. 12, 1973.

4. Waterloo Defender, Mar. 23, 1973.

5- Waterloo Daily Courier, Mar. 2, 1973.

6. David Miller, president, Waterloo EducationAssociation, letter to George Diestelmeier,Superintendent, Waterloo School District, Apr. 5, 1973.

?• Waterloo Daily Courier, Apr. 6, 1973.

8. Iowa Department of Public Instruction, UrbanEducation Section, A Challenge to Change (Fall 1974) p.2.

9. James Sage, president, Waterloo School Board,letter to the board, Feb. 13, 1973.

10. Ibid.

11. Waterloo Daily Courier, Mar. 13, 1973.

12. Ibid., Mar. 20, 1973; Mar. 22, 1973; Mar. 25,1973; Mar. 28, 1973; Apr. 4, 1973; Apr. 5, 1973.

13. Waterloo Daily Courier, Apr. 12, 1973; Des MoinesRegister, Apr. 13, 1973.

14. Information supplied by Waterloo School District.

15. Ibid.

16. Iowa Department of Public Instruction, A Report onRace, Ethnics, and Sex characteristics of Iowa's PublicSchools, 1974-75 (undated).

17. Iowa Department of Public Instruction, IowaSchool's Progress Reports on Desegregation, August1976, Xerox.

31

18. Ibid. See section entitled "Summary of WaterlooCommunity School District Desegregation Status Report:July 1976" (hereafter cited as Waterloo Summary).

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Iowa Department of Public Instruction, TwoProcedural Models for Affirmative Action in Iowa'sSchools (undated) and Multi-Cultural, Non-SexistCurriculum Guidelines for Iowa Schools (undated).

22. Waterloo Summary.

32

IV. CONCLUSIONS

•Support by crucial elements of the businesscommunity and the media as well as pressure by theminority community, helped make desegregationpossible.

•Without commitment to desegregation by thesuperintendent and his staff, desegregation wouldhave been impossible.

•The Iowa Department of Public Instructionprovided a catalyst that speeded the process ofchange.

•Opposition was strong but stayed within thelegitimate avenues of dissent. As desegregationproved less negative than those opposed to itexpected, hostility declined.

•A successful human relations training programhelped reduce tension and prevented hostileencounters that might have sabotaged the effort.

33

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1977 728-623/518

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

Documents

School Desegregation in Waterloo, Iowa - Weebly