Turn-of-the-century Teachers And Administrators: Gender And Autonomy

12/5/2007 UE 70200

-1-

Turn-of-the-Century Teachers and Administrators: Gender and Autonomy by: Claire M. Fontaine When William Henry Maxwell became the first superintendent of schools of New York City in 1898 there was no school system as such to speak of. The former City of Brooklyn, now incorporated as a borough of Greater New York City, in many respects had a more highly developed and democratic portfolio of educational offerings than did Old New York, the geographical area we now know as Manhattan and the Bronx. Over the next two decades Maxwell sought to impose structure and centralized control upon the disparate institutions now under his jurisdiction. These ranged from the crowded and immigrant-dominated primary schools of the Lower East Side to the one-room schoolhouses of rural Richmond and Queens counties to the well-established Brooklyn high schools concentrated in the historic Dutch residential neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant. Maxwell did accomplish many of the goals he set out in his modernization scheme, including formalizing the process of teacher appointment, offering education at a higher level to greater numbers of students, and expanding services provided in the school setting into auxiliary areas of life like physical health services, vocational training, and sexual health education. Along with his successes, however, came unintended consequences, particularly in the realm of teacher-supervisor relations. The antagonistic relationship with supervisory personnel now so familiar to professional educators was arguably set on its course by the bureaucracy Maxwell founded. This examination of bureaucratization of New York City schools under Maxwell, the first superintendent, is at root an attempt to connect the experiences of city teachers a century apart. Turn-of-thecentury teachers navigated a chaotic and disjointed system, run by professional administrators just emerging from the universities, ready to impose corporate culture and the language of scientific management on the school system. Today’s teachers navigate a newly redesigned system under mayoral control in which a very

12/5/2007 UE 70200

-2-

few individuals without a background in education wield enormous power. Particular attention will be paid to perceptions of teacher competency by their supervisors, and to the extent possible given the paucity of teacher-generated primary source material, to teachers’ own sense of their autonomy and professionalism. The implications of gender divisions within the educational sphere will be explored when appropriate, often revealing supervisory paternalism toward female teachers. I hope that whatever preliminary conclusions I am able to draw might be of some use despite the limited scope of the investigation.

New York City and other urban school systems underwent fundamental changes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. New York in particular witnessed unprecedented levels of immigration, mostly from southern and Eastern Europe. The shifting demographics threatened more established Americans’ sense of security and control and led members of the social elite to explore new approaches to schooling. The ward system of neighborhood control of schools had worked well enough in the mid-nineteenth century when the flow of immigration was more modest, but the so-called “new immigrants” from southern and eastern Europe were more numerous and more foreign, in language and appearance as well as religion. Leading members of society postulated that the principles of scientific management that had been so effective in maximizing the efficiency of factories could be as effective when applied to the schools. City schools were by all accounts insufficiently equipped to meet the demands that the twentieth century would pose. In Old New York, as Manhattan and the Bronx were designated before the incorporation of the city, high schools as we now understand them had scarcely existed at the time of this initial snapshot. There were three sites that offered instruction to primary school graduates, but all had existed for less than a year and were housed in defunct elementary school buildings.i What we now refer to as an “eighth grade education” was the norm. Children of established families customarily attended private primary schools and were sent away to

12/5/2007 UE 70200

-3-

“prep” schools before college. These boarding schools became known as prep schools because they were originally established by associated Ivy League universities to prepare students for the qualifying exam, which served as the primary admission criterion. Andrew Draper, superintendent of public instruction in New York City, explained that inferior “hygienic conditions… exerted a powerful influence to drive the well-to-do people out of relations with the common schools.” His specific concerns included insufficient “breathing room and sunlight… too close contact with other children who are unclean,” and teachers “unworthy of companionship with a well-bred child, and incapable of teaching him.” These families were not the “independently rich, but the great, self-respecting, comfortable class, who earn their living and pay their debts.” This situation, whereby the public schools serve only the lower socioeconomic classes, was problematic in his mind, but he believed it could be remedied if standards for the appointment of teachers were raised.ii Class-conscious established New York families tended to cluster uptown, far from the teeming hordes of “new immigrants” who settled in the densely populated tenement districts of the Lower East Side.iii There was much discussion among public-minded society folks of how best to assimilate immigrants to the American way of life. Public schools were settled upon as the most likely instrument of assimilation, and enrollments soared. Elementary school enrollment almost doubled between 1898 and 1917, going from 388,860 to 729,992. High school enrollments increased nearly seven-fold in the same span of time, from 9,373 to 63,699.iv

At the beginning of the nineteenth century nine out of ten teachers were men, usually people in transition. The average building was the rural one room schoolhouse. As one contemporary bluntly stated, “Teaching is a half way house for those bound for the learned professions, and a hospital for the weakminded of those who have already entered them.”v Most people thought of teaching as a means to an end, a job, not a profession in itself, but a way to earn money and keep busy in the down time between more

12/5/2007 UE 70200

-4-

reputable pursuits. In this sense, early-nineteenth-century teaching resembles the Teach for America (TFA) model, a popular alternative certification route for graduates of elite colleges. TFA’s attitude toward its low rates of teacher retention is articulated in a statement by Elissa Clapp, senior vice president of recruitment, in a recent New York Times Magazine article: “We are completely agnostic about what people do after their two years.”vi TFA is in many ways a stop-gap program, seeking not to fix the teacher shortage problem but rather to provide temporary relief. The male schoolteachers of the early nineteenth century also saw teaching as a temporary position. In the last few decades of the nineteenth century the nature of teaching, both in fact and in the public imagination, underwent dramatic change. Once dominated by males, it was increasingly identified as a female occupation between 1870 and 1920. The gender distribution changed more quickly in urban districts than in rural areas. By 1888 the urban teaching force was 90 percent female.vii Another source indicates that women made up 82 percent of the urban teaching force in 1900.viii It is unclear which of these figures is accurate, or more accurate. The former is cited more frequently than the latter, but this does demonstrate that it is necessarily reliable as opposed to merely useful. Numerical quibbling aside, it is nevertheless clear that women’s entry into the field began first in northeastern states, even prior to 1870, and that the role of women was well-established in nearly all states by 1920.ix

At first, women’s entrance into the field was heralded as a welcome and necessary civilizing influence on wayward youth in a changing society. The so-called feminization of teaching, especially at the high school level, soon became a convenient scapegoat for myriad societal problems. A 1907 novella titled “Looking for Trouble,” written by William McAndrew, the principal of Girls Technical High School, tells the story of a rather effeminate fellow anointed the star principal in the city system, so sensitive that

12/5/2007 UE 70200

-5-

An official reprimand sets him weeping…. A pretty woman, a politician, and a trip on a canal boat make a new man of him and bring him to the discovery that school systems are so perfectly organized that a man may do more for education at a board meeting than in a classroom.x This pep talk for discouraged young male principals is scarcely disguised. It is a male Cinderella story with respect and public recognition as the goal and the woman as accessory. It also attempts to deal with folk belief in the risk that employing so many women teachers may interfere with boys’ natural social development leaving them stuck in the maternal sphere. Even The School Bulletin, ostensibly a publication for teachers among others in the field of education, published works that problematized the woman teacher as role model. The Bulletin promotes itself by boasting at the front of each issue that it “is not filled with ‘methods’ and spoon-food for young teachers… but appeals to all who regard their work as a vocation, and who want to look upon it broadly and comprehensively.”xi Yet its editor, C. W. Bardeen, published a volume of short stories, each re-published individually in the pages of his journal, that purport to offer some insight about how schools might be improved. One story in particular is deeply misogynistic in its portrayal of female teachers. “Hopelessly Heartless” is a parable about “true” womanhood that depicts an underhanded and barren yet attractive woman teacher, Miss Olney, whose ultimate redemption is delivered by Mr. Loring, the male principal at the school where she teaches. The rising action of the tale is littered with the catty comments of her female colleagues who are all focused on landing a marriage proposal so they can leave teaching and move on to the next phase of life. In the climax of the text, an extended exchange between principal and teacher, Miss Olney reveals the reason for her dour nature: she never had a proper female role model. Mr. Loring finally sees her for the vulnerable woman she is, and softens to her, explaining that his former ill view of her was due to her public mask of self-sufficiency. This text reflects supervisory paternalism toward female teachers as well as the conservatism of the early-twentieth century graded high school, staffed by women by run by men.xii

12/5/2007 UE 70200

-6-

It is likely that texts like those described herein are both reflections of, and influences on the significant social change that was women’s rapid invasion of city teaching jobs. Many interrelated factors contributed to the feminization of teaching. Prentice observes that feminization “does not refer to the entry of women into a role they had never occupied before.”xiii Instead it refers to dramatically increased participation in unified, bureaucratic, public school systems. Many scholars have noted that women could be paid a fraction of what men demanded. Excluded from most business opportunities opening up to ambitious young men during industrialization, young women represented a cost-efficient labor pool. They were educated at high rates and then often freed from labor in their parents’ homes as the industrial economy replaced the home as the locus of production. Nevertheless, their professional opportunities were circumscribed to teaching, factory work, or domestic service. Teaching was the least demeaning of these options, and even portrayed as glamorous work in advertising and other artifacts of popular culture.xiv Once begun, feminization progressed swiftly due to high teacher turnover at the time.xv Richardson and Hatcher argue that the feminization of teaching corresponds to a state’s passage of compulsory attendance laws. According to their model, state school systems were effectively legislated into existence by compulsory attendance legislation which bound together by common responsibility a previously more or less ad hoc network of schools. By passing such laws states effectively agreed to assume the financial burden of universal education. Under the previous status quo of voluntary school attendance, decisions like school construction and retaining teachers’ services were dependent on local enrollment levels. Richardson and Hatcher submit that once access to schools was increased and compulsory attendance laws passed and enforced, states faced an increasing financial burden which contributed to their decision to hire more women.xvi

Teachers’ salaries in the centralized New York City schools were set by the Davis Law of 1900. The

12/5/2007 UE 70200

-7-

salary of women set below that of men for all positions. For example, women’s starting salary was $600 a year but men earned $900. With sixteen years of elementary teaching experience women could expect to make $1240, but men were offered $2160 after only ten years in the classroom.xvii Even these figures were significantly higher that the average teacher salary at that time, but they reflect New York City’s higher cost of living. The pay differential between men and women was the greatest in urban areas where men’s services were at a premium due to supply-side forces like the wide array of alternatives to teaching available to men in the cities.xviii The insult was particularly sharp for female teachers in Brooklyn whose salaries had matched those of their male colleagues before centralization.xix Gender becomes an important organizing principle in women teachers’ struggle for professional treatment and greater autonomy in the classroom, as we will see later. Protection from dismissal for being married was secured by New York women in 1904, but in most parts of the country this right was not secured until after World War II. Married women were considered greedy for valuing crass economics over the transcendentalism of family unity. Equal pay for women was finally secured in 1911, and maternity leave was instituted in 1914, even if it was contingent upon taking a two-year long unpaid leave of absence.xx Superintendent Maxwell was not sympathetic to the complaints of Brooklyn teachers. Having been passed over himself as a candidate for teaching shortly after his emigration from Ireland to New York in 1874, Maxwell demonized the ward system of teacher appointment in Brooklyn, holding that it rewarded unqualified candidates with political connections. The new superintendent would champion an alternative model of hiring teachers through the civil service system the rest of his career, as in this 1912 address at Carnegie Hall in which he proclaimed its primacy among upcoming educational reforms: “Before anything else, it is necessary to have teachers trained for their mission and removed from the blighting effects of dependence on political, social, or religious influence for appointment or promotion… No school or system of schools can make substantial, continuous progress which tolerates political or sectarian influence in the

12/5/2007 UE 70200

-8-

appointment and promotion of teachers.”xxi Maxwell seems to have had something of a troubled relationship with the with New York City teachers. One scholar characterized him as “rather hostile to the teaching staff, frequently criticizing their reluctance to try new methods or take on new work” and asserted that “the personnel of the schools fear and dislike [him].” In any case, it is certain at least that Maxwell was fundamentally dissatisfied with the irregularities of teacher appointment by lay local leaders as was the custom in Brooklyn. Formalizing the hiring process and tightening the requirements for teachers was one of his primary objectives upon becoming superintendent in 1898. His other major goal was to expand access to secondary education by offering it widely and freely to grammar school graduates.xxii

The limited opportunities for public secondary education in Old New York were not reflective of conditions in the country at large, especially in urban areas. Brooklyn’s more suburban character, on the other hand, makes it a better reference for study of how secondary education came to exist in the United States. Brooklyn had a rather homogenous population, composed largely of established families of northern and western European descent with a smaller number of German and Irish Catholic “old immigrant” families. Relatively cohesive communities willingly cast their lot together and established four public secondary schools, three of which were college preparatory.xxiii High school entrance was assured to any grammar school graduate, a point of particular pride for William H. Maxwell, Brooklyn’s superintendent from 1886 to 1898.xxiv During his tenure in Brooklyn, Maxwell oversaw the construction of many remarkable school buildings all designed by architect James Naughton, superintendent of buildings for the Board of Education of the City of Brooklyn from 1879 to 1898. Boys’ High School on Marcy Avenue and Girls’ High School on Nostrand Avenue were both erected during this era in the neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant.xxv The layout

12/5/2007 UE 70200

-9-

of these buildings was intentionally different from that of elementary schools, with large gymnasiums, grand auditoriums, and numerous specialty rooms. Maxwell believed that high school education was fundamentally different from elementary school education and therefore required different facilities. Once named superintendent of New York City schools, Maxwell endeavored to spread Brooklyn’s “democratic plan” of high school education throughout the city and permanently do away with the “aristocratic plan” of Old New York. The three high schools on offer by Old New York at the time of consolidation were each four months old and housed in unused elementary school buildings – clearly inappropriate from Maxwell’s point of view.xxvi He secured $7.5 million of funding from the Board of Education for new buildings in 1899 and an additional $3.5 million in 1900 with which we oversaw the construction of such architecturally impressive buildings as DeWitt Clinton.xxvii A brief entry in the “County Items” section of The School Bulletin betrays a gaping admiration for the new structure: “The De Witt Clinton high school, biggest in the world, was dedicated Dec. 18 [1906]. It has a $10,000 organ.”xxviii Maxwell spent over $100 million on construction, renovation and repairs between 1898 and 1915, but even this was massive outlay was inadequate in light of the sheer magnitude of the student population the city was to absorb in the coming years.

Public schools have always been a site for political wrangling in this country. Controlled at first by lay individuals, always prominent and respected citizens, and later by school boards in conjunction with appointed professional administrators, schools have always been subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion. Part of what struck Alexis de Tocqueville as so peculiar about the American approach to civic life when he traversed the young country and then wrote Democracy in America was the way religious power was divorced from political power. He was impressed that order was maintained although political figures were not vested with religious authority, but acknowledged that given the mutability of political leadership in the

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 10 -

United States religion would be imperiled by too close an association. Tocqueville observed in 1835 that, “In the United States politics are the end and aim of education; in Europe its principal object is to fit men for private life.”xxix In other words, in America the content and form of education both reflect the political climate and inform it. American citizens have always shared a singular relationship with their local schools, due in large part to the way they sprang up as intensely local entities totally under the sway of a school board of prominent local citizens. Political power-plays were instrumental in the centralization of New York City schools. New York State taxpayers had effectively underwritten public education since the so-called rate-bills of 1814 were abolished in 1867, although it was not incorporated into the state constitution until 1895.xxx The movement to shift control of schools from local, ward boards to a central authority was led by an elite group of successful, prominent and well-established citizens, famously referred to by Tyack as “administrative progressives.”xxxi The administrative category first emerges in 1908, described by DC superintendent of schools Williams Estabrook Chancellor as: A class of school directors, administrators, and supervisors, whose function is management rather than instruction. These school managers see the schools from a point of view different from that of the instructors. The subject is defined not as the instruction and control of individual pupils, but as the organization, maintenance, administration, direction, and supervision of schools.xxxii Savvy power-brokers that they were, these leading men understood the essentially political nature of a publically-funded school system. Equally important, however, was their recognition that acknowledgement of this reality would seriously jeopardize their push for control. And so they framed centralization as a way to “get the schools out of politics,”xxxiii thereby positioning themselves as benevolent but disinterested outsiders aiming to contribute to the public good. In actuality, administrative progressives were of the same class as the common-school founders, those who first controlled the schools before the ethnic arrivistes seized control in the 1840s. Though intellectually dishonest, it was an ingenious rhetorical maneuver. New York was

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 11 -

incorporated in 1898 and centralized control of all borough schools was secured through the Revised Charter of 1901.

Compulsory attendance laws were another front in the effort to Americanize immigrant children. Although the first Compulsory Education Act was passed by the state legislature as early as 1874, it was an unfunded mandate and not enforced. The second major event was the passage of the Compulsory Education Law of 1894 which required full-time attendance of children aged eight to twelve years and eighty days of attendance annually of children aged twelve to fourteen years. Enforcement remained lax in Brooklyn and Old New York as there were still far fewer available seats than school-age children. The economic imperatives of immigrant life continued to compel many young children to abandon school for factory work. Superintendent Maxwell prioritized attendance in the newly consolidated New York City school system: “No intelligent man can for a moment doubt the benefits that would accrue to the community and to the individual were all children from six to fourteen subjected to the beneficent influences of well regulated schools.” In his First Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools to the Board of Education for the Year Ending July 31, 1899, Maxwell tackles the issue of insufficient space head-on, in recognition of the inadvisability of enacting unenforceable legislation. He proposes extended schedule schools that accommodate twice as many students on two different schedules, a plan he implemented in Brooklyn and “found it as satisfactory as could be expected – more satisfactory than any other plan, except that of providing ample school accommodations.”xxxiv Once compulsory attendance laws were buttressed by anti-child labor laws in 1903, however, and more seats became available through double-session scheduling and the construction of new school buildings, enforcement was possible and results were soon visible. Philanthropists, education reformers, and organized labor formed a supportive triumvirate which lobbied for enforcement of the laws on the books.

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 12 -

They faced significant opposition from a police force reluctant to interfere with parental authority and hostile courts who avoided imposing the requisite fines on offending parents.xxxv It is unclear just how much enforcement of these laws contributed to the rising enrollments in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Even so, the compulsory attendance and anti-child labor laws demonstrate an increasing commitment to the democratization of education in New York City under Maxwell’s leadership. Perhaps in time he would realize his vision of the public school system as “a ladder from the gutter to the university.”xxxvi Maxwell turned to double-session scheduling when his best efforts to accommodate ballooning school enrollment through school construction and renovation proved insufficient. He chose part-time schooling for many students over higher quality schooling for a majority of students and no schooling for some students. More than 100,000 students out of almost 800,000 were on part-time schedules in 1914.xxxvii Overcrowded and double-scheduled schools changed the day-to-day realities of the teachers charged with working in them in fundamental, tangible ways. Teachers compelled to work under such inhospitable conditions reported physical strain and loss of professional self-esteem. xxxviii Teachers ceased to have any physical space they could call their own. Discipline problems cropped up in unexpected places. Students no longer attended school voluntarily but because they were compelled to do so. Overworked teachers buckled under the burden of “motivating” young people who up until now would have passed their days working or hanging out on the streets. Maxwell seems not to have considered how his principles of universal education and maximum utilization would affect the lived experience of the teachers on whom the success of his entire plan depended. The concurrent influences of dramatic demographic shifts via an influx of immigrants and new theories of pedagogy informed by recent research in psychology and the social sciences formed the backdrop upon which so-called “progressive education” was imposed. Proponents of conservative and reform social Darwinism alike recommended that schools broaden the scope of their work to include non-academic

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 13 -

instruction as well as functions previously considered the family’s responsibility, like personal and “social hygiene,” the era’s favored euphemism for Sex Ed, and functions later incorporated into independent occupations, like social work.xxxix By 1903 the Board of Education had approved a uniform Course of Study, emphasizing civics, aesthetic education, accent reduction, hygiene and vocational skills.xl Teachers’ sphere of responsibility expanded enormously in the decades after centralization. But curriculum may in fact have been one of the least significant changes in teachers’ working lives. In fact, there is evidence that few of the much-touted curricular reforms actually trickled down to the classroom. Innovation is something of a luxury, after all, and many teachers prioritized maintaining a semblance of control over experimenting with newfangled notions of child-centered pedagogy and active learning using visual aids, hands-on activities, and field trips. Despite the official position in support of progressive approaches to education, many teachers believed it wiser to align their classroom practice with the educational philosophy of their principal who was, after all, the direct arbiter of their fate. Other teachers may have taken their pedagogical cues from the limitations of their situation, that is, from the practical reality rather than the imagined reality of the Board.xli Many factors contributed to teachers’ sense of alienation from central authority. At the basic level of physical comfort, teachers’ daily life was a chaotic jumble, classrooms crowded with students of varied backgrounds. The city’s population had grown faster than new buildings could be constructed to house them. Older buildings lacked electric lights and bathroom facilities consisted of backyard outhouses. In their defense, they were architectural gems in comparison to the buildings that would be constructed in the 1920s. Designed in the Collegiate Gothic tradition, they conveyed a grandness and elegance that is wholly absent from modern approaches to school architecture.xlii And the lived experience of classroom teachers often stood in stark defiance of the ideal. Centralization was supposed to clarify expectations of teachers by focusing attention on a single authority

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 14 -

rather than the cacophony supposedly embodied by the disparate voices and interests under the ward system. The central authority soon showed itself to be at least as schizophrenic as local authority. Contradictory directives and expectations confounded teachers. Under the ward system teachers at least knew to whom they were answering; centralized authority was both physically and psychologically removed from the teachers’ lived classroom experience. The dissonance between theory and practice schooled teachers in the art of “close the door and teach.” Teachers’ classroom practice in the current era of mayoral control, accountability, and quantitative measurement may be understood as a continuation of this tradition. It is clear that teachers’ experience was fundamentally altered under the new, bureaucratic model, though less discernable is the extent to which the shift in nature of public school teaching was an effect of bureaucratization as opposed to a contributing factor. The line between cause and effect is quite slim in this case. One credible interpretation emphasizes the impact of the breakdown of religious homogeny, or dissolution of the “religious disestablishment,” in the language of Richardson and Hatcher.xliii Richardson and Hatcher suggest that the social and economic status of women underwent structural change as dependence on clergy decreased and religious observance transitioned from mandatory to voluntary, creating ideological tension for both groups. The mutually reinforcing relationship of mothers and ministers endowed women with authority over the domestic domain and thus legitimized their changing role during industrialization. As the pre-industrial model of household-based domestic industry fell during the expansion of the industrial economy, women’s productive role was reduced and their consumerist role expanded. The value of men’s new function as wage-earner outside the home was manifest in their earnings but women’s value was less distinct. The partnership between women and the clergy was mutually beneficial as it validated the social position of both. At the same time, however, this collaboration reinforced the Victorian ideology of men’s and women’s separate domains and distinct natures rooted in gender identity, as evidenced below:

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 15 -

She holds her commission from nature. In the well developed female character there is always a preponderance of affection over intellect. However powerful and brilliant her reflective faculties will be, they are considered a deformity in her character unless overbalanced and tempered by womanly affections. The dispositions of young children of both sexes correspond with this ordination of Providence. Horace Mann, 1844xliv Mann’s characterization of women’s true nature embodies the Victorian ideology of women’s civilizing influence, as well as the religious conviction barely hidden beneath the veneer of popular rhetoric. In the mid-nineteenth century women were thought to be especially well-suited for the teaching occupation. Instructing and guiding young children was seen as a natural extension of the maternal sphere and therefore ideal training for motherhood. Educated young women were encouraged to spend a few years working as teachers before settling down to a life as a wife and mother. They were not expected to stay on as teachers as an alternative to marriage, or worse, remain in the classroom once married. Certainly some women did opt out of marriage entirely in favor of a career in teaching, but this decision marked them as marginal characters. Even so, teaching was a realm in which a woman could exist on her own, as an actor in the public sphere, and enjoy a degree of autonomy and self-direction that was not available to her by any other means.xlv According to Hoffmann, “Only for teachers was it socially acceptable to travel without a male chaperone, to live apart from one’s family and with another woman, and to maintain an independent household.”xlvi For a virtuous woman, teaching was supposed to be a near-religious experience. The prevailing Victorian ideology held that for women, the reward was in the work itself. This was very convenient for financially-strapped local governments for it meant that by hiring a woman to run the schoolhouse they could both foster a sense of morality in their children and save money at the same time. Cities also enjoyed the cost-saving benefits of female teachers, though by way of a somewhat different model. A male head teacher or “principal teacher” was typically installed in each multi-room school to enforce discipline when the occasion arose. Over time, as urban school systems were bureaucratized, the principal teacher was relieved of

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 16 -

any actual teaching responsibilities and became the principal. He was given a separate office with a big desk and access to a public address system and became the intermediary between teacher and superintendent. The male principal was the consummate middleman, the proximal physical representation of the superintendent’s power whose authority was derived by association.xlvii The organizational hierarchy of schools reflected and supported men’s dominant position in society. Teaching in the new urban bureaucracies after compulsive attendance laws were passed no longer represented freedom and autonomy as it had for many women in the early and mid-nineteenth century.

Educator Catherine Beecher basically justifies the underpayment of women by declaring that the ideal teacher, “like the ideal mother, worked ‘not for money, not for influence, nor for honor, nor for ease, but with the simple, single purpose of doing good.’”xlviii This pose of denying women the possibility of economic motivation, this devaluing of the labor the woman may be offering in exchange for money, is a cop-out, a way of seeming to favor women’s participation in public life while actually propping up her captivity in the bonds of marriage. Is Beecher’s advocacy on behalf of women so circumscribed by her particular time and place, or is hers a sneak attack on the patriarchy, an attempt to use folk wisdom about women’s true nature to their best advantage? Either way, it had lasting implications; women teachers in New York City finally secured equal pay in 1911, but even then it was over the opposition of the Association of Men Teachers and Principals of the City of New York.xlix Especially perplexing is Beecher’s explicit association between teachers and mothers, as teachers with children were barred from the classroom until into the twentieth century. In New York City teachers women the right to maternity leave in 1914, but with the condition that a must be a two year unpaid leave of absence. The arguments that supposed to validate various arguments against real careers as teachers for women contradict each other at every turn but a general misogyny undergirds them all. For example, one

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 17 -

article advocated a maximum age of twenty eight and maximum career duration of six years for female teachers to avoid the otherwise inevitable accumulation of contempt for mankind, while a different article slanders teachers with children for conveying the wrong image of true womanhood, a woman who would choose financial gain over time with her family.l

In the bureaucratized urban schools of the late nineteenth century and thereafter, the role of the teacher was fundamentally altered by the creation of a new power structure that vested authority in a central administrative figure, the superintendent. Whereas each individual teacher once made his or her own decisions, whether concerning the content of the curriculum or the scope and sequence of lessons, the desire for uniformity and order across many parts of a vast and disparate system meant that more and more decisions were passed down to teachers from the superintendent through the principal. Even as the occupation was professionalized in the sense that objective measures were created to distinguish the qualified from the unqualified and standards for qualification were raised, the loss of autonomy de-professionalized the role of the teacher from independent agent to technician. The language of scientific management and the corporation reflect the approach taken by urban school leaders of the progressive era in their effort to impose order on schools. They seem convinced of the measurability of education and set out doggedly to identify each of the constituent parts of education and then determine the proper relationship of each to the others. The vocabulary is adapted to the new frame of reference as buildings become plants with certain capacities. Teachers or the work force submit to productivity reviews and evaluations by school officials on personal and moral criteria like appearance, cooperation, habits, and integrity.li Use of business jargon by the new professional administrators and the singular emphasis placed on cost-effective spending during the bureaucratization of urban schools would prove to be the most durable artifacts of the era.

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 18 -

The names we give to things reflect our views of them. One aspect of Gee’s theory of discourse analysis is that our understandings of the world and our relationships with others are shaped by the words we use. Normally a social linguist would focus on language in context; that is, not simply word choice but also tone, pitch, rate, volume, sentence structure, narrative construction, and most importantly, the social context of the actors. But at bottom, Gee argues, discourse analysis is about power, and how its presence or absence is indicated through language. The most striking continuing in the history of literacy is the way in which literacy has been used, in age after age, to solidify the social hierarchy, empower elites, and ensure that people lower on the hierarchy accept the values, norms, and beliefs of the elites, even when it is not in their self-interest or group interest to do so.lii The word choice of administrations in the thrall of scientific management thus reveals their objectification of teachers. In this system, teachers are no longer individuals who bring with them a unique set of skills, inclinations, strengths and weaknesses. Insofar as decisions are handed down from on high, teachers are rendered interchangeable, mere instruments of the administration.

Teachers presented a variety of responses to the paternalism of administrators. Rousmaniere asserts that “teachers responded to their working conditions by alternately accommodating to, adapting to, and resisting certain aspects of their work, surreptitiously claiming some control over their job.”liii One theme of this paper has been an attempt to identify parallels between the experience of city teachers in 2007 and at the turn-of-the-century as city school systems underwent bureaucratization. I have observed that the relationship between teachers and their administrators shows remarkable endurance and consistency over the past century. The two groups continue to exist on entirely different planes littered with illusions and double-speak. Many directives are passed down yet few are enforced. Teachers establish codes and notification systems that help them prevent surprise attacks by intrusive supervisors. The two groups regard each other with suspicion and

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 19 -

teachers who become administrators are said to have “switched sides.” The difficulty of communication is intensified in the current situation of mayoral control in which schools are governed not by professional administrators, as in the early period of bureaucratization, but by lawyers. In sharp contrast to the few extant texts by turn-of-the-century teachers, a spirit of antagonism pervades the plentiful recent teacher narratives of personal experience and critiques of school governance. Personal narratives or critiques by teachers from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are, by contrast, very difficult to locate, and writings by women teachers of that era, even more so. In Women’s “True” Profession, Hoffman republishes the few primary sources by women teachers during the bureaucratization of urban schools, but there are no letters, diary entries, or personal narratives. Available writings are limited to essays and journalistic pieces. In her attempt to make sense of this particular absence, Hoffman suggests including a lack of time and energy, and a sense of the commonness of one’s experience may have prevented this earlier generation of women teachers from recording their experiences for posterity.liv These explanations are unconvincing. Fatigue and time constraints certainly plague today’s teachers, faced with a challenging work environment and bureaucratic interference. They slog through the drudgery of excessive paperwork; their experiences must be at least as prosaic as earlier generations’ daily realities. Yet some teachers manage to carve out a space for recording their thoughts and feelings. Their voices appear in the publications of local, state, regional, national and international education organizations. The blogosphere boasts an incredibly vibrant community of teacher-bloggers who share perspectives, disseminate information, and support one another. They are as prolific as they are opinionated. Grumet, another student of the history of women’s work in education, rejects the explanations offered by Hoffman. She argues that the space occupied by the work that is teaching is so liminal, so marginal and yet all-encompassing, that it is us – women. There is something about the task itself, the way it wedges itself into our lives, the way we place it somewhere between our work and our labor, our

12/5/2007 UE 70200

- 20 -

friendships and our families, our ambition and our self-abnegation, that has prohibited our speaking of it.”lv Grumut advances her argument by framing schooling as our method of transitioning young people from the domestic world to the public world. This theory also helps explain why women were and still are considered ideal primary school teachers. They serve as the first bridge from the maternal sphere of the household to the larger world. Men high school teachers are presumably desirable because they complete the transition to the masculinity of the public sphere, a male-dominated space with an ethic more competitive than nurturing.

We have seen that the experience of teachers in turn-of-the-century bureaucratized school systems like New York City resembles in certain significant ways the experience of teachers in 2007. Teachers, especially women teachers under male management, often experience their supervision as condescending and antagonistic. I would like to suggest that women teachers’ self-conception is directly linked to the extent to which they feel valued by society-at-large. Insofar as they are seen as professionals capable of exercising independent judgment toward autonomous action, they see themselves as such. This fosters identityconstruction, which in turn promotes self-expression. The scarcity of teacher narratives under bureaucratization would then indicate internalization of object status. The hegemony of centralized control was perceived as solid, non-porous. Although the current school administration under mayoral control favors micro-management and the threat of sanctions to enforce their directives, the hegemony has been pierced. First just a few voices were audible; now a cacophony. Maxwell’s bureaucracy set a negative precedent in teacher-supervisor relations, a tradition faithfully carried out in the Klein bureaucracy, but women teachers are no longer silenced.

i

Stephan F. Brumberg, Born in Brooklyn: The Origins of the N.Y.C. Public High School, 1890-1914 (1986).

ii Andrew Draper, “The Crucial Test of the Public School System,” New York Education, 1898. iii Brumberg, Born in Brooklyn. iv Stambler, “The Effect of Compulsory Educational and Child Labor Laws of High School Attendance in New York City, 1898-1917,” History of Education Quarterly 8, no. 2 (Summer 1968). v Nancy Hoffman, “"Inquiring after the Schoolmarm": Problems of Historical Research on Female Teachers,” Women's Studies Quarterly 9, no. 1 (1994). vi Negar Azimi, “Why Teach for America,” The New York Times, 9/30/2007 . vii Richard J. Altenbaugh, The Teacher's Voice: A Social History of Teaching in Twentieth-century America (Routledge, 1992), 9. viiiPatricia Carter, “Becoming the 'New Women'.”: the Equal Rights Campaigns of New York City Schoolteachers, 19001920,” The Teacher’s Voice: A Social History of Teaching in Twentieth-Century America (Routledge, 1992). ix Richardson and Hatcher, “The Feminization of Public School Teaching,” 81. x “"Looking for Trouble",” The School Bulletin and New York State Educational Journal xxxiv, no. 397 (1907), 2. xi Bardeen, ed., The School Bulletin and New York State Educational Journal. xii C.W. Bardeen, The Cloak Room Thief and Other Stories About Schools (Syracuse, NY: C.W. Bardeen, 1906). xiii, 5; from John G. Richardson and Brenda W. Hatcher, “The Feminization of Public School Teaching: 1870-1920,” Work and Occupations 10, no. 1 (1983)82. xiv Kate Rousmaniere, City Teachers: Teaching and School Reform in Historical Perspective (NY: Teachers College Press, 1997). xv Myra H. Strober and David Tyack, “Why Do Women Teach and Men Manage? A Report on Research on Schools,” Signs 5, no. 3 (1980). xvi Richardson and Hatcher, “The Feminization of Public School Teaching,” 81. xviiC.W. Bardeen, ed., The School Bulletin and New York State Educational Journal XXXIV, no. 403 (1907). xviiiStrober and Tyack, “Why Do Women Teach and Men Manage?” xix Carter. xx Ibid. xxi Selma Berrol, “William Henry Maxwell and a New Educational New York,” History of Education Quarterly 68, no. 2 (Summer 1968). xxiiIbid. xxiiiBrumberg, Born in Brooklyn..

xxivBerrol. xxvFrancis Morrone and James Iska, An Architectural Guidebook to Brooklyn (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 2001). xxviBrumberg, Born in Brooklyn. xxvii. xxviiiC.W. Bardeen, ed, “County Items,” The School Bulletin and New York State Educational Journal XXXIV, no. 403 (Feb 1907). xxixAlexis Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: A.A. Knopf, 1945). xxxGeorge D. Strayer, “Centralizing Tendencies in the Administration of Public Education: A Study of Legislation for Schools in North Carolina, Maryland, and New York since 1900,” (NY: Teachers College Press, 1934), 68-107. xxxiDavid Tyack, The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), 127. xxxiiRichard Altenbaugh, “Teachers and the Workplace,” Urban Education. (1987),158. xxxiiiTyack, 133. xxxivFirst Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools to the Board of Education for the Year Ending July 31, 1899, Board of Education, City of New York (NY: 1899), 136. xxxvMoses Stambler, “The Effect of Compulsory Educational and Child Labor Laws of High School Attendance in New York City, 1898-1917,” History of Education Quarterly 68, no. 2 (Summer 1968). xxxviSamuel Abelow, Dr. William H. Maxwell: The First Superintendent of Schools of the City of New York, (Brooklyn NY: Scheba Publishing Company, 1934), 105. xxxviiDiane Ravitch, The Great School Wars: A History of the New York City Public Schools (JHU Press, 2000). xxxviiiRousmaniere, City Teachers. xxxixIbid., 59-64. xl Stephan Brumberg, Going to America, Going to School: the Jewish Immigrant Public School Encounter in Turn-of-theCentury New York City (NY: Praeger, 1986). xli Rousmaniere, City Teachers. xliiIbid., 76. xliiiRichardson and Hatcher. xlivHorace Mann, Félix Pécaut, and Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life and Works of Horace Mann (C. T. Dillingham, 1867). xlv xlviHoffman, “"Inquiring after the Schoolmarm."”

xlvii xlviiiKate Rousmaniere, “Losing Patience and Staying Professional: Women Teachers and the Problem of Classroom Discipline in New York City Schools in the 1920s,” History of Education Quarterly 34, no. 1 (1994). xlix. l

Ibid.

li . lii liii Rousmaniere, City Teachers. liv lv Madeleine R. Grumet, Bitter Milk: Women and Teaching (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), xii.