Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property HideElementsPlugin::$_settings is deprecated in /home/metzarch/public_html/plugins/HideElements/HideElementsPlugin.php on line 58
https://metzarchive.org/files/original/4e1ba0d0180ea0cfe89df3dbd278fa50.pdf b70fa5d8a812d298010c3068d2e91986 PDF Text Text r ■S. '? t1 ;■ ■■ M ? I I. £•' 14 14 ��.. - GIFT OF a PATRICIA KAPLAN Metz Librarian 1988-1996 AND ■ ■ RALPH KAPLAN, PhD Library Volunteer ft J O s <3 NJ UJ 2? i— _____ �Historical Factors Affecting Mexican American Parental Involvement and Educational Outcomes: The Texas Environment from 1910-1996 Mary S. Black A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Education of Harvard University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education 1996 METZ SCHOOL LIBRARY �© 1996 Mary S. Black All Rights Reserved �i This work is dedicated to Dr. Marvin Cressman who saved my son’s life. Without his skill and endurance, this work would never have been finished. And also to my son Timothy, who told jokes even on his way into neurosurgery. �ii Acknowledgments Many people graciously helped me with various aspects of this study. The following people have my deepest appreciation: Dr. Ricardo Romo and Dr. Richard R. Valencia for reading and commenting on Chapter Two. Their interest made me realize I should really do this. Friends Bruce Jordan for his photography in Chapter Three, Anne Garcia for her comments on Chapter Two, and Mike Warner for his patient reading of both the proposal and Chapter Two. Past and present teachers, administrators and students at Metz Elementary School including Jose G. Flores, Jorge Luis Rodriguez, Celia Martinez, Hermelinda Rodriguez, Joe Hardin, Ann Babler, and Augustine Garza. Also many anonymous residents of the Metz neighborhood. Metz Elementary School librarian Pat Kaplan for her help with photographs and other research. Librarian and friend Debra Destefano for digging through dusty boxes looking for old photos. Tara Kirkland for information about Austin Interfaith, even after I stood her up for lunch. Danny Camacho for sharing his painstaking discoveries and love of history. His mother, Lorraine “Grandma” Camacho for sharing her family stories and her enthusiasm for children. Father Bill Elliott of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church and Father Larry Elmer of Cristo Rey Catholic Church for their help identifying informants for Chapter Five. Diana Zamora for introducing me to Father Bill. Lloyd Spruce for help in reproducing the photographs and charts in Chapter Three. Max Reshentnikov for his computer graphics help with the Conditional Matrix in Appendix B. Paz Pena for a great conversation over came guisada and eggs that helped get this whole project started. My son Timothy for his comments on various chapters, good humor, perseverance, dignity and quiet strength. My husband Steve for his critical reading, insightful comments, patience and cheerleading throughout the entire process. Thanks a million! �iii Table of Contents I. Introduction to Complexity: Context, Research Design, and Methods.................................................................................................... Research Context............................................................................................. Parental Involvement......................................................................... . Mexican American School Failure................................................. Guiding Conceptual Framework for Study................................. Research Question............................................................................................. Setting.................................................................................................................... Research Design and Methods..................................................................... Texas Environment for Mexican Schoolchildren, 1910-1930 Metz Elementary School, 1916-1996............................................. Parent Interviews on School Involvement................................... Interviews with PTA and School Officials, TEA Hearing and Recommendations ........................................................................ Mexican American Family Values.................................................. Validity.................................................................................................................. Organization of the Study............................................................................... Significance of the Study................................................................................ ..1 ...4 ..4 ...7 ..9 10 12 12 15 17 18 .22 .22 23 26 .27 II. Cultural and Historical Background to Academic Performance: The Texas Environment for Mexican Schoolchildren, 1910-1930 ...................................................................... . .31 Sources.................................................................................................................. .34 Research Context............................................................................................. .36 Immigration and the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920........................ .38 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Mexicans in Texas............ .41 .45 The Transition from Rural to Urban............................................ Texas Public Schools....................................................................................... .47 The Problems of School Funding and Administration........... .48 The Problems of Teachers ................................................................. 51 Curriculum............................................................................................. 53 .57 Facilities.................................................................................................. 60 Compulsory Attendance and Child Labor Laws.................................... School Completion Rates................................................................... .62 The Effects of Ethnocentrism on Education for Mexican Students 63 Americanization...................................................................... .63 66 Americanization in Texas Schools.......................................... 68 Vocational Education................................................................... Roots of English/Spanish Distrust................................................ 70 71 Segregation............................................................................................ 72 Enrollment Patterns............................................................................ .74 Harassment.............................................. �iv Intelligence Testing.................................................... 76 Compounding of Race and Socioeconomic Class.............. 79 Conclusion: A Cultural Explanation for the Texas School Pattern............................................................................................. .81 A Model of Agrarian Society..................................................... 82 Ethnocentrism............................................................................... .84 Texas as an Agrarian, Racist Society.................................... 86 Conclusion.................................................................................................... .88 Increasing Population and Stagnant School Completion 89 The Origin of Low Academic Performance......................... .91 III. The Battleground: The History of Metz Elementary School ....96 " Sources.............................................................................................................................. 98 A Neighborhood Snapshot, 1994............................................................................ 100 Metz is Built, 1916..................................................................................................... 103 The Era of Segregation, 1930-1972..................................................................... 105^ The Bilingual Revolution, 1972-1984.................................................................. 112 The Fight for the New Building, 1984-1991..................................................... 125 " The New Start, 1992-1996...................................................................................... 133 The TAAS Fiasco, 1993............................................................................... 135" Aftermath......................................................................................................... 142 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 146 IV. The Influence of Mexican American Family Values on Education......................................................................................... . Familism.................................................................................................... Family as Emotional Support System................................ Interaction of Grandparents and Grandchildren.......... The Ideal of “Educacidn........................................................................ Home/School Interaction..................................................................... Conclusion................................................................................................ . V. Families and School: Four Generations of Mexican American Experiences............................ „.................... Family Stories of Discrimination...................................................... The Language Shift: “Like Being on Mars”................................... Grandmothers’ Stories of Leaving School..................................... Traditional Family Values: Watchfulness, Faith and Respect Careful Vigilance over Children........................................... The Concept of Respect............................................................ Faith and Church....................................................................... External Involvement with School: PTA........................................ Internal Involvement with School: Homework............................ Dissatisfaction: Making School Positive......................................... 159 .160 .162 .165 .168 .173 .180 189 .197 C \ .200 .202 .205 .206 .209 .212 .213 .215 .216 �V Environmental Concerns Testing Concerns Aspirations for the Children Past Life Histories and Academic Outcomes The Abuela Effect Genealogies of Hope................................ Conclusion VI. The Importance of Social History on Mexican American Schooling Involvement and Outcomes Original Research Question Ogbu’s Theory: The Mexican American Case in Central Texas Late Inclusion in School Inferior Education Limits on Occupational Mobility Child-Rearing Practices Critique of Ogbu’s Theory '.................... Mexican Americans: A Study in Complexity Conclusions........................................................................................................... An Alternative View of Mexican American Experience Recommendations for Further Research Implications for Schools Final Thoughts VII. Appendices A. Life-course Analysis as Used in This Study . B. Author’s Background.......................................................................... C. Conditional Matrix . D. Interview Questions.......................................................................... E. Growth and Development of the Austin Public Schools The Beginning of the Austin Public School System, 1881-1915 Early Mexican School Enrollment Evaluating Excellence, Pre-Modern Style . Health and Recreation......................................................... Population Increases During 1920s...................................... Depression Era Stability Austin Continues to Grow During the 1940s and 1950s. Implementing Desegregation, 1954-1989 The Aftermath of Busing F. Principals of Metz Elementary School, 1916-1996 VIII. Bibliography .217 .218 .221 223~2 7 .223 .226 .232^ .238 .239 .241P .244 1 .245 f ’ .246 .248 I .251 .251/ .254 .256 .260 ,26p 7 .263 .264 .266 .267 .268 .270 .270 .271 — .272 .273 .274 .275 .276 .277 " .278 .281 �vi IV. List of Figures Figurel. Counties of Texas................................................ Figure 2. Mexican heritage schoolchildren in 1912.. Figure 3. School bell: Metz Elementary School.......... Figure 4. New Metz building............................................. Figure 5. Dominos in the afternoon............................... Figure 6. Grandfather.......................................................... Figure 7. Washed clean....................................................... Figure 8. Pinata Palace....................................................... Figure 9. Holly Street Power Plant................................ Figure 10. Power plant and park.................................... Figure 11. Total Metz enrollment................................... Figure 12. Percentage of Mexican heritage students Figure 13. Metz in 1930-31................................................ Figure 14. Daily schedule for 1931-32.......................... Figure 15. Fifth grade class in 1954.............................. Figure 16. Hermelinda Rodriguez................................... Figurel7. Jose G. Flores..................................................... Figure 18. Overcrowding and portable buildings...... Figure 19. Four friends graduate kindergarten........ Figure 20.Looking to the future...................................... Figure 21. Carnival time..................................................... Figure 22. Increase in schooling..................................... ...94 ...95 .149 .149 .150 .150 .151 .151 .152 .152 .153 .153 .154 154 155 155 .156 157 .157 158 158 237 �vii Abstract This study examines the schooling experiences of Mexican Americans in Central Texas for the past 85 years, using the ecological concepts of life­ course analysis. Macrosystem social influences are viewed through the history of public education in Texas from 1910 to 1930 to demonstrate how agrarian cultural values dominated the establishment of schools for children of Mexican heritage as well as others. The focus is then narrowed to the proximal settings of school and family to examine how children’s education is impacted in face-to-face settings. A case study of one elementary school in Austin, Texas, illustrates the changes in education for urban children of Mexican descent from 1916 to 1996. The concepts of familism and educacion that guide the interactions of many Mexican American families with schools are discussed. Interviews about schooling experiences with six Englishspeaking Mexican American families who have lived in Texas three generations or more trace how families and individuals are not only affected by social change, but also actively participate in that change. The study identifies the Abuela Effect, or the influence of past experience of family elders, as a component of family background. The Abuela Effect is due not only to the concrete experiences in the past of grandparents and �viii others, but also to how the elders cognitively process that experience before transmitting representations of it to younger members of the family. Older family members, such as grandparents, who have experienced hardship in the past often modify the representation of that experience before they give advice or admonishment to children. This study offers an alternative approach to research on Mexican American schooling behavior. First, it embeds issues of schooling in deep historical context to understand the various forces at work. Then it chronicles 80 years of one particular school serving Mexican American children to show how changes over time have affected educational outcomes. The study focuses on long-time, English-speaking Texas residents of Mexican heritage rather than new Spanish-speaking immigrants. Finally, it considers the role of both Anglo and Mexican American cultural values in the dynamic interplay of person, school and society. �1 Chapter One Introduction to Complexity: Context, Research Design and Methods This study examines how the past experiences of Mexican Americans in public schools in Central Texas influence school achievement by today’s Mexican American children by means of parental involvement in education. The research includes a case study of Metz Elementary School in Austin, Texas, which has served Mexican American students from 1916 to the present. I suggest that the previous schooling experiences of elder generations operates through parental involvement in education to influence patterns of school achievement. I am particularly interested in the interstice between systemic forces (such as schooling or racial discrimination) and the psychological reactions and processes over time of the individual, including how past experience is conveyed to younger generations. This study uses a life-course perspective that relates changing historical circumstances to individual development (Kertzer 1983; see Appendix A). These changing circumstances include the interaction of cultural values, which are seen as integral to understanding the processes that link the influence of home and school on child development and Mexican American academic achievement. The basic purpose of the study is to illuminate the social processes linking historical events and current behavior. �2 Low academic achievement by a large number of Mexican American youths today is well documented (Valencia 1991), and is particularly acute in Texas. For instance, in 1994 only 37% of the Mexican American 12th graders taking the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) passed all three sections (Texas Education Agency, June, 1994). A tradition of Mexican American under-achievement in school in the past has also been documented (Carter 1970; Carter & Segura 1979; Manuel 1930). Previous explanations of Mexican American school failure can generally be classified as environmental or biological arguments. The explanatory power of these arguments will be discussed below. There is a presumed link in the literature between the parents’ interest in the child’s education and the actual academic performance of the child (see Epstein 1990). Mexican American failures in the classroom have often been attributed to inadequate home environments in a deficit model of behavior. However, socialization of Mexican American children must be explained within the historical, sociocultural and socioeconomic conditions that impact Mexican American families (Delgado-Gaitan 1992). The home learning environment is created by the adult’s background as well as the socio­ cultural and sociopolitical forces outside the home. In general, parents train their children to adapt to the social order they understand and with which they identify (Ogbu 1978). Parents’ own educational background influences �3 their thinking about education for their children. Therefore parental experience with schools is an important factor in the type of support they can give their children (Delgado-Gaitan 1992). This study identifies the historical experience of family elders as a variable not usually considered by most researchers because it occurs prior to the time of observation of the particular child. Bronfenbrenner (1993) theorizes human development is a function of the person and the environment during the time prior to observation. The impact of historical events on life course development is beginning to be recognized as an important factor in children’s behavior and choices concerning school, future occupation, and family relationships. For instance Elder, Nguyen, and Caspi (1985) tested the link between parenting behavior during economic hard times and the child’s social and emotional behavior using data from the Oakland Growth Study. They assert that what happens to parents influences the ways parents interact with their children, saying that “the development implications of social change can only be studied within a theoretical framework that relates individual and family change.” In the present study, I argue that historical social processes continue to constrain student achievement by means of the attitudes towards schooling that are conveyed by parents. �4 Research Context The context for this study includes studies of parental involvement as well as those concerned with general Mexican American school success or failure. No research has been done on the issue of how historical events may have molded Mexican American parents current participation in their children’s education. However, Ogbu (1974; 1978) strongly suggests that the cumulative effect of attending inferior schools and unequal access to jobs contributes to persistent academic failure by certain minority groups today (1978, p. 54). Ogbu’s theories provide the basic conceptual framework for this study. As a researcher, I also bring my own knowledge and experience to the study, which naturally affects the perspective I choose to follow (please see Appendix B). Parental Involvement While some theorists downplay the need for parental involvement in education (Ogbu 1974, p. 170), many others have demonstrated its importance (Comer 1984; Coleman 1966; Gordon 1978). Research over the past 30 years has shown that children gain advantage when parents support and encourage school activities (Epstein 1990). For the purposes of this �5 study, parental involvement in education is assumed to be an important factor in children’s school achievement. Both parental involvement in the home and at school have been found beneficial to students. Comer (1984) has identified the home as the primary learning environment. Coleman (1966) and Gordon (1978) showed that the home environment accounts for almost 50% of the variations in children’s school achievement. With few exceptions, however, there has been little research on Mexican American families that included actual observation of family interaction (Laosa & Henderson 1991). Delgado-Gaitan (1990, 1992) and Delgado-Gaitan and Trueba (1991) have conducted some of the most intensive research on parental involvement in education by recent Mexican immigrant families. The academic failure of many Mexican immigrant children is conceived as a systemic rather than a personal problem in these studies. Delgado-Gaitan (1992) conceived the problem as generally one of lack of access to resources or advantages by low- income Mexican immigrant families. She also found that parents not only shared their own educational limitations with their children verbally, but that family stories about parents, grandparents and others often guided the moral and emotional learning of the children. Her 1992 study centers around the need to empower parents to participate in the life of the school. �6 She believes that without the opportunity for parents to actually affect the school system, parent participation becomes merely an aspect of hegemony on the part of the school. In the study by Delgado-Gaitan and Trueba (1991), the immigrant families’ expectations for children’s behavior were very similar to those generally found in agrarian societies (LeVine & White 1986). Delgado-Gaitan and Trueba (1991) also found that even though most of the eleven families in their study were not active in external school affairs, they nonetheless held strong values for their children to achieve. Mexican American families bring certain distinctive qualities to the process of their children’s academic education. Numerous studies have found stronger interdependence in Mexican American families than in Anglo families (Grebler, Moore & Guzman 1970; Holtzman, Diaz-Guerreo & Swartz 1975; Keefe, Padillo & Carlos 1979; McClintock, Bayard & McClintock 1983; Raymond, Rhodes & Raymond 1980; Sabogal et al. 1987; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995). General attributes of Mexican American family life have been studied by Rueschenberg and Buriel (1989), Williams (1990), and Hurtado (1995). Henderson (1966) and Henderson and Merritt (1968) found that Mexican American homes that offered a variety of intellectually stimulating experiences to young children predicted academic achievement. Reese et al. (1991) explored the complex meaning of education for people of Mexican heritage. The beliefs and functioning of Mexican American families �7 are an important component of parental involvement in education that must be included in the analysis. Mexican American School Failure There is a large body of literature that attempts to explain Mexican American school failure, and very little attempting to explain the school success that does occur in some instances. Many studies have used a deficit model of behavior to blame Mexican American students and families for low academic attainment. Most of these arguments use a monolinear concept derived from either genetic or environmental bases. Biological arguments for the inferiority of Mexicans and other immigrants were extremely influential in the 1920s and 1930s. The fact that they have not entirely diminished is demonstrated by the recent publication by Herrnstein and Murray (1994). These arguments include the supposed low IQ of non-White people, and their inherent racial inferiority (Vaca 1970; DeLeon 1983). These arguments sprang from Social Darwinism which proclaimed that only "the fittest" were worthy of high social and economic status. Because many Mexican heritage students in the United States scored low on many IQ studies in the 1920s and 1930s (Sheldon 1924; Pascal & Sullivan 1926; Koch & Simmons 1926; Garretson 1928; Harris 1927; Delmet �8 1930; A. M. Gonzalez 1932), some people took this as concrete proof of inherited intellectual inferiority. G.I. Sanchez (1931; 1934) argued eloquently against this point of view, but the intelligence debate rages on, with Jensen (1969) and Dunn (1987) as modern catalysts. There are many rebuttals to the concept of biological inferiority, including the entire Fall 1988 issue of the Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science (Fernandez, ed.). Environmental concerns began to be recognized as possible explanations for Mexican American school failure by practitioners and researchers as early as the 1920s and 1930s (Harris 1927; Taylor 1934). Environmental issues in school performance include socioeconomic status (Laosa 1978), economic determinism (G. Gonzalez 1990), language (R. Sanchez 1984), cultural fit (Kagan 1986), cultural values (Ogbu 1974; 1978), and segregation (Carter 1970; Carter & Segura 1979; Orfield 1992; San Miguel 1987a). Cognitive dimensions of learning often associated with schooling outcomes for Mexican American children were investigated by Laosa (1978), and Valencia, Henderson and Rankin (1981; 1985). Laosa (1978) found that Mexican American mothers with more years of formal schooling used the teaching methods of inquiry and praise with their children more than mothers with less education. Valencia, Henderson and Rankin (1985) found that family size and birth order explained little variance in intellectual �9 performance for Mexican American children. The best predictor of cognitive performance was a combination of home environmental factors that offered a variety of intellectual experiences to children. Guiding Conceptual Framework for Study The most compelling theory for this study is a version of the framework Ogbu (1974, 1978) has formulated. He believes that because Mexican American families (and others) have often experienced several generations of intense discrimination and harassment in the school setting, alienation from school and a retardation of economic success have resulted. Ogbu (1978, p. 352) suggests specifically that low academic achievement of some minority groups is due to four related factors: 1) late inclusion in formal education, 2) inferior education, 3) limited access to the rewards of education in adult roles, and 4) child-training values and practices that are adaptive to low status in society. My study examines whether or not these four factors fit the Mexican American case. My study examines the process by which concern about academic success may be transmitted from one generation to another, particularly in families who greatly value education. By using a case study of Metz Elementary School, I will attempt to demonstrate how the historical circumstances of �10 schooling for Mexican heritage students in the U.S. and Mexican American family values interact to impact schooling outcomes today. My study will refer to each of the four factors identified by Ogbu (above) that impinge on the academic success of Mexican American students. For instance, the relatively late inclusion in formal schooling and the often inferior quality of that schooling for Mexican heritage children in Texas will be examined in the historical data of the study. Since Texas schools in the early part of this century generally only gave students of Mexican heritage the minimal literacy and numeracy skills necessary for agricultural field work, the students were not prepared to adapt their occupational skills to the post World War II technological boom. This has tended to hold Mexican American adults in low paying, unskilled occupations. The study also explores whether some of the child rearing attitudes and practices of today’s families that may have been instigated by the elders’ experiences in Texas schools, are actually adaptations to low status or something else all together. Ogbu’s framework shapes the hypothesis with which I enter this study: that the previous schooling experiences of family elders affect the educational outcomes of today’s children. Research Question �II The general question which is assumed in this study concerns reasons for widespread Mexican American school failure. The specific question I am asking seeks to illustrate one variable that is connected to school achievement, that of the schooling experience of family elders. I have framed the specific research question as: How do the schooling experiences of former generations of Mexican Americans in Texas public schools influence the educational outcomes of many of today’s Mexican American children through parental involvement in education1? The research question assumes that the past experiences of parents, grandparents, and other elders affect children's present choices and behaviors (Leichter 1974). The effects of major historical events, such as the Great Depression, on parents and the influence on their children has been shown by Elder (1974) and others. The means by which this process of parental influence operates on the child include, but are not limited to, direct conversations with family and others, non-verbally expressed attitudes by family and other adults, and adult conversations the child may overhear (Leichter 1974, p. 36); in other words, any means by which the older generation influences the younger generation, however subtle. �12 Setting In 1992-93, Metz Elementary School was 96% Mexican American, with 89% of the students from economically disadvantaged families. The school was threatened with closure in 1993 by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) because fewer than 20% of the fourth grade students passed all three sections (reading, writing, and math) of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). Increased parental involvement was one of the specific recommendations made by the TEA (February, 1994) to improve student performance at the school. This school has served Mexican American students from 1916 to the present, thus representing almost the entire continuum of schooling for such students in this century. I had no knowledge of this school prior to beginning this study. Research Design and Methods There are two major components of this study: 1) the historical background of Mexican American public schooling in Central Texas; 2) and an examination of current parental involvement in education by Mexican Americans at Metz Elementary School. Both parts are necessary in order to understand the factors in parental involvement that are historically rooted and may by now perhaps be considered a traditional pattern. We must �13 understand the context of any behavior we are attempting to describe; therefore the historical background of this study is extremely important. We must also understand how one proximal, or face-to-face, environment of the child, such as the home, interacts with others, such as the school, to influence the child’s overall development. Then we must situate the child’s proximal environments within the general society to understand how the macrosystem influences opportunities and access for education or other factors of human life. The historical background is further divided into two sections: 1) an overall study of public schools in Central Texas for Mexican heritage students from 1910 to 1930; and 2) a historical chronicle of Metz Elementary School from its beginning in 1916 to the present. The study of issues and schooling conditions from 1910 to 1930 is important because that time period represents the beginning of widespread public schools for Mexican heritage children in Texas. This time period corresponds to the massive influx of immigration from Mexico to Texas during the Mexican Revolution (1910- 1920) and the following decade of instability. The schools that Texas established during this period for these immigrant children, and other Mexican origin children who had been born in Texas, set patterns of low funding, segregation, etc. which remain more or less intact up to the present day. The story of Metz Elementary School provides the specific context for �14 the discussion of parental involvement that follows. Because the school has served Mexican American students from 1916 to the present, it also provides continuity between the regional historical overview and the specific details of how major educational issues were played out in one particular school while illustrating events from 1930 to 1996. Many families have lived in this neighborhood for generations, sending their children to Metz Elementary. This school was selected to illustrate the connection between historical experiences with schooling and parental involvement in education today. The parent involvement component of the study includes interviews with parents of children at Metz Elementary School to discover their perceptions about school involvement. This data is supplemented by information gathered from interviews with school personnel and PTA officials to determine current levels of external parental involvement. I also use an observation of a major hearing at the school by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and a TEA report that was the result of a months-long agency investigation of the school in 1994. The hearing is important because it was the only occasion when all parties (TEA officials, school administrators, teachers, parents, community members) met openly to discuss issues concerning the school, including a significant discussion on parental involvement. The written TEA recommendations are important because �15 they reflect the official state view of necessary improvements (including increased parental involvement) at the school to enhance student learning. Texas Environment for Mexican Schoolchildren, 1910-1930 The historical background of low academic achievement for many Mexican American students describes the overall cultural pattern in Central Texas from 1910-1930. Historical research using over 100 primary and secondary sources mainly located in the libraries of the University of Texas at Austin was carried out. A wide-ranging search through such diverse fields as educational history, educational psychology, Texas history, Chicano studies and others allows me to form a multifaceted picture of schools for Mexican children from 1910 to 1930 that considers both the state's responses to national issues affecting education and the racist, agricultural lifestyle that dominated the state at that time. Some of the more useful primary sources are introduced in Chapter Two. Several hundred pages of notes from these sources comprise the raw data set. Analysis began with open coding of the more lengthy, multifaceted notes from certain complex sources (Strauss & Corbin 1990). Many of these sources contained information on a number of topics that had to be sorted out for the purposes of this study. Shorter notes from single-topic sources METZ SCHOOL LIBRARY �M-A 16 were not coded because they could be easily categorized as they were. Certain categories emerged as the complex notes were coded. For my own style, I found it useful to color-code each separate note entry according to the following system: 1) orange = immigration; 2) yellow = physical descriptions of schools; 3) green Americanization; 5) pink compulsory attendance laws; 4) blue racism. Then I did a secondary coding in red to indicate data pertaining specifically to Austin and Travis County. I was particularly interested in being able to retrieve and include this Austin data in the final write-up of the narrative because it specifically located events and conditions affecting Metz Elementary School. After these two rounds of color-coding, lists were made of all entries that fell into each category so I had coherent sets of information about each topic that had emerged from the data. The next step was to draw a conditional matrix (Strauss & Corbin 1990, p. 163) to separate out the levels of issues into widening concentric bands of influence (see Appendix C ). This diagram helped me reduce the data and find larger conceptual categories for the axial coding (p. 114) that followed. In the axial coding, the data was sorted into categories that represented the actual sections of the written narrative. These were then rearranged several times on the advice of committee members, using causal network charts to �17 build a logical chain of evidence (Miles & Huberman, 1984 p. 227) for the presentation of the material in Chapter Two. Throughout this process, I wrote copious memos to myself on conceptual and procedural matters. Short memos were often written immediately following the note entry that sparked an idea, and are to be found within the notes themselves. Longer memos synthesizing material or asking myself questions were written separately and are kept in a notebook for easy reference. Metz Elementary School 1916-1996 Material gathered to outline the particular history of this school includes over 50 newspaper stories, school PTA files, the personal files of a former principal, and interviews with the current principal, two former principals, several teachers, and several PTA officers. This material is important not only because it provides the specific context for the examination of parental involvement, but also because it represents one of the few historical chroniclings of a primarily Mexican American school. About 100 pages of notes from these various sources have been chronologically coded according to time periods I choose as important in the life of the school as the data emerged: the Beginnings 1916-1936; the Era of �18 Segregation 1937-1972; the Bilingual Revolution 1973-1984; the Struggle for the New Building 1984-1992; and the New Start 1992-1996. Secondly, conceptual or topic coding was done for each time period, for instance PTA activities, physical description of the school, etc. This allowed a coherent narrative about the history of the school to be written. Since this type of coding and presentation is much simpler than that for the overall historical background (Chapter Two), little charting or diagramming was necessary. Memoing continued as needed, however. Parent Interviews on School Involvement Opened-ended interviews with six English-speaking, Mexican American families were conducted. Four families have children who are presently attending or have recently attended Metz Elementary School. Two other families who are not affiliated with Metz but who live in the same neighborhood were also interviewed to give a broader picture of neighborhood characteristics. Metz Elementary is currently 96% Mexican American, and approximately two-thirds of those families are proficient English speakers. The families chosen for interviews were no_t recent immigrants, but families that have been in Texas for generations, in order to reflect the perceptions of those families who have experienced the Texas school system for several generations. These families are more likely to �<<7___ r. 19 speak English and exhibit the characteristics of long-time residents, which have been noted by researchers (Carter 1970; Ogbu 1974; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995) and Metz Elementary School staff (J. Hardin, personal communication, 1994), as being different from recent immigrants. Two families were chosen on the basis of high external participation in school events. The other four show a range of external involvement in their children’s education from perhaps once a year to almost every month. Recommendations for families with high external involvement came from school administrators. The school was reluctant to facilitate introductions or recommend parents who did not regularly engage in some sort of volunteer activity at the school, however. Therefore, locating families who were not actively engaged in external school affairs proved somewhat more difficult. I solicited recommendations from various people in the community, but ran into deadends for several months. At last, I discovered a college student whom I knew that was very involved in the Catholic church in the neighborhood near Metz Elementary. She agreed to talk to the priest about the study. Two priests in the neighborhood then readily agreed to recommend families to be interviewed, and offered their full cooperation in every way. �.2 '77 77 1 20 Recommendations for further people to interview were also solicited from these six families, in order to gain other data as needed. There are many multigenerational households in the Metz neighborhood, often with several generations that have attended the school. Therefore I decided to interview grandparents as well as parents, so far as possible. This is a relatively stable, working-class neighborhood, where people do not move often. It offers a rich source of material for this study. I defined a set of guiding questions to get the interviews started (see Appendix D), but other spontaneous questions were asked as necessary to draw out appropriate information. These questions sought to ascertain the parents’ and grandparents’ opinions about present-day Metz Elementary, as well as their own positive or negative childhood schooling memories. The questions also tried to obtain information about the parents’ and grandparents’ perceptions of current involvement with their child’s education. Adequate information was sometimes obtained from one interview with each family. Further interviews with some families were also conducted, depending on the need for more data. The interviews sought to discover the pertinent schooling experiences of the parents and grandparents that caused �21 them to form opinions about public schools. These attitudes may guide them in their interest and supervision of their children’s schoolwork. My experience in this project, and with other interview studies of Mexican Americans in the past, has been that simply asking a question about personal schooling experience leads to huge amounts of data as the informant pours forth recollections of thoughts, feelings, and events. For some people I have interviewed, this has been the first time anyone ever asked them about school. It is like opening up a dam, as information floods out of the informant. I call this a “flowing interview” because the information comes in a torrent of words that seems not to stop. The interviews were not recorded on audio tape, as originally hoped. The microphone and tape recorder proved too intrusive, especially for interviews at the first meeting. The people I interviewed seemed to want a less formal situation, with active interchange of information. Instead of tape recording, I took notes during the interviews. Immediately following each interview, I also wrote down as much as I could about the setting and other information peripheral to the interview itself. Information was then coded into emergent categories. Charts such as one for age cohorts as suggested by Jackson and Hatchett (1986) were used as needed to reduce and organize the data, as �22 well as to uncover logical connections. Axial coding was done and memoing continued as needed before the final narrative for Chapter Five was written. Interviews with PTA and School Officials, TEA Hearing and Recommendations Transcripts from the interviews with PTA and school officials and the TEA hearing (which was also videotaped by the school) were coded according to emergent categories. Charts and diagrams were used as necessary to clarify numerical data or discover connections. The pertinent written TEA recommendations are short and did not need coding. This information is important for the study because it presents the official state recommendations for improving academic achievement at this school, and also gives the view of the school administrators and parent organizers. Mexican American Family Values Children’s academic achievement is a result of the overlap of influence of both home and school (Epstein 1990). Therefore the underlying assumptions about education held by Mexican American families need to be included in any explanation of parental involvement in schooling and Mexican American school achievement. A literature review and critical analysis of two major beliefs held by many Mexican American families was done to �23 produce Chapter Four. How the values of “familism”, or interdependence among family members, and “educacidn”, or the proper behavior needed to undergird academic learning, act together to influence the involvement of Mexican American parents in their children’s education is discussed. Validity Some cautionary statements concerning research on Mexican American school success and parental involvement should be made. First, differences in attitudes towards schooling in recent immigrants from Mexico and Mexican Americans who have lived in the U.S. for generations have been noted by researchers (Ogbu 1974; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995) and also by Metz Elementary School staff. Information from research about recent Mexican immigrant families cannot be taken to reflect the lives and experiences of long-time Mexican Americans, an assumption that has gone unchecked in certain studies. Also, it is equally important to be location specific: data about Mexican American experience in California, for example, does not necessarily reflect experience in Texas. Texas has had a much poorer record than California of providing adequate schooling for Mexican heritage students from 1910 to the present. Therefore, it is likely that Mexican Texans may report less satisfaction with schooling conditions than noted elsewhere. Yet, because there is more concern for providing better �24 services, much more data on Mexican American schooling comes from California than Texas. Occasionally data mostly taken from California has been distorted in some studies about the Mexican American experience to apply to Texas. This is not to imply that there are no similarities in the Mexican American experience in Texas and elsewhere, but simply to point out that the differences still need to be documented. This study is one small step toward correcting the lack of appropriate data on Texas, particularly concerning historical factors influencing Mexican American parental involvement in schools. According to Kirk and Miller (1986, p. 73) validity in qualitative research is controlled by field research reliability and documented ethnographic decision making. They contend that diversity of method is “a good guard against asking the wrong questions” ( p. 30). Diversity of method and sources is often called triangulation, which is what I have tried to do in this study. I use multiple data sources for each major component of this study, historical background and current parental involvement. The sources are of different types, sturdy, independent, and congruent (Miles & Huberman 1984, pp. 234-235). In some cases the historical background triangulates or confirms information from the interviews with parents and grandparents about long ago events and long-held attitudes. �25 Another important way the validity of this study is ascertained is by member checks (Lincoln & Guba 1985, p. 301). All or portions of the study, in either summary or full narrative form, were checked by various Mexican American members of the Metz Elementary School community, such as former and current principals, parents who have been interviewed, and others. This provides a check on both accuracy of factual content and bias in interpretation. Explanations residing at the level of folk theory for why children of Mexican heritage fail to achieve in Texas schools as well as White children have been common. "Oh, that's just the way it's always been" is a frequently heard comment. Even though the present study has a historical base, it should not be taken as an example of historical determinism. Historical determinism tends to stereotype individual behavior rather than exploring the rich contextual web that influences personal choices. In this study Texas Mexicans speak for themselves to display a wide variety of responses to the generally inferior educational opportunities afforded them in the past. Current Metz families express a continuum from passive disinterest to concerned aggressiveness (Chapter Five), while several former Metz principals are eloquent examples of strong leadership and activism (see Chapter Three). In Chapter Two, Mexican anthropologist Mario Gamio (1931) and ethnographer Paul S. Taylor (1934) provide us with powerful �26 glimpses of individual Mexican immigrants during the 1920s and 1930s that illustrate both the frustration and exhilaration of the immigrant experience. Salvador Guerrero's (1991) autobiography, spanning his childhood as a migrant farm laborer in Texas to his adulthood as a successful middle-class businessman and politician, also offers a powerful contradiction to historical determinism. In the present study, history is viewed as a condition which influences the present choices of individuals, but not as pre-determining the outcome. Organization of the study This study is organized like an inverted pyramid, first taking a wide, macro­ level view, then narrowing the focus to the mesosystems of school and family, and finally looking at the individual as influenced by preceding factors. The macrosystems affecting public schools in Texas during the first thirty years of the Twentieth Century are discussed in Chapter Two of this study. Embedded within that overall social environment was the beginning of Metz Elementary School in Austin, Texas. The 80-year history of Metz from its founding in 1916 to the present is described in Chapter Three. Two important values held by most Mexican American families which distinctly influence parental involvement in education are discussed in Chapter Four. Chapter Five analyzes the schooling involvement of six English-speaking �27 Mexican American families as revealed by their interviews. Conclusions and implications for theory and practice are found in Chapter Six. Significance of the study This study not only contributes to the understanding of historical change, but also pushes the concepts of life-course analysis to examine various experiences in elder generations that continue to affect today’s children. As Featherman (1983, p. 39) said, “developmental research must be historical and situational insofar as historical events precipitate change in the course of lives.” This study examines the linkages between different levels of the environment, such as national issues that impinge on education and individual decisions that affect academic achievement. It also describes the particular circumstances of home and school for children of Mexican heritage in Texas, and suggests unique effects due to each of these proximal settings. The individual is viewed as an active agent who is shaped by the environmental limitations of opportunity, but who nonetheless has options for various life decisions throughout the life span. Changes over time are reflected in the differing ways Mexican Americans have responded to their environment. The study tries to address how the social structural aspects of the environment are related to the psychological characteristics of individuals (Bolger et al. 1988). �28 Specifically, this study reframes the history of public education for children of Mexican heritage in Texas from 1910-1930 to understand how agrarian cultural values dominated the schools even in the face of a national call for modernization during the Progressive Era. This study places Texas schools within the context of the influential national issues of the time. While it is true that schools for Mexican children offered even less than White schools, this study demonstrates how conditions in rural schools in Texas were generally poor for students of all ethnicities during this time. It also illustrates a type of porous segregation for Mexican children during a largely racist period that allowed some children of Mexican descent to attend school with Whites. This study is also important because it documents 80 years of public schooling for Mexican American children. There are few works that provide researchers with detailed accounts of everyday events in schools serving Mexican American students. This study links these everyday events to larger issues and demonstrates how such events affect students. It examines the social change which has led to greater activism on the part of school parents and community members, at the same time that changes in society have led to increasingly segregated schools. �29 Lastly, this study identifies a subtle component of family background characteristics that affect children’s educational outcomes. I call this element the Abuela or Grandmother Effect because it represents the transmission of cognitively processed life experience from family elders to children. By demonstrating how this effect works in the six families in the sample, the study illuminates how individual decisions affect social change over time. By attempting to trace the influence of the changing circumstances of public education for Mexican American children through several generations of the same families, the study applies the concepts of life-course analysis (Elder 1981). If life histories are the products of the interaction of the person and the biological, social, psychological, physical and historical environments (Featherman 1983), then researchers must consider all these multiple layers of influence rather than following a monolinear course. Bolger et al. (1988) suggest that researchers must attend to three principles to explain how the social environment is related to the individual: 1) adequately understand the nature of the social structure or system in question; 2) recognize that the effects of social structures are transmitted through stimuli that impinge directly on the individual; and 3) understand how the proximal settings affect the individual. This is what the present study attempts to do. Few other studies to date have incorporated these analytic principles (see Elder, �30 Caspi & Burton 1988). While there is still need for a great deal more interdisciplinary thinking and theory development to link persons and context across time, this study is one step in that direction. �31 Chapter Two Cultural and Historical Background to Academic Performance: The Texas Environment for Mexican Schoolchildren, 1910-1930 The low academic achievement of many Mexican American students in Texas and throughout the United States today is a well-known, persistent and pervasive phenomenon (Valencia 1991). This chapter explores the historic antecedents of this low scholastic performance by examining public schooling for Mexican children in Texas from 1910 to 1930. I argue that agrarian cultural values held by both Anglos and Mexicans in Texas combined with an ideology of Anglo ethnic superiority to create a world view in which formal education had little importance for much of the population, both Anglo and Mexican. Texas schools will be discussed in terms of funding and administration, teachers, curriculum, and facilities. Americanization in Texas schools and vocational education will also be discussed. The roots of English/Spanish distrust, segregation, enrollment patterns, harassment, intelligence testing, and socioeconomic class will be considered. The failure of compulsory school attendance and child labor laws, and the ensuing lack of school completion by Mexican children, will also be examined. Texas public schools were established to serve the needs of a racist, agrarian society, whose underlying values have not changed greatly in the past 60 or 70 years. I conclude that the persistent problem of low academic achievement for many Mexican American students has its origins in the Texas past, a past which conditioned generations of Mexican Americans to expect little from the educational establishment. �32 Various authors have demonstrated the importance of understanding culture in relation to schools (Kileff 1976; Redfield 1976; Singleton 1976; Spindler 1976a, 1976b, 1976c; Thomas & Wahrhaftig 1971). This chapter explicates how the cultural values held by the farmers and ranchers of Texas, both landowners and workers alike, influenced the creation of a minimal public school system for Mexican students and others during the first part of this century. In this chapter "culture" refers to the broad set of learned and shared human values and behaviors which vary significantly among societies characterized by fundamentally different economic systems such as hunting and gathering, agrarianism, industrialism, and the presently emerging informationism. In early 20th Century Texas, the land provided the sustenance for both Anglo landowners and Mexican field workers; mores and attitudes that protected that sustenance, such as the necessity of children's labor on the farm, were strong. The period from 1910 to 1930 discussed in this chapter spans the years of mass exodus from south of the Rio Grande during the Mexican Revolution up to the Fifteenth Census of the U.S. in 1930, which marked the first time people of Mexican origin in the U.S. were enumerated separately. The discussion of Texas schools is focused on those in Central Texas only (see map, Figure I). While it is true that the densest Mexican-origin population in Texas was and continues to be along the border in South Texas, discussion of schools in that area will be limited due to the unique history of that region. Historical characteristics of South Texas have been thoroughly examined by Montejano (1987) and other borderland historians. Central Texas, however, more nearly typifies the conditions for people of Mexican �33 heritage living further north in the cotton growing areas among greater numbers of Anglos and Blacks (N. Foley 1990). In this study the term Mexican is used broadly to indicate both citizens of Mexico and U.S. citizens of Mexican heritage, as was common usage in Texas from the turn of the century to approximately World War II. The more modern term, Mexican American, is used when discussing people of Mexican origin in the U.S. from World War II to the present. European Americans will be referred to as Anglos, as they often are in Texas, or simply as Whites. Mexican settlement in Texas has been concentrated along the extensive border and throughout South Texas as far north as San Antonio since the 18th Century. By the 1920s substantial Mexican populations could be found in the largest non-border cities, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth. Mexican people were also becoming numerous in Central Texas, particularly within the Blackland Prairie, a north-south band of rich soil then used mostly for cotton farming. Much of the rest of Texas, including the arid west, the plains to the north, and the deep woods of East Texas, had sparse Mexican settlement (Manuel 1930). By 1942-43, Central Texas counties (Travis, Williamson, Bell, Bastrop, and McLennan) had between 5 to 25% Mexican heritage students in the total scholastic population (Little 1944). Dallas and Harris (Houston) counties also fell in this range. South and east of Austin (Hays, Comal, Caldwell, Guadalupe, Gonzalez, Dewitt, Wilson, Karnes, and Victoria counties), the J �34 percentages ranged from 25 to 50%. Generally, from San Antonio south, percentages increased to 50 to 75%, with 10 counties on the border having 75 to 100% students of Mexican origin in the school population. The school census for various towns in Central Texas in 1942-43 ranged from a low of only 9% Mexican students in Waco to a high of 59% in Lockhart. The capital city of Austin had 22% Mexican students in 1942-43, compared to 37% 50 years later in 1993 (Austin American-Statesman, 1993, December 5, graph). There was an increase of over 78,000 children of Mexican ethnicity on the school census rolls in Texas from 1928 to 1942 (Little 1944). By some estimates, almost 43% of the total number of Mexican children in the state in 1942 received no formal schooling whatsoever (Kibbe 1946). Sources The historical contexts of this study were constructed by a wide-ranging literature review through such diverse fields as educational history, educational psychology, Texas history, Chicano studies and others. The diverse sources allowed me to form a multifaceted picture of Central Texas schools for Mexican children from 1910 to 1930 that considers both the state's responses to national issues affecting education and the racist, agricultural lifestyle that dominated the state at that time. Some of the more useful primary sources are introduced below. H.T. Manuel (1930), professor of education at the University of Texas at Austin during the 1920s and 1930s, presents the most comprehensive information published about schools for Mexican children during this time �35 period in his survey of schooling conditions in 48 Texas counties. The period comes to life through the collection of observations and oral histories from Nueces County, Texas, by economist and ethnographer Paul S. Taylor (1934). An overview of educational conditions throughout the state comes from Frederick Eby, professor of the History of Education at the University of Texas at Austin in the 1920s. I have also used masters' and doctoral theses from the University of Texas at Austin. These include the detailed survey of public schools in Austin made in 1913-14 by a quintessential Progressive, E.D. Jennings (1917), and a similar survey of schools throughout Travis County (Austin) made by educator Winifred Hart (1937) in the 1930s. J.K. Harris (1927), principal of the Jose Antonio Navarro Elementary School in San Antonio, shares his insight from twenty years of teaching Mexican students in that city. E.M. Connell's study (1925) of the Austin barrios, though flawed by inconsistencies, is nonetheless valuable for a detailed description of living conditions in the neighborhoods of 1924. David Julian Chavez (1923), who had previously studied at Stanford with Lewis Terman, also gives information about Mexicans in Austin. G.I. Sanchez's thoughtful thesis (1931), discusses intelligence testing for Mexican children, stressing the need to understand environmental factors. Sanchez later became a renowned educator and civil rights champion. These sources are valuable for their descriptions of conditions of the time, but none of them explicitly compare conditions in Texas with those in other school systems. The autobiography of Salvador Guerrero (1991) is worth special mention because it is the only published life story of a Mexican American who grew up in Texas as a migrant farm worker during the 1920s and 1930s. �36 Guerrero's family immigrated to Texas from Mexico in the 1920s to follow the cotton crop. He spent his youth as a migrant farm worker, studying occasionally in Texas public schools. His observations are valuable because they reveal a much richer life for Mexican immigrant children than is usually reported by Anglo scholars. Research Context The few previous explanations of the historic conditions of public schools in Texas for Mexican children (including Mexican Americans) in the early part of this century are grounded in economic or political models (G. Gonzalez 1990; San Miguel 1987a) with racism as a dominant theme. Gonzalez (1982, p. 34) says that schooling from 1900 to 1930 "was the ideological as well as political reflection of capitalist economy in its monopoly stage." Gonzalez (1990) offers an economic interpretation of the roots of educational inequality in his study of the Chicano fight for desegregation throughout the Southwest, but cautions that the few texts on this subject do not explain the oppression of the Mexican people in the southwestern states. San Miguel discusses the court cases in the fight for integration of Mexican students and the rise of Mexican American political action groups in Texas (1987a). The ideology of ethnic superiority, or racism, has been used also to explain many aspects of schooling in Texas for minority children (Carter 1970; Carter & Segura 1979; Kibbe 1946). While these studies are valuable, they do not place Texas schools for Mexican children within the context of an agrarian culture that valued �37 Mexican children's labor in the field more than in the schoolhouse. Neither do previous studies consider national issues affecting education at the time or the Texas school system as a whole. There was considerable variation in the education offered Mexican students throughout the southwestern states, with Texas the worst of the lot (Grebler, Moore & Guzman 1970). The poor education offered by Texas schools is compounded by the fact that the majority of all Mexicans entering the U.S. between 1910-1930 lived in Texas (N. Foley 1990). Thus the schooling experience Mexicans of that generation found in Texas may have wide historical implications today in terms of educational role models, family expectations, adult literacy, occupational status and family income. By applying an agrarian cultural model overlaid with an analysis of ethnocentrism to the problem of Texas schools for Mexican children in the first three decades of this century, questions left unanswered by economic and political models, or racist models alone, are more fully answered. By placing such schools within the framework of an agrarian society, both the economic and political aspects are seen as elements in the transition from rural/agrarian to urban/industrial society. The blaring sub-text of racism often found in descriptions of these schooling conditions can be more clearly understood when agrarianism is included in the equation, as Montejano has shown (1987). The synthesis of agrarian cultural values by LeVine and White (1986) combined with the concept of ethnocentrism, as explicated by Sumner (1906) and LeVine and Campbell (1972), will provide an alternative conceptual framework for the discussion later in this chapter. �38 Immigration and the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920 More than 14.5 million immigrants entered the United States from 1901 to 1920, more than in any other period of history (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975). The majority of these newcomers were from southern and eastern Europe, with more than 45 nationalities represented. More than a third were illiterate, most came from peasant backgrounds, and many were unskilled. Many tended to settle near others of similar ethnic background, creating enclaves of distinct character. Some groups, notably some Italian males, moved back and forth from the home country to the U.S. as job fluctuation demanded (Bogardus 1919). By 1919 it was estimated that about one-third of the total U.S. population was either foreign-born or the children of foreign-born, almost 34 million people. In Texas, the majority of immigrants during this time period were from Mexico. No accurate count of these newcomers is possible, since most entered the state through informal channels. Mexicans in the U.S. have traditionally been undercounted for a variety of reasons (Romo 1984). By available estimates there were about 70,000 ethnic Mexicans living in Texas in 1900 (Manuel 1930). By 1920, that number had jumped to at least 500,000, about half of whom were U.S. citizens. By 1929, there were at least 800,000 people of Mexican origin in Texas, about 23% of whom lived in the five largest Texas cities of the time—San Antonio, El Paso, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth (Manuel 1930). �39 In the early 20th Century, more than a few revolutionaries, intellectuals, and wealthier Mexicans migrated to San Antonio. But the majority of the immigrants were poor peasants fleeing the hardships of the Mexican Revolution (Acuna 1988; Bogardus 1919; Fehrenbach 1983; Gamio 1931; Manuel 1930; Meyer & Sherman 1983). Many came from the Mexican states of Michoacan, Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Nuevo Leon, where the encomienda and hacienda traditions of serfdom and peonage were a way of life (Fehrenbach 1983; Gamio 1931; Manuel 1930). There are no accurate statistics for the number of casualties in Mexico during the Revolution, but modern estimates calculate that between 1.5 and 2 million people died. "In a country with a population of roughly 15 million in 1910, few families did not directly feel the pain as one in every eight Mexicans was killed" (Meyer & Sherman 1983, p. 552). Many atrocities were recorded and have become legendary in the folklore of the Revolution. Rape, pillage, and extortion were common. Battles occurred in almost all the larger cities, and starvation reached major proportions in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Puebla (Meyer & Sherman 1983). Not unexpectedly, education was severely disrupted in Mexico during the Revolution. Communities could not pay teachers, people left to join one army or another, and schools were destroyed and abandoned (Carter 1925; Meyer & Sherman 1983). Some Mexican immigrants to the U.S. even complained about the lack of schooling available during the Porforito (18761911) (Gamio 1931), even though the number of schools slowly increased during that period (Cox 1921, as cited in Carter 1925, p. 9). �40 The vast majority of Mexican immigrants into Texas had lived a life of virtual serfdom, with little education or skills for the modern world, not unlike thousands of European immigrants to the U.S. Many Mexicans fled to escape debt peonage or worse in the Revolution. In the U.S., says Fehrenbach (1983, p. 688): they were subjected to harsh exploitation by American, but certainly not by Mexican, standards. They took jobs at 50 cents per day, but still, in a month, earned more cash than they had seen their entire lives. No Anglo-Texan could exploit this pelado class to the extent they had been in Mexico. The pelados were the "skinned ones", and for them conditions in Mexico had been the worst. Not that Texas welcomed these war refugees with open arms. Many large land owners favored Mexican immigration (Taylor 1934), but many other Texans did not. The political climate between the U.S. and Mexico was tense, with 35,000 U.S. troops stationed on the border in 1917 (Acuna 1988; Fehrenbach 1983). The United States had been pursuing an imperial policy towards Latin American for some years. By 1913, American newspapers had created a public hysteria of anti-Mexicanism (Acuna 1988). The capture of Veracruz in 1914 and the invasion of Mexico by General Pershing burned in the Mexican consciousness and fueled a feeling of superiority in Americans (Meyer & Sherman 1983). Between 1911 and 1920, race hatred was inflamed along the border (Acuna 1988; Fehrenbach 1983). At least two Mexican revolutionary plans were written by exiles while in Texas (Acuna 1988; Fehrenbach 1983; Meyer & Sherman 1983). In 1917 the Zimmermann note, proposing an alliance between Germany and Mexico to wage war on the U.S., was uncovered. Angry, fearful Texans unleashed their vengeance �41 on people of German or Mexican heritage (Acuna 1988; Fehrenbach 1983; Gamio 1930). Thus the pelados, who had it the worst in Mexico, found a hostile reception in many cases when they immigrated to the U.S. side of the border. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Mexicans in Texas Even though some wealthy Mexicans immigrated to Texas, the vast majority of Mexican Texans and Mexican immigrants were poor. Most of them worked as migratory farm workers in the cotton fields, citrus groves, and vegetable farms of Texas and other states for at least part of the year, often returning to town in the winter, or emigrating out to the fields daily from town (Grebler, Moore & Guzman 1970; Guerrero 1991; Harris 1927; Manuel 1965; Menefee 1941; Montejano 1987; Warburton, Wood & Crane 1943). As a group, they often functioned as a "reserve labor force" that would shrink or swell as the crops demanded (Barrera 1984). Children were often valued in this work because they could pick onions or cotton more easily than adults. It was a proud day for many young children when they could pick 100 pounds of cotton (J. G. Flores, personal communication, 1993). Because they followed the harvest, many children had irregular school attendance and attended more than one school a year (Carter 1970; Grebler, Moore & Guzman 1970; Guerrero 1991; Manuel 1930; Warburton, Wood & Crane 1943). �42 The period from 1910 to 1930 not only saw agricultural expansion in Texas, but also rapid urbanization. In the 1920s in Austin and San Antonio, Mexican men held jobs on the streetcar and railway lines, as construction workers, or other semi-skilled positions (Connell 1925; Knox 1927). Women held menial jobs outside the home such as labeling bottles. Children beyond the "cotton-picking age” of 9 to 13-years-old did odd jobs (Guerrero 1991; Harris 1927). During the months when farm workers were not in the field, they often had to find work in town, competing with the year-round townspeople for unskilled jobs (Harris 1927). In the mid-1920s at least 50% of the students in the Jose Antonio Navarro Elementary School in San Antonio were migrant farm workers (Harris 1927). "Whole families [had to work] in order to meet the simplest necessities of life" (p. 23). Some of the children in the school did not have enough food. For instance in 1925 there were two boys, aged nine and twelve, who lived with their grandfather and were the sole breadwinners. They sold newspapers and shined shoes to earn a living. In order to help these children, Principal Harris formed a "Shine Club" with six teachers, getting a shoe shine every day, at a nickel apiece ( pp 23-24). Families usually earned less than $30.00 per week. Men usually made between $2.00 and $3.00 per day (Connell 1924; Gamio 1931). Women made from $0.50 to $1.00 (Connell 1925, p 46). Many people were out of work about half the time (p. 52; also Knox 1927). Most families needed both parents and several children to work to earn enough to live. The median annual cash income from all sources in a typical Mexican Texan household �43 was only $350.00 during the early 1940s (Warburton, Wood & Crane, 1943). Yet by some estimates the "average American family" needed almost $2000.00 in the early 1940s to maintain an adequate standard of living (Kibbe 1946, p. 189). Very few Mexican families received any type of assistance from public or private agencies (Warburton, Wood, & Crane 1943). As late as the 1960s, Mexican Americans still primarily held low- paying, unsecure, unskilled jobs. Particularly in Texas, racial discrimination in hiring practices was common (Grebler, Moore & Guzman 1970). The housing conditions for low-income Mexican families in Texas have been described as poor by several authors (Acuna 1988; De Leon 1983; Guerrero 1991; Harris 1927; Kibbe 1946; Knox 1927; Warburton, Wood & Crane 1943). Small, poorly maintained homes were often built of scrap materials. Even in town there was rarely access to city utilities such as electricity, water, and sewers. Communal outhouses and water faucets were standard. Guerrero says this was similar to the way of life many Mexicans had known in Mexico (1991). Conditions did not improve in many towns until after World War II. The interior of the home was often well kept, however, with colorful rugs and an occasional luxury such as a gramophone or ice box (Connell 1925). Anglos saw the Mexican jacales, or simple shelters made of found-materials, as evidence of the backwardness of Mexican culture rather than as a type of housing that answered the needs of poor people in an effective way (De Leon 1983, p. 30). Many Mexican adults in Texas had little schooling by the 1920s (Connell 1925; Gamio 1931; Kaderli 1940; Knox 1927). Some could answer only �44 "pococito," or a little, when asked how long they had gone to school. Many of these uneducated, agricultural families maintained social customs common in Mexico (Chavez 1923; Gamio 1931; Guerrero 1991; Kaderli 1940). Mexicans tended to marry young, with parents choosing the marriage partners (Chavez 1923, p. 17). Parents and grandparents would chaperone young people at dances. Adolescents could not go alone. Spanish-Americans can hardly tolerate any social intercourse whatever between the sexes until they are engaged. The teacher... must see to it that the sexes are kept strictly apart inside the school room and outside the school everywhere (Chavez 1923, p. 120). In San Antonio, with its large Mexican population, this custom was honored at the swimming pool. It was segregated by gender, with males and females using the pool at different times in 1924 (Dupre 1925, p. 262). Some Mexican immigrants were disgusted by American customs such as the free mixing of sexes (Gamio 1931). Many Mexican children, of generally low socioeconomic status, attended schools in Texas which were poor by many standards (Figure 2). Many children of Mexican heritage went to school as much as they could, but they often had to work in the fields or in town to help support the family. Children often migrated from farm to farm, and from rural to urban settings throughout the year. Students of Mexican origin often started the school year late and left early, according to the Anglo school calendar (Guerrero 1991; Harris 1927; Manuel 1930). The effects of this migration were often reported by Anglo educators as "retardation", or being over the standard age for a certain grade level (Hart 1937; Manuel 1930). It was not uncommon �45 for students to repeat school work because they were never there long enough to complete the class. In 1923-24, 82% of the students in the Navarro school in San Antonio were over-age for grade (Harris 1927, p.21). The labor organizer Cesar Chavez who grew up in a migrant family in the 1930s, reported that he attended at least 31 different schools while never getting beyond the sixth grade (Wollenberg 1976, p. 114). The experience of this migratory agricultural labor pattern was compounded in Texas and many other states by the huge population movement from the country to the city by all ethnic groups, especially during the 1920s and 1930s. The next section discusses this transition in Texas. The Transition from Rural to Urban "To study the life of Mexican Americans is to study social change" (Grebler, Moore, & Guzman 1970, p. 575). From 1910 to 1930 Mexicans strongly participated in the great movement to the cities throughout the Southwest, thus making this transition an important theme in understanding educational issues for Mexicans at the time (Romo 1983; 1984). By 1930 more than 50% of all Mexicans in the U.S. lived in urban areas. About 5000 Mexicans lived in Austin in 1930. Approximately 6000 were in Dallas; 14,000 in Houston; 58,000 in El Paso; and 82,000 in San Antonio. In the U.S., San Antonio was second only to Los Angeles which had 97,000 inhabitants of Mexican heritage. Even though Texas was primarily an agricultural state, the country folk began moving to town in record numbers during the 1920s. The 1920s also �46 saw the greatest overall population gain in Texas history before World War II. By 1930, 41% of the Texas population was urban. Since Reconstruction there had been an outmigration of Blacks from the state. Approximately 31% of the state population had been Black in 1870; barely 14% was Black by 1940. The Blacks who remained were also moving to town, with 45% of the Black population living in urban areas by 1940. There was a tremendous migration from the farms to the small towns and cities throughout Texas (Richardson 1943; Steen 1939). Even though Texans of all ethnicities were moving to town, they did not give up their agrarian mindset as fast as they did the plow. Though school began to claim a portion of a youngster's day, families remained close-knit. Few married women worked outside the home. Children were expected to do their chores, mind their parents, and be obedient. Teachers were seen as surrogate parents. Homework was viewed as an obligation to be accomplished without fuss. The elemental reading, writing, and arithmetic taught by the school were the tickets to getting a good job or adult success. And even though the school calendar in town was longer than in country schools, urban schools still let out during the summer months so that children could either help with agricultural tasks or find a summer job (Eby 1925; Steen 1939; Thomas & Wahrhaftig 1971). The transition from rural to urban was neither immediate nor uniform. The dance of social change is a halting zigzag, three steps forward and two steps back. Even today, rural values and views of family life are considered �47 standard in most of the U.S. Modern realities are still viewed as a deviation from the norm. As the story of Texas schools for Mexican children unfolds, the unevenness of the rural/urban, agrarian/industrial transition is a recurring theme. Texas Public Schools Texas First in Size. First in Agricultural Products. First in Production of Cotton. First in Production of Oil. Seventh in Wealth. Thirty-ninth in Education. Shall Texas Keep This Rank? -■"Better Schools Campaign"slogan, promoted by State Superintendent Dr. Annie Webb Blanton, 1919-1923. Thousands of Mexican children who had seen poverty, war and destruction in their homeland, entered one of the worst school systems in the United States when they crossed the border into Texas. Rural schools in Texas were the most backward of any in the state. About 77% of the children of Mexican heritage in the state lived in the countryside at least part of the year where they and their families were agricultural workers (Manuel 1930, p. 153). Many students attended poor rural schools for a portion of the year, with some children attending more "progressive" urban schools in other months (Cuban 1993; Harris 1927). In Texas, as elsewhere, putting educational theory into practice in schools proved difficult. Even though there were some Texas educators who were influenced by progressive reformers, most had little training or incentive to I �48 go beyond traditional methods. Most aspects of Texas education were "still in a disappointing and backward condition," according to Frederick Eby, professor of the History of Education at the University of Texas (Eby 1925, p. 305). The Problems of School Funding and Administration Most of the essential problems of education remained unsolved in Texas since the Civil War. After the labor of more than eighty years, and with the largest endowment for public education possessed by a single state in all the world, it is strange that education in Texas has not yet reached a satisfactory basis and has not provided sufficiently for any one of the prime essentials (Eby 1925, p. 304). The Texas Constitution of 1869 set aside state land as an endowment for education. The Permanent School Fund consisted of all revenue from the sale of these public lands. The Available School Fund was derived from income from the Permanent Fund and other sources (Eby 1925, p. 158). The School Law of 1884 mandated that the apportionment of Available School Fund to the counties be based on the per capita scholastic population, without racial discrimination (Evans 1955, p. 107). Rural districts were restricted by law from raising taxes and voting for bonds for school facilities until 1920 (Eby 1925, p. 217). This was in spite of the fact that in 1900 there were almost four times as many students in rural schools in Texas as in city schools (Eby, p. 216). This greatly "hampered the building of strong schools" (Eby, p. 317). In 1908 Texas ranked 23rd among �49 the 48 states in annual income from local taxation for public schools; 42nd in the percent of school funds raised by taxation; 35th in expenditure per capita of average attendance for public schools; and 42nd in number of years of free school attendance (Evans 1955, pp 111-115). In many cases, maintaining a school was but a token gesture towards "modernization" by a farming society that did not value literacy, much less a full education, for all children. A great many rural school districts were managed by county judges serving as ex officio county superintendents (Eby 1925, p. 311; Platt 1917, p. 9). There were over 6000 common school districts in Texas in 1930 (Kingston 1989), creating a great deal of administrative overlap. In 1936 in Travis county, for instance, there were three independent school districts with seven board members each, and 52 common school districts with three board members each. There were 177 board members in that one county responsible for hiring 580 teachers for a total student population of 18,117. Of this number, 405 teachers and 13,866 pupils were provided for the by city of Austin. There were no qualifications for any board member except that they be qualified voters. Political pressure and personal feeling often enter into the election of the teacher and sometimes the school suffers...The existing administrative set-up is not conducive to the most efficient public school program (Hart 1937, p. 10). School districts did not have to apportion school funding equally per child. In many counties Black and Mexican schools received little state money as the bulk was spent on White schools (Manuel 1930; Platt 1917; Taylor 1934). �50 There are many small schools attended by White children and supported almost entirely by funds apportioned to Mexican children who do not go to school. In these districts, the greater the number of Mexican children not in school, the more revenue there will be for the children who do attend (Davis 1923). As educator Winifred Hart said: the inequalities of educational advantages will not appear so unusual after one is familiar with the unequal conditions under which education administration is carried on (Hart 1937, p. 6). A superintendent in Nueces county noted: Mexicans in this district draw about $6,000.00 in state aid, and we spend on them about $2,000. This is true everywhere in Texas. We also have an $18,000 property tax and that all goes on the white school (Taylor 1934, p. 200). Kibbe found that in 1944-45, the situation remained the same. At that time each school district received $29.00 per capita for all children between ages 6-17 on the census rolls. The money was paid by the state whether or not the children were enrolled in school. Therefore, "if no effort is made to enroll the Mexican children, the money comes anyway and is all spent on the white schools" (Kibbe 1946, p. 93). In 1918 Texas ranked 44th among the states in local school funding. Funding varied greatly among Texas counties. At the close of World War I, living expenses increased enormously, but there was no increase in the �51 Available School Fund for teacher salaries. Many teachers left the profession because of this, and many schools had to have shortened terms (Eby 1925, p. 317). This situation did not improve in Texas until the GilmerAiken Law of 1949 was passed which guaranteed every school-age child a minimum educational opportunity of twelve years of nine months each and also raised pay scales for teachers (Evans 1955, p. 135-137). The situation was encapsulated by Eby, The great trouble was that the people had been led to believe that the colossal permanent school fund was sufficient to take care of the entire educational needs of the state without resort to local taxation. This false belief which had come down from early times helped to keep the people in a state of apathy. Flattered by the boasts of office-seeking politicians that Texas had the largest school fund of the states in the world and that her schools were inferior to none, the people were living in complacent ignorance of the deplorable backwardness of the state school system. The majority of the people had no knowledge whatever of genuine standards of educational achievement (Eby 1925, p. 218). The Problems of Teachers Almost one of every three Texas teachers left the profession annually during the 1920s. State institutions could only train about 1000 new teachers each year. Therefore, about 40% of the teachers in the state each year were untrained, raw recruits with no experience. Texas ranked near the bottom nationally in the number of well-trained, experienced teachers working in public schools (Eby 1925, p. 308). About 85% of the teachers were women who were not only poorly paid, but also forbidden to continue teaching if they married. In 1921-22, 24% of all public school teachers in Texas had not �52 even graduated from high school; 40% were high school graduates only; 22% had received normal college training; and only 13% were graduates of a college or university (Eby 1925, pp 308-310). After the boom of industrialization and growth during World War II, however, only 3.6% of Texas teachers failed to hold degrees by 1952 (Evans 1955, p. 137). Only three states ranked lower than Texas in teacher pay scales in the 1920s. In Travis county during the Depression, the average annual salary for a male elementary teacher in Austin was $1,487, compared with $709 in the rural schools of the county (Hart 1937, p. 29). Teachers in schools for Mexican children in certain rural districts received only $60.00 per month in 1928 (Manuel 1930, p. 59). Black teachers also received lower salaries (Platt 1917, p. 8). There were practically no trained teachers in the rural schools because of low salaries, isolation, school board policies, and other factors (Eby 1925). By 1947, teachers in Mexican schools still had less training, less experience and received lower pay than teachers in White schools (Strickland & Sanchez 1947). A new teacher certification law took effect in 1925 which required college training, except for lower elementary grades. Even though much greater emphasis was given to pedagogy as a result of this law, by 1932 there were only two college courses in the state which specifically trained teachers to work with children of Mexican heritage (Johnson 1932, p. 71). These were Dr. H.T. Manuel's "Education of the Spanish-speaking Child" at the University of Texas in Austin and a course taught by Miss Lila Baugh at Texas College of Arts and Industries at Kingsville. Many cities such as San �I 53 Antonio and El Paso offered some type of in-service training for teachers of Mexican children, however (Johnson 1932, p. 71). Professor Manuel concluded: The most serious deficiency is in teaching and supervision. When we find a rural school with an untrained teacherisolated, without vision, without equipment, and with a problem so great [teaching Mexican immigrant children] that it challenges the most skilled--we have a most unhappy situation (Manuel 1930, p. 60). Dr. Eby agreed, saying: It is probable that for some years past the rural children [Anglo, Mexican and Black] have not been receiving as effective training as their parents received thirty to forty years ago (Eby 1925, p. 306). Curriculum In early 20th Century Texas, schooling experiences were not monolithic, but varied greatly from place to place and over time. In general, however, both recent Mexican immigrants and long-time Texas Mexicans were treated the same educationally and otherwise. School districts in San Antonio, El Paso and the Lower Rio Grande Valley were leaders in developing innovative English language approaches for Spanish-speaking children between 1924 and 1936 (San Miguel 1987a, p. 39). Emphasis was placed on teaching oral English skills to Mexican children above all else. Reading and other subjects were neglected. The �54 based on the perceived needs and interests of the child, and could therefore be considered "progressive" in the broad sense (Johnson 1932, p. 83). Most of the new materials employed a common-sense "stimulus/response" method, advocated by Thorndike, in which the teacher would say a sentence and the children would repeat it. Usually, however, the teacher was the only English speaker in the classroom. Less grammar and more phonics were incorporated after World War I. In some schools the new curricula were found to reduce "retardation", or being over-age for grade level, for students of Mexican heritage (Johnson 1932). The new curricula were an attempt to meet the needs of immigrant children rather than "slavishly follow the English- speaking course of study" (Johnson 1932, p. 114). In his 1928 survey of 48 Texas counties, Manuel found that the predominant method of teaching children of Mexican origin was the all-English method (Manuel 1930, p. 155). In Austin public schools in 1914, most teaching was subject or teacher­ centered, with little acknowledgment of psychological principles of learning. These conditions were not very different from most classrooms around the nation, however (Cuban 1993; Jennings 1917). There was much rote memorization, with "the teacher doing all the talking from the university down to the kindergarten" (Jennings 1917, p. 59). A few years later the Texas Education Survey Commission described 230 rural schools in Texas and found a preponderance of teacher-initiated drill, rote memorization, and little enrichment or what would be called today "critical thinking." This �55 same Commission also found that about 75% of the almost 200 urban schools observed had desks bolted to the floor and almost no pupil-suggested activity (Texas Education Survey Commission 1924). From this evidence it is clear that a great many schools in Texas were not dramatically touched by progressive education, except perhaps by Thorndike's concept of classroom furniture (Joncich 1968). Beginning reading was well taught in Austin, but children were rarely called upon to "tell the story" (Jennings 1917, p. 78). As for arithmetic, there was too much written work in all the Austin schools, with too few plays, number contests or games. Little effort was made to connect the subject with real-life problems. Teachers gave few opportunities for students to explain their work, and often the only feedback from the teacher was "correct" or "wrong" (Jennings 1917, p. 80). Music, art, physical and moral training were greatly lacking in the Austin schools immediately prior to World War I (Jennings, p. 106). This teacher-dominated methodology emphasizing rote memorization, with drill and response for practice, corresponds to the fragmentary descriptions of classroom activity that have been published about schools for children of Mexican heritage in Texas (Manuel 1930). There were exceptions, of course. Photographs of the Stephen F. Austin School in Kingsville, Texas, in the early 1940s, show first-graders sitting in moveable chairs in a circle learning English through story-telling activities. The room is decorated with colorful posters, and drawings and crayons are on the group work table. Obviously there were some pockets of childcentered, expressive teaching (Kibbe 1946, facing p. 91). Manuel also was �56 quick to praise the few examples of enthusiastic teaching for Mexican children that he observed (Manuel 1930). But these outliers do not change the overall picture. Playgrounds and play equipment were mostly nonexistent in schools for Mexican children in Texas, as shown in photographs of school yards, which were mostly small barren plots (Hart 1937, p. 32; H.T. Manuel collection, Benson Latin American Library, University of Texas at Austin). Salvador Guerrero also reported this in his memoirs of growing up as a migrant farm worker in Texas (1991). "Play equipment would be an innovation in most Spanish-American communities," (Chavez 1923, pp 105). Sometimes Mexican parent associations purchased playground equipment for schools from their small wages (Guerrero 1991). Of the nine separate schools for Mexican children maintained in Travis county in 1937, only five had school grounds totaling at least one acre, and one had barely one-fourth acre for the total school site. Of the schools for Black children in Travis county, school sites ranged from one-half acre to two acres, with eleven schools having at least two acres. In Austin itself, the six school buildings for Black students only had three acres among them. White students in Austin were provided school sites averaging 2.5 acres (Hart 1937, p. 32). It is obvious by the small school sites that many Black and Mexican children were not enjoying enriched physical activity at school. In San Antonio supervised play on elementary school playgrounds was implemented in 1924 for twenty minutes per day, plus regular �57 In San Antonio supervised play on elementary school playgrounds was implemented in 1924 for twenty minutes per day, plus regular intermissions (Dupre 1925, p. 275). The city of San Antonio also provided other recreational facilities for children. For example there were six swimming pools in 1924: four for Anglos and Mexicans, one for Mexicans only, and one for Negroes only. There was also a segregated Negro park with tennis courts, swings, and slides in addition to other citv parks ("Dupre 1925, P- ///'. ')/> Fa. _ - _____ — ___________ _ Be - L < --a-------------------------------- J /£> _ 'I _ __ cdoe'.e _ _____________ -Sf&rfA: Met? fiemMrU'S------------------- ] buildings wa Pa) __ -Loo no <72. con iwide. opment. In ’— „„-neral they were more modern in town than in the countryside. H.T. Manuel described a school for Mexican children in a small town in North Central Texas that he visited in 1928: It is about 20 feet by 20 feet. The enrollment was 38, with 30 in regular attendance. The school term was five months long, compared with eight months for the Anglo school. There were only twelve desks for the 30 children. Single boards set upon supports served as desks for the rest, and they sat on folding chairs. Plain wood served as a blackboard. Water had to be carried in a bucket; all used the same dipper. There was almost no equipment-no playground, no flash cards, etc. (Manuel 1930, p. 59). �57 In San Antonio supervised play on elementary school playgrounds was implemented in 1924 for twenty minutes per day, plus regular "intermissions" (Dupre 1925, p. 275). The city of San Antonio also provided other recreational facilities for children. For example there were six swimming pools in 1924: four for Anglos and Mexicans, one for Mexicans only, and one for Negroes onlv. Thpro ------egated Negro park with 7L tennis courts, s :ity parks (Dupre 1925, p. 262-266). Facilities Besides teacher r^/7-'J — —J---------- - — was a major con J- ZA ment nationwide. ion, but some of this Part of this was concern also stei lity of school buildings Zz’iz.x <- f child development. In Texas the sch' ed, but in general they were more r e. H.T. Manuel des< a small town in North Central Te It is about 20 feet by 20 feet. The enrollment was 38, with 30 in regular attendance. The school term was five months long, compared with eight months for the Anglo school. There were only twelve desks for the 30 children. Single boards set upon supports served as desks for the rest, and they sat on folding chairs. Plain wood served as a blackboard. Water had to be carried in a bucket; all used the same dipper. There was almost no equipment-no playground, no flash cards, etc. (Manuel 1930, p. 59). �57 In San Antonio supervised play on elementary school playgrounds was implemented in 1924 for twenty minutes per day, plus regular "intermissions" (Dupre 1925, p. 275). The city of San Antonio also provided other recreational facilities for children. For example there were six swimming pools in 1924: four for Anglos and Mexicans, one for Mexicans only, and one for Negroes only. There was also a segregated Negro park with tennis courts, swings, and slides in addition to other city parks (Dupre 1925, p. 262-266). Facilities Besides teacher qualifications and curriculum, the quality of school buildings was a major concern of the progressive education movement nationwide. Part of this was due to an overall drive for modernization, but some of this concern also stemmed from increased understanding of child development. In Texas the school facilities for Mexican children varied, but in general they were more modern in town than in the countryside. H.T. Manuel described a school for Mexican children in a small town in North Central Texas that he visited in 1928: It is about 20 feet by 20 feet. The enrollment was 38, with 30 in regular attendance. The school term was five months long, compared with eight months for the Anglo school. There were only twelve desks for the 30 children. Single boards set upon supports served as desks for the rest, and they sat on folding chairs. Plain wood served as a blackboard. Water had to be carried in a bucket; all used the same dipper. There was almost no equipment-no playground, no flash cards, etc. (Manuel 1930, p. 59). �58 This description could fit many other schools of the time as well, especially in rural areas, for Whites, Blacks and Mexicans (Hart 1937; Manuel 1930; Taylor 1934). A survey in the early 1920s showed that 80% of all rural school buildings for children of all ethnicities in the state were inadequate. Equipment was poor, libraries and special facilities were almost nonexistent. There were still almost 5000 one-teacher schools with 40 to 75 pupils each in Texas at the time (Eby 1925, p. 307). In 1936 in Travis county, many schools for White as well as Black and Mexican children were inadequate. Most rural schools in the county were frame buildings in need of paint and repairs. Few had proper fire protection. Rural schools for Mexicans and Blacks often had tin roofs, poor lighting and ventilation, and very little playground space or equipment. They were often less comfortable than those for Whites. The "colored" schools were almost all one-room buildings in sad disrepair. Many had no water supply on the school site. In many instances, children had to sit on rudely constructed benches and old double desks (Hart 1937, p. 30-31). In the largest city in the state in the 1920s, San Antonio, where there was more money for schools and the population was almost 50% Mexican heritage, the situation was considerably better. The Jose Antonio Navarro Elementary School which primarily served Mexican students had a 30-room stone building, with steam heat and good lighting in the new addition built in 1923. Photographs show equally good facilities for Mexicans and Anglos in other areas of San Antonio (Johnson 1932, p. 75). Most evidence, �59 however, points to wide discrepancies in school facilities throughout the state between those for White children and others (Manuel 1930). Sanitation was also a strong concern of the Progressive Era. In 1913 some elementary schools in Austin still had outdoor privies (Jennings 1917, p. 223) In the late 1920s or early 30s, George I. Sanchez, University of Texas professor and civil rights activist, documented the toilets of one school for Mexican children with photographs meant to shock people into awareness of the terrible conditions (Sanchez photo collection, Benson Latin American Library, University of Texas at Austin). There were many calls for improvement, but economics and apathy restrained conditions in many parts of the state (Jennings 1917; Eby 1925). Sanitary facilities for Mexican students in certain schools remained primitive even in the late 1940s, some still having "oldtime pit type" latrines. "This distressing picture was not found to exist in any of the schools for Anglo children" (Strickland & Sanchez 1947, p. 11). The evidence shows that even though schools provided for children of Mexican heritage could be characterized as inadequate on measures of teacher qualifications and pay and often on curriculum and facilities, the same was true of schools for most other children in Texas, no matter what their ethnicity. In 1920 almost half of all children enrolled in schools nationwide attended rural schools which typically had poor buildings, little equipment, and teachers with only high school preparation and little experience. Teachers were often meagerly paid and left the profession as �60 soon as they could (Cuban 1993). In these respects, Texas followed national trends. This section has described the poor conditions in Texas schools concerning funding and administration, teachers, curriculum and buildings, noting some exceptions to the generally dismal situation. Providing schools for Mexican children at all in Texas was primarily a response to the national call for progressive modernization. However, because people who made their living from cotton and citrus farming did not place great importance on the literacy skills of their workers, schools for children in most agricultural regions of the state were minimal. Compulsory Attendance and Child Labor Laws Texas enacted a gradual series of child labor laws starting around World War I, but was reluctant to match standards set by industrial regions of the nation. Child labor laws were not regarded as applying to work in the cotton fields during school hours-only to work in factories (Taylor 1934, p. 200). Compulsory school attendance laws and child labor laws went hand-inhand in Texas and elsewhere. As of 1930 the compulsory attendance law in Texas only covered children ages 8-14 who lived within 2 1/2 miles of a school and required only 100 days attendance per year (Evans 1955; Taylor 1934; Manuel 1930). Several authors reported that there was a pronounced drop in school enrollment of Mexican children after age 13, presumably because they quit school to work full-time (Harris 1927; Manuel 1930). �61 A school superintendent said, "The board won't let me enforce compulsory attendance...If I tried to enforce [it] the board would get sore at me...If I got 150 Mexicans ready for school I would be out of a job" (Taylor 1934, p. 194). Another superintendent said, "The compulsory attendance law is a dead letter. There is no effort to enforce it. Nobody cares" (Taylor 1934, p. 195). In general, many rural folk did not want the Mexicans to receive much education. Some said if Mexicans were educated, they would leave the farms. A young Anglo farmer said, "the illiterate ones are the ones we want...educated Mexicans are the hardest to handle" (Taylor 1934, p. 197). One school superintendent explained the agrarian, ethnocentric view precisely: Most of our Mexicans are of the lower class. They transplant onions, harvest them, etc.. The less they know about everything else the better contented they are. You have doubtless heard that ignorance is bliss; it seems that it is so when one has to transplant onions. If a man has very much sense or education either, he is not going to stick to this kind of work. So you see it is up to the white population to keep the Mexican on his knees in an onion patch or in new ground. This does not mix well with education (Manuel 1930, p. 76). Enforcement of the compulsory attendance law was better in larger cities, such as San Antonio, where the needs of urbanization fostered a more broad­ minded view of education. One San Antonio school rang the school bell thirty minutes before school began each morning so children would know when to come, since many families did not have clocks. Class monitors visited any absent student's home to inform the parents. San Antonio also had a truant officer who made daily rounds and would take students to Juvenile Court if they did not attend. Principals sometimes gave extra play �62 periods to classes achieving 98% attendance for the week (Harris 1927). In general however, there was very lax enforcement of the "farcical" compulsory attendance law, with enforcement left up to each individual school district (Kibbe 1946, p. 95). School Completion Rates Mexican children in Texas in the 1920s tended to enter school around age 8 and leave about age 13 after completing third grade (Manuel 1930). Statistics show extreme clustering of Mexican children from ages 7 to 17 in first and second grade (Guerrero 1991; Manuel 1930). Only 3 or 4% went to high school; less than one-fifth of 1% made it to college. Only about 50% of all Mexican children were enrolled in public school at any one time (Manuel 1930, p. 119). Because of the migratory life style of many Mexican children and the lack of record-keeping by school districts, it is impossible to ascertain exactly how many children of Mexican heritage were in attendance at school at any given time during the early part of this century. However, according to Manuel, there were approximately 2,848 Mexican children of school age in Travis County (Austin) in 1928-29 (Manuel 1930, p. 164). In 1928, about 16% of all "White" children ages 7-17 in Texas were Mexican (p. 106). Manuel concludes that only about half of the school-age Mexican children in Texas were ever enrolled in school, and only about one-third attended on any given day. In contrast, for White children, 95 to 100% were enrolled and about 75% attended on any particular day (p. 118). �63 Nearly half of the Mexican children who were in school were in the first grade, and nearly three-fourths could be counted in grades 1, 2, and 3. Few remained after the sixth grade. This pattern of minimal school attendance was perhaps sufficient for farm workers who mainly needed a modest ability in English to communicate with labor bosses and to sign their name occasionally. For families who depended on the income of their children to meet basic necessities, schooling was a secondary endeavor. For the landowners, the literacy of their workers was not a priority for many reasons as well. Therefore a pattern of modest school attendance and achievement for Mexican children was established in Texas. Unfortunately, in many ways this pattern has remained intact long after its usefulness. The next section discusses the policy of using public schools to create a unified American people through a process known as "Americanization." Two of the most important elements in this plan were the teaching of English and preparation for industrial work through vocational education. The Effects of Ethnocentrism on Education for Mexican Students Americanization What began as a reaction by native-born Americans to the social changes associated with massive immigration took on more intensity with the coming of World War I. Around 1914 when war broke out in Europe, a "renaissance of nationalism" occurred in the U.S.. At least 150 American cities observed "Americanization Day" in 1915 (Bogardus 1919). Immigrants were seen as �64 troublesome and "anti-foreign hysteria" was in full swing (Tyack 1974, p. 106). Vilification of immigrants was not uncommon (Handlin 1959). A member of the Boston School Committee declared that "many of these [immigrant] children come from homes of vice and crime. In their blood are generations of iniquity." The secretary of the Connecticut board of education wrote: It is largely through immigration that the number of ignorant, vagrant, and criminal youth has recently multiplied to an extent truly alarming in some of our cities. Their depravity is sometimes defiant and their resistance to moral suasion is obstinate (Tyack 1974, p. 75). Many authors have commented on the wide-spread use of pejorative epithets towards immigrants and Blacks during this time and later (Bogardus 1919 p. 15; Manuel 1930; Taylor 1934; Thompson 1920, p. 367). Italians, Jews, Irish and Slovaks were particularly targeted. As Tyack says, "educators did not create ethnocentrism or bigotry in American society" (Tyack 1974, p. 236). The major response by the American people to the huge wave of immigration in the early 20th Century was a desire for the immigrants to fit into the established society. Director of Americanization Fred C. Butler said "Americanization is the great task of bringing into full fellowship those who live among us who were born in foreign lands" (as quoted in Chavez 1923, p. 45). The surge of nativism in the early 1900s set in motion the vast educational campaign known as Americanization (Cremin 1988). �65 School systems across the country organized comprehensive Americanization programs for immigrant children and adults. These programs not only sought to teach English to the newcomers, but also included training in personal cleanliness, middle class American values, factory-like discipline, and often, disdain for ethnic heritage (Cremin 1988; Sharlip & Owens 1925; Tyack 1974). "America is looking with anxious hope to the school as the chief instrument of Americanization," said Boston School Superintendent Frank V. Thompson (1920, p. 1), who considered Americanization nothing less than "national unification" (p. 363). The great majority of educators "were probably ethnocentric, proud of American middle class standards, and confident that schooling could change the many into one people, e pluribus unum" (Tyack 1974, p. 232). Speaking English was seen as the most critical achievement for immigrants. At least twenty states, including Texas, passed English-only laws regarding public school instruction during 1918-1919. Many states prohibited teaching foreign languages in elementary schools. Texas and other states specifically forbade German, even though bilingualism had been successfully accomplished by many German communities in the United States before WWI (Tyack 1974, p. 106). In Cleveland, for example, around the turn of the century, half of the children came from homes where English was not spoken (Tyack 1974). "There can be no question that it is the will of the people that no child in America shall be deprived of the opportunity of learning the language of America" (Thompson 1920, p. 289). Teachers were proud of their Americanism, and many teachers demanded total Angloconformity (Tyack 1974, p. 234). �66 Americanization in Texas Schools The process of Americanization for Mexican immigrant children in Texas was more difficult than it was for some other ethnic groups in the United States partly because of the Mexican child's frequent change of schools and the poor quality of instruction often found. There is little evidence of formal Americanization programs throughout the Southwest (San Miguel 1987b). For at least some part of the year, the majority of Mexican students in Texas attended rural schools, which were considered the worst in the state (Kibbe 1946). The full impact of any Americanization plan, how ever conceptualized, was unlikely to be realized in these country schools. The one element of any such plan, however, that was concentrated upon was the teaching of English to the newcomer (Gonzalez 1990). "Probably more than 90% of the Mexican children entering school cannot understand English" (Manuel 1930, p. 120). From the discussion of general curriculum and classroom methods elsewhere in this paper, it is clear that English language instruction was often not adequate to give fluency to the Mexican child. Even by the early 1970s many Mexican American children in Texas were not proficient in either Spanish or English (Stoddard 1973). In Brownsville Mexican American students were fined for speaking Spanish in school. Corporal punishment was not uncommon for breaking the no­ Spanish rule. In El Paso in the late 1960s, speaking Spanish on the school grounds was punishable by reprimand, after-school detention, or expulsion �67 for repeated violations (Stoddard 1973). (For an overview of bilingual education issues, see R. Sanchez 1984.) Because of the English-only law passed in Texas during World War I, it was a criminal offense to teach in any language other than English. San Miguel (1987a) believes this law was designed to strengthen Americanization of Texas Mexicans. "The learning of English was to be emphasized at the expense of other subjects" (San Miguel 1987a, p. 40). "Every effort should be made to Americanize these pupils," said a 1924 Texas Department of Education bulletin, "by first encouraging and later insisting that English be the only language spoken in school" (Texas State Dept, of Education 1924, p. 27). In Travis county and elsewhere by 1937, non-English speaking children generally did not receive enough instruction to master the language (Harris 1927; Hart 1937; Manuel 1930; Taylor 1934). Some Mexican Americans, such as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), supported learning English and Americanization in general however (San Miguel 1987a, p. 37). Educational progress was slow for Mexican children, with over 90% concentrated in the first three grades in the 1930s. As will be discussed, because of segregation: Americanization in such schools is impossible. The pupils hear the English language spoken only by the teacher. They master the classroom phase of it to some extent, but on the playground and in all their spontaneous activities, they naturally speak Spanish. This condition exists in spite of the efforts of the teacher. Because of their isolation, they feel inferior to the white children, and there is a tendency upon the part of the latter to consider them as such. The higher-type Mexicans resent these restrictions and lose much of their desire to �68 become American citizens, and the lower-type individuals care nothing for it; therefore, a large per cent of the scholastic population is being allowed to grow into adults with a perverted attitude toward citizenship in the United States (Hart 1937, p. 17). Similar observations were made by Kaderli in the 1930s. Few children in the Mexican schools in Sugar Land, Texas, could speak English, even though that was the main objective of the school. No other effort towards Americanization (such as citizenship training for example) was made. Of a total of 913 scholastics in Sugar Land in 1936, 624 were Spanish-speaking (Kaderli 1940, p. 45). Dr. Annie Webb Blanton, the State Superintendent for Public Instruction in 1923, felt Mexicans had no right to live in Texas and maintain the Spanish language or Mexican customs. Her attitude was indicative of the official state interest in the education of children of Mexican origin and was undoubtedly shaped by the national Americanization movement (San Miguel 1987a, p. 32). The need for "Americanization" was given as a justification for segregation by the late 1940s (Strickland & Sanchez 1947). Vocational Education Besides English language instruction, another aspect of Americanization was vocational education. Early in the Progressive Era, industrial, or vocational, education began to be considered a necessity, especially for the Americanization of immigrants. Although the roots of vocational education are diverse, it quickly spread as one response to the agrarian/industrial shift taking place in many parts of the U.S. Rioting against vocational education �69 sometimes broke out as many people objected to what they saw as a "cheapened" public education (Cremin 1988, p. 236). The arguments for and against this plan echoed those voiced earlier by Blacks over Booker T. Washington's Tuskegee model (Meier & Rudwick 1970). One side in the argument demanded modernization and technical training, while the other argued for a more classically framed education. Texas followed the general development of philosophical and educational thought throughout the nation on this topic. The first manual training department in Texas was established in 1896 in Austin High School (Eby 1925, p. 253). In spite of opposition, particularly by some Black educators, vocational education grew rapidly in Texas in the first two decades of the 20th Century. By 1925 there were many vocational courses at various high schools around the state serving primarily Anglo students (Eby, p. 271). Few vocational education classes were developed for Mexican students in Texas, however, since few ever enrolled in high school (Harris 1927; Manuel 1930). Only four counties in Texas offered vocational training to school students of Mexican origin in 1928 (Manuel 1930, pp 88-89). Some of those offerings were extensive, however, such as those at Lanier Junior High in San Antonio (Bobbit 1915; Gonzalez 1990). Only a small percent of the federal matching funds for vocational and home economics instruction granted under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 were actually used in Texas because the state did not meet the necessary conditions (Evans 1955, p. 121). Of the annual $50,000.00 in state aid for vocational training, almost all was given to white schools (Platt 1917, p. 8). �70 Thus, even though Americanization was given vocal support, the effects of any such educational plan were barely felt by Mexican Texans. For the major Americanization concerns of English language instruction and vocational education, few funds and resources were actually allocated for students of Mexican origin. Particularly in rural schools, which many Mexican children attended for all or part of the year due to their labor as migrant farm workers, little effort was made to teach them other marketable job skills or to give them adequate language instruction to function comfortably in the Anglo dominated society. Roots of English /Spanish Distrust Raymund Paredes (1984) argues that the historic distrust and competition between the English and the Spanish was carried to the New World in the 17th Century and spread by the Puritans. The English greatly feared Spanish economic domination of Europe and the New World. The Puritans also hated Catholics, which the Spanish, and later the Mexicans, enthusiastically were. The pilgrim band also had a great fear of miscegenation, which was represented in Spain by the mixture of European and Moor, and in Mexico by the progeny of Spaniard and Native American (Paredes 1984). This "hispanophobia" combined with enormous guilt at the decimation of Native Americans and enslavement of African Blacks transformed itself into a more psychologically tolerable pattern in America: racism. �71 Segregation Several explanations have been given for school segregation, including historical antipathy (Acuna 1988; Fehrenbach 1983; Paredes 1984) and the need to control labor (Montejano 1987). Black children were segregated from White children in Texas schools by law during the first half of this century (Eby 1925; Evans 1955). Although not demanded by law, children of Mexican heritage were often segregated also, with language differences given as the common excuse (Acuna 1988; Grebler, Moore & Guzman 1970; Kibbe 1946; Manual 1930; Menchaca & Valencia 1990; Stoddard 1973). Today Hispanic students are the most highly segregated ethnic group in American public schools, primarily due to residential patterns (Donato et al. 1991; Orfield 1992). Mexicans faced discrimination similar to Blacks in most situations in Texas during the first half of this century (Kibbe 1946; Montejano 1987; Ogbu 1986). Segregation is often employed to control caste-like minorities, with exploitation based on a sharply segmented dual labor force organized along racial lines (Ogbu 1986). Especially in times of economic downturn, minorities are often used as scapegoats for larger societal issues. For example, Mexicans and Blacks were often blamed for the deteriorating economy and the decline of rural life in Central Texas during the 1930s (N. Foley 1990; Taylor 1934). In education, some prominent leaders, such as E.L. Thorndike, believed in the power of the individual to select his own environment, race and class notwithstanding. Such an assumption ignored inherited wealth and other social conditions (Curti 1959). The confluence of �72 cognitive intelligence and moral integrity, which was commonly held to be true, is essentially an agrarian cultural belief (LeVine & White 1986) which justified the segregation, vilification, and poverty of the poor, such as many Mexicans and other immigrants (Menchaca & Valencia 1990). The ethnocentric Anglo majority in Texas used segregated schools as one means of maintaining boundaries between groups. Enrollment Patterns There were three patterns of school enrollment for Mexican children in Texas before 1930. (1) In some communities Mexican children attended fully integrated schools with Anglos. (2) In other towns Mexicans had separate rooms within White schools. (3) Other communities completely segregated Mexican children in school buildings separate from Whites. School districts in Central Texas responded to the issue of segregation in each of the enrollment patterns mentioned above prior to the Depression. In Marlin, a small farm town near Waco, the number of Mexican children was small, and they were taught in the same classes as Anglo children. Caldwell county had a large Mexican population with complete segregation in the rural schools. Guadalupe and Hays counties had segregation in some schools but not in others. Taylor in Williamson county maintained separate schools for Mexican children. Certain schools in Austin were totally mixed, while several others maintained separate classrooms for Mexican students through the first three grades (Manuel 1930). �73 Total separation in completely different schools did not solidify until the Depression (Manuel 1930; Strickland & Sanchez 1947). In some cases total segregation seemed to depend on a certain population density of Mexicans and "new" Whites who had recently come to Texas from northern states (Manuel 1930; Montejano 1987; Taylor 1934). Some school segregation was certainly due to residential factors (Manuel 1930; Taylor 1934). Children were often segregated solely on the basis of Spanish surname (Strickland & Sanchez 1947). In Nueces county in 1925, armed law enforcement officials removed Mexican children who tried to enroll in the nearest school; it was for Whites only (Taylor 1934, p. 220). One Mexican American from South Texas reported that the first students to integrate one particular high school had to sit in the hallway and not in the classroom, so as not to mix with the Anglo students. Later, they got to sit in the back of the room, apart from the Whites (D. Foley et al. 1988). Even by the 1970s tracking by IQ, language, or other means kept Mexican American children segregated in "Mexican" rooms within White schools, thus recreating the old forms of segregation (Stoddard 1973). Because of segregation, the only English-speaking person many Mexican children knew was the teacher. There was rarely an opportunity to hear conversational English or to participate. Some Mexican parents came to believe in mental retardation, inferiority, and the necessity of segregation because of the beliefs and attitudes institutionalized in many Texas school systems (Garcia 1991). �________ 74 Many other Mexican parents and students pressed for full integration (Kibbe 1946; G.I. Sanchez 1951; San Miguel 1987a; Taylor 1934). Mexican high school students in Nueces county spoke in favor of mixed schools (Taylor 1934). "Together would be a greater help; we would learn faster." "Separate, you never learn to talk English well." Others preferred separate schools. One boy said "We're Mexicans and they're Americans. I like to be with my own people. Yes, I learn more English here, but I wish we had a Mexican high school. Then we could speak Spanish on the playground." Another boy thought it would be better to go the Mexican school because then "nobody would tease you" (Taylor 1934, p. 221). A Mexican attorney in Kingsville used an ethnocentric Mexican argument that reflected agrarian values before the local school board: The Mexicans demand separation. We want our children to learn obedience and polite manners; the American children are rough and sassy and without respect for others. This may be necessary to develop independence and aggressiveness, but we believe that obedience is the foundation of education and wish our children so taught. But we want facilities. We are tax­ payers, and want as good a school, with as good ventilation, lighting, etc., as the Americans, and we are entitled to it by law. Also we want teachers who like to teach Mexicans-if they don't like us, don't give them to us (Taylor 1934, p. 222). In this case, the Mexican community got their new school. Harassment One method used by Whites to control Mexican children and make sure they understood their inferior place in society was harassment and outright brutality (Acuna 1988; De Leon 1983; D. Foley et al. 1988; Gamio 1931; Kibbe 1946; Manuel 1930; Montejano 1987; Taylor 1934). It was not �75 uncommon for Mexican children to quit school rather than face hazing by American students (D. Foley et al. 1988, p. 108; Taylor 1934, p. 222). "The white child looks on the Mexican as on the Negro before the [Civil] war, to be cuffed about, and used as an inferior people" (Taylor 1934, p. 220). Harassment by Anglo children included name calling, moving away when Mexicans sat too near, refusing to stand next to a Mexican child at the blackboard, pushing and kicking, picking fights, taking the ball away on the playground, and other behaviors (Taylor 1934). Pejorative names for Mexicans included "dirty Mexican", "pelado", "greaser", "chile", and "frijole" (Acuna 1988; De Leon 1983; Taylor 1934). In return Mexican youngsters sometimes called Anglos "gringoes", "light-bread", or "bolillos" (D. Foley et al. 1988; Taylor 1934, p. 210). Young Anglo males were the worst offenders (Montejano 1987; Taylor 1934). Sometimes Mexican students were even afraid of being beaten up by whites. A school official asserted that "none in the rural schools ever get ready for high school. The American children would make it so unpleasant for them they would quit" (Taylor 1934, p. 211). Another common excuse for segregation was Mexican "dirtiness" (De Leon 1983; Manuel 1930; Montejano 1987; Strickland & Sanchez 1947; Taylor 1934). Montejano asserts that Anglos were consumed with the notion that Mexicans were dirty. "Dirty" first in the sense of hygiene: bathing, sanitation, clean hands, lice. "Dirty" also as a synonym for dark skin color, even though many people of Mexican origin had light complexions. Finally, "dirty" was also an expression of the class order of farming society, and was �76 used to denote the field laborer (Montejano 1987, p. 225). "In short, the theme of dirtiness resonated with meaning" (Montejano, p. 228). As a class metaphor, the caricature of "dirty Mexican” belonged to the lexicon of inferiority-'white trash,' 'filthy nigger,' 'dirty Mexican'— that farmers and landowners used to describe the laboring classes. The laboring classes were untouchable. The notion of dirtiness seemed a fitting expression of anxiety (Montejano, p. 229). Manuel conducted a comprehensive survey to measure hygienic conditions among Mexican children. He discovered, contrary to widespread belief, that many schools had no difficulty at all with Mexican children being dirty (Manuel 1930, pp 79-80). A superintendent told Taylor, "The board here says they [Mexicans] will stir up trouble, they have diseases, and so forth. But these Mexicans are clean." Another executive said, "We have no more trouble with body lice and similar things than with the low class of whites. The whites come to school as dirty as the Mexicans" (Taylor 1934, p 217). Taylor observed, however, that many Mexican laborers and their children did have a lower standard of personal cleanliness than middle class Whites (Taylor, p. 218). That is not an unlikely condition considering the lack of running water and bathrooms reported by observers of working class Mexican housing conditions (Connell 1925; Guerrero 1991; Harris 1927; Knox 1927). The notion of inferiority was pressed upon Mexican children not only by informal, racist Anglo behavior, but also by the nationwide policy of testing for "intelligence" that became a centerpiece of American schools after World War I. Intelligence Testing �'I 1 77 "Biological inferiority" was one of the explicit reasons given in Texas for the segregation of Mexicans (De Leon 1983; Vaca 1970). Social Darwinism and intelligence testing worked together to build a strong case against foreigners in general and Mexicans in particular. Lewis Terman, Thorndike, and many other developers of intelligence testing, believed in a racist concept of natural selection (Garth 1931; Joncich 1968; Terman 1921). Mexican students scored low on many IQ studies of the time (Delmet 1930; Ellis 1932; Garretson 1928, 1931; A.M. Gonzalez 1932; Harris 1927; Koch & Simmons 1926; Paschal & Sullivan 1926; G.I. Sanchez 1931, 1934; Sheldon 1924). Some people took this as concrete proof of inherited inferiority. A rural school superintendent near Corpus Christi said, "some Mexicans are very bright, but you can't compare their brightest with the average white children. They are an inferior race" (Taylor 1934, p. 203). A large landowner said, "they have an inferior intellect even if they become educated" (Taylor, p. 203). E.E. Davis called Mexicans a "biologically impoverished tribe of marginal humanity" (Davis 1940). Others took exception to biological explanations and urged an examination of the role of environment, especially in regard to test-taking (Ellis 1932; A.M. Gonzalez 1932; Harris 1927; Manuel 1930; G.I. Sanchez 1931, 1934). One teacher in Nueces county expressed conflict between the official rhetoric of natural inferiority and her own observations and intuition: If the Mexicans were brought up with an equal force of primary teachers, and were not crowded, the majority would probably be equal to whites...All are bright in arithmetic if in anything, and �78 in spelling...But the Mexican group would always have more members in the lower quartile even with equal educational facilities, staff, playground, etc. Some would rank with the best. I think it [inferiority] is biological. If their present environment were taken from the Mexicans they would more nearly approach equality, but not completely (Taylor 1934, p 203). A superintendent expressed his belief that poverty explained more than race: It isn't true that they are incapable of learning. The Mexicans have good minds and are earnest students. The Mexican children generally are as capable intellectually as the Americans, but the Mexicans usually are poorer than the whites, so the comparison of their present progress in school isn't fair (Taylor 1934, p. 204). There are numerous instances where Mexican students showed high scholastic achievement. In one rural town in 1929, 10 out of 24 Mexican students made the honor roll (Taylor 1934, p. 204). There are several reports of Mexican students being first in their class or valedictorian of the school, only to have such honor protested or denied by Whites (Kibbe 1946, p. 92; Manuel 1930, p. 63; Taylor, p. 212). Harris reported on the psychological testing done in his school in San Antonio in 1923-24: Students in the first and second grades did not even...register at all. Yet these children were neither all morons nor imbeciles. The tests were entirely out of these children's experiences. The race experiences and language difficulties made the tests entirely unreliable...if any conclusion can be drawn at all...it is that Mexican children respond satisfactorily to whatever comes within the range of their previous experience. Apparently the tests administered did not satisfy sufficiently this need (Harris 1927, p. 26). �7'1 79 The teachers at the Navarro school had been trained to administer the tests properly, and two who spoke fluent Spanish had explained the tests in Spanish to the children (Harris 1927, p. 26). Such tests often measured "social-class skills" rather than "IQ" (Stoddard 1973). Compounding of Race and Socioeconomic Class Issues of class and race were compounded in preindustrial Texas to limit the economic and social mobility of both Mexican immigrants and people of Mexican heritage who had been in the U.S. for generations. Racial theories of the inferiority of black and brown people became part of the circular argument that was generally reinforced by intelligence testing. The concept of socioeconomic status was perceived only by a few (Willie 1979; 1989). Montejano argues that after the coming of White Northerners who did not understand the social balance between Mexicans and Anglos in South Texas, social discrimination became racially based rather than economically based as it had been in the old ranching era. Even wealthy Texas Mexicans faced racial discrimination in Texas by the 1920s (Montejano 1987). Concern about socioeconomic class as well as race were often expressed by Texans in the 1920s. For instance, poor Whites received little sympathy from wealthier Whites. "Fifty percent of the whites are no better than the Mexicans," one person told Taylor (1934). "There are some whites you �I 80 wouldn't grant social equality to either," and "I guess none are sorrier than some whites," people commented (p. 260). Middle class Texas Mexicans had little to do with Mexican immigrant laborers, either. One prosperous businessman of Mexican heritage commented about field workers: if discrimination exists, it is their own fault. If you are prepared, and live all right, and are financially all right, you will get a room at the hotel. Between us, I don't blame them, do you? Ninety percent are common laborers, ignorant, and they go to town as they work in the fields (Taylor 1934, p. 263). Some Anglos remarked that Whites from low socioeconomic backgrounds had greater antipathy for Mexicans than more educated Whites. A teacher said: the keenest prejudice against Mexicans comes from children from inferior homes with lowest incomes and standards of living. The objection to sitting next to Mexicans in school comes from people with the lowest standing in the community (Taylor, p. 259). To summarize, in the early 20th Century Texas was a racist region where land ownership was the primary sign of wealth and power. Agricultural labor needs operated with old racial prejudices to keep farm laborers in Texas poor and uneducated, compared with Whites or other Mexicans in the Southwest. In this section I have discussed historical English/Spanish antipathy, segregation, enrollment patterns, and IQ testing. Throughout the United States, intelligence tests, which often were mere indicators of social �81 class opportunities, were used to "sort" people into categories that determined what education they would receive. In Texas, racial harassment was also used to keep Mexicans (and Blacks) "in their place". These techniques supported the old agrarian order of landowner and field worker by making it very difficult or impossible for Mexican children to receive adequate education to function in other realms of Anglo society. Conclusion: A Cultural Explanation for the Texas School Pattern Why were Texas schools the way they were? The answer lies in an analysis of the primary cultural views of Texas from the turn of the century to the Depression. Karier (1975) argues that schooling in the U.S. has been dominated by the values of the elite members of society: The hierarchical social class system was effectively maintained then as it is today, not so much by the sheer force of power and violence, but by the ideological beliefs of people within the system (Karier 1975, p. 138). I argue that the major ideological belief effecting Texas schools in general, and those for Mexican children in particular, was agrarianism which valued children's physical labor on the farms more than intellectual work in school. This agrarian value system was supported by ethnocentrism which allowed Anglos to feel superior to Mexicans and Blacks and maintain the social and economic order. Much as in the Old South, these values were crucial to survival in a farming region which depended heavily on back-breaking human labor. �82 Several historians have pointed out the public schools' intimate connection with the economy (Bowles & Gintis 1976; Gonzalez 1982; Greer 1972; Spring 1990). But, since maintaining social and economic dominance was paramount for most Anglo Texans from farming and ranching backgrounds, why did they bother to provide schools for Mexican children at all? I propose that this was in response to the powerful rhetoric of modernization during the Progressive Era. The reforms of Progressivism were the country's response to the shift from an agricultural to an industrial society. Progress depended on knowledge, the reformers believed. The pragmatism of William James, the idealism of John Dewey, and the technological appeal of Edward Thorndike infused many educational undertakings. Education was seen by most Americans as the way to a better life (Tyack 1974). As the economic base shifted from rural to urban, great institutional change was necessary. While this overwhelming national rhetoric of Progressivism contributed significantly to the establishment of schools for Black and Mexican children in Texas, academic effectiveness was held in check by the traditional agrarian belief system. A Model of Agrarian Society The beliefs and behaviors of agrarian peoples worldwide have been carefully studied by anthropologists (Berdichewsky 1979; Geertz 1963; Redfield 1976; Thomas & Wahrhaftig 1971). LeVine and White (1986) delineate characteristics common to agrarian societies in regard to children, childrearing practices, and education. These values, which were held by both Anglos and Mexicans in Texas, underlie the Texas public school system. �-J 83 Agrarian societies are those in which the economy is chiefly based on farming. Universally in such societies, the daily labor of the children within the family is considered valuable and appropriate. Children are expected to handle significant responsibilities, such as tending to livestock and younger siblings, and to contribute to the family's well-being. Children have a moral obligation to mind their parents, upon which the child's status as "good" or "bad" depends. Parents in agrarian societies demand obedience and respect. In return, parents teach children all that is considered necessary for livelihood as an adult (LeVine & White 1986). Children often follow the same occupation as their parents, with little need for literacy or "book- learnin." Skilled performance in productive work is taken for granted as a necessary and normal characteristic in such societies, and overt competition with others is generally avoided. If the family members were not skilled in their productive tasks, they would not long survive. Motivation for skilled production is therefore intrinsic in such circumstances (LeVine & White 1986). Intelligence and morality are generally seen as synonymous in agrarian cultures. If a person is behaving according to community norms, he or she is seen as acting in his or her own best interest as well as that of the community, and is therefore moral or intelligent. Personal relationships and kin are important in farming societies and often carry bonds of obligation. Maintaining social linkages and conforming to social �Ill 84 conventions is the way to gain status and advancement. Filial loyalty and high fertility are also critical in maintaining familial obligations and achieving status. There is little need for formal schooling since the child learns everything needed within the family group (LeVine & White 1986). This model of society and parent-child interaction is in contrast to the urban industrial model often encountered today. Contractual work agreements demand that people work for pay, mostly outside the home setting. Children and parents are separated most of the day. Children do not participate in earning the livelihood of the family, nor do they learn essential skills of work from their parents. In fact, technology is changing so rapidly that many skills today's children will need as adults are as yet unknown. In such a society, schooling plays a significant part in child development. It is important to note that both Anglo and Mexican families in Texas displayed agrarian cultural values in the early part of this century (D. Foley et al. 1988). The labor of both Anglo and Mexican children was necessary and expected within the family. Even though the appropriate behaviors may not be possible in many families today, the idealization of these agrarian values continues to be maintained up to the present generation. Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism, or racism, supported agrarianism in Texas to produce limited schooling opportunities for Mexican children. Sumner (1906) defines ethnocentrism as the feeling of superiority exhibited by a dominant ethnic �s__ ■ 85 group, or ingroup. The ingroup views its own folkways as the only form of correct behavior and is contemptuous of all others (Sumner 1906). LeVine and Campbell (1972) elaborate this definition to include several facets of ethnocentrism, examples of which can clearly be seen in public schools for Mexican children in Texas as well as in other areas of our society. Factors of ethnocentrism include the following seven aspects. (1) The ethnocentric ingroup considers its own values universal. This can be illustrated by the Americanization movement for immigrant children in Texas and other U.S. schools (Sharlip & Owens 1925). (2) Ingroups see themselves as strong, and others as weak. American foreign policy toward Mexico preceding World War I demonstrates this bias (Meyer & Sherman 1983). (3) Ethnocentric groups tend to maintain social distance from others. This often culminates in segregation, such as separate schools for different ethnic groups (San Miguel 1987a; Wollenberg 1976). (4) Ethnocentric hatred of outgroups allows for an absence of sanctions against theft and murder against outgroup members. This is exemplified by the school funding schemes in Texas until 1949 as well as the brutality and violence described in race relations in the United States. For instance, in Texas it was common for money allocated to educate Black or Mexican children to be spent on White schools instead. The starkest example of ingroup hostility in Texas is the over 400 lynchings of Blacks and over 300 violent deaths of Mexicans from 1900 to 1924 (Richardson et al. 1981). (5) Outgroups are usually presented to children as examples of bad behavior by racist ingroups. For instance the use of Spanish language and customs by �86 Mexican children was considered bad by the dominant Anglos; certainly most Anglo children were never encouraged to learn Spanish or become bicultural (Manuel 1930; Taylor 1934). (6) The outgroup is often blamed for ingroup troubles, such as a depressed economy, loss of rural values, problems connected with the rural/urban transition, and other social changes experienced in the 1920s and 1930s. Mexicans, Blacks and immigrants were all vilified for these reasons (N. Foley 1990). (7) Distrust and fear of the outgroup is a natural correlate, and is generally felt on all sides of the ethnocentric equation. Anglos and Mexicans were generally wary of each other in Texas (Montejano 1987). Racist ideology together with agrarian cultural values motivated Texas Anglos to offer minimal education to Black and Mexican children. Texas as an Agrarian, Racist Society 'Texas is and of necessity must always be primarily an agricultural state.” (Bobbit 1915) Montejano (1987) has explored the connection between racism and agrarianism in South Texas. That connection can clearly be outlined for public schools using Sumner's definition of ethnocentrism as the attitude of ingroup superiority. Texas was a racist agrarian society during the early part of this century within which Anglos were clearly the dominate ingroup (Fehrenbach 1983; D. Foley et al. 1988; Kibbe 1946; Montejano 1987; Richardson 1943; Steen 1939; Taylor 1934). �■■11 JI 87 The agrarian base of early 20th Century Texas can be seen by the a vast increase in agricultural acreage under production in Texas between 1900 and 1930. Cotton was grown in 223 of the 254 counties in 1930, producing about 4,000,000 bales each year (Richardson 1943). Other important crops included corn, citrus and vegetables (Montejano 1987). Texas remains one of the top three agricultural states today (Kingston 1989). Early in this century, there was little heavy industry in the state except for oil. Even though it produced about 23% of the world's total oil output in 1940, Texas was one of the least industrially developed states in the U.S. (Fehrenbach 1983; Richardson 1943). The "norms and patterns of industrial society had no root," according to Fehrenbach (1983, p. 633). Despite a popular advertising campaign in 1912 which said "Buy It Made in Texas," Texas remained primarily agricultural until World War II ( Richardson et al. 1981; Steen 1939). Only subsistence industries such as lumbering, milling, and some textile manufacturing had been established by 1930. Meat packing and carbonated beverages were considered major industries. Other Texas products included lampblack, artificial limbs, brooms, caskets, stone and concrete products, glass, lime, mattresses, vinegar, newsprint and ice. Electricity and other utilities spread slowly throughout the state. Very little was produced for export to other parts of the nation (Richardson 1943; Steen 1939). Between the Civil War and the Depression there had been a "terrible process of poverty and social erosion" in Texas as many people became poorer I �88 (Fehrenbach 1983, p. 638). In 1910 approximately 53% of all farm families in Texas were sharecroppers, and "a vast mass of people through the Southern states were approaching the status of peasantry" (p. 637). In rural Texas work patterns on farms for both Anglos and Mexicans changed little from pioneer days to 1930. The family was a relatively tight, cohesive unit, and all shared in the work (D. Foley et al., 1988). Harvest season demanded the efforts of everyone. Many youngsters could not attend school until the cotton crop was at the gin. In towns, work schedules were not usually as demanding (Richardson et al. 1981). Agrarian cultural values dominated both individual behavior and policy decisions in all aspects of Texas life. Racism exploded in Texas after World War I and there was "sharp resentment toward everybody and everything foreign" (Richardson 1943, p. 428). The years 1920-22 saw "the greatest crime wave" in Texas history, according to Governor Pat Neff (1921-1925). The Ku Klux Klan outwardly campaigned against crime and corruption, even while reports of Klan terrorism came from almost every community. "The Klan could move with impunity...against waitresses, prostitutes, drifters, Negroes, Mexicans, and halfwits" (Fehrenbach 1983, p. 645). For Mexicans, prejudice, poverty, and discrimination were common problems (Richardson et al. 1981). Against this background Texas became "peculiarly noted for racial violence in the first three decades of the 20th Century" (Fehrenbach 1983, p. 682). Conclusion �—J 89 Increasing Population and Stagnant School Completion By 1942 there were still almost twice as many Mexican children in first grade (n about 38,000) in Texas as in third grade (n = about 16,000); about 6,000 in eighth grade; and less than 3,000 in 12th grade (Little 1944). The 1950 Census showed that less than 50% of the Mexican origin population in San Antonio had gone beyond the fifth grade; less than 10% had completed high school; and less than one percent had completed college (Acuna 1988). Difficulties in attending school were pervasive for Mexican children, and persistent. Mexican Americans had obtained less education in Texas than any other state in the Southwest by 1970 (Grebler, Moore & Guzman 1970). For instance the median years of education for a Mexican American in Texas in 1950 was only 3.5, climbing only to 4.8 by 1960. Anglos in 1950 had a median of 10.3, rising to 11.5 ten years later. For both groups, these were the lowest figures for any state in the Southwest. Texas had average daily attendance figures of 83.3% in 1965-66, compared with California at 93.8%. The per pupil expenditure for Texas was $449.00 in 1965-66; in California, $613.00. Texas paid teachers an average salary of $6,025.00 in 1965-66; California, $8,540.00. For persons 25 and over, California showed the smallest schooling gap between Mexican Americans and Anglos in 1960; Texas, the largest. The median years of school completed by Spanish-surname persons 25 and over in 1950 in Texas ranged from a low of 1.7 years in Lubbock to a high of �90 7 years in Beaumont-Port Arthur. In Central Texas, there was variance from town to town. In Austin, for instance, the median was 3.5 years in 1950; in Waco, 2.9; and San Antonio, 4.5. A decade later, Mexican American students in Austin achieved a median of 4.4 years of schooling; Waco, 5.5; and San Antonio, 5.7 (Grebler, Moore & Guzman 1970, p 154). Mexican Americans continued to urbanize and have more opportunity to attend school after World War II. Hispanics are the most urban group in the U.S. today. They are also one of the fastest growing, having increased 53% from 1980 to 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990). The Mexican American population in Texas rose 45% from 1980 to 1990 (Chapa & Valencia 1993). But economic and technological needs of society are changing even faster. The minimal public school education offered in Texas by World War II could not prepare young people adequately for an increasingly technical job market. Mexican American children continued to fall behind academically. It was not until November 1993 that the Texas State Board of Education approved a voluntary high school curriculum equal to the national norm (Brooks, 1993, November 13). In 1992, 61% of the state's high school seniors took the minimum requirements for graduation, leaving them largely unprepared for college or employment. In 1992-93, 42% of high school students nationwide took 20 or more college preparatory courses during four years of high school; only 25% did so in Texas. Nationwide 75% of all Mexican American and other Latino high school graduates lack college �__ 91 preparatory course work. Over 56% of Mexican Americans have not finished high school nationwide (Chapa & Valencia 1993). Continued de facto segregation, low academic standards and low funding for schools combine with the negative schooling experiences of previous generations in many Mexican American families to produce the low Mexican American school success rate in Texas today (Valencia 1991). Institutionalized agrarian and ethnocentric beliefs continue to dominate the Texas school system. Dramatic school reform is necessary to address both the psychosocial and economic needs of today’s students. A public examination of underlying beliefs must first occur however, before true reform can be accomplished. The Origin of Low Academic Performance This paper has described schools for Mexican children in Texas during the first 30 years of this century. Generally speaking, these schools had untrained teachers, an inadequate curriculum, inferior facilities, and a shorter scholastic year than Anglo schools. Rural schools had considerably less to offer than their urban counterparts. The main emphasis was on teaching spoken English at the neglect of other subjects. This effort at language instruction was guaranteed to fail because of segregated schools and classrooms that precluded sufficient conversational opportunities. Even though many Anglo schools did not have high standards either, even less was expected of schools for minority children. �92 The social transition encountered by all ethnic groups in Texas during this era as they moved into town from the countryside led to improved schools in urban areas. With more white-collar jobs, there was a greater need for literacy in town. Because of the funding structure, there was also more money to support city schools. As school districts tended to consolidate during the 1930s (Hart 1937), the advantage of urban schools became even greater. The migration of many Mexican children during the growing seasons, however, gave them little chance to experience the advantages of urban schools for sufficient periods to advance academically, nor was this a particular goal for many families because of their own agrarian outlook. The establishment of public schools for Mexican children in Texas in the early 1900s was the result of nationwide pressure towards modernization. Public education was chosen as the means for re-making immigrants into the White middle class image, thus suppressing foreign language and culture. As thousands of Mexican immigrants poured into Texas, the state found the Progressive argument for literacy and efficiency overwhelming, even in the face of a strong agrarian mindset. Thus a system of rudimentary, mostly segregated, schools for Mexican children was set up in the state. Texas schools for Mexican children were not a response to an industrial capitalist economy, as some would argue, but to the agricultural economic structure. The schools supported the farming necessity for child labor by having short school days and long recesses from scholastic activity. Racist threats and behaviors were utilized to maintain educational distinctions �93 between Anglo and Mexican students in the cotton fields, citrus groves and urban centers of the state. Texas public schools preserved traditional agrarian values in the face of tremendous pressure for modernization by providing the least education possible while at the same time appearing to conform to national standards. Instead of helping Mexican immigrants and U.S. citizens of Mexican descent prepare for industrialism, much less today's emerging informationism, the role that Texas schools for Mexican children played in the decades under discussion was to maintain agrarian cultural values. Minimal academic training for most Mexican students was ensured by severely limiting funds for teachers, facilities and equipment. The low academic achievement that many Mexican American students experience today can be traced back to the lack of education provided earlier generations. The robust, positive relationship between parents' socioeconomic background and their children's educational attainment, evident in many studies (Chapa & Valencia 1993), confirms this observation. By assuring that the elders remained tied to agricultural pursuits, Texas schools helped create today's environment of low economic, occupational, and educational mobility for many Mexican Americans throughout the country. My historical argument, that academic failure for Mexican Americans today reflects a long term pattern, has profound implications for those interested in improving educational achievement. Breaking this social design from the past will not be easy. It will require a radical departure from old-fashioned school policies and everyday procedures. �94 Counties of Texas i E • Dallas— Austin • Houston • San Antonio — • Corpus Chnsti A Figure 1. Counties of Texas �95 Figure 2. Mexican schoolchildren in Austin, Texas, tentatively identified as the academic year 1912-13. This is probably in front of the Mexican Baptist School, 301 East Avenue, in Austin. The Anglo woman on the right may be the teacher, Miss Linnie Hopkins. Man on left may be Rev. James A. Musa. The public schools for Mexican children were closed temporarily in Austin that year, so church schools briefly took over for a few months. �i F 96 Chapter Three The Battleground: The History of Metz Elementary School Metz Elementary School is located in a one-story yellow brick building, with a red tile roof, and circling just above the windows, a row of charming ceramic tiles made by the students (Figures 3 and 4). The building was dedicated with pride and ceremony in October 1992, with flashing Mexican folklorico dancers and a state senator in attendance. The school is located in Austin,Texas, six blocks north of the Colorado River and eight blocks east of Interstate Highway 35 in what is commonly called East Austin. This chapter describes the history of this school from its founding in 1916 to today. Children of Mexican heritage have attended this school continuously in greater or lesser numbers since its opening. It is important to understand the history of such an elementary school because the early grades were often the only education past generations of Mexican Americans received in the Texas school system. For example, as late as 1960, the median years of schooling achieved by persons of Spanish surname in Texas was only 4.8 years (Moore 1970, p. 66). Since Mexican Americans have one of the highest school drop out rates in the nation in the 1990s (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990), elementary school still represents the most common educational experience for many Mexican Americans. �97 In 1992-93, 48% of the Metz third graders passed all three sections (reading, writing, and math) of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), but only 6% of the fourth graders did so. Because at least 20% of the fourth grade did not pass the test, the school was put on notice for low performance by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) (Texas Education Agency 1993). The school had 531 pupils in grades pre-K through six that year, 96% of whom were Mexican American. Almost 89% of the children were considered economically disadvantaged, and 35% had limited English proficiency. Children of Mexican heritage have attended this school during the entire 80 years of its existence, in greater or lesser concentration with Anglos and a few Blacks. Anglo students dominated the Metz population from 1916 until the early 1950s. The population of the neighborhood changed considerably after World War II, however, so that there was an almost even mix of Anglo and Mexican American students in the school by the mid-1950s. Twenty years later the school had become predominately Mexican American. Today, there are only a few children in the school who do not consider themselves to be of Mexican heritage. This chapter will describe the history of Metz Elementary School from 1916 to 1996 in order to illustrate the changes in elementary school experience for �98 Mexican Americans over the past 80 years. Major historical periods in the life of the school include the Beginning Era 1916 -1930; the Era of Segregation 1930-1971; the Bilingual Revolution 1972-1984; the Fight for the New Building 1985-1992; and the New Start, 1992-96. The chapter concentrates on 1972 to 1996, not only due to the availability of source material, but also to illustrate the significant differences of this time period compared to earlier years. For information on the beginning of public schooling in Austin (1881-1915), please see Appendix E. Sources Approximately 40 newspaper stories from Austin newspapers from 1916 to 1995 outline the effects of major changes on Metz Elementary such as desegregation, bilingual education, construction of a new building, parent activism, and low school achievement on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). These newspaper articles are in the archives of the Austin History Center in Austin, Texas. There are considerable gaps in the news stories due to the unsystematic method of collection by the History Center. School district archives were not accessible for this study due to lack of systematic filing and storage. �F 99 The files of the Metz Elementary Parent Teacher Association (PTA) contain several memory books of photos, school programs, and miscellaneous notes, which are valuable in reconstructing the school history. Again there are gaps in the materials, however, due to unsystematic collecting. To close some of these gaps, former Metz principal Jose G. Flores allowed me to use his personal files from his tenure at the school (1973-84), which include unpublished internal school memos, the school handbook, letters to school parents, and newspaper articles not in the Austin History Center collection. I have also interviewed the current principal of Metz, Celia Martinez; two former principals: Flores, and Jorge Luis Rodriguez, now a high school vice­ principal; two social workers connected to the school; several current and former PTA officers; and various neighborhood residents. These interviews were conducted in each person's home or office, using open-ended questions that allowed the person to talk about what he or she felt was most important concerning the school. The campus accreditation report of February, 1994, is also used, as well as transcripts from a hearing held by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to discuss the school’s performance on the state- mandated achievement test. Long-time Metz neighborhood resident Danny Camacho also gave me access to his considerable files of newspaper clippings and memorabilia concerning Metz, which proved extremely helpful. Mr. Camacho attended Metz himself �100 as a child in the 1950s, along with his four sisters. His mother’s sister, now in her 80s, also attended second grade at Metz when the school was new, in 1917. Presently, Mr. Camacho’s niece and nephew go to Metz. His sister, Darlene Rosales, is a former PTA president. This family has lived just a few houses down the street from the Metz school building since the early 1950s. They have much knowledge about the school, which they graciously shared with me. Taken together, data from all these sources forms a workable outline of the history of this particular school. A Neighborhood Snapshot, 1994 One crisp Saturday afternoon in November, 1994, the ethnically variegated neighborhood around Metz Elementary School was full of its usual activity. There were at least six garage sales going on, and many people were outside doing chores, talking to neighbors, walking, or “hanging out.” Four African American children and one Hispanic child were sitting together on an old sofa on the front porch of a house across the street from the school, talking and occasionally punching each other good-naturedly. A few blocks away, seven little Hispanic girls sat on the hood of a car parked in the front yard of a house. An Anglo mother and child were walking down the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Several Hispanic men were putting a new roof on a house a few blocks away, and another was cleaning up his yard. Three �101 different clusters with five or more Hispanic men each were gathered in various front yards around the neighborhood, listening to Tejano music and drinking beer (Figure 5). Several barbeque pits were smoking, and the delicious smell of mesquite and came al carbon were in the air. Most residences are small, one-story, single-family, wood construction homes, at least 50-years-old or more. Some houses are dilapidated from many years of inadequate maintenance, but others sparkle with new paint. Some show recent prosperity, with new windows and doors (partly due to a city weatherization program), and a generally well-maintained condition. Each house has a front and back yard, and often a garage or workshop behind the house. Hanging baskets of red and pink flowers bedeck many front porches, and most yards are full of flowers and plants. Some yards also have piles of used building materials, old cars, old refrigerators, stacks of rusting bed springs, large aluminum can collection bins, and other assorted potential resources (Figure 6). Ten years ago, the neighborhood was much more run-down. According to one local source, one house was so dilapidated back then that it had no door, just a blanket hanging across the doorway, even though the house was fully occupied. Now there is nothing so bad as that. There are still slum lords, i �1 102 though, who charge exorbitant rents to low-income people who do not know of any place else to go, or want to stay close to kin, no matter what the cost. There are some fine examples of mural art on the exterior walls of several businesses in the area, including a Virgin of Guadalupe on the side of the Kleen Wash Laundromat (Figure 7) and a dynamic piece in the style of the great Mexican muralist, Jose Clemente Orozco, overlooking a used car lot on Cesar Chavez Avenue, about six blocks from the school. Across the street from the school, there is a carefully-done spray-painted mural on a fence around a house. There is also some gang “tagging,” or names and slogans spray-painted by young gang members either to mark territory or for other reasons, on the exterior walls of certain businesses, fences, and at least one garage that belongs to a neat, well-maintained house. There are several Protestant chapels and outreach centers in the neighborhood, and a big Catholic church is several blocks away. There are several “corner drive-in” convenience stores, or “ice houses,” that sell gasoline and common grocery items, but no large grocery store. Along the main commercial street, Cesar Chavez Avenue, there are businesses of various types including small cafes, night clubs, pool halls, car lots, garages, law and medical offices, and a big colorful agua dulce stand and pinata shop (Figure 8). �103 Along the river, which forms the southern boundary of the neighborhood, there is a city park, with a swimming pool, baseball fields, play equipment, and plenty of open space with grass and trees. A pavilion dominates a festival site where holiday celebrations with dances and barbeques are held for Cinco de Mayo, Dies y Seis and others. This is directly next to the largest architectural feature of the neighborhood, the Holly Street Power Plant, which generates electricity for the city (Figures 9 and 10). A health survey was sent around the neighborhood in 1993 in connection with a campaign to close down the power plant. Some people claimed the power plant was causing children to have learning difficulties. This campaign started after another group in East Austin successfully sued the city to remove a large gasoline storage facility that had existed in that residential area for years (Menard 1994). The cry of environmental racism sprang up and caught many people’s ears. Austin is an especially environmentally aware city, so this was a big issue. In Fall 1994, the city began taking steps to eventually close the power plant. Metz is Built, 1916 �104 Metz Elementary School opened during a time not unlike today, when immigrants were vilified in American society as causing crime, sickness, social ills, and the breakdown of “American values.” Immigrants were castigated because they often did not speak English and had cultural patterns different from the White middle class American ideal. They were often considered a drain on society because they needed help making the transition to American life. Prejudice against Black Americans was also high, and remnants of slave culture attitudes combined with anti-immigrant hysteria to produce a tense social environment for non-White people struggling to live in the United States. Metz Elementary School was built in 1916 at a cost of $22,711.68 to serve the new neighborhood springing up just east of the original eastern boundary of the city, East Avenue (now Interstate Highway 35). The yellow brick building consisted of two-stories, with the first floor partially below ground level for better insulation. The original site consisted of 1.24 acres, which cost $2,800. The school was named for Hamilton M. Metz, a school board member who died in 1915 (unpublished memorandum, Metz PTA memorabilia). The first principal was Miss Clara Stubbs, who served until 1932 (see Appendix F for principals from 1916-1996). Miss Clara was appointed during an exciting time for women in Texas. Suffragettes were on the march for women’s right to vote, and women gained severed prominent �105 state offices during this period. For instance, “Ma” Ferguson was elected governor in 1924, and Dr. Annie Webb Blanton served as State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1918 to 1922 (Cottrell 1993). The enrollment of Metz Elementary was 233 in 1917, at least some of whom were of Mexican heritage (Lott, October 19, 1992). Enrollment grew slowly until there were 332 pupils in 1926, about 20% children of Mexican heritage (Price v. A.I.S.D. 1989). Then suddenly enrollment exploded, so that by 1930, 640 students were counted (Figure 11). This increase in enrollment may reflect the movement to the city from the surrounding rural areas that was occurring all over the state at that time. An addition was made to the building in 1936 to accommodate this increased enrollment. The majority of the students at Metz at this time were Anglo, but Mexican heritage students attended Metz from the very beginning (Figure 12). The Era of Segregation, 1930-1972 By 1931, Metz had four first grade classes, one of which was exclusively for children of Mexican descent (unpublished memorabilia, Metz PTA). This was primarily for the purpose of introducing Spanish-speaking children to the English language. It also had four second grades, and two classes each of third through sixth grade, reflecting a lower enrollment beyond second �106 grade. Classroom instruction included art, music and physical education in addition to reading, writing and spelling, arithmetic, social studies and science. Each morning began with opening exercises, announcements, and a Bible reading (see Figures 13 and 14). There were no teachers at Metz with Hispanic surnames in the early 1930s. Miss Mamie Dell Barrow, a former reading teacher at the school, was principal of Metz from 1932-1947, during the depths of the Depression and the mobilization of the country for World War II. The school would not have another female principal for almost 50 years. By 1934, 27% of the children enrolled at Metz were of Mexican descent (Price v. A.I.S.D. 1989). But with the hardening of segregation in the Depression, a separate school all together was seen as politically necessary. In 1936 a new elementary school was built just four blocks north of Metz. The new school was named after Lorenzo de Zavala, Interim Vice President of the Republic of Texas in 1836 and former governor of Yucatan in southern Mexico. It is commonly expressed in the neighborhood that Zavala Elementary was built specifically to educate Mexican children in a segregated school. In the 1930s special citizenship classes were held at Zavala as an effort at Americanization for Mexican heritage children (Hart 1937). �107 Manuel (1930, p. 75) says that Mexican children were integrated with Whites in some Austin schools (including Metz), although there were two schools exclusively for Mexican students before 1930, West Avenue and Comal Elementaries. Black children were strictly segregated by state statute before 1954, but “all others” were allowed to attend together (Prentice 1981). Until Zavala was built, Metz was not considered segregated by race. Afterwards, however, the perception in the neighborhood grew that Metz was only for Whites. In truth, however, children of Mexican descent continued to attend Metz, albeit in fewer numbers. In addition to building Zavala Elementary four blocks away, a new wing was also built at Metz in 1936 to accommodate a growing student population. The total enrollment at Metz showed no net decrease over the ten-year period from 1930 to 1940. It remained around 630 students, even with the new school siphoning off at least some of the former Metz population. The percentage of Mexican children at Metz did decrease, however, from 27% in 1934 (172 Mexican heritage children at Metz) to 13% (68 Mexican children) in 1936. By 1940, Metz was 90% Anglo (Price v. A.I.S.D. 1989). Twenty years later, many communities across the nation would readily agree that 10% minority children in a primarily White school meant full integration had been achieved. In the Metz neighborhood today, however, this era from �108 1930-1970 is considered to be one of segregation and great discrimination against people of Mexican heritage. “White flight” from the neighborhood began immediately after World War II when service men and women of all ethnicities returned home. Scarce building supplies suddenly became available, and people started families. In Austin as elsewhere, new suburbs were created almost overnight to accommodate people’s long pent-up desires for security and comfort. Some Mexican American veterans returned to their old East Austin neighborhood where they had grown up to settle down after the war. Other Mexican American families moved into the neighborhood when they were uprooted by urban renewal and interstate highway construction along the old East Avenue. But many Anglos moved on to other parts of town. Enrollment at Metz grew to 37% Mexican American by 1950 (Price v. A.I.S.D. 1989). Metz topped the list in enrollment in 1954 as the school population jumped to 880, up from around 650 in 1940 (unpublished memo, Austin Public Schools: Centennial Committee, 1954). Zavala, only four blocks away, had the 6th highest enrollment in the city with 665 in 1954. The number of Mexican American children continued to increase at Metz during the 1950s (Figure 15), as the Mexican American scholastic population of East Austin increased from 3583 students in 1950 to 6161 students in i �109 1960 (Price v. A.I.S.D. 1989). Obviously East Austin was growing, and there were many children in the neighborhood (unpublished memo, Austin Public Schools: Centennial Committee 1954). The issue of migrant students was strong in the late 1950s. About 1600 Mexican American students were expected to begin school late in Austin in 1955, as they arrived from their migratory work in the fields (“Additional students expected”, September 8, 1955). By 1957 the Metz enrollment hovered around 800 students. By mid-September, 716 students had enrolled, with about 130 more expected by November as the migrant children, almost all Mexican American, arrived. On September 17, 1957, Metz principal M.S. Norton sent a letter home to parents, written in English only, urging parents to get their children to school (unpublished document, Metz PTA memorabilia): ...these late children will slow the whole class down. We just can’t put them in a class by themselves. Please encourage the parents to get the children to school...[It is] a waste of money unless children are in school...don’t keep your child home to pay bills, take care of children or do other jobs that you could get a neighbor to do...if someone gave you a dollar for free, you would feel real good. Your schools are giving you over $1.35 per day for your child’s education. If your child is absent, most of this $1.35 is wasted because school goes on whether he is present or not. And your child missed the information and skills in the lessons while he was absent...please don’t let your child arrive before 8:15 a.m. �■ *____ — I 110 This letter clearly illustrates a difference in perceived expectations about the importance of school versus family needs between some Anglos and Mexican Americans of this time. Children played significantly different roles in most Mexican American households of the 1950s than Anglo children. Mexican American children were expected to take care of younger children, do chores or deliver messages for families without telephones, and work in the fields or at odd jobs in town to contribute to the family income. But in the Anglodominated schools, children were expected to be at school no matter if that expectation conflicted with other family priorities. By 1959 there were four Mexican American teachers at Metz, including Hermelinda Rodriguez (Figure 16). She later became principal of Zavala Elementary and was the first to introduce bilingual education in Austin. She was a classroom teacher at Metz from 1959 to 1965. Ms. Rodriguez grew up in the cotton farming area just south of Austin. Her Mexican-born mother fought hard for her daughter to attend good schools, even confronting local officials when necessary. As a result, when she was a child Ms. Rodriguez attended the elementary demonstration school for South West Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. Ms. Rodriguez recalls that the Metz community was relatively stable during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Many Mexican American families had lived �Ill in the Metz area a long time. They had “high values” and “stuck together.” There was little Mexican American parental involvement in the school however. She attributes this to the fact that many parents only spoke Spanish, and the school “was strictly on the terms of the White middle class.” Except for a few families, “it was not in their understanding” (H. Rodriguez, personal communication, October, 1995). Ms. Rodriguez also notes that sometimes the boundary between Metz and Zavala Elementaries moved north of First Street (now called Cesar Chavez Avenue). In some years more Mexican students from Santa Rita Courts attended Metz. Santa Rita Courts is a public housing project close to Zavala Elementary that was built in 1939, thanks to the influence of then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. “Traditionally, there were separate schools for Whites, Blacks, and Mexicans. When the federal dollars came to build the housing projects, more Blacks came in. This affected Metz and Zavala both,” said Ms. Rodriguez. In the late 1950s, Metz had 29 teachers with a 1:28 teacher to student ratio. These included 25 regular classroom teachers, one special education teacher, one librarian, one physical education teacher, and one music teacher. There were 26 classrooms plus an auditorium, cafeteria, library, “playroom,” and a dental clinic. The dental clinic was a relatively short-term project of the city �112 to pre 1 land area for the school was 2.46 t schools in the city twenty years earlie of land purchased in 1922, 1935, and 1947 (unpublished document, Metz PTA memorabilia). The Bilingual Revolution, 1972-1984 The first Mexican American principal at Metz Elementary School in 1972 was Jose G. Flores, who had served as an intern at Zavala Elementary the previous year under then Principal Hermelinda Rodriguez (Figure 17). Flores expanded bilingual/bicultural education at Metz in 1973, which until then had conducted classes in English only (Goble, July 22, 1973). In 1973, 256 migrant students were enrolled in ESEA Title I migrant programs at 12 A.I.S.D. schools, including Metz (“Migrant students”, March 17, 1973). Flores saw bright, beautiful children, “regular kids,” at his school whose greatest need, in his opinion, was to appreciate their own culture and language. He took great pains to hire teachers and staff who would help raise the children’s self-concept. At that time about 98% of the Metz school population was Mexican American, about 50% of whom had varying degrees of bilingual proficiency (Metz Bilingual Program, unpublished mimeographed document, December �__ 112 provide dental care to children. The to^ lar>d area for the school was 2.46 acres by 1957, about average for White sc^ools in the city twenty years earlier (Hart 1937), with additional parcel5 and 1947 (unpublished document, Metz Th land purchased in 1922, 1935 memorabilia). /9.^ The (etz Elementary School in 1972 was ntern at Zavala Elementary the prevd inda Rodriguez (Figure 17). Flore, :.on at Metz in 1973, which until then 1 in rtnglish only (Goble, July 22, 1973). In 1973, 256 migrant students were enrolled in ESEA Title I migrant programs at 12 A.I.S.D. schools, including Metz (“Migrant students”, March 17, 1973). Flores saw bright, beautiful children, “regular kids,” at his school whose greatest need, in his opinion, was to appreciate their own culture and language. He took great pains to hire teachers and staff who would help raise the children’s self-concept. At that time about 98% of the Metz school population was Mexican American, about 50% of whom had varying degrees of bilingual proficiency (Metz Bilingual Program, unpublished mimeographed document, December �112 to provide dental care to children. The total land area for the school was 2.46 acres by 1957, about average for White schools in the city twenty years earlier (Hart 1937), with additional parcels of land purchased in 1922, 1935, and 1947 (unpublished document, Metz PTA memorabilia). The Bi] The firs Elementary School in 1972 was Jose rn at Zavala Elementary the previous a Rodriguez (Figure 17). Flores ei at Metz in 1973, which until then hae ble, July 22, 1973). In 1973, 256 migicxv weie eiuvueu in iijonn .title I migrant programs at 12 A.I.S.D. schools, including Metz (“Migrant students”, March 17, 1973). Flores saw bright, beautiful children, “regular kids,” at his school whose greatest need, in his opinion, was to appreciate their own culture and language. He took great pains to hire teachers and staff who would help raise the children’s self-concept. At that time about 98% of the Metz school population was Mexican American, about 50% of whom had varying degrees of bilingual proficiency (Metz Bilingual Program, unpublished mimeographed document, December �112 to provide dental care to children. The total land area for the school was 2.46 acres by 1957, about average for White schools in the city twenty years earlier (Hart 1937), with additional parcels of land purchased in 1922, 1935, and 1947 (unpublished document, Metz PTA memorabilia). The Bilingual Revolution, 1972-1984 The first Mexican American principal at Metz Elementary School in 1972 was Jose G. Flores, who had served as an intern at Zavala Elementary the previous year under then Principal Hermelinda Rodriguez (Figure 17). Flores expanded bilingual/bicultural education at Metz in 1973, which until then had conducted classes in English only (Goble, July 22, 1973). In 1973, 256 migrant students were enrolled in ESEA Title I migrant programs at 12 A.I.S.D. schools, including Metz (“Migrant students”, March 17, 1973). Flores saw bright, beautiful children, “regular kids,” at his school whose greatest need, in his opinion, was to appreciate their own culture and language. He took great pains to hire teachers and staff who would help raise the children’s self-concept. At that time about 98% of the Metz school population was Mexican American, about 50% of whom had varying degrees of bilingual proficiency (Metz Bilingual Program, unpublished mimeographed document, December �113 8, 1977). Of the remaining 50% who were not bilingual, about 28% were monolingual English speakers, and 22% monolingual Spanish speakers. The Spanish dialect of the neighborhood is Southwestern Spanish, which was originally considered inappropriate for bilingual instruction in the 1970s. A plea was made to use the Southwestern dialect in the classroom, rather than impose another, unknown form of Spanish upon the children. The focus of the bilingual program was to develop the child’s home language as well as facilitate proficiency in English. Flores understood the children and their families well since he had grown up in a migrant farm worker family himself. “My father always told me to do my best in school and learn all I could so I could have an easier life than he did,” Flores said. His father had spent many years as a troquero, or field foreman for migrant agricultural workers. The elder Flores made the decisions for 30-40 migrant families about where and when they would work picking cotton from June through December. “I remember one of my proudest moments was when I was about 8 years old,” said Flores. “ I picked 150 pounds of cotton one day. We had some very good pickers in our group: some could pick over 1000 pounds per day. The most I ever picked in one day was 700 pounds, however.” Flores picked cotton all through the 1950s while he was in high school. �114 He remembers several outstanding teachers who encouraged him in his own education: his fourth grade teacher, his junior high teachers for math and science, his high school English teacher. Flores did well in school and achieved good grades, but he was shy and afraid to speak English because of his heavy accent. He remembers breaking out in a sweat one time in high school when a teacher asked him to read aloud. After graduation from high school, Flores was considering becoming a backhoe operator, like his father in the off-season; then he got a scholarship to Texas Agricultural and Industrial College in Kingsville, Texas, in 1961. ‘When I was told by my high school principal that I was eligible for a scholarship to college I was scared,” Flores said. “I didn’t know what college was. It was something totally new to my family” (personal communication, 1993). He decided to go to college, even though he was already married and uncertain of what lay ahead. His first child was born during his freshman year at Texas A & I. He held a job and supported his family all the way through his college years to supplement his scholarship. When he entered Texas A & I, he went early, in hopes of getting some advice from the professors about courses and college life. But he was brusquely told by the department chairman to come back during the regular registration period. “So I went back to my room and figured it out by myself. I think this �115 is typical for many of my people. You learn from experience because no one will help you.” He finished his degree in education and worked as a Visiting Teacher for six years in Victoria, Texas. Then he returned to Texas A & I for a master’s degree and later obtained certification as a school administrator at the University of Texas at Austin through a joint program with Pan American University. He was hired as principal of Metz in 1972 when he was 31 years old. The old, two-story brick building from 1916 was in grave disrepair by 1972. The interior was painted an ugly green, and many walls were peeling. The roof leaked, and water seeped into the first floor rooms, which were partially below ground level. There were holes as big as a man’s hand in the plaster, old furniture and equipment, and very poor air conditioning and ventilation. Graffiti covered the building’s exterior. The playground was small, with the whole building and grounds only taking up one city block. Outdoor play equipment consisted of a wooden platform raised a few feet off the ground and dubbed “the fort” by the children, and two cement culverts, which could presumably be used to climb on or as a secret hiding place. Eventually, the parents raised the funds to put in a new �116 tire swing, a tire climbing apparatus, and a new “fort.” Even today minority schools in Austin are short changed on repairs and equipment, Flores commented. The general consensus of various minority principals, reported Flores, was that even though no one person was to blame since decisions were made at all levels, many people in the district still consider minority schools to be unimportant. In the late 1970s, Flores and three other principals participated in a “raid” on a district warehouse to get ESEA Title I equipment that had not been delivered to their schools. As the principals were loading the equipment into a pickup, they were “discovered,” which resulted in letters of reprimand being placed in their files. They took their case to the superintendent, however, who sided with the principals and removed the letters. Flores’ first years at Metz Elementary were not easy. He had his secretary removed within the first month because of her clear prejudice against Mexican Americans. At the end of the first year, 13 teachers (about half the staff), resigned or transferred out of Metz. This allowed him to hire new teachers, including more Mexican Americans, who were interested in reform, had high expectations for the children, and understood the new principal’s vision of ethnic pride. In A.I.S.D. the principal makes the final hiring decision after applicants are screened by the central personnel office. �117 In order to meet the East Austin community, he and community representative Benita Rodriguez organized a series of block meetings in various homes around the neighborhood (“Block meetings”, December 17, 1978). The block meetings were his idea to help parents overcome negative experiences in school. He wanted to introduce parents to the school and to the people who worked there. He wanted to get them more involved in school affairs. The meetings were small, with maybe eight parents in attendance on average. The meetings were in Spanish, “not extremely formal or intimidating like a PTA meeting,” which was normally conducted mostly in English. Flores showed slides and talked about the school. Parents had a chance to talk freely. Flores asked parents to give the school a report card, to say “this is how we feel about the school.” Flores found parents supportive of bilingual education, but they wanted more homework and more communication between teachers and parents. One parent commented that some other parents were afraid to speak at PTA meetings because of language and general formality. The block meetings succeeded in conveying an interest by the school in the parents which had often been lacking in previous eras. In May, 1975, Flores sent a letter home to parents to explain the new school rules that had been developed by the students themselves. “We have some �118 great kids here at Metz! ... [if necessary] We may be calling you to let you know if your child has broken a rule, but remember, your child helped make the rule!” The following six simple rules will seem familiar to elementary schools everywhere: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Walk quietly in the halls. Respect others so they will respect you. Don't play in the restrooms. Respect other people’s property. Eat with good manners. Don’t lean or jump out the windows. Even though by some criteria there were more behavior problems at Title I schools than others in Austin (South, February 19, 1976), Metz Elementary was filled with enriching activities. In a project operated by the Teacher Corps, a pre-school center was opened at the school for 3 and 4-year-olds. The concept included a “toy library” for pre-schoolers, and “toy and play” workshops for parents, as well as weekly play periods (“Metz helps kids,” February 10, 1976). Fifth grade students wrote and illustrated books for the school book fair (“Metz book fair,” April 17, 1977), and each Friday children looked forward to special enrichment activities. These included operating a movie theater and popcorn stand, exploring the microscopic world, producing movies and plays, reading great books, dissecting frogs, and giving music and dance performances (“ Mi Mundo y Yo,” May 26, 1977). Children also participated in school elections and learned about nominating candidates, campaigning, voting, and working together (Peterson, October 11, 1979). �119 The children made paper costumes, voting booths and campaign signs as part of their experience. Several children also served as pages-for-a-day in the Texas House of Representatives for then State Representative Gonzalo Barrientos (Murray, 1983). These activities were designed to 1). improve students’ self concept and appreciation for his or her own culture as well as others, 2). improve students’ attitude toward school, 3). relate the school curriculum to everyday life, 4). expand knowledge, enrich vocabulary, and develop understanding. Many families in the neighborhood were at the poverty level economically, lacking material resources for enrichment experiences for the children. Some educators thought this resulted in low scores on standardized tests, so great effort was made to provide a more stimulating environment for children at school (‘Metz Bilingual Program,” unpublished document, December 8, 1977). In May 1978 a new pilot program for three Austin elementary schools was announced that would add 20 days to the school year at a cost of $315,800.00 (Neff, May 30, 1978). Metz was chosen to participate in this program because the principal had demonstrated “unusual leadership” in helping disadvantaged children raise their standardized test scores. When the program was announced on May 30, 1978, the plan was to bring in �120 expert teachers for three-year assignments to the pilot schools, give principals the latitude to develop their own programs as they thought best, and add 20 school days to the academic year, for a total of 205 days. “Poor children can learn as well as affluent ones under good teaching conditions,” said Dr. George Bowden, director of elementary education for the district. The “educationally redesigned” pilot program (Irving, May 30, 1978) would have “special programs to help disadvantaged students.” The three schools chosen all had students from families with very low socioeconomic conditions. There would be more support for libraries, physical education, special education, art, music, and counselors. “Principals will select the teachers...seniority and education degrees will mean less...than teaching ability and a willingness to innovate. The district will give them as much freedom as possible.” Superintendent Jack Davidson said, “I expect to hear parents complaining that these teachers expect their students to learn and insist on teaching them ‘til they do. That’s not a new concept, it’s just one that’s been vanishing in the past few years.” Dr. Bowden also wanted teachers to watch children’s behavior for signs of comprehension and engagement (Irving, May 29, 1978). “A teacher can see this by noticing if a child is frowning or smiling,” he said. Teachers should provide clear goals, place instructions on the chalk board, check �121 comprehension frequently, and be warm and sociable. “One-third of the teaching time should be spent writing,” according to Bowden. “Effective teachers don’t waste time talking with other teachers, and use their time to deal directly with students rather than waste time getting a drink of water or sharpening their pencils,” he went on. By June 5, a week after its announcement, the new plan had been modified, however. The 20 extra days were now to be used for planning and in-service training (Cockerill, June 5, 1978). The student school year would not be affected; it would remain at 185 days. Jose Flores said “nothing much is really going to change, but the extra time will be a big advantage... We’re not going back to the old-fashioned style of teaching,” he continued, “with this program we’ll be able to come in five days earlier and really get our goals and priorities planned” (Cockerill, June 5, 1978). Partly as an incentive to do well during the first year of the pilot program, the children were offered an overnight campout at the end of the year if they made their grades. Both Mr. Flores and Dr. Bowden went on this trip, which was held in a nearby state park with overnight bunking facilities. Dr. Bowden wrote to Supt. Davidson the following May: If you think children cannot by excited by learning, you should have seen what had gone on-the learning never stopped. Each child had his pad, pencil, they observed, discussed, wrote, exchanged ideas, petted domestic animals, went swimming, �122 cooked their meals, built fires, provided a sanitary camp, took security measures, sought out specimens of flora and fauna, described what they saw, heard, and told stories, found a couple of snakes, took precautions that no one was hurt or even scared, and lived successfully with one another...I mention that the learning done was unbelievable and I am a veteran teacher...Aside from convincing non-believers that this sort of behavior could be expected and achieved in low socioeconomic schools, these children ‘made it’ (unpublished memorandum, May 28, 1979). In a follow-up survey of Metz Elementary School teachers after implementation of the pilot program, teachers indicated that their highest areas of concern were 1) more attention needed from Dr. Bowden; 2) too many restrictions on needed materials; 3) building in disrepair; 4) lack of personal freedom to teach; 5) not enough use made of expertise in school; and 6) the philosophy used for teaching reading. They felt very positive about such factors as faculty cohesiveness, achievement of the children, quality of the faculty, special area teachers, and workshops (unpublished memorandum, 1979). “Metz the Best” was the motto proudly emblazoned on the new Metz School Handbook for 1979-80. The school colors were blue and gold, and the mascot was a Cobra. The school philosophy stated: We value every child as an individual. At Metz we would like to provide an atmosphere where: -every child may develop self-respect and a positive self-concept -every child may develop a positive attitude toward his/her culture and language and that of others -every child can acquire necessary academic skills �123 -every child is encouraged to be creative -every child develops respect and appreciation of others -every child develops awareness and appreciation for the environment. To provide that atmosphere at Metz: -We strive for a bilingual and multicultural concept of total education which will enrich the child’s experience and overall development -We respect the community and strive for community involvement in the overall development of the child. Even though it was old and in poor repair, in 1979 the school was equipped with a cafeteria, gym, auditorium, library, materials center, and 4-year-old migrant pre-school classroom. There were 4 kindergarten rooms, 4 first grades, 4 second grades, and 4 third grades, but only 2 fourth grades and 2 fifth grades, with one fourth-and-fifth combined room. Twelve teachers out of 31 total had Hispanic surnames in 1979. The staff included a physical education teacher, an art teacher, a music teacher, a bilingual specialist, a speech therapist, a Title I reading teacher, a nurse, a visiting teacher or social worker, a community representative, a counselor, and a librarian. Student activities included the choir; the student council which coordinated a canned food drive, chose the school mascot and held dress-up days once a month for students and faculty; the safety patrol for both boys and girls; the drill team for third grade boys and girls which emphasized rhythm and movement; library aides for boys and girls; Los Valientes, a Spanish �124 language enrichment club; the craft club which learned paper flower-making, batiking, quilting, crocheting, and weaving; and the guitar club. In an unpublished letter from Nan Clayton, A.I.S.D. school board member to Flores, in October, 1979, she commended the school for raising achievement scores in reading and math for all grades at Metz higher than the average for Austin. Apparently an enriched model of education that clearly valued the students and the community was paying off in higher test scores. The proposed three-year program ended abruptly after only two years, however, because of the pressures of desegregation. When two-way busing went into effect in Austin in 1981 (see Appendix E), the Mexican American enrollment at Metz dropped from 98% to 58% overnight, with many Anglo children bused in and Mexican American children bused out of the Metz area. The total enrollment dropped slightly to 450. Flores expanded the bilingual program to a two-way method whereby Spanish was used in ethnically mixed classes (Douthat, January 22, 1981). “Our English-speaking parents think it’s terrific,” said one teacher. The bilingual instruction in Austin is “among the best in the country,” said Superintendent John Ellis. “Flores has built what many consider to be one of Texas’ most successful bilingual education schools”, said The National Hispanic Journal (Murray, Summer 1983). �0 125 i school for a short tenure as principal ■ntral district administration. He sent ing that the school was considered highly effective in many ways, including the fact that it had an integrated PTA with Anglos, Mexican Americans, and Blacks all working together (unpublished memorandum, May 31, 1984). The Fight for the New Building, 1984-1991 Jorge Luis Rodriguez served as principal of Metz from 1984-1991. He saw the end of court-ordered busing at Metz in 1987 (see Appendix E), and was responsible for getting the new school built. Solid integration had been achieved by the court-ordered busing plan, as a photo of the “Music Memory Team” of 1986 attests. The team consisted of 8 children—3 Mexican American, 2 Black, and 3 Anglo (“Metz Memories”, April 26, 1986). But things were soon to change (Figure 18). In January 1989 water from an overflowing second-floor toilet caused part of the ceiling to collapse into a classroom, sending plaster and ceiling tiles crashing down on student desks while the children were in the cafeteria eating lunch ( Smith, January 24, 1989). No one was injured, but the �125 At t^e end of May, 1984, Flores left the school for a short tenure as principal of anotner school before going on to central district administration. He sent home a note to Metz parents commenting that the school was considered 7%' / ing the fact that it had an integrated s, and Blacks all working together 1984). 984-1991 □al of Metz from 1984-1991. He saw vne end oi court-ordered busing at Metz in 1987 (see Appendix E), and was responsible for getting the new school built. Solid integration had been achieved by the court-ordered busing plan, as a photo of the “Music Memory Team” of 1986 attests. The team consisted of 8 children-3 Mexican American, 2 Black, and 3 Anglo (“Metz Memories”, April 26, 1986). But things were soon to change (Figure 18). In January 1989 water from an overflowing second-floor toilet caused part of the ceiling to collapse into a classroom, sending plaster and ceiling tiles crashing down on student desks while the children were in the cafeteria eating lunch ( Smith, January 24, 1989). No one was injured, but the �125 At the end of May, 1984, Flores left the school for a short tenure as principal of another school before going on to central district administration. He sent home a note to Metz parents commenting that the school was considered highly effective in many ways, including the fact that it had an integrated PT 'nd Blacks all working together (u: 84). TJ 4-1991 Jc 1 of Metz from 1984-1991. He saw tl in 1987 (see Appendix E), and was responsiuic O - ilt. Solid integration had been achieved by the court-ordered busing plan, as a photo of the “Music Memory Team” of 1986 attests. The team consisted of 8 children—3 Mexican American, 2 Black, and 3 Anglo (‘Metz Memories”, April 26, 1986). But things were soon to change (Figure 18). In January 1989 water from an overflowing second-floor toilet caused part of the ceiling to collapse into a classroom, sending plaster and ceiling tiles crashing down on student desks while the children were in the cafeteria eating lunch ( Smith, January 24, 1989). No one was injured, but the �125 At the end of May, 1984, Flores left the school for a short tenure as principal of another school before going on to central district administration. He sent home a note to Metz parents commenting that the school was considered highly effective in many ways, including the fact that it had an integrated PTA with Anglos, Mexican Americans, and Blacks all working together (unpublished memorandum, May 31, 1984). The Fight for the New Building, 1984-1991 Jorge Luis Rodriguez served as principal of Metz from 1984-1991. He saw the end of court-ordered busing at Metz in 1987 (see Appendix E), and was responsible for getting the new school built. Solid integration had been achieved by the court-ordered busing plan, as a photo of the “Music Memory Team” of 1986 attests. The team consisted of 8 children—3 Mexican American, 2 Black, and 3 Anglo (‘Metz Memories”, April 26, 1986). But things were soon to change (Figure 18). In January 1989 water from an overflowing second-floor toilet caused part of the ceiling to collapse into a classroom, sending plaster and ceiling tiles crashing down on student desks while the children were in the cafeteria eating lunch ( Smith, January 24, 1989). No one was injured, but the �126 incident did publicize the deteriorating condition of the 74-year-old school building. “This kind of stuff happens all the time,” Rodriguez was quoted as saying. “Last spring another classroom ceiling collapsed when we had a heavy rain.” Even though Metz was a “Priority School” at the time, for which more funding was allocated for educational enhancement and expanded staff, money could not be used for maintenance or renovations. During decades of school district expansion and new construction in Austin, Metz had failed to receive adequate maintenance to offer a safe and welcoming place for children to learn. Even with publicity in the newspaper and TV telling the city of the plight, a city-wide bond election that included funding for a new Metz school failed in March 1989. The voter turn-out in the Metz precinct itself was low, as was not uncommon (Garcia, July 21, 1989). By September of that year, the Metz community had become mobilized to demand action for a new school, however (Bearden & Revilla, September 15, 1989; Garcia, September 29, 1989). Part of the new activism was spurred by the school district’s proposal to lease a brand new school for a mostly white, middle class suburb that was rapidly growing, while doing nothing to improve the condition of existing schools like Metz. The scheme to lease a new school building for the new subdivision was seen by some in the city as a way to circumvent the defeat of �127 the bond election. In political terms, however, the plan only served to keep the city divided. Metz parents felt betrayed by what they felt were racist school district trustees (Wright, September 17, 1989). “Now we’ve been forgotten again,” said Marie Govea, president of the Metz Parent Teacher Association (PTA). ‘Many people around here feel that because we are Hispanic, we are being discriminated against and that had Metz been at some other location in Austin, we would be the ones getting a new school.” Metz parents organized themselves to fight this perceived discrimination. Several parents and grandparents marched in front of the Metz school and district administrative offices to protest unfair treatment. They carried placards that read ‘Where is our new school?” and “30 years of broken promises” (Wright, September 16, 1989). “I think we need a new school before this one caves in,” Metz grandparent Lorraine Camacho was quoted as saying. “I’m worried about my little granddaughter who goes here. It isn’t safe.” Parents said the school’s roof leaked with every rain, flooding some hallways and classrooms (Wright, September 17, 1989). The lunchroom roof collapsed several years before because of water damage and structural problems. The �128 school’s library was moved from the second story of the building because engineers feared the floor would collapse under the weight of the books. Two classrooms were moved into the former second floor library space, which did not allay parents fears that the building was unsafe. As enrollment grew, portable classroom buildings had also taken over precious playground space, always a scarce commodity at Metz (Figure 19). “Our children can’t even throw a baseball here on this campus because the teachers are afraid it could break out a window,” one parent said. “They have to take the kids to the park for physical education classes because there is no room here” (Wright, September 17, 1989). Most Anglo schools in Austin at this time had school grounds of 10-12 acres, but Metz had only half a block (Bearden, September 8, 1989). Austin Interfaith helped organize the community into a political force to fight for a new school (T. Kirkland, personal communication, 1995). The mission of Austin Interfaith is to teach people the necessary skills for active participation in the political process. As a result of the organizing and training activities of Austin Interfaith, the Metz community sent around a petition and spoke at several school board meetings. For some parents, including some who spoke Spanish only, this was their first time to speak in �129 public. When the school bond election came up for a vote again in May 1990, the community was ready. Principal Rodriguez led a pickup truck parade around the neighborhood the day of the election, urging people to vote for the school bond package. Children piled in the back of the pickup, and others walked behind it carrying banners and chanting for neighbors to go to the polls. Loudspeakers played music and an aura of festivity surrounded the commotion. As a result, the precinct had the highest voter turn-out ever for an election, and partly as a result of this, the school bonds passed. The $80 million bond package included $5 million to build a new school for the Metz neighborhood, including money to purchase land. “Jorge Rodriguez really helped us see the power,” said former PTA president Liz Landeros (personal communication, 1994). “He helped us find resources we didn’t even know were there. He was consistent and committed. Most of the work organizing was done by a core group of parents, I guess it always is, but Rodriguez was the center. This was the first time we as a Mexican American community had organized.” After much discussion, the Metz community decided they wanted the new school to remain on the existing site. This then would entail the demolition �130 of the old, dilapidated, original building, and therein lay the rub. As soon as the district filed a letter of intent to raze the old yellow brick building, the Austin Historic Landmark Commission was compelled to consider rezoning the 1916 structure as a historic building (Smith, May 20, 1990). “A lot [of parents] commented to me that they can’t believe the city would consider designating Metz as historic,” said a PTA officer in a newspaper interview (Smith, May 20, 1990). Rodriguez commented that it was ironic that so much interest should suddenly be shown in the building when he had tried to get simple maintenance done for years, to no avail. The Landmark Commission’s mandate was to protect the city’s architecturally significant and historic structures, including those that have some importance to an ethnic group or neighborhood. “History is important,” said school trustee Nan Clayton, “but where the children go to school is the priority. The district has to do something about school buildings that are falling down. How do we serve the children?” (Smith, May 20, 1990). The Landmark Commission took community sentiment into consideration, however, (“Before the 1st brick falls”, May 21, 1990) and after a few tense days, the commission voted not to impede the destruction of the old Metz building (Smith, May 22, 1990). The commission heard from several Metz parents who wanted a fresh start, in a school building untainted by �r J 131 segregation and past discrimination. Several speakers before the commission said that even though Metz was old and had a long history, it was a history they would rather forget. One parent expressed a commonly held belief in the Metz neighborhood that historically Mexican Americans had not been wanted at the school. “If you think you’re going to make it historic, we don’t want it,” said one parent who claimed he was not allowed to attend Metz as a child due to segregationist mentality. “Latinos could only attend Metz after fighting the school board. The school became Hispanic only after whites left the neighborhood. We have the right to a new school” (Smith, May 22, 1990). This perception of alienation is still held by many adults in the Metz community. Even though children of Mexican heritage have attended Metz continuously since 1916, some may not have felt valued or accepted, particularly in years gone by. Many other people in the Metz neighborhood may not be aware of the continual Hispanic enrollment since much emphasis was put on promoting nearby Zavala Elementary as the school for Mexican children. The last day of school in the old building was marked with both tears and festivity (Smith, June 1, 1990). “Every creak brings back a lot of sentimental memories,” said Sheila Guzman, who had taught at Metz for six years. “The sad part is that this building is history, but this is also progress.” One fifth- �132 grader said, “I feel bad because they are going to knock down the school.” Parents and teen-aged alumni helped teachers pack for the temporary move to Webb Elementary, which students attended during construction of the new Metz. For two years, Metz children were bused to Webb Elementary while the old Metz building was demolished and the new one built. Parents and grandparents rode the buses with the children everyday, to escort them to the new neighborhood about five miles north. Daily attendance was one of the highest in the city during the 1991-92 school year (A.I.S.D. memorandum, February 12, 1992). During this time, there was an accident at the Metz construction site, and a worker was killed. Rumors immediately sprang up of a ghost haunting the old location. The media sensationalized this local gossip (“Death, weird accidents”, November 6, 1990), culminating in a spot on a national television show about “true ghost stories” (Holloway, May 17, 1991). Instead of calling “Ghostbusters”, however, Metz parents, teachers, and administrators held a jubilant opening day on August 25, 1992, designed to allay children’s fears. If there were any ghosts, kidded vice principal Raul Solis, “they are happy spirits who are glad to join in the carnival” (Bryant, August 27, 1992). At last the children and teachers of Metz were in a �133 beautiful new building after two years of being bused to other schools and a huge community effort. The school also had a brand new principal, Celia Martinez, serving her first year as an elementary school administrator. The New Start, 1992-1996 “We stood together and got what our children needed,” said Darlene Rosales, co-president of the 1992 Metz PTA, at the dedication of the new building on October 18, 1992 (Lott, October 19, 1992). The Metz neighborhood had demonstrated “perseverance and a willingness to sacrifice for their children” claimed the local newspaper. Many public officials attended the ceremonies including U.S. Rep. Jake Pickle, state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, state Rep. Glen Maxey, A.I.S.D. Superintendent Jim Hensley and several school board members. Keynote speaker Gonzalo Garcia, former A.I.S.D. Interim Superintendent, told the audience, “Schools provide a unique link between the generations” (Lott, October 19, 1992). The new one-story yellow brick building was constructed around a courtyard and a slightly enlarged playground. Yellow brick was used to create historical continuity with the original building. The design of the new building models classic Southwestern architecture rather than the old “factory” school design of the past or the modern “warehouse” design of the �134 present. The new building features a multi-use cafeteria and auditorium with a Mexican-style mural painted on the ceiling of the lobby area, a library and a gym. Glass display cases feature artifacts of Mexican culture, such as fine blankets and grinning sugar skulls for La Dia de los Muertos in November. Children’s artwork lines the hallways, captioned in both English and Spanish. Bilingual notices to parents and community members are posted on bulletin boards and doors, and both languages are heard constantly in the halls. The playground has brightly colored play equipment under the tall, old trees, and a jogging track around the perimeter. The new mission statement written in Spanish and English for the dedication of the new building expressed the hope and pride of the community: Through education in a child-focused and culturally enriched environment, Metz students will be empowered with the confidence and knowledge to succeed in their academic, personal and social lives. This sentiment has been shaped as much by the past schooling experiences of the parents and grandparents as by their aspirations for the children. Parents and children of Mexican heritage were always part of the school population at Metz, even though there were decades when dominant Anglo attitudes were prejudiced against Mexican Americans. �135 The T. After t . _'l in 1992, disaster struck the community in the form of the state-mandated Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) at Metz in 1993. The TAAS is an annual test given statewide by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to determine the academic performance of students, schools, and school districts in the areas of reading, writing, and math. The problem at Metz was primarily with the fourth grade. The state requires that 20% or more of the students must pass all three sections of the test for a school to remain in good standing. Only 6% of the fourth graders at Metz did so that year (unpublished memo, TEA hearing, October 26, 1993). The news was reported in blaring headlines in August, 1993 that shouted “Low scores endanger nine schools”, and “State says A.I.S.D. facilities could be shut in two years if performance doesn’t improve” (Lott, August 5, 1993). Nine low-income schools serving mostly minority children in the Austin district were deemed “clearly unacceptable” by the TEA because of low student performance on the TAAS. Schools have two years to improve or face the possibility of closure, according to an accountability ruling passed by �r 135 The TAAS Fiasco, 1993 After the jubilation of opening the new school in 1992, disaster struck the community in the form of the state-mandated Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) at Metz in 1993. The TAAS is an annual test given statewide by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to determine the academic perfo— ---- -c ' 'ol districts in the areas of readij Metz was primarily with the fourtl ■ more of the students must pass all th amain in good standing. 6% of year (unpublished memo, TEA Only heari) The n in August, 1993 that shouted “Low scores endanger nine schools”, and “State says A.I.S.D. facilities could be shut in two years if performance doesn’t improve” (Lott, August 5, 1993). Nine low-income schools serving mostly minority children in the Austin district were deemed “clearly unacceptable” by the TEA because of low student performance on the TAAS. Schools have two years to improve or face the possibility of closure, according to an accountability ruling passed by �135 The TAAS Fiasco, 1993 After the jubilation of opening the new school in 1992, disaster struck the community in the form of the state-mandated Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) at Metz in 1993. The TAAS is an annual test given statewide by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to determine the academic perf'~ chool districts in the areas of r m at Metz was primarily with the f< )% or more of the students must pass a. to remain in good standing. 6‘ hat year (unpublished memo, TEA Only he The news was reported in oianng neaannes in August, 1993 that shouted “Low scores endanger nine schools”, and “State says A.I.S.D. facilities could be shut in two years if performance doesn’t improve” (Lott, August 5, 1993). Nine low-income schools serving mostly minority children in the Austin district were deemed “clearly unacceptable” by the TEA because of low student performance on the TAAS. Schools have two years to improve or face the possibility of closure, according to an accountability ruling passed by �r 135 The TAAS Fiasco, 1993 After the jubilation of opening the new school in 1992, disaster struck the community in the form of the state-mandated Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) at Metz in 1993. The TAAS is an annual test given statewide by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to determine the academic performance of students, schools, and school districts in the areas of reading, writing, and math. The problem at Metz was primarily with the fourth grade. The state requires that 20% or more of the students must pass all three sections of the test for a school to remain in good standing. Only 6% of the fourth graders at Metz did so that year (unpublished memo, TEA hearing, October 26, 1993). The news was reported in blaring headlines in August, 1993 that shouted “Low scores endanger nine schools”, and “State says A.I.S.D. facilities could be shut in two years if performance doesn’t improve” (Lott, August 5, 1993). Nine low-income schools serving mostly minority children in the Austin district were deemed “clearly unacceptable” by the TEA because of low student performance on the TAAS. Schools have two years to improve or face the possibility of closure, according to an accountability ruling passed by �F 136 TEA in May 1993. If a school is closed, the students are forced to attend another school. The sensational way this news was delivered in the local media caused great alarm in the affected neighborhoods, especially Metz. After years of work to get a new school, Metz parents felt the threatened closure was a humiliating insult from state officials. The community had worked very hard to get a new start in a brand new building, and as a neighborhood, they had gained a feeling of self-esteem and control. Now all this was being threatened. Many parents were shocked and bewildered. “We thought the students did pretty well,” said Cathy Morrison, whose sixth grade son attended Metz. “I don’t know. Is it the drinking water or something different over here? You can’t tell me that the kids over here are any different than the kids anywhere else in Austin” (Lott, August 6, 1993). Actually, school closure would only occur if no improvement were noted after several intermediary steps had been taken. These included a public hearing to discuss the issues, a campus improvement plan, and an on-site visit by TEA officials to see how the improvement plan was put into action. If the school continued to have low performance and showed no signs of change, a board of managers could be put in place to govern the school. If after all �137 these steps had been taken within a two-year time frame, no improvement had occurred, the school could be closed (TEA Hearing, October 26, 1993). When asked at the October 1993 hearing what would happen in two years if Metz did not reach the state goal, TEA representative James Alcorn replied: Sanctions would be applied. In one school last year, all the staff was dismissed and all new put in as a last resort. But this is a beautiful, new facility....[softly, with a look of dismay on his face]...they would not close this school. Other elementary schools in Texas with comparable student populations based on socioeconomic status and ethnicity had an average of 42% of their third graders pass all three sections of the test in 1992, versus Metz 38% (Texas Education Agency, June 1994). Comparing Metz with all elementary schools in all 1054 Texas school districts in 1992, the statewide average was 57% of the students passing all three sections, and 38% for Metz. In 1991, 71% of the third grade class at Metz (1993 fifth grade, a year ahead of the target group) passed all three sections, compared to an average of 57% for all schools statewide. So the fourth grade class at Metz in 1993 was weaker than many others in the state, and weaker than their immediate predecessors at Metz. I �138 At the TEA hearing at the school on October 26, 1993, to discuss the low TAAS performance, Principal Martinez claimed that “the rules changed after we took the test.” Twelve children in the fourth grade in 1993, who the year before only read Spanish, took the English-language test. Their low scores were included in the overall score, making only 6% passing all three sections. Three Anglos and 69 Hispanics took the test in fourth grade. Of the Hispanics, only two children passed. Only four children considered economically disadvantaged passed. Lower scores were not a statewide phenomena in 1993, however, indicating that any misunderstanding about the rules may have been isolated to particular schools, if indeed that was the case. “Metz is not a low performing school—one bad grade, one bad year— believe me it will not happen again,” cried an impassioned Mrs. Martinez at the hearing. There was aggressive discussion about education at the TEA hearing in October, 1993, in the school cafetorium. Those on the podium were James Alcorn, TEA representative; Celia Martinez, Metz principal; and Beatriz De La Garza, president of the school board for the Austin Independent School District (A.I.S.D.). Several hundred Metz parents, teachers, and community members also attended. The room was about 75% full, with most of the parents sitting near the back at two long rows of cafeteria tables. Several rows of chairs had been placed up front near the speakers, but many people �139 were reluctant to sit there. There were many young children in the audience. The principal encouraged people to move closer, but few did. The meeting was bilingual, with everything translated both ways-Spanish and English-by various individuals. Both the school board president and the principal are bilingual, but the TEA representative was not. Increased parental involvement was one of the issues discussed at the hearing. Parents wanted to know what kinds of activities they could get involved in, and when they were welcome to be in the school. “We feel shut out,” said one parent. Principal Martinez replied that the school was trying to learn more about programs for parent involvement. “Parent involvement is not 550 parents coming to school everyday. There are many ways. First of all, care about your child. For instance, parents make cupcakes at Zavala,” said Martinez. A photocopied handout given to the audience at the hearing had this advice for parents: Get involved with your child’s learning. If you have any questions about how he/she is doing, ask the teacher; come to conferences, parent meetings, PTA meetings; send your children to school on time; make sure they get a good night’s rest and are ready to learn; read to and with them; have them sit in the kitchen and do their homework while you prepare dinner. If they need help with their homework, have then attend Study Hall (Mondays through Thursdays, 3:00-3:45). If they need a friend or a mentor, let the teacher know. We want to work with �140 you in every way possible to see that every child at Metz is successful. In other words, be a good parent. There was no mention of parental governance of the school, or any sort of activity that would allow direct parental input about the school, except for the PTA meetings. Nor was there any suggestion of parent volunteer activities within the school, such as helping out in classrooms or library, planning enrichment activities, or participating in field trips. The message was clearly for parents to stay at home and take care of their children, and let the teachers teach what children need to know. The teacher and the school were promoted as the authorities which should be respected, while the parents’ role seemed to be cast as merely the physical caretaker of the child. In these statements, parents were not seen as having equal knowledge with teachers, nor equal authority about what is important to learn. Even though tempers were sometimes hot and much seemed left unsaid, by 9:00 p.m. two-thirds of the group had already gone home from the meeting to put youngsters to bed. Principal Martinez dismissed the rest of the audience with no further invitation to continue the discussion. A plan for improved test results was mandated by the TEA (Texas Education Agency, February, 1994). The Metz plan included adding a study hall �■ 141 everyday from 3:00 to 3:45 so children could get help with homework from tutors (children were not required to attend however). The school also acquired several new corporate mentors who provide small project grants and adult mentors for students. Metz teachers were formed into study groups on literacy, bilingual education, multi-age classes, and parent “improvement.” There was to be an increased use of computers specifically to prepare for TAAS. Increased staff development was also called for. The burden for improvement fell primarily on the teachers. While there was some networking with corporate mentors, few other outside resources were planned to be tapped. No change in governance or decision-making was considered. Parents were not involved in any of these plans in any way. The Campus Report for Performance-Based Accreditation (Texas Education Agency, February, 1994) was written by the seven-member TEA peer review accreditation team, which included three Mexican Americans. The group commended Metz for its high attendance rate (97% daily attendance over a two-year period), increased school-community business partnerships, and the high level of support from the regional education service center. They also noted several areas of concern including: 1) lack of curriculum alignment and a need to increase instructional focus; 2) lack of an effective discipline management plan; 3) a need to re-establish the focus of the bilingual/ESL program; 4) need for additional instructional materials, particularly at the �142 pre-K, kindergarten and first-grade levels; 5) lack of teacher input regarding staff development; and 6) the need for additional parental involvement activities (Texas Education Agency, February, 1994). The specific recommendations for increased parental involvement included expanded services for adults such as high school equivalency classes, English as a second language, literacy classes, health education, parenting skills, and training in how to use community resources (Texas Education Agency, February, 1994). The development of concrete activities and materials for parental use at home to support learning was also urged. The school was exhorted to accommodate parental time constraints with flexible meeting times, sites, transportation, and child care resources. “Disadvantaged parents” were to be encouraged to go on school-arranged field trips “in order to gain insight into the educational process and enhance then- understanding.” The school was also to implement activities that acknowledged and valued the families’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds and to broaden the collaboration between home and school to include community resources and activities. Aftermath �143 By 1995, the school had made the progress required by TEA, and was no longer on the low achievement list. Student scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) were acceptable in 1994 and 1995. Even though some of the children at Metz have to deal with such social and emotional problems as gangs and inhalant abuse, the majority of the children are making satisfactory progress (J. Hardin, personal communication 1994; A. Babler, personal communication 1995). Enrollment at Metz in Fall 1995 was 475 students in pre-Kindergarten through sixth grade, with 32 teachers. The campus improvement plan spells out goals for the future, including increased achievement and increased parental involvement in all aspects. These include knowledge of the child’s education, decision making for the school, and personal growth. Greater parental involvement has been accomplished in several ways since 1993. Austin Interfaith has coordinated several community discussions aimed at raising awareness and bettering the school (Stanley May 7, 1995). Parents now teach in an after school recreational program featuring classes in cooking, puppet making, karate, and other topics. A number of parents volunteer daily at the school doing various tasks. Parents also learn computer skills in community classes at the school. The Parent Teacher Association had about 100 members in Fall 1995. In all, parents feel more empowered and have a greater voice in school affairs than several years ago (Figures 20 and 21). �144 The school population is 98% Hispanic, with about one-third recent immigrants from Mexico. Approximately two-thirds of the students are from families of Mexican heritage who have lived in Texas and other parts of the U.S for generations. Some say the greatest strength of the school is the feeling of community and continuity, although there is some perception of division between those born in the U.S. and more recent immigrants (J. Hardin, personal communication, 1995). Many families have lived in this neighborhood for many years, however, and have seen several generations of children attend this school. A parent training specialist teaches parenting skills at the school regularly. She tries to teach the importance of “dignity and respect,” two important aspects of the traditional Mexican concept of education (Reese, Gallimore, Balzano, & Goldenberg 1991). Many times these classes are held in Spanish only, indicating that newer immigrants may be the most receptive to this kind of instruction. The community has continued to be politically active, to the extent that some feel that “power issues seem more important than children” (Anonymous neighborhood resident, personal communication, 1995). A few people behave divisively and will not even attend meetings with certain others in the �r 145 neighborhood. Some key people are not in favor of working with Austin Interfaith, perhaps because they do not wish to give up power to a larger group (Anonymous neighborhood resident, personal communication, 1995). The issues of environmental danger from the Holly Street Power Plant and the low TAAS scores in 1993 have caused people to continue to fight for what they want in their neighborhood. In 1994 Metz decided to adopt a year-round schedule, with only a month­ long vacation in the summer. There is mixed reaction to this change, but many feel it helps children learn better and uses resources more effectively. Mrs. Martinez, the principal, says the new schedule seems to have a positive impact on standardized test scores, particularly if the children attend intersession classes during the short breaks. With the current schedule, no one gets too far behind to catch up. Other new programs in 1995-96 include multi-age classes in which students have the same teacher for two consecutive years, thus allowing for stronger relationships to build between students and teachers. There is also a new school-based health clinic and a dual language program funded by a $250,000.00 federal grant. Many local corporations also support the school as “adopters” providing adult mentors, fundraising, school supplies, and special gifts at Christmas and Thanksgiving. �r 146 Even though the school faces great problems associated with the low income of most of the neighborhood, much has been accomplished since the new building opened. The children had been moved in and out of three buildings in the three years during construction of the new building, and had three different principals, each with slightly different priorities. Much work had to be done to re-establish lines of communication between parents, teachers, administrators and the community when the new building was opened. Creating a sense of stability for the students was paramount, according to Martinez. The TAAS crisis of 1993 produced recommendations for school improvement that have been put into action with moderate success. Even though there are strong political divisions within the school today, progress has been made toward meeting the TEA guidelines. Mexican American parents have greater voice in school affairs at Metz than ever before, thanks to many years of community struggle. Conclusion The transmission of culture, or knowledge, from elders to children is the rationale for any school’s existence. To train children in the knowledge gained by previous generations with the hope that they can use it to meet the challenges ahead is the whole purpose of education. For most of its 80 �* 147 years, this cultural transmission at Metz Elementary School has been dominated by Anglo ways and mores. Even though children of Mexican heritage have attended Metz every day from the very beginning, it is only in the last 20 years or so that Hispanic language and culture have been valued in the school. How did the Mexican children at the Metz of long ago receive the Anglo message? What did this mean in terms of identity, self-esteem, and belonging? What did those parents and grandparents in the past convey to their children about their place in the power structure called school? Judging from abundant evidence from throughout the state, it is clear that Metz offered a higher quality academic setting for children of Mexican heritage than many other places did 50 or even 80 years ago. Nonetheless, it is evident that the segregationist attitudes of the 1930s and the deterioration of the building after World War II made a negative imprint in the minds of many in the neighborhood. Today schools are called upon by both local neighborhoods and the nation to do more than in the past. Formal schooling is more important than ever before in children’s cognitive development because of rapidly changing technology that is dramatically transforming the way people work. The “readin’, ‘ritin’, and ‘rithmatic” of days gone by is now the springboard to �J 148 higher level problem solving and technical skills needed by today’s workforce. Metz Elementary School has served children of Mexican origin continually from 1916 to the present, reflecting the values of the larger society in many respects throughout those years. Although it has shifted from predominately Anglo to almost exclusively Mexican American, it has been ethnically integrated since the beginning, whether by default or design. Since the early 1970s, Metz has been at the forefront of bilingual education in Texas, offering rich programs that cherish the Mexican heritage. Today, after many battles, the school is a source of pride in the community. In many ways the history of Metz Elementary School reflects the opportunity and power of education for Mexican American students in Texas, as well as other major trends in public education. �149 Photo by Bruce F. Jordan Figure 3. School bell: Metz Elementary School in Austin,Texas has served children ofMexican heritage since 1916. Photo by Bruce F. Jordan Figure 4. The new school building opened in 1992. Students created original ceramic tiles which circle the building near the top of the windows. �150 mEhx ffr■- Photo by Bruce F. Jordan Figure 5. Dominos in the afternoon: Men gather for a friendly game in the front yard of a house in the Metz neighborhood. . .. -’ : :e ' y v Z/S.'ktil/ • M. * v I ■ / Photo by Bruce F. Jordan Figure 6. There are many transgenerational families living within a few blocks of the school. Grandparents play an important part in the community and in the education of children. �151 MM Kg Photo by Bruce F. Jordan Figure 7. Washed clean. Mural art expresses the cultural heritage of the neighborhood. r Photo by Bruce F. Jordan Figure 8, Pinata Palace. Business like this draw customers from all parts of town to East Austin. �152 i- .. Photo by Bruce F. Jordan Figure 9, The Holly Street Power Plant is located on the southern edge of the Metz neighborhood on the Colorado River. It generates electricity for Austin. r BO Photo by Bruce F. Jordan Figure 10. East Austin activists have succeeded in forcing the city to close the power plant by the year 2000. Some people have claimed that the power plant causes health problems for nearby residents. �1 153 Total Metz Enrollment rr 1 000 f 8001 600 400 I 200i 0 CD CO CM CD CD CO CD O xt O (5) CD CD xr ID CD O CO CD CO CO CD CO co CD CO CD CD CO CD CD Figure 11 Total Metz enrollment for students of all ethnicities. In 1954, Metz had the highest enrollment in the city. Percent Mexican Heritage Students at Metz 1 00% 8 0% 60% 40% 20% 0% CO CO CD ID CD CD Figure 12. Changes in neighborhood demographics created changes in school enrollment patterns. Students of Mexican heritage were outnumbered by Anglos at Metz from 1916 until the mid-1950s, but since then they have predominated. k �154 Austin Independent School District Library Media Center Figure—13.The original building stood from 1916 until 1990. This photograph shows the school in 1930-31, during a time when White students were in the majority. AUSTIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Daily Program of Elementary Grades c.^ 'r' 71 7/JC-r .« IB. 77 ------ Zdk 73 f ^ik ■2*X' 2<v. ja,, (.a, 40, J"CL 0^., a----- Q^J6. SI 77 ZO —a. a /a, /O'. Cz—*•*. , / T~ ' W 40 /aIB. Hi//3. J4.Hi. Cbx. IB- .S^o-nOl /S 4» 3 0. ,a, IB. Z4tz IB. ,v Z- 4. *0 e<f 1^'” /fi- 51" J-I-VO ^1° ‘>‘c Yb sx — J a - J-Zir. <1acZX_ jo- s z - — - “ o. iff "■? ~ 7? ST- TI ?*-51• 30 . w 3 3. It- -~-t- £. 7fi 'JA- ^•'■136 c-1- aZ— 4 a X-4 li a>, , ir 'T? J<L xv 36 j 6<L I. __ - — 6 a. ^la.u".llk3^ .ir 60 7.“ “•JS /<!•*,<«■\,a. <. -X —V— 4- C40. ,2- — a: 30- ■ ib- 75 sj *o C-J z?Z-. 7(U. 'Cb. <.v»r isa jg sc 4^4) . *• il-iU .f<xX. IB 6 lb 4 fl 4 <b it u 5. sc >u 4xU. /a,, z '6 JS-Ui>s L Jc *■ 3^a aux-L zn IZ-Ofi iL.ta ZB. IB. in, 7& 4 A- 6O~ -3 C-, TF 'Tif <W V—k-L 3-3^ 6 3 Js»J /Cb^ Metz Elementary School Library Figure 14. Overcrowding. In 1931-32, 16 teachers coped with almost 600 students, at a ratio of 37.5:1. The school offered an enriched curriculum that featured music, art and physical education for all students. J �155 Photo courtesy of the Camacho Family Figure 15. Mrs. Lane’s fifth grade class of 1954. Student enrollment was approximately half Anglo and half Mexican American. ----- 71 Austin Independent School District Library Media Center Figure 16 Hermelinda Rodriguez taught at Metz from 1959 to 1965. She was an innovator in bilingual education many years before it was federally mandated. �156 ! a i Metz Elementary School Library Figure 17. jose G Flores initiated bilingual education at Metz in the early 1970s. The Mexican American enrollment has ranged from 75% to 98% since that time. i �157 Commentary P*G« 2 • Fridiy, September 8.1989. • L* Prenji METZ elementary . Arc extoerinwnt in intensive education. Courtesy of La Prensa, Austin, Texas Figure 18. By 1989 the original building was in grave disrepair, and many portable classrooms were used, taking up what was left of the playground. Photo courtesy of Cathy Morrison Figure 19. Four friends. Metz kindergarten graduates of 1987. At this time the school was about 98% Mexican American and very crowded. �158 Metz Elementary School Library Figure 20.Students look forward to a bright future. Parents, grandparents, and community members volunteer regularly at the school. 9 Metz Elementary School Library Figure 21, Carnival time. A woman paints a child’s face at the school carnival Such events not only raise funds, but also bring the community together. �159 Chapter Four The Influence of Mexican American Family Values on Education So far this study has discussed the cultural values that created Texas public education for Mexican American students. This has been further illustrated by the history of Metz Elementary School in Austin, Texas, which has served Mexican American children continually from 1916 to the present. However as Bronfenbrenner (1993) theorizes in his ecological model of human development, it is the interaction of the individual and overlapping spheres of influence that ultimately constructs the potential of each particular person over time (for instance, see the conditional matrix in Appendix C). Therefore, to answer questions about Mexican American academic achievement and parental involvement in schools, we must focus not only on schools themselves, but also on another “layer” of influence for school children: the family. As Epstein (1990) and others have pointed out, children in industrialized societies are influenced simultaneously by the schools they attend and by their families. But researchers often ignore the effects of one environment entirely to focus on the other, thus producing an incomplete picture of developmental factors. Bolger and his associates (1988) suggest that the linkages between different levels of the environment, such as between school systems and families, must be examined. We need to �160 take into account the unique effects of the various proximal, or face-to-face, settings in which children operate. This chapter discusses how Mexican American cultural values within the family shape educational options for children, creating harmony with many aspects of the American educational system and disharmony with other aspects. The chapter reviews the literature concerning two widely held cultural assumptions by Mexican American families: 1) the concept of family interdependence or “familism”; 2) and the concept of “educacidn” or the training in proper behavior that supports academic learning. These concepts work together to protect the child from both psychological and economic difficulties while promoting the agrarian values of family unity and respect (LeVine & White 1986). Interaction between the home and school will also be discussed, especially in relation to these two concepts. Both “familism” and “educacidn” have implications for the ways families communicate about school and progress towards educational achievement. They are crucial to understanding the link between school and Mexican American families, as shown by the home/school interaction. Familism �161 One of the most pervasive characteristics of Mexican American families is described by the concept known as “familism”, defined by Hurtado (1995) as a strong commitment to family. Grebler, Moore and Guzman (1970) define it as strong emotional ties to family and home. As many studies have shown, Mexican Americans express stronger ties to family than do Anglos (Grebler, Moore & Guzman 1970; Holtzman, Diaz-Guerrero & Swartz 1975; Keefe, Padillo & Carlos 1979; Raymond, Rhodes & Raymond 1980; Sabogal et al. 1987; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995). Familism is closely related to attitudes of interdependence and cooperation, which are also commonly reported Mexican American characteristics (Kagan 1983). Sabogal and his colleagues (1987) discuss three dimensions of familism: 1) familial obligations, 2) perceived familial support, and 3) family members as referents for behavior and attitudes. They found that even with high acculturation, Mexican American attitudes were more familistic than Anglos. Familism is considered one of the most culture-specific values of Hispanics (Moore 1970). For instance, the team of Carola and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco (1995) found that 92% of the first generation Mexican immigrants in their study and 86% of the second generation immigrants responded that family was the most important thing in their lives, while only 74% of the Whites responded thusly. �162 This family closeness among people of Mexican heritage may be facilitated or transmitted early in life by parent-child interaction. Velez (1983) found that Mexican infants had much more contact with mother and other relatives than Anglo children did. Mexican children were seldom alone. For example, in this study, 92% of the Mexican children slept in the same room as their parents, whereas 80% of the Anglo children slept in separate rooms by themselves. This is just one illustration of the difference in family behaviors between those who value the interdependence of family members, such as Mexican Americans, and those whose goal is the independence of each person in the family, which is particularly true for Anglos. Family as emotional support system Keefe, Padillo and Carlos (1979) surveyed Mexican Americans in three California towns. They found that Mexican American families acted as an emotional support system for their members. Anglos did this too, but to a lesser extent. Mexican Americans often had extended family members living in the same town. Mexican Americans expressed both positive and negative feelings about extended kin; it was good to have them near by, but it sometimes also caused problems. The study showed that the pattern of emotional support in Mexican American families may only extend to one �163 particular person rather than being generalized, i.e. younger females may turn to their mother’s sister or their own elder sister for advice or support more often than to other family members. In their study comparing four groups of adolescents—Mexican adolescents in Mexico, Mexican immigrant youths in the U.S., second generation U.S.-born Mexican Americans, and White adolescents- the Suarez-Orozco team (1995) found that Mexican and first generation Mexican immigrant youths are more likely than Anglo adolescents to turn to family members for advice when they have a problem. Latino adolescents also tended to report more positive feelings about their parents than Anglos. There was greater perceived emotional and material support from family for both Mexicans and Mexican immigrants in this study than for Anglos. Sabogal et al. (1987) surveyed 452 Hispanics in the U.S. and 227 Anglos. Hispanics tended to solve problems jointly with family members. The perception of family support did not change with acculturation. There was strong identity and attachment, feelings of loyalty, reciprocity, and solidarity. Mirande (1982) pointed out that individual needs are often subordinated to family needs in Mexican American families. Grebler, Moore and Guzman (1970) say that traditionally it was considered shameful to seek i �164 aid outside the family circle. The mutual assistance of family was relied upon. Rueschenberg and Buriel (1989) used the Family Environmental Scale (FES) to pick up both internal and external aspects of family functioning. Results indicated that internal functioning, such as cohesion, level of conflict, and organization of family matters, remained the same in Mexican American families even as they acculturated. The patterns of intrafamilial relationships and interactions did not appear to differ substantially from one generation to the next despite language change and more external interaction. The researchers concluded that a bicultural model seemed to more accurately describe Mexican American families rather than a linear acculturation model; unfortunately, they did not distinguish which characteristics exhibited bicultural attributes. Raymond, Rhodes and Raymond (1980) surveyed 206 Anglos, 143 Blacks, and 156 Mexican Americans. The Mexican Americans (or Chicanos) expressed significantly more importance of family than did the other groups. Family satisfaction was correlated highly with overall psychological well­ being. Schumm et al. (1988) reported that Hispanic families were more satisfied with family life than Anglos. They surveyed 340 Anglo and 192 Hispanic families in 14 states. The families consisted of at least a mother, �165 father and one adolescent. The most dissatisfied group in the study was Anglo adolescents. Interaction of grandparents and grandchildren Some studies have found that familism, or the interdependence of family members, actually grows stronger with each generation living in the U.S. (Keefe & Padilla 1987; Ramirez & Arce 1981). For instance, Boldt (1985) found that 40% of the Mexican American population aged 65-85 in San Antonio lived with their children and grandchildren in tri-generational households. Other studies have also shown a proclivity for Mexican American family members to live geographically near each other, if not in the same house (Keefe & Padilla 1987; Sabogal et al. 1987). Yet there are few studies which have examined the Hispanic elderly per se, or the interaction of Hispanic grandparents and grandchildren (Hurtado 1995). There is some evidence to suggest that this interaction is an important link in the transmission of culture and attitudes within Mexican American families. Sotomayor (1989) suggests three major functions of elderly Hispanic (or other) family members: 1) to socialize younger members, 2) to provide emotional support, and 3) to transmit language and culture. �166 Boldt (1985) examined the effect of transmitted similarities in values and behaviors between Mexican American grandparents, parents, and children. She administered a questionnaire to 1,125 Mexican American families in San Antonio containing grandparent, parent and child triads. Two questions were asked about helping with chores or errands during illness, and two about the perception of help received. These four questions were used as indicators of intergenerational helping. Continuity of language, traditional sex-role orientation, and adherence to traditional Mexican values were positively associated with intergenerational helping. Statistical analysis suggested that marital status, age, and female same-sex linkage were significantly associated with intergenerational helping. Markides, Boldt and Ray (1986) found that elderly Mexican Americans were involved in strong helping networks with their children, giving them advice and help. This study looked at three generations (ages 74, 49, and 26). For all three generations, there was a predominance of family as a source of support. Affectual solidarity was uniformly high. There appeared to be minimum intergenerational helping between grandparents and adult grandchildren. Schmidt and Padilla (1983) conducted telephone interviews with 31 Mexican American grandparents between the ages of 43 to 76-years-old and collected �167 information about 53 grandparent-grandchild dyads. The grandchildren were ages 3-12 who saw their grandparents often, but did not live in the same household. A high degree of grandparent involvement with grandchildren was indicated. Both grandmothers and grandfathers reported being involved with the young grandchildren. Interaction with grandsons and granddaughters was similar. No differences were found because of gender. Some significant differences in behavior such as use of Spanish language and type of play with children were due to the grandparent’s place of birth. Williams (1990) has discussed traditional life rituals of Mexican American families in Texas such as the baptismal ceremony, marriage rites and funerals. She concludes that ties with the extended family (aunts, uncles, and cousins) are disappearing in many Mexican American families, with only funerals serving to bring extended family together in both working class and middle class families. This does not necessarily imply that Mexican American families are becoming more like Anglos, however, since Anglo family patterns have also been drastically altered in recent decades. As the studies cited above have shown, even as Mexican American families change, grandparents continue to play an important role. �168 The emotional and geographic closeness of many Mexican American families promotes reliance on family members and helps maintain traditional beliefs and customs in a changing world. Familism is one of the most pervasive traits of Mexican American culture, affecting the well-being of Mexican Americans in many complex ways, including psychologically and economically. The family is the crucible for training young children in the proper behavior necessary to maintain this high level of security. Familism works hand-in-hand with the concept of educacidn in Mexican American families to influence the ways Mexican American youngsters interact with school. The ideal of “educacidn” Numerous studies have investigated concepts concerning the meaning of education for recent Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. ( Delgado-Gaitan 1988, 1990, 1992; Delgado-Gaitan & Trueba 1991; Duran & Weffer 1992; Goldenberg 1987; Reese, Gallimore, Balzano & Goldenberg 1991). Reese, Gallimore, Balzano and Goldenberg (1991) offer the most detailed analysis of Hispanic immigrant ideals of education. The Hispanic model of “educacidn” derived by Reese and colleagues (1991) is more complex than the typical Anglo American view and centers around the maintenance of proper relationships both within the family and with others. “ Educacidn” concerns �169 respect, obedience and proper behavior, which are seen as supporting academic achievement. This moral learning is seen as the foundation for academic learning by Hispanic families (Reese et al. 1991). In this model, moral learning takes place within the family. Teaching children right from wrong is seen as the most important family responsibility. The values of educacion are closely associated with family unity, or familism. The teaching of respect and obedience occurs within the family, where the child’s place is highly valued. Parents must teach children to have good manners or behavior, to respect parents and others, and the difference between right and wrong. While academic teaching and learning is seen as a distinct function of school, it is not separate from the moral development encouraged in the family, but rather part of the “good path” children should follow to become well-developed human beings. The researchers interviewed 121 recent immigrant families from Mexico and Central America who were living in Los Angeles (Reese et al. 1991). The Spanish-speaking families all had children who were beginning kindergarten. When asked about their educational aspirations for their children, 80% of the parents replied that they wanted their children to finish college. Both the desire for their children to rise in socioeconomic status �170 and the desire for them to respect their elders and have proper behavior were almost universal among these families. When asked to rank the importance of various parental responsibilities, 30% of the families in the sample choose teaching respect for parents as the most important task; another 22% choose teaching good manners or behavior. Preparing children for academic tasks was ranked considerably lower. For instance, reading to the child was ranked 10th out of 12 items. Moral development is seen as the responsibility of the family; whereas academic development is viewed as a function of the school. Hispanic immigrant parents rarely do anything specific to prepare their children for school such as teaching the alphabet and numbers during pre­ school years. For instance, at the beginning of the kindergarten year, only 25% of the families reported reading to their children. Rather, teaching children right from wrong was seen as the most important preparation for school. Virtually without exception, this was seen as the case. All the parents viewed moral upbringing as encompassing and supporting academics. Once the child begins school, however, parents assist children with school work. By the end of first grade, 91% reported helping children with L �171 homework , and 85% of the parents reported reading to their children. Even though parents believed children learn principally through example and imitation, none of the parents said they read to the child in order to teach the child to read. Rather they read to the child in order to foster interest, teach moral lessons, or entertain the child (Reese et al. 1991). Parents in this sample revealed contradictory feelings with regard to school attendance and its impact on children’s lives. Parents saw the school as a potential source of bad influence, especially in junior or senior high school. Bad influence could come not only from peers, but also from certain topics discussed in school such as AIDS, sex education, and drug abuse. Parents felt these were not suitable for the proper moral development of the children. Some discontinuities between home and school were potentially conflictive, such as when parents perceived a threat to their child’s moral development taking place at the school itself. Parents invariably made choices that strengthened morals at the expense of academics, such as taking a child out of school in order to remove the child from negative peer influence. For example, one family’s elder son began to be involved in gang activities, so they sent him to live with relatives in Mexico in order to remove him from risk. Thus contact with peers is often limited in order to ensure proper �172 behavior. Of the families who reported living in a somewhat dangerous neighborhood, 57% reported keeping their young children inside, thus isolating them from potentially harmful peer influence. Families also believed corporal punishment was sometimes necessary to reinforce obedience to moral teaching in the child, and sometimes felt confused when issues of child abuse were discussed by the school (Reese et al. 1991). The expressed values of educacidn were unrelated to the child’s school achievement in this study (Reese et al. 1991). That is, the endorsement of educacidn values was so common for families of both high achieving and low achieving children that it did not distinguish between families providing home environments that were more supportive or less supportive of literacy and academic achievement. Even though there was much variance in family practices and child achievement, articulation of the values of educacidn was uniform among all the families in the sample. Therefore, endorsement of these values alone has no impact on child development or achievement. However, these values are seen by parents as underlying formal schooling and supporting academic progress. Other studies have also revealed evidence of Mexican American families’ adherence to the concept of educacion and the valuing of academic achievement. Delgado-Gaitan (1992) found in her study of six working class �173 Mexican immigrant families that parents believed education meant being considerate of others, kind, respectful of elders and authority, and cooperative. “Buen educado” generally meant well-mannered whether or not the person so described was formally educated. The parents in her study regarded education for their children as a great privilege. All the parents verbally expressed a strong desire for their children to succeed in school. Home/School Interaction In addition to exploring the meaning of education and schooling for Mexican families, Delgado-Gaitan (1992) also examined discrete actions that occur within the family setting regarding academics. She found that family stories about parents, grandparents, and life in Mexico were used to guide children’s moral learning. Behavioral differences distinguishing families of high academic achievers and low academic achievers were also uncovered in this study by documenting parent-child interaction in the home concerning schooling and literacy acquisition activities. The six families in this study were divided into two groups: 1) those with children who were advanced readers for their grade level, 2) and those with children who were novice readers for their grade level. Delgado-Gaitan found notable differences in the ways these two groups of families interacted with their children regarding homework. In the advanced readers’ families, the parents held the �174 children responsible for homework assignments. The children did the work themselves, at their own time, with minimal supervision from parents. The parents often checked over the finished work or had the child report when the work was finished. Some of the parents helped their children organize their thinking about the work, but did not do the work for them. The family interactions of the novice readers showed marked contrast. In these families, Delgado-Gaitan found highly structured rules for doing homework. Parents often felt it was their responsibility to give the children answers to homework questions. Some parents gave children the wrong answers when the parent did not understand the work, causing frustration on both parts. Children tended to depend on their parents for answers and did not think for themselves. The parents of the novice readers often felt confused by school requests and exhibited a general sense of helplessness because they were not aware of alternatives. These parents were often unfamiliar with school concerns. This crisis message was reinforced by the parents when they did not understand enough about the school environment to make the necessary and appropriate contacts with teachers. Similarly, in her earlier study of fifth generation Chicano high school students in Colorado, Delgado-Gaitan (1988) found that the parents were unaware of the extent to which their involvement in school activities was �175 expected or necessary. The school did not provide the means by which parents could learn how to relate to the school in a way beneficial to their children, even though it acted on the premise of total family support for the students. Delgado-Gaitan determined that this conflict perpetuated the inequality of the system. Besides examining what education means to Mexican American families, Delgado-Gaitan has observed certain parent-child interactions in the home that affect educational outcomes. Some of the tendencies she found, such as the lack of parental awareness of school expectations (1988) and the behavioral tactics of the parents of novice readers (1992), may be due less to divergent cultural values between the Anglo-dominated school and Hispanic families than to social class differences. Bronfenbrenner (1993) cautions that researchers must be careful not to confound macrosystems, such as those defined by ethnicity or economic class. The difficulty of untangling ethnicity and economic status has been particularly acute for research on Mexican Americans. In general, most research on Mexican American families has concentrated on working class families or those that were only marginally or temporarily employed, such as migrant farm workers. Little research has been done to compare behaviors and attitudes of working class, middle class and upper class Mexican �176 Americans particularly as they interact with schools (see Williams 1990). Therefore, it may be instructive to examine briefly how White working class and middle class parents participate in schooling activities, compared to the working class Mexican American families in Delgado-Gaitan’s studies (1988, 1992). Lareau (1987) describes the differences between White middle class and working class parents regarding parental involvement in schooling from her qualitative study of two first grade classrooms in two different communities. She concludes that social class provides parents with unequal resources to comply with teachers’ requests for parental participation. Many of the behaviors and attitudes displayed by the working class White families in this study are similar to those found for working class Mexican American families by Delgado-Gaitan (1988, 1992). In Lareau’s study (1987), a variety of factors influenced the parents’ participation in schooling, such as the parents’ 1) academic capabilities, 2) view of the appropriate division of labor between teachers and parents, 3) information about their child’s schooling, 4) time available, 5) financial resources, and 6) other material resources available in the home. Much as the Mexican American working class parents of the novice readers in Delgado-Gaitan’s (1992) study, working class White parents expressed �177 doubts about their educational capabilities in interviews and indicated that they depended on the teacher to educate their children. Due to having had limited education themselves, working class parents often possessed weak academic skills (Lareau 1987). The parents regarded teachers as educated professional people who were charged with directing their children’s education. Like the Mexican American parents (Delgado-Gaitan 1992), this group of White parents viewed academic education as a discrete process taking place in the school. In contrast, the middle class white parents believed education was a shared responsibility between both parents and teachers (Lareau 1987). Middle class parents considered teachers as equals, neither “more” educated than themselves nor less. Working class White parents had limited information about their children’s schooling, much as the Mexican American parents in Delgado-Gaitan’s studies. Few of the white parents had social networks with other school parents, so they relied mostly on their children for information about school (Lareau 1987). Parents were timid about asking teachers specific questions and had little real interaction with teachers at open house or other functions. Middle class parents, on the other hand, had extensive information about their children’s school life. This was partly due to the quality of the interaction between the parents and the teachers. For instance, the parents knew about specific academic lessons the children had �178 received. Middle class parents asked teachers more questions than working class parents did. Middle class parents also had social networks that included other school parents, thus facilitating the exchange of information among the parents. Regarding the variables of available time and financial resources, the middle class parents had more disposable income which often provided formal socialization activities for their children such as dance lessons, tutors, soccer, etc. Working class children usually participated in more informal afterschool activities such as bike riding, watching TV, playing with neighborhood children, or caring for younger siblings. Middle class parents also tended to have more flexible work schedules that allowed them to come to the school easier during the day for parent conferences or programs. Teachers at both schools in Lareau’s (1987) study were middle class. The teachers interpreted parental involvement as a reflection of the value parents placed on education. The response to teachers’ requests for involvement by the parents was much higher at the middle class school than at the working class one. Therefore, working class parents were not thought to value education very highly. When asked, however, working class parents expressed a high value on educational success. Both working class and middle class parents wanted their children to do well in school. All saw �179 themselves as supporting and helping their children achieve success, just as the Mexican American working class parents did in Delgado-Gaitan’s studies (1988, 1992). Since the teachers made similar requests of both groups of parents, Lareau’s (1987) study does not support the thesis that the different levels of parental involvement can be traced to institutional discrimination or differentiation. She suggests however, that the “cultural capital,” or customary manner of negotiating relationships, of the working class is rarely recognized or integrated by dominant social institutions. This appears to be true for both Whites and Mexican Americans. From these studies, we can see that working class parents tend to be less aware of school expectations for parental involvement than middle class parents, no matter if they are White or Mexican American. Working class parents of both ethnicities also tend to view their own academic abilities as less than that of the teacher, whom they view as an educated professional. Therefore, researchers should use caution in attributing specific behaviors to cultural values or ethnicity without regard to socioeconomic status. In analyzing the complex patterns of human behavior, researchers should consider the interaction of the individual with multiple spheres of influence. Since, “resources, hazards, life course options, and opportunity structures” �180 (Bronfenbrenner 1993), are not equally distributed among all people, researchers need to account for multiple layers of control on human developmental outcomes. Conclusion It is clear from the cited research that family is very important for most Hispanics. Hispanic families support each other emotionally (and often materially) to a greater degree than Anglo families do. This interdependence is in marked contrast to the Anglo emphasis on independence. For many Hispanics, the purpose of obtaining an education is to take care of aging parents and other family members, versus individual achievement and independence from the family in the Anglo model (Suarez- Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995). Hispanic families tend to solve problems together and maintain their feelings of loyalty and attachment even as they accommodate to cultural changes caused by immigration and changing society (Sabogal et al. 1987). Hispanic families also tend to be more satisfied with family life than Anglos, especially adolescents who perceive a higher degree of support and security within the family than Anglo youths (Schumm et al. 1988). Hispanic grandparents play an important role in maintaining family unity and transmitting cultural values. Grandparents �181 and other elders are often accessible to Hispanic youngsters as they tend to live in close proximity to other family members (Keefe & Padilla 1987). Close reliance on family members can have a positive or negative effect on socializing children for schooling. For instance, if parents, grandparents or other family elders had negative experiences with school (such as being punished for speaking Spanish as reported by Stoddard in 1973), they might conceivably transmit apprehension or even dislike and distrust of school to the child. Particularly since Mexican American families are both emotionally and geographically closer than Anglo families, this transmission could have great impact. Negative experience might also be magnified over time, especially if successive generations of the family continued to experience repressive, albeit changing, conditions in school (see Chapters Two and Three). Even though Mexican American families value education greatly, if their real lived experience with school is perceived by them as disrespectful or even harmful, the message given to children by elders may be one of wariness and suspicion. The values of educacion-respect, family unity, good manners, and knowledge of right and wrong—correspond to LeVine and White’s (1986) agrarian model of educational development discussed in Chapter Two. Many families in the study by Reese et al. (1991) were changing, and constructing a �182 cultural pattern that fuses elements of the agrarian model with the academic occupational model. Some families were adopting new practices suggested by teachers or modeled by schoolwork, such as providing more reading and writing materials for pre-schoolers in the home. But at the same time, parents were not leaving behind the values of the agrarian model. Even though most new immigrant families want more educational and occupational opportunities for their children, the conditions under which many families live serve to strengthen the agrarian values of family unity and filial respect. For instance, emotional and material support given by families to each other in low economic circumstances can make the difference between physical and emotional survival or disaster. Reese et al. (1991) concluded that it is possible that Hispanic families’ adherence to beliefs encompassed by the concept of educacidn may maximize long-term outcomes at the expense of short-term opportunities. Rather than being a problem, continued adherence to the traditional agrarian-origin values may in fact be fused with new ideas and practices that have long­ term protective and adaptive values. Values of education are complimentary to the American school system in many ways. For instance, these values foster respect for teachers and the educational endeavor, and can produce �183 well-mannered interaction among students and teachers. Hispanic families see these values as underlying formal academic achievement. The concept of educacion is useful in maintaining strong family alliances and cooperation, such as found in the ideal of familism. It can also be used to validate protection of the child from negative peer influence or explicit information that parents feel corrupts the moral development of the child. Thus, the concept of educacion can contribute both to the continuities that Mexican American families experience with American public schools, such as strong motivation for academic success, as well as the discontinuities, such as a willingness to sacrifice schooling when moral growth is jeopardized (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995). Hispanic families tend to believe that the purpose of education is to prepare the child to support his or her family, including aging parents (SuarezOrozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995). The Hispanic concept of educacion includes not only academic achievement in school, but also the proper moral development of the child, which encompasses respect for elders (Reese et al. 1991). The two concepts of familism and educacion work together to maintain strong family relationships and continuity of economic and emotional support for family members. Both concepts reinforce each other, j �184 particularly regarding the child’s function in the family, and the roles both children and parents play. This chapter has considered two major Mexican American cultural values that influence schooling. The values of familism and educacidn influence choices about school for today’s Mexican American children, but are not the only factors that do so. Both cultural values and economic resources (such as described by Lareau, 1987) can affect educational outcomes. Therefore, researchers must be mindful of the differences in behavior that can be attributed to cultural beliefs such as familism and educacidn versus those that may be a reflection of social class such as limited material resources and time restrictions. Delgado-Gaitan (1988, 1992) and Lareau (1987) have examined home/school interactions for Mexican American and White families. The behaviors connecting two proximal, or face-to-face settings, such as home and school, are vital to our understanding of how people both react to and influence their environments. The settings of home and school interact to both encourage and sometimes discourage academic achievement by Mexican Americans. �185 As the parents of the novice readers in Delgado-Gaitan’s (1992) study illustrate, Mexican immigrant parents with little experience in academic matters may nonetheless feel a great responsibility to help their children with homework or other school activities. This is partly the result of the overwhelming belief in education and the importance of doing the right thing, or proper behavior. It is also a consequence of familistic reliance on other family members for advice and help. As these parents show us, Mexican immigrant families help each other to the best of their ability. They rely on the family to solve problems and often do not seek outside advice from neighbors or teachers. How this may change with successive generations of residence in the U.S. is not entirely known, but the Suarez- Orozcos (1995) suggest that some change does occur. More research with elderly Mexican Americans is needed to determine the content of the cultural transmission that occurs between older generations and today’s children. Direct observation of interaction between grandparents and grandchildren, as well as between parents and children, is needed. There is a particular need to learn more about how Mexican American children are socialized within the family regarding school. More research on the expectations for their children of Mexican American families who have been in the U.S. for many generations regarding school and occupational status is overdue. 1 �186 How might the memory of academic poverty such as described in Chapters Two and Three be transmitted from one generation to another? Does it influence today’s schooling outcomes? Understandings about social processes, such as schooling, are most often communicated to children in families by conversation, either directly to children or between adults but overheard by children, or by non-verbal expression (Leichter 1974). The finding by Delgado-Gaitan that stories about family elders are used to guide the moral development of Mexican immigrant children may have particular impact concerning the transmission of attitudes about education. If families who have resided in the U.S. for several generations communicate apprehension or lack of understanding about how the school operates, what the teachers and administrators expect, or why certain behaviors such as parental involvement or reading to young children are encouraged, then children may fail to build confident relationships with school. Because of the strong reliance on family members for emotional support, advice, and role modeling in Mexican American families, however, the possibility exists for the magnification of certain experiences, particularly if they re-occur (even in a modified form) in succeeding generations. For instance, if a child who was full of positive expectations about going to school, experienced bullying or name-calling by other children or hostility �187 from authorities as described in Chapter Two, that child might have his or her idealism shattered and develop apprehension towards school. If this same child migrated (as most Mexican children in Texas did in the early part of this century), and thus attended several schools in one year, facing the same situation over and over again, apprehension could turn to fear or avoidance, even though attending school in the ideal was an avowed goal of both the child and the family. That apprehension or avoidance could be communicated in various subtle and outright ways to the next generation when they also begin to go to school. Researchers must also be aware that past experience of family elders might be mitigated in certain ways, and therefore a transformed expression of that experience could be transmitted to children. Questions concerning the socialization of Mexican American children within their families for schooling experiences need to be more fully explored in order to understand both the strengths children have to draw upon and the disequalibrium they may feel when faced with contradictory value systems (Goldenberg & Gallimore 1995). We also need to know what school meant in the ideal to Mexican American grandparents and parents versus how it was experienced in real terms. Did this create a discontinuity where high expectations not only were not met, but also where children were actually in physical or psychological danger, as recounted in Chapter Two? If so, how did parents react? These questions i J �■I 188 could be keys to understanding aspects of Mexican American school avoidance and lack of achievement today. The next chapter will explore some of these questions with six Mexican American families who have lived in Texas and experienced Texas public schools for many generations. �— I - k �189 Chapter Five Families and School: Four Generations of Mexican American Experiences In this chapter, six Mexican American families who have lived near Metz Elementary School in Austin, Texas for 20 to 45 years each discuss their families’ schooling experiences over four generations. Their experiences are similiar to those of many other Mexican families who came to Texas. They typifiy not only the agrarian background of many Mexican Americans, but also demonstrate the transition from rural to urban life. For most of these families, dramatic shifts in residence, language, occupation, and education occurred between the grandparents and parents generations, although for some these changes began earlier. The data are organized in two ways. First, all six families speak about various subjects such as racial discrimination, leaving school, traditional values, or standardized testing to give us a glimpse of their present attitudes and concerns. Secondly, the data are arranged by family lineage in order to show their experiences as a family unit over time. This allows us to understand the process by which historical events in the lives of the elder generation continue to influence decisions for today’s children. �190 I interviewed six English-speaking Mexican American families in 1995 and 1996. Four of the families account for 58 children who have attended Metz Elementary School at one time or another since 1917. One family has had four generations attend Metz. Two other families have had three generatinno attend the school. One family has had both parents and children attem school. Two other families interviewed did not have any family members attend Metz, but they went to other nearby schools in East Austin. They are included here to give a fuller picture of the neighborhood schooling experience. The names of all these families have been changed for this study. I chose fictitious names to attach to interview comments for the purposes of narrative clarity and protection of privacy of actual families. Let me introduce them now. The Garcia family has had three generations attend Metz Elementary School. The grandparents have lived in the same house about a block away from the school for almost 45 years. The grandmother’s elder sister attended Metz as a second-grader in 1917. The Lopez family lives a few doors down from the Garcias. They have been friends with the Garcias for 40 years. The Guerrero family lives three blocks on the other side of the school. The home they have lived in for 37 years appears to date �191 from around the turn of the century, with 14-foot-high ceilings and 12-inch­ wide molding around the doors and windows. It has been recently remodeled with central air and heat, a new roof, and so forth, but the original house is still apparent. One of the original Austin city street lights or “moonlight towers,” erected in 1895, stands on the corner of the block. The Hinojosa family lives about four blocks east of the Guerrero’s, on another street. Four generations of their family have attended Metz. The grandparents have lived in the same home for 27 years. One of their daughters who lives next door is the mother of a child presently attending the school. Another daughter lives across the street. The two families who did not attend Metz have nonetheless lived in this neighborhood for 30 years or more. One of these parents, Mr. Lozano, attended a parochial school in East Austin which is no longer in operation, much to his disappointment. He laments that he would much prefer to send his own sons to a school like he attended, rather than public school. The other parent, Ms. Valdez, attended Palm Elementary School, originally constructed in 1884 and located at the corner of First Street (now Cesar Chavez Avenue) and East Avenue (now Interstate Highway 35). She walked across the pedestrian bridge of what became IH-35 every day to and from school. Her daughter attended Sanchez Elementary School, about seven blocks west of Metz. �190 I interviewed six English-speaking Mexican American families in 1995 and 1996. Four of the families account for 58 children who have attended Metz Elementary School at one time or another since 1917. One family has had four generations attend Metz. Two other families have had three genera tin attend the school. One family has had both parents and children attem school. Two other families interviewed did not have any family members attend Metz, but they went to other nearby schools in East Austin. They are included here to give a fuller picture of the neighborhood schooling experience. The names of all these families have been changed for this study. I chose fictitious names to attach to interview comments for the purposes of narrative clarity and protection of privacy of actual families. Let me introduce them now. The Garcia family has had three generations attend Metz Elementary School. The grandparents have lived in the same house about a block away from the school for almost 45 years. The grandmother’s elder sister attended Metz as a second-grader in 1917. The Lopez family lives a few doors down from the Garcias. They have been friends with the Garcias for 40 years. The Guerrero family lives three blocks on the other side of the school. The home they have lived in for 37 years appears to date �192 The interviews with the four families who have attended Metz all occurred in the respective family homes. On each of these occasions, the grandmother and the parent, as well as children and often other family members, were present. The two families who did not attend Metz were interviewed in the office of one of the Catholic churches that serve the neighborhood. In these instances, only the parent was present, and no other family members. All six families were highly involved either in the school or in the church at the time of the interviews. These families were all recommended to me by these local institutions (see Chapter One), and were basically self-selected for this study because of their community involvement. Information was gathered about four generations of each family. The generation that is currently the parents of school-age children is referred to as the parents. They range in age from their mid-30s to late 40s. The generation that is currently the grandparents of school-age children is called the grandparents. They are all in their early 70s to early 80s. The greatgrandparents are the parents of today’s grandparents, none of whom are living in 1996. The generation presently ages 4 to 25 are called the children. In one instance, one of the current parents is also the grandmother of a fouryear-old who attends Metz pre-kindergarten. She is considered a parent only �193 (and not a grandmother) for the purposes of this study because of the age difference between her and the other grandparents. The socioeconomic status of the families ranges from lower middle class to working class, according to the educational and occupational status of today’s parents. Five of them currently work for a city, state, or federal agency, or have done so in the past two years. Most have held the same job for 10 years or more. One family owns their own small business. One parent recently quit a state job which she had held for 10 years to become a church secretary. About two years ago, another lost a job as a bank teller supervisor, which he had held for 16 years. He started work for a state agency sometime thereafter. One commonality of these families is the achievement by today’s parents of a secure, steady income. This is in contrast to the grandparents, who may indeed have had the same desire, but did not have the means or opportunity to achieve it. In the grandparents’ generation, two families were migrant farm workers. In two others, the husband worked as an unskilled laborer outside the home and the wife maintained the home and children. In the other two, the wives worked in the Metz school cafeteria for 20 years or more each, beginning after their youngest child started school. One of their ■ I �____3 194 husbands was a carpenter, and one sold newspapers everyday on Congress Avenue in Austin as a “newsboy” his entire life. “My house is built with dimes-just dimes, dimes, dimes,” cried Grandmother Guerrero, this man’s elderly wife. “We put $1000.00 down on this house in the early 1950s, otherwise the whole thing was paid for in dimes,” she explains. Indeed, newspaper can be seen underneath a cracked and peeling ceiling patch in one of the rooms. Increased job security for today’s families has come no doubt as a result of increased education, particularly in the parents’ generation. Three of today’s mothers went to school through the tenth or eleventh grade at which point they either became pregnant and left school, or left for other reasons. One later obtained a Graduate Equivalent Diploma (GED). One mother graduated from high school and attended college for two semesters. The other two parents are high school graduates. All attended public high school in Austin during the 1970s or late 1960s. The highest level of education attained in the grandparents generation, however, was ninth grade. One grandmother had only two years of schooling. Two grandmothers completed sixth grade before leaving school. All others in this generation fall between two to nine years of schooling. In the great-grandparents generation, none ever went to school at all, according to the recollection of present day family �195 members. The fact that all but two of today’s parents have completed high school (or the GED) shows a dramatic increase in schooling attainment over three generations for these families (see Figure 22). A range of academic success is evident in the generations of both today’s parents and children. Taken as a whole, however, these six families have met more success than failure in school in terms of grades, graduation, and freedom from negative peer influence. “I’m very proud that none of my children or grandchildren were ever involved in gangs or drugs,” commented Grandmother Lopez. The Lopez family has 12 children in today’s young generation, 11 of whom have graduated from high school, and several who are presently enrolled in college. The youngest one is still in middle school. In the Hinojosa family, 11 siblings are in the parents’ generation, and four graduated from high school or attained a GED. One of these four clearly demonstrated academic excellence by perfect attendance for 12 years, for which he was honored, and continual straight As. He did not go on to college, but, for various reasons, went to work in the family-owned auto parts shop instead. In this same family, one member of the children’s generation is imitating his uncle by maintaining perfect attendance from pre-K through sixth grade. Several more of today’s children in the Hinojosa family have won awards for spelling, geography, athletics or other school �196 endeavors. As these examples show, even though not everyone in the parents’ generation completed high school, those that did provided strong role models for their own children, and their nieces and nephews. A likely factor in this positive experience is that all the members of these families still live in Austin and see each other frequently. An example of less schooling attainment with a nonetheless relatively positive outcome is the mother in another family who dropped out of high school when she became pregnant. Previously she had failed second grade. Even though her own school experience was cut short, she later became extremely involved in community activism and the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). Her daughter is currently doing well in school and is involved in many extracurricular activities. This example also demonstrates the power of role models because the woman’s mother, whom she still sees everyday, has been a community activist in one way or another for over 60 years and has passed this quality on to her adult daughter. The great-grandparents of four of the families immigrated to Texas sometime during the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920). While most of the grandparents and parents I interviewed did not know the exact place in Mexico their family came from, they did know the time period. One family �197 has been on the Austin census since 1875, making them some of the earliest settlers of Mexican heritage in the city. One family had no information on their great-grandparents at all. Information was collected about one set of grandparents for each family. For four families, both grandparents were born and raised in Austin. In two other families, one grandparent was born in Mexico and one was born within 40 miles of Austin. Five of the grandmothers spoke Spanish only until they went to school, where they had an “immersion” experience that was often difficult. One grandmother spoke English as a child at home before she entered school. Family Stories of Discrimination Many of the families in this sample related distinctly painful memories of prejudice and discrimination by Whites. For instance the greatgrandparents of the Garcia family were married in the Catholic cathedral in downtown Austin prior to World War I. But when their daughter was born, she was baptized in Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in East Austin in 1917 “because the Anglos didn’t want the Mexicans” attending the cathedral any longer. Our Lady of Guadalupe was established in 1907 to serve the growing Mexican heritage population in East Austin. �1 198 Two of the grandmothers recall being embarrassed to eat their lunch of tortillas and beans when they went to elementary school in Austin in the 1920s and 1930s. Anglo children and even teachers would tease them about this traditional food. Both these grandmothers recount how they would find a corner and eat with their backs to the rest of the room or find some other place to hide while they ate. “It’s funny now,” said Grandmother Lopez, “because now Anglos probably eat more tortillas than we do.” Mr. Lozano describes the stories his parents told him about going to school in Texas in the 1920s and 1930s. They were migrant farm workers, and occasionally attended school with White children. They were made to sit at the back of the room, however. They were often belittled and harassed by the Anglo children. They were poor and did not have good clothes for school. They had a “rough time,” in his words. “That may have had something to do with them not finishing [school],” he added thoughtfully. He says there is the perception of a “stigma against Hispanics that they can’t make it. But that’s not true,” he added. Ms. Valdez, the parent of one of today’s school children, vividly remembers several incidents when she was going to school in Austin. Once when she �199 was in elementary school in the 1960s, her classroom got a new overhead projector. The teacher was pleased to get this new equipment and was very excited about it. When it came however, the teacher noticed it was inscribed with the name of another predominately Anglo school across town. They had received “hand-me-down” equipment, again. Ms. Valdez remembers the anger and disappointment her teacher expressed over this event. Later when she was in high school in the 1970s, Ms. Valdez had an Anglo teacher whom she “hated.” There were only five Mexican Americans in the class, and they “were not up to par,” in her estimation. Every morning this particular teacher would mock her saying, “if you’ll bring me some breakfast tacos, I’ll give you an A+.” She usually just ignored him, but one day she had had enough. ‘When hell freezes over,” she retorted angrily. She was sent to the principal for this remark and made to suffer the consequences of “talking back.” Her voice raises, her fist clenches, and her face looks flush as she tells this story today, twenty years later. Uncle Garcia also talked about his experience of discrimination from other people of Mexican heritage. “Some people play the game of ‘I’m more Mexican than you’,” he said. “Just because I’m not a Spanish-speaking �200 Catholic doesn’t mean I’m any less Mexican.” Discrimination is not a oneway street; for people who are bicultural, it can be felt from both directions. In this small sample, we see three generations of disturbing memories, memories of not being wanted, accepted, or respected. Memories of intense humiliation over such mundane things as a school lunch. Today when educators speak of “having high expectations for all students,” they need to remember we are starting with children whose families carry forth years of negative recollections connected with school or other major institutions. It could well be that having high expectations is simply not enough; conceivably educators must find ways to honor or validate the parents and grandparents of today’s children also, in order to ameliorate decades of negativity. The Language Shift: “like being on Mars” Five of the families have experienced a language shift from Spanish to English in recent generations. A Mexican American friend once described her first day in an English-only first grade as a traumatic experience, “like being on Mars.” All but one of the grandmothers in this sample had a similar experience as they were monolingual Spanish speakers before starting school, which was conducted in English only. Grandmother �201 Guerrero said, “You couldn’t speak Spanish at all or you’d get it. It was kinda hard for me. One time I remember I couldn’t even go to the restroom because I didn’t know how to ask the teacher.” Two generations in two different families recall Spanish-speaking children being punished in school for “forgetting” and speaking their native tongue. In the parents’ generation, Ms. Valdez remembers a little boy in her class who spoke only Spanish. One day he did not understand, and leaned over to whisper to her in Spanish. She answered him back. The teacher heard them and whacked the little boy on the hand. Grandmother Hinojosa says she does not remember English being hard for her personally when she attended Metz from the first through the third grades in 1933-1936, but that she does remember other children being punished for speaking Spanish. Ms. Lopez, another of the parents, found it difficult to make the switch to English in first grade. “I was always getting into trouble and getting spanked in first and second grade for speaking Spanish.” This was at Metz Elementary School in the 1950s. She vowed her children would not have it so hard. She raised them to speak only English at home. They know only a few words of Spanish today, and sometimes they are teased by Hispanics and Anglos alike because they are not fluent Spanish speakers! This is also the �202 situation in the Hinojosa family today. When the present children in the family try to speak Spanish, “it is not correct,” says their grandmother. “We can’t understand them.” Suggesting the importance of mixed language learning environments, Ms. Lopez says she did not really learn to speak English in the classroom, but from playing with the Anglo children in the Metz neighborhood in the 1950s. By the third or fourth grade the same little girl who was always getting into trouble in the first two years of school for speaking Spanish had become an avid English reader, however. She particularly remembers the Metz school librarian who encouraged her to read all the new books that came in. She recalls that her teachers were constantly encouraging her to read. “I finally read just about every book in the library,” Ms. Lopez said. Grandmothers ’ Stories of Leaving School “ You’re not gonna be a teacher, you’re not gonna be President of the United States. You don’t have to go to school,” Grandmother Guerrero vividly recalls her mother saying many times. “I’m not saying I would be a teacher now,” Grandmother Guerrero says, “but I would know more [if I had continued in school]. Now, all I know how to teach is making tamales and i tortillas.” �203 Schooling attainment for the grandmothers ranged from just two years of elementary school in Grandmother Guerrero’s case, to eight years, or all the way through junior high. Two grandmothers had completed sixth grade; one had finished fourth grade; and one, third grade. Three of these women talked about what happened when they left school. Grandmother Guerrero recounts that her mother did not believe in sending children to school at a young age. However, Grandmother Guerrero did start first grade at about age seven at Bickler Elementary School in Austin in the 1920s, a school primarily for children of Mexican heritage. As a child, she had asthma, and often could not go to school because of illness. (Austin is infamous among allergy sufferers and others with respiratory problems as a difficult place to live.) Grandmother Guerrero’s public school education ended after second grade, in the mid-1920s. She later went to night school a little while as a teenager. She remembers clearly that her mother used to say, “As long as you can write your name, that’s enough.” Today, she wishes she had had more opportunity to go to school. “Maybe then I could have made change at the tamale booth at the school carnival,” she said. “My husband always had to do that part.” �204 Grandmother Garcia was born in Austin, but was raised in a small cotton­ farming community about 35 miles north of the capital city. She started first grade at age 10 in a segregated school mainly attended by Spanish-speaking children. She was already fluent in both English and Spanish, and remembers playing after school not only with Spanish-speaking children, but also with English-speaking Blacks in the neighborhood. The school itself had old, worn books, no playground, no cafeteria, and no music. She went to this school until she completed the sixth grade, at age 16. She was then hired by the school as the caretaker. She swept the school, built the fire in the stove on cold days, and cooked soup for the children during the Depression. She was allowed to take home any left-over soup each day. In her later life after her family moved back to Austin, she worked in the Metz cafeteria for many years. She also became a life-member of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and a devoted school volunteer at Metz. She was honored for this work by the Austin Independent School District (A.I.S.D.) in 1991. Currently at age 78, she serves on the A.I.S.D. superintendent’s school improvement steering committee. Grandmother Hinojosa went to school through the sixth grade, the first three years at Metz and the last three years at Zavala Elementary after it �205 opened in 1936. “ Reading was my favorite subject,” she said. “I went to a spelling bee on the radio once...but I didn’t win. I loved going to school.” After sixth grade, however, she had to quit school to help support her family. She took a job as a maid for an Anglo family in Austin, washing clothes on a scrub board in the sink. “I cried and cried for days when I had to quit school. I didn’t want to quit, but it was a matter of some of us not having enough to eat if I didn’t.” Her eyes begin to tear even today as she talks about this incident. “This was my sacrifice for my family,” she adds. She made $2.50 per week, and gave $2.00 each week to her family. She kept the other 50 cents. From that she had enough to buy a new dress every now and then, and go to the movies at the Paramount Theater on Congress Avenue for 10 cents on Sunday afternoons. This was during the Depression and times were hard. She says all the children in the family had to work to get enough to eat. Even the youngest ones shelled pecans to earn money. The family also made Mexican candy to sell and sold watermelons in the summer. “Everybody pitched in,” she recalls. Traditional Family Values: Watchfulness, Faith and Respect 1 �206 When I asked the families how they kept their children from being influenced by peers involved in drugs and gangs, their answers revealed the traditional values of family and faith. “Parents are the key,” Mr. Lozano commented. “It is hard today because both parents must work. No one is home with the kids. When I was growing up, my parents were always there with me.” Careful Vigilance Over Children One of the strongest themes to arise in the interview data is that of keeping close watch over children. Five of the families discussed how they monitored their children’s activities and whereabouts. Grandmother Guerrero said “I never liked my kids to leave home to play, not even next door. [They could play] only here in my yard.” Her husband walked the seven children the three blocks to school every morning at Metz, and walked them home every afternoon. “He was lucky,” Grandmother Guerrero says, “because his boss would let him take off work to do that.” Her daughter is the parent of two young children currently at Metz. Her daughter says parents should “know your children’s friends, meet their �207 parents. Some parents today don't know where their kids are. They should check to make sure they are in school. Parents don’t tell them how to behave.” Daughter Guerrero knows everybody in the Metz neighborhood. She listed off every house on the block with who lived there and for how long, which houses are for sale or vacant for some reason, which ones are rental properties. She has known most of the neighbors her entire life, almost 40 years. According to her, youngsters involved in gangs or other anti-social activities come from families with long histories of problems. She knows the family history of most of the people in the Metz area, which families have had someone in jail, who has been involved in drugs, who has a one-parent home. “I keep my kids away from them. Everybody watches each other,” she states. Ms. Hinojosa says “we weren’t allowed to go anywhere as kids. It’s the customs,” she said as she turned to her mother across the dining table, “Mom you were raised the old way, from the old Mexican country. My kids can come here [Grandmother Hinojosa’s house] or my sister’s [across the street]. They are not allowed to go anywhere else without me. Like when my kids serve at church, I’m there. The devil can get in anywhere, even in church, so I’m there. I watch my kids like a hawk.” �208 “Parents are all at work now. [Some families] have no babysitters. Kids are worth more than that. Some parents don’t know who lives in this house or that house, what kind of people they are. How can they trust [that their kids are OK]?” Ms. Hinojosa asked. Ms. Lopez echoed this theme of watchfulness when she said “I have always been there for my kids. Parents have to support their kids. We were always there. We were there when they got home from school. The kids had to come home first and report to us before they could go out to play.” Ms. Valdez says parents should pay more attention to their children’s friends. “Get more involved. Know your kids’ friends and their parents. Get their phone numbers and talk to them.” She calls her daughter’s friends’ parents frequently. ‘When somebody says there is going to be a party, we check it out. We are on the phone in a minute.” Ms. Valdez is a single parent, but “I’ve always had lots of support from my parents. We are a close-knit family.” She describes her communication with her daughter as “always open and frank. We always talk about the consequences of our actions.” She continues, “My daughter has been taught strong values at home. I tell her ‘my job is to feed you and clothe you; your job is to go to school and learn.’ Her elementary school principal used to say the same thing to kids every morning.” 1 �208 “Parents are all at work now. [Some families] have no babysitters. K worth more than that. Some parents don’t know who lives in this house or that house, what kind of people they are. How can they trust [that their kids are OK]?” Ms. Hinojosa asked. Ms. Lopez echoed this theme of watchfulness when she said “I have always been there for my kids. Parents have to support their kids. We were always there. We were there when they got home from school. The kids had to come home first and report to us before they could go out to play.” Ms. Valdez says parents should pay more attention to their children’s friends. “Get more involved. Know your kids’ friends and their parents. Get their phone numbers and talk to them.” She calls her daughter’s friends’ parents frequently. “When somebody says there is going to be a party, we check it out. We are on the phone in a minute.” Ms. Valdez is a single parent, but “I’ve always had lots of support from my parents. We are a close-knit family.” She describes her communication with her daughter as “always open and frank. We always talk about the consequences of our actions.” She continues, ‘My daughter has been taught strong values at home. I tell her ‘my job is to feed you and clothe you; your job is to go to school and learn.’ Her elementary school principal used to say the same thing to kids every morning.” 'r- �209 Ms. Valdez remembers her own upbringing with her nine brothers and sisters. “My parents gave us a strong foundation. They didn’t believe in spanking, but always showed us children by example and talked to us. Mom and Dad said ‘think’ and ‘don’t hurt anybody’s feelings.’ They taught us to work together. They taught us real good.” Not all elements of Mexican American family life are seen as positive however. One parent comments that straight talk about tough issues is sometimes absent. “Hispanic people have the idea that you shouldn’t talk about problems like teenage pregnancy, drugs, or alcohol, but just keep them hidden. Like if it’s not spoken, it will go away or it’s not real. There is a failure in the family to address these issues.” The grandmother chimes in to describe her own war on “sniffing glue, gold and silver paint, and correction fluid. I saw the kids doing it, so I called the cops,” she said. Two social workers at Metz Elementary School told me the same thing about the lack of family discussion on these issues in separate interviews over a year apart. The Concept of Respect The issue of respect was also a prominent theme in the family interviews. Different families expressed various facets of this complex concept. As we �210 sat in his living room drinking ice tea on a warm afternoon, Uncle Garcia was talking about kids today writing graffiti, especially on school buildings. “When they do that, they’re not showing respect,” he declared emphatically. I asked the Garcia family if respect was the same in the Hispanic community today as it was 50 years ago. “No way,” replied Grandmother Garcia. When she was a child, she related, all the children would come in every morning and kiss their grandfather’s hand and say “Buenos dias.” Her father stopped this custom, and she does not mind things being less formal, she said. “But children today show no respect at all,” she continued. For example in the old days when someone died, no music was allowed in the house at all. Grandfather would wrap up the Victrola so no one could play it. Also her father had a special place at the dining table where no one else ever dared sit. “People have lost the idea of respect. They have lost the trappings of respect,” Uncle Garcia chimed in. He tells about catching the bus in front of Cristo Rey Church. Many people make the sign of the cross as they go by. An old man took his hat off and held it over his heart as he walked by. “That’s showing respect-really doing it out of respect for the church.” But Uncle Garcia is afraid some people do it “to ward off the evil eye.” He saw a b �211 Black youth make the sign of the cross outside the church one day, and he wondered if that was really respect at all. His unspoken message was that this was a cultural aberration, demonstrating that anyone can make assumptions based on race rather than actual behavior. Ms. Garcia, the parent of a child currently in junior high who went to Metz two years ago, then told the story of a fight between several mothers outside Metz Elementary School in 1993. Several of the women shouted abusive language and shook their fists at each other in a threatening manner. At least one of the mothers had been in jail at some time before this incident, according to Ms. Garcia. Many children witnessed this commotion, as it happened just after a PTA meeting let out. Ms. Garcia ran for the principal to stop it, and asked for the A.I.S.D. campus police to be called. “But nothing happened,” she said in disgust. She is disgusted by the mothers involved in the fracas, and by the principal “who did nothing,” she says. “I taught my children to respect the teachers, but it’s hard when this kind of thing occurs.” Grandmother Guerrero taught her children respect, she says, “like don’t take things that don’t belong to you.” This element of respect was repeated in the stories of two other families in the sample. Grandmother Garcia told �212 the story of her father, who was a trash collector for many years. He had a wagon and mule, and everyday he collected refuse from the downtown merchants. Several times he found things of obvious value in the trash, which he promptly returned. Once he found a whole box of new dresses that had been thrown out by mistake from the dress shop. “We begged him to let us keep them,” said Grandmother Garcia, “but he said ‘no, we must return them. You don’t keep what isn’t yours’.” The thankful merchant rewarded him with new dresses for all the girls, however. “Honesty pays,” she concluded. Ms. Valdez told a similar story about her eight-year-old brother who took something from a store without paying for it. “Daddy took all us younger children and made my brother give back the item and apologize to the store manager. He took all of us so we would learn from this example.” Faith and Church Several families also attributed religious faith to successful child-rearing. “My faith has been very important in seeing me through,” said Ms. Valdez. When asked how to protect her children from negative influences in society, Ms. Hinojosa replied without hesitation, “raise your kids in the church. Offer them to the Sacred Hearts of Mary and Jesus. There’s nothing you can do without Him. You have to give children moral support [because] they �213 depend on you and on God. If you plant the seed, it will grow.” Both these families are heavily involved in the church as catechists or lay helpers at communion. Grandmother Guerrero saw her involvement with the church and involvement with school as part of the same activity. Years ago the priest asked her if religious education classes could be held in her house for the children who went to Metz after school was out in the afternoon. “I always said ‘yes’. I say if there is anything you need, call me.” That is how after-school catechism classes started being held at her home 11 years ago. “Sometimes we would have 40 or 50 kids here,” she related. “It sometimes got to be too much.” But there, hanging on a doorknob, were a dozen or so plastic rosaries with little crosses. Her caring and watchfulness over children has not ended. External Involvement with School: PTA Three of the families have exhibited strong external school involvement by their activity in the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) of Metz and Sanchez Elementaries. One grandmother is a life member of the PTA; one parent is a former president of the Metz PTA; another parent used to be president of the PTA at Sanchez. A third parent has worked as a school bus driver and has been a PTA member at Metz. She stresses the importance of supporting children in their extracurricular activities. “We were always there at the �214 football games,” she said. “I never had to worry about my kids getting in trouble, because they were always so busy being something in school,” she added insightfully. All of the families feel involved, even if they are not in the PTA. Two of the grandmothers continue to volunteer at Metz even though they are in their late 70s. One uncle also volunteers regularly in the library or decorating the display cases. Several other parents and grandparents have volunteered in the past to help with school carnivals and special events. They all try to attend school functions when possible. Several parents commented that they are not in the PTA because they have “always worked.” “I didn’t have a car until last year,” one mother explained. “I worked downtown and took the bus. So I got wet when it rained, or had ice in my hair when it was cold. I couldn’t go to PTA.” Several of the grandmothers say they used to know their children’s teachers and visit their classrooms occasionally, but only one of the grandmothers was active in the PTA when her children were growing up. The two parents whose children did not attend Metz mentioned having close contact with their children’s teachers. One received weekly notes from the teacher as a regular school practice. The other regularly called the teacher herself for information. Another way two parents feel involved with their �215 children’s schooling is by having lunch with their children. “I try to have lunch with my boys once a month or so,” says Mr. Lozano. “I just drop in to their classroom. They never know when I’m coming, so it’s a real surprise.” Internal School Involvement: Homework Besides involvement with the school outside the home, parents contributed to academic learning by emphasizing school activities within the home. “We help our kids with homework around the kitchen table every night,” says Mr. Lozano. “One boy is accelerated, but one needs more help. Sometimes they have a problem, especially in math, that I can’t help them with. Parents don’t know the new methods that are being taught in school, so they can’t help their children as much.” Ms. Hinojosa echoed this comment. “I always sit down with them to do homework. But one time in math, I showed my son another way to do it, and he said ‘that’s not how I learned in class.’ I said, well, this is a way you can check your work. Later on, the teacher showed them my way too.” “My daughter is one of the lucky ones,” says Ms. Valdez. “But I never hesitated to call the teacher when she needed it. I even called one of them last six weeks to check on things,” she added. When her daughter was �216 younger, Ms. Valdez called the teacher every Friday to find out about homework due on Monday. Several of the grandparents also helped their children with homework when they were young. “I couldn’t help them,” said Grandmother Guerrero, “but my husband always did.” Grandfather Guerrero had gone through the ninth grade and thus was better able to help. Ms. Hinojosa remembers that her older siblings always helped her with homework. “The older ones were smarter, and they helped the younger ones,” she said. When asked what today’s parents could do to help their children do well in school, Grandmother Garcia replied, “see that they go to school everyday and do their homework. Take an interest in school.” Dissatisfaction: Making School Positive When the parents were asked what sort of changes they would like to see in public schools today, one parent commented, “we have to make school a positive. If parents don’t view school as a positive place to be, they’re gonna pass that on to their kids.” Four other parents offered answers ranging from bureaucratic and testing issues to home and school environments. Violence in the schools and neighborhoods was an important issue for two parents. Ms. Guerrero says, “it’s so sad there is so much violence today. Sad that �217 kids have to be searched before they go into school [high school]. They can’t even carry their backpacks. There are lots of rules about how to dress because they can’t wear gang colors. There are even security guards.” Environmental Concerns Ms. Hinojosa added “it’s different now. There used to be no marijuana. The talk in the neighborhood is that it is the new immigrants from Mexico who are bringing in the drugs. In the ‘old barrio’, around Zavala, there are more drugs. Over here [on the south side of Cesar Chavez Avenue], it is not as bad. Things used to be different,” she said, “we could walk the streets at night.” She continued, pointing, “two blocks that way and three blocks that way, that’s where the killings are. But this area around the church is protected. ” As I left her house that afternoon, the strong aroma of marijuana drifted through the air. Five young men were sitting on the front porch of a house across the street, passing the time. I noticed that Ms. Hinojosa’s house had ornate bars over the windows and doors, although very few other houses on the block did. “It is a big mistake not knowing the students backgrounds,” adds Ms. Valdez. She suggests that teachers, administrators, and students visit other schools and neighborhoods in different parts of town and learn more about �218 them. In her opinion, teachers “have to understand where kids are coming from, to understand their situation. People should “be aware of other people’s feelings and environment.” In other words, school personnel, parents, and students need to understand the social context of today’s children in order to understand their needs and provide appropriate learning conditions and activities. “Schools are not preparing kids for the real world,” Ms. Valdez continues. “They need to learn how to get along with people. They need leadership skills. Interaction with all kinds of people is also important.” Testing Concerns Three parents expressed dismay over standarized achievement and exit tests such as the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). Mr. Lozano, who went to parochial school, dislikes the whole public school concept: “everything is very TAAS oriented. Everything is geared to that. It’s all about money. The ones who need help get lost. They are passed on [promoted to the next grade] even without the skills.” He says he has two friends who graduated from Austin High School with him who “can only read at the 8th grade level. That shouldn’t be.” He would like to see school “geared towards the kids instead of TAAS.” He claims “it has a lot to do with being Hispanic and the minority part. There is emphasis [by the school �219 district] to get them to this point [promoted to the next grade] even if they don’t have the skills.” “There are some very good teachers,” he continues, “but sometimes their hands are tied. They try to do the best they can with what they have.” The fact that there is no longer a parochial school in East Austin, and the high tuition of those across town, prevent him from sending his sons to the type of school he would prefer. Parochial school “is like night and day” compared to public school he says. “There is more one-to-one attention, smaller classes, more discipline. My boys are not getting that.” “The TAAS test is biased,” says Ms. Valdez. She feels there is too much pressure on the children and the teachers because of TAAS. “They sometimes teach too much to the TAAS test. They’re not testing for the future,” she adds. Ms. Garcia echoes concern over TAAS and questions what really goes on in the classroom. “Why do we have low TAAS scores? Why are our reading scores not up to par? What are the politics of the school? If the children aren’t taught to read at the elementary level, what is going to happen to them?” She also questions the school and district bureaucracy and wants �220 more accountability. She says frankly that she thinks parts of the district bureaucracy are corrupt. One parent also questioned the discipline procedure at Metz. According to her, in the past teachers sent older students who misbehaved to the pre-K class to spend the day. “They don’t send any work, nothing. Of course, the older kids like pre-K because all they do is play all day. But they are not learning anything. What kind of punishment is this?” One area of concern addressed in the 1994 Metz Campus Accreditation Report by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) was the lack of an effective discipline management program. The peer review determined that there was a need for “upper grade level campus staff members to receive training in effective discipline management strategies...” (TEA, February, 1994, p. 12). Two other people also commented on the climate of the school. One said that “sometimes the office people turn people off. Sometimes there is no friendliness. Teacher’s don’t greet you in the hall and say hello.” Another parent added “They should make it more social. Maybe they need a hospitality person to greet people, show them around, talk to people.” These observations speak to the need for schools to be more welcoming to families, especially those parents and grandparents with little educational background themselves. If schools are to overcome the negative connections �221 of the past for Mexican Americans, they must change their public image and learn to be more inviting places that value the whole child, including that child’s family and cultural heritage. Aspirations for the Children Today’s parents clearly want their children to get more education than they did. Four parents articulated the need for college. “Children need to go to college today in order to get good jobs,” says Ms. Garcia. “My daughter wants to go to Texas A & M,” says Ms. Valdez, “I’m pretty sure she will.” “My son says he is going to UT [the University of Texas at Austin] no matter what because he’s not moving out of the house,” laughed Ms. Hinojosa. “Kids need more than just high school,” said Ms. Guerrero, “college would be great.” Three families could label their occupational aspirations for their older children. “My daughter wants to work for a big corporation or have her own business after college,” comments Ms. Valdez. “My oldest son wants to be a pediatrician or an architect,” adds Ms. Hinojosa. “My son wants to be a veterinarian or a scientist,” concluded Ms. Guerrero. �222 ‘We talk to our kids about their ambitions,” says Mr. Lozano. “Anyone can flip a burger. You’re not gonna do that. You’re gonna need more education, we say. We want them to be successful. It will be their decision [as to specific careers]. We are trying to give them the foundation-show them what it takes. If you really want to make a difference, you’ve got to stay in school and go as far as you can,” he adds. “Kids need a whole lot of education,” says Ms. Hinojosa. “The teachers are preparing them for college, saying “you can do it’. “[When I was in school], I don’t think I ever even heard the word college. I would like to see my son go to college and be the best he can be... and make lots of money so he can give some to his mother,” she adds with a shrug. “The job market requires college now. It is important to get further education to get a good job,” says Ms. Valdez. “That’s the only way to break the cycle [of poverty] that thenparents and grandparents went through.” The messages these families transmit about education to today’s children acknowledge the difficulties of the past while encouraging children to take advantage of the greater educational and occupational opportunities before them. Even though the grandparents, and in some cases the parents, have experienced harshness in school and the wider society, they do not communicate solely critical messages about these conditions to their �223 ■ children. Instead they have sometimes moderated negative memories to reflect a more ideal future. Past Life Histories and Academic Outcomes This section treats the lineages of the six interview families as vertical units in order to show how the past schooling experience of family members impacts current behavior in younger generations. It is clear from examining the life encounters of these six families that the experiences of the elders affect the children today. If we trace the revealed attitudes and behavior, we can see a pattern of family transcendence over the difficult sociocultural circumstances of previous generations by today’s children. This transcendence is due to many factors including a changing economy, changes in schools, enduring family strengths, and the interaction of these elements. Ultimately, it is the constant flux of the interaction of values, as people assimilate and accommodate sociocultural change, that influences children’s educational experiences. Mexican American grand-parents help children interpret these changes by telling stories of past hardships and joys, and encouraging them to prepare for their adult roles as family caretakers (see Mead 1974, and Sotomayor 1989). The Abuela Effect �224 The influence of family elders’ past experience on children as identified in this study can be called the Abuela, or Grandmother, Effect. This effect represents the processing of life experiences by elders and the transmission of that cognitive processing to children in the family by means of verbal or nonverbal expression. In periods of rapid social change, as in the United States from 1910 to the present or in cases of immigration to new social settings, the interview families demonstrate that people’s first assimilation of an experience (for instance humiliation as a child being teased at school for eating beans and tortillas), may be modified over time as the person matures and social change occurs (“it’s funny now, because Anglos eat more tortillas than we do”). Experience can be modified at other times as well by various psychological means (see Lazarus 1966). In the Abuela Effect, the transmission of the modified representation of past experience occurs when the transmitter, or grandparent, is considerably older than the receiver, or grandchild. In cultures that value age, or equate age with authority (as in the Mexican American case), conscious or unconscious messages from grandparent to grandchild can have great significance. In addition, emotional value is also attached to such messages due to strong family attachments, thus increasing their impact. Another important factor in the present case is geographical nearness of several �225 generations of family members which allows for repeated messages, constantly strengthened by emotional warmth. In other words, when children go to Grandma’s house every afternoon after school for a cookie and a hug, and when they honor her as wise and loving, they are apt to pay attention to what she says. This effect is likely to be true for grandfathers as well as grandmothers. The present study presents little data directly from grandfathers, however. In some of the interview families, the grandfathers are no longer living, and in others they were simply not at home. Further research needs to be done to investigate the power of the grandparents’ transmission of experience in families, particularly those of Mexican Americans (see Hurtado 1995 and Sotomayor 1989). Questions of emotional attachment, geographic proximity, and means of transmission are among those that need consideration. The six interview families illustrate certain Mexican American experiences with public schools from the grandparents’ childhood to today. This section summarizes that experience and demonstrates the chain of events and attitudes that have led to the mostly positive outcomes in this sample for today’s generation. The following brief outlines sketch the importance of the transmission of processed life experiences to children by family elders’, or the Abuela Effect. �226 Genealogies of Hope Four families exemplify a vision of the long-term benefits and value of education. For instance in the Guerrero family, today’s children are all doing well, and one member of the parents’ generation is presently married to a school teacher. Grandmother Guerrero only went to school through second grade, but she clearly expressed her understanding of the benefits of school when she said, “I would know more [if I could have stayed in school].” Her own mother told her ‘You’re never gonna be a teacher, you’re never gonna be President of the United States. You don’t need to go to school.” But Grandmother Guerrero never believed that to be true for her own children. Her husband had attended school through the ninth grade, which was much higher than the average for a person of Mexican heritage in that generation in Texas. He walked their seven children to and from Metz Elementary School everyday and helped them with their homework to make sure they got a better educational foundation than their parents were able to obtain. Today catechism classes for youngsters at Metz are held in the Guerrero home, thus reinforcing the values of church, school, and family for many children. �1 227 The Lopez family has 11 children who are high school graduates, with some currently in college and one more still in junior high. The mother of this family dropped out of high school in the tenth grade, and had a difficult time with the language transition from Spanish to English when she started elementary school in the late 1950s. Vowing that her children would have a different experience, she taught them only English when they were young, so they would have an easier time in school and the wider society. The grandmother of the Lopez family had little schooling herself, but worked in the Metz Elementary School cafeteria for 20 years. She saw school as a happy, positive place, which had benefited her. The family would have struggled severely without her income from the school cafeteria as her husband attempted to support his wife and only child selling newspapers on the street. None of the 12 members of today’s younger generation have ever been in trouble with gangs or drugs because, as Ms. Lopez said, “they were always too busy being something in school.” Whether it was making enchiladas “her” way as Grandmother Lopez said about her work in the cafeteria, reading every book in the school library as the mother did as an eager fourth grader, playing football for the sons, or something else, school was the place to BE somebody, to do something satisfying, in this family. �The Hinojosa family has had more 228 access than disappointment in school in the past two generations. One of tod, iaV a children is following his uncle's footsteps by maintaining perfect attendance for the past sin years, and several other children h; ™ won awards for aeademrc excellence Grandmother Hinoiosa was forc.d te support the family, “I cried and cried,- she said, ‘.[because) f .need sohoo!.That attitude of valuing school has been passed down to the younger members of the family. Th, mother ohtamed her GED when she had to leave high school because she attached importance to completion of the graduation requirements. This family is also heavily involved in the church, and advocates protection and watchfulness over children. The grandparents in the Valdez family were migrant farm workers who held menial labor jobs in town during the off-season. Through their hard work, however, their daughter not only finished high school but also attended several semesters of college. This daughter experienced several incidents of racial discrimination and harassment in school during the 1960s and 1970s in Austin. She later became president of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) at her daughter’s school to fight for better cordons for her child. She continues to be rngdant today, and hcueudy contacts be, daughter's teachers and the parents of her friends. She and her daughter are very �229 clear about her daughter’s goal to attend college and pursue a challenging business career. The Lozano family demonstrates discontent with public schools. The Lozano grandparents were migrant farm workers who experienced humiliation, harassment, and repeated separation from friends and community in the various public schools they attended as children. At great financial sacrifice, they sent their own children to parochial school rather than have them face a similar situation. Today, the grandchildren of this family do attend public school, but their father is dissatisfied, saying parochial school is “like night and day” compared to his sons’ present school. The Lozanos are also heavily involved with the church and are very conscientious parents. The last family exemplifies school as a way of life. When Grandmother Garcia finished sixth grade at age 16, she was hired as the caretaker of the school. Later she worked in the Metz Elementary School cafeteria for 20 years. She and her children have been extremely active school volunteers and PTA officers for many years. The most recent child to attend Metz in this family is doing well in school and is a member of the All-City school orchestra. In some ways, school may take the place of church activity in their lives, for they are not particularly religious. This family puts primary �230 importance on school and feels a very close connection with school as an institution. Instead of communicating entirely negative messages to children about school, as the austere history presented in Chapters Two and Three might suggest, these six families were able to transcend earlier negative experiences. They used various behavioral strategies such as 1) vigilance over children’s school attendance, homework and peer relations, 2) fighting for better schools through involvement in PTA and community activism, or 3) switching to parochial school. These families are considered pillars of their community by others in the neighborhood because of their strong participation in church and school affairs. They all have large extended families that include elderly members living in the same town (often within a few blocks of each other). These families give and receive emotional and material support from each other, their churches, their schools, and their communities. Families with fewer support systems in place might not be able to overcome the effects of limited schooling and poor job opportunities as quickly as these examples. The grandparents in these families play an important role in socializing children to the changing demands youngsters face today. Not only do they give them the warmth and security of a grandparent’s lap, they also help them cope with new developmental pressures. �231 On a cautionary note, it must be said that a more exact reading of the effect of the elders experiences on the younger generations might be obtained by interviewing all siblings in the grandparents’, parents’ and children’s generations. That would increase the number of interviews by at least tenfold, so this study used a more expedient, but less precise, method. This interview sample concentrated on one representative from the grandparents’ and parents’ generations only to give information about all the others in each family. There may be cases of school failure and disappointment in these families that were not revealed in the limited interviews that may actually exert other influence on the children’s decisions concernin' schooling behavior. It is important for researchers to realize the strc interdependence of Mexican American families and that the experiences of one family member may have profound implications for several generations, as the story is retold many times by intimate familiars. The picture of increasing educational attainment and transcendence over the harsh circumstances of the past found in these families is unlike that for many other families who may not have the advantages of stability and strong social support. These are stable families who 1) have lived in the same neighborhood for 30 years or more; 2) have almost all members of their extended families living nearby; 3) and have maintained relatively steady, I I �IIUI 111 231 On a cautionary note, it must be said that a more exact reading of the effect of the elders experiences on the younger generations might be obtained by interviewing all siblings in the grandparents’, parents’ and children’s generations. That would increase the number of interviews by at least tenfold, so this study used a more expedient, but less precise, method. This interview sample concentrated on one representative from the grandparents’ and parents’ generations only to give information about all the others in each family. There may be cases of school failure and disappointment in these families that were not revealed in the limited interviews that may actually exert other influence on the children’s decisions concerning schooling behavior. It is important for researchers to realize the strong interdependence of Mexican American families and that the experiences of one family member may have profound implications for several generations, as the story is retold many times by intimate familiars. The picture of increasing educational attainment and transcendence over the harsh circumstances of the past found in these families is unlike that for many other families who may not have the advantages of stability and strong social support. These are stable families who 1) have lived in the same neighborhood for 30 years or more; 2) have almost all members of their extended families living nearby; 3) and have maintained relatively steady, ■ �232 though modest, income during the parents’ generation, and sometimes the grandparents ’ generation as well. They are all English speakers (even the grandmothers speak English well today), and have connections to broad social institutions in the neighborhood, such as church and school. Unlike some studies which have focused on poverty or low academic achievement for Mexican Americans as compared to Whites, these families demonstrate successful outcomes over time. These families do not necessarily represent the majority of Mexican American households because of their high involvement with community activities. Therefore, care must be taken in generalizing their experiences to the broader Mexican American group. Conclusion These six families clearly connect education for children with occupational success in adult life. They talk openly to their children about the restrictions placed on them in the past, and the greater opportunity available today. They express their desire for a challenging curriculum that pushes their children to reach their highest potential. The parents and grandparents see discipline in behavior, school attendance and homework habits as key to achieving high academic and occupational goals. They express their dismay with watered-down curriculum and lack of academic �233 enrichment because they see that as a deliberate attempt by the power structure to hold their children to lower levels of economic opportunity. The families desire watchfulness or protection of their children, both at school and at home. A warm, friendly atmosphere in schools would help facilitate this, they indicate, while allowing families to put more trust in the school itself. In other words, these parents and grandparents express the desire to have public schools become more like the typical Mexican American family: protective and strict, but with open arms; inclusive, welcoming and validating all members; respectful of children, families, and beliefs, while at the same time pushing children to excel. They also want schools to offer children and families all the tools needed to succeed academically and occupationally. If we can make any predictions about these and other similiar Mexican American families, it seems clear that educators should expect an increase in college enrollment in the near future by Mexican American students who are the first in their families to attend institutions of higher education. The parents in this sample clearly desire this and actively discuss it with their children. The average years of schooling attainment for Mexican Americans will continue to increase, as it has with each generation of these families. �234 This mirrors Anglos and Blacks, whose educational attainment has also been increasing over the past several generations, to some extent. It also seems clear that strong, interdependent Mexican American families are likely to continue, rather than transform to an Anglo model valuing individual independence, which was an implied goal in some studies of previous decades. As Ms. Hinojosa’s son shows us, he does not want to leave the supportive bosom of his family when he goes to college, not even for a student apartment across town. This has implications for higher education as more colleges and universities will be needed in areas of high Mexican American concentration in order to accomodate this desire. Several universities in South Texas have been strengthened in the past decade in order to meet this demand. As we can see from the experiences of the three parents who became pregnant and dropped out of high school, it is rare for anyone to be pushed out of a Mexican American family. These young women and their babies were supported and nutured by their families of origin, not kicked out. Two of these women later married, but it was their families of origin who saw them through the birth of their children with love and warmth. As a consequence, today they do not feel ostracized, ashamed, or failures for having produced children out of wedlock. Their experience is different from I 1 �235 that of some Anglo females, who may face this situation either all alone or with the deep disapproval of their families. In the interview families, activism in school and church seem connected to positive educational outcomes for children. Caring and connection with the community are important elements of families’ engagement in their children’s schooling, whether externally or internally. These are families who feel useful and know that what they do makes a difference. In two cases, this connection has only firmly come about since the end of the families’ migratory lifestyle. In others, the grandparents or greatgrandparents had fairly steady although limited income, thus allowing family members to expand their efforts from daily economic survival on the family level to community engagement through church and school. The importance of grandmothers and the transmission of past experience moderated by personal maturity and social change is shown in the Abuela Effect. By following the schooling experiences of several generations of the same family, we are able to see change over time as well as how that change is mediated by family elders, particularly grandmothers. The wisdom of grandparents and other elders to whom children may be emotionally attached, and how that wisdom or modified conception of past life experience 1 1 �236 is transmitted to children should be considered as a significant variable affecting children’s present choices about schooling and other matters. These six families are examples of urban, English-speaking Mexican Americans who have lived in Texas for three generations or more. Their experiences with public schools are typical of thousands of others in the Lone Star state. Educators and policy makers need to listen to such families in order to build more effective schools to meet the increasing demand by the Mexican American population. As these six families have said, schools need to embrace the whole child in a safe, emotionally warm yet academically challenging environment not only to make students and families feel more welcome than in the past, but also to increase educational achievement. Educating the burgeoning U.S. Hispanic population in the coming century is one of the major tasks facing school systems across the country. Doing it right requires paying attention to the grandparents and parents of today’s children, for they can teach us much, if we will but listen. �237 Increase in Years of Schooling over Three Generations 1 5r" 1 0 ■ 5 0 parents N 0) TD 03 o OJ N O z grandparents great-grandparents o <D O 0 ■I X <3» 5^2- Figure 22. The years of schooling attained by each generation of the interview families have risen dramatically since the great-grandparents’ day, when no school at all was common. The current children in these families are still in school, from pre-K through college level. �1 238 Chapter Six re Importance of Social History lerican Schooling Involvement and Outcomes the experiences of Mexican Americans in the public schools of Central Texas over the past 85 years in order to understand the context of parental involvement in education by today’s Mexican American families. I argue that the previous experiences of elders influence educational choices today by means of parental involvement in education, both in the school and the home. Historical social processes embedded in individual past experience continue to affect current student achievement by means of the attitudes towards schooling that are conveyed by parents, grandparents and others in society. This study identifies transmission of the historical experiences of family elders, or the Abuela Effect, as an important variable in child development. The Abuela Effect is one component of the bundle of characteristics commonly known in social science as “family background.” The Abuela Effect occurs by inter-generational transmission, and can either encourage or discourage parental involvement and children’s motivation, depending on how the past experience of family elders has been psychologically mediated. �238 Chapter Six The Importance of Social History for Mexican American Schooling Involvement and Outcomes This study examines the experiences of Mexican Americans in the public schools of Central Texas over the past 85 years in order to understand the context of parental involvement in education by today’s Mexican American families. I argue that the previous experiences of elders influence educational choices today by means of parental involvement in education, both in the school and the home. Historical social individual past experience continue to affect curr< means of the attitudes towards schooling that are grandparents and others in society. This study identifies transmission of the historic elders, or the Abuela Effect, as an important va The Abuela Effect is one component of the bundle or cnaruwei commonly known in social science as “family background.” The Abuela Effect occurs by inter-generational transmission, and can either encourage or discourage parental involvement and children’s motivation, depending on how the past experience of family elders has been psychologically mediated. �238 Chapter Six The Importance of Social History for Mexican American Schooling Involvement and Outcomes This study examines the experiences of Mexican Americans in the public schools of Central Texas over the past 85 years in order to understand the context of parental involvement in education by today’s Mexican American families. I argue that the previous experiences of elders influence educational choices today by means of parental involvement in education, both in the school and the home. Historical social processes embedded in individual past experience continue to affect current student achievement by means of the attitudes towards schooling that are conveyed by parents, grandparents and others in society. This study identifies transmission of the historical experiences of family elders, or the Abuela Effect, as an important variable in child development. The Abuela Effect is one component of the bundle of characteristics commonly known in social science as “family background.” The Abuela Effect occurs by inter-generational transmission, and can either encourage or discourage parental involvement and children’s motivation, depending on how the past experience of family elders has been psychologically mediated. �239 To describe the context for today’s parental involvement in education, Chapter Two of this study interprets the academic environment for Mexican heritage children in Central Texas during the early part of this century as conditioned by the cultural values inherent in agrarian lifestyles. Chapter Three elucidates continuing changes for Mexican American children in educational goals and practice through the case study of Metz Elementary School in Austin, Texas. To understand some of the important psychological characteristics of Mexican American families that may impact the Abuela Effect and parental involvement in education, Chapter Four explores the concepts of familism and educacidn. Interviews in Chapter Five with six English-speaking Mexican American families who have experienced several generations of Texas public schools illustrate not only the Abuela Effect, but also changes in parental involvement through the years. Original Research Question Hou) do the schooling experiences of former generations of Mexican Americans in Texas public schools influence the educational outcomes of many of today’s Mexican American children through parental involvement in education? Another way to ask this question is “how does the Abuela Effect influence parental involvement and educational achievement for Mexican Americans?” �240 Depending on how the past life experience of elders has been mediated, the Abuela Effect can have a positive or negative effect on parental involvement in education and schooling outcomes. The families in this study present generally positive examples. However, it is likely that there are cases in which the past experiences of an older generation have more negative effects, especially when denigrating aspects of that experience have been compounded or repeatedly confirmed by unsupportive conditions. Operating within the context described in Chapters Two and Three, the interview families show us that even if grandparents (or other family elders) had what could be interpreted by others as negative experiences in school, the messages they convey years later to younger family members are not entirely pessimistic. Particularly if the elders personally experienced school as beneficial to them in the long run, and then continued to be associated with school in some positive way (such as working in the cafeteria), then their children (the current parents’ in this study) are more likely to be involved in external school activities such as the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). Involvement in PTA builds an insider’s view of the school for these parents and gives them greater access to power structures and information. That in turn helps children do better in school because they 1) feel more closely attached to the school, and 2) know more about expectations, plans, and possible outcomes. •1 �241 A positive Abuela Effect can also create a climate of optimism about educational benefits and outcomes for children through internal activities in the home. For instance, if parents and grandparents convey their attention to the child’s homework and daily attendance while reiterating the goals of graduation and higher education, this can encourage children to persist and try hard. If these steps are presented in terms of improved life chances for the whole family, and perhaps illustrated with family stories of past difficulty, then the admonition to “work hard in school to have a better life” can be very powerful. Thus, some families have been able to transcend earlier negative schooling experiences to achieve positive outcomes within one or two generations. Ogbu’s Theory: The Mexican American Case in Central Texas Because of its multi-dimensional nature, Ogbu’s framework concerning low I I academic performance is useful for examining the interplay of social history, economic opportunity and family life as they impact schooling choices by today’s children. The strength of this framework lies in its recognition of the interaction of factors of: 1) parents’ and elders’ previous experier school, 2) perceived job ceiling, and 3) family child-rearing practices. Og>_ acknowledges the importance of events outside the family-school and job �241 A positive Abuela Effect can also create a climate of optimism about educational benefits and outcomes for children through internal activities in the home. For instance, if parents and grandparents convey their attention to the child’s homework and daily attendance while reiterating the goals of graduation and higher education, this can encourage children to persist and try hard. If these steps are presented in terms of improved life chances for the whole family, and perhaps illustrated with family stories of past difficulty, then the admonition to “work hard in school to have a better life” can be very powerful. Thus, some families have been able to transcend earlier negative schooling experiences to achieve positive outcomes within one or two generations. Ogbu’s Theory: The Mexican American Case in Central Texas Because of its multi-dimensional nature, Ogbu’s framework concerning low academic performance is useful for examining the interplay of social history, economic opportunity and family life as they impact schooling choices by today’s children. The strength of this framework lies in its recognition of the interaction of factors of: 1) parents’ and elders’ previous experiences in school, 2) perceived job ceiling, and 3) family child-rearing practices. Ogbu acknowledges the importance of events outside the family-school and job �242 structure-but places the interpretation of these events for children back around the family dinner table. Ogbu (1978, p. 352) suggests that the low academic achievement of involuntary minorities, including Mexican Americans, is due to four interrelated factors: 1) late inclusion in formal education; 2) inferior ed (~c>o<e limited access to the rewards of formal education in adult life; and 4) child­ training values and practices that are adaptive to low social status. How well does this hypothesis fit the evidence from the present study? First of all, Ogbu categorizes Mexican Americans as “involuntary minorities,” in specific reference to the annexation of much of the American Southwest by the United States in 1848 after a brief war with Mexico. None of the families interviewed fit this case. Most of them immigrated to Texas as war refugees during the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920. One family has had roots in Texas since the early 1800s. None of them could ever be considered “conquered” by the United States (see Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi 1986, for a discussion of the Mexican American case). Of course this is not to say that Texas did not marginalize people of Mexican I i heritage. Indeed, after the Texas Revolution of 1836, Mexican Texans were castigated and deeply resented by Anglo Texans and others (De Leon 1983). �1 242 structure-but places the interpretation of these events for children back around the family dinner table. Ogbu (1978, p. 352) suggests that the low academic achievement of involuntary minorities, including Mexican Americans, is due to four inter­ related factors: 1) late inclusion in formal education; 2) inferior education; 3) limited access to the rewards of formal education in adult life; and 4) child­ training values and practices that are adaptive to low social status. How well does this hypothesis fit the evidence from the present study? r C^ore L First of all, Ogbu categorizes Mexican Americans as “involuntary minorities,” in specific reference to the annexation of much of the American Southwest by the United States in 1848 after a brief war with Mexico. None of the families interviewed fit this case. Most of them immigrated to Texas as war refugees during the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920. One family has had roots in Texas since the early 1800s. None of them could ever be considered “conquered” by the United States (see Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi 1986, for a discussion of the Mexican American case). Of course this is not to say that Texas did not marginalize people of Mexican heritage. Indeed, after the Texas Revolution of 1836, Mexican Texans were castigated and deeply resented by Anglo Texans and others (De Leon 1983). �243 In order to maintain their fragile political superiority, Anglo Texans began to subordinate Mexicans into the same low status as Blacks (not native Texans of Mexican descent, as Ogbu implies). With the rise of the cotton industry in Texas during the Civil War and progressing for 60 years afterwards, Anglos came to consider most people of Mexican heritage the same as Blacks. Anglos endeavored to hold most Mexican immigrants to back-breaking agricultural labor by means of subordination techniques based on skin color and language difference. While a handful of wealthy, influential Mexican intellectuals immigrated to San Antonio and some other Texas cities during the Mexican Revolution, most Mexican immigrants during this time were poor peasants, fleeing famine and chaos in their native land (see Meyer & Sherman 1983). Many were accustomed to agricultural work from life on Mexican haciendas, and appreciated the chance to work in the cotton fields of Texas for real wages. These immigrants brought with them their own set of cultural values, including their own notions of the Mexican social class system, which fit neatly into the plantation agriculture model they found in Texas. Looking at another element of Ogbu’s theory, it is possible to speak of the low academic achievement of Mexican American children, after weighing the various factors. It is true that Mexican Americans on average have achieved �244 fewer years of schooling than Whites at the present time. Nonetheless the generation of Mexican Americans who started elementary school sometime from the mid-1950s to mid-1960s appears to have greatly increased their years of school attendance as compared to their parents’ generation. Undoubtedly, the next generation will also show a rise in school attendance, though not as dramatic. This phenomenon is due to: 1) more stable family incomes that allow children to go to school rather than work; 2) increased compliance and enforcement of compulsory attendance laws; 3) greater opportunity for satisfying endeavor at school through enriched activities; 4) recognition of schooling as necessary for good jobs in the modern economy; and 5) family desire for security, upward mobility, and other rewards of education. Taken as a group, Mexican American children continue generally to have lower grades and make lower scores on standardized tests than Whites (see Valenica 1991), but that gap could close in the next generation, especially if schools take steps to overcome residual negative associations. Late Inclusion in School Ogbu’s first premise in his theory concerning low academic achievement is that Mexican Americans were late in receiving formal education compared to Whites. It is true that for many of the families in the present study, the grandparents’ generation (during the 1920s and 1930s) was the first to �245 receive formal schooling. For four families, we know that the great- grandparents (some of whom were immigrants during the Mexican Revolution) received no education whatsoever. It is also true, however, that many Anglos in Texas during the early 1900s received little or no academic training themselves, due to the lack of schools in rural areas. By the 1930s, most White children in Texas were attending school, but compulsory school attendance laws were generally ignored for Mexican American and Black children. In the interview families, the grandparents all had some schooling, ranging from two to nine years, during the 1920s and 1930s in Central Texas. This may or may not be considered “late inclusion” in education, but it is generally less schooling than Whites of this time period received, which is far more critical in terms of life chances. Inferior Education The second factor Ogbu identifies is that minorities tend to receive inferior education to that of Whites. From the evidence in Chapter Two, this indeed seems to be the case historically for most Mexican Americans in Texas. In many respects this is true even today due to: 1) continued unequal funding for public schools in the state; 2) the pressure on many school districts to promote and graduate students of all ethnicities, often resulting in high school graduates with poor academic skills; and 3) schools in minority areas �246 that continue to subscribe to academic standards below national levels. This inferior education is predicated on residual agrarian cultural values in Texas that imply that high academic standards are elitist and that rugged, physical outdoor activity (such as athletics, or in years past, agricultural work) is the preferred goal. Limits on Occupational Mobility The third factor in Ogbu’s theory behind low academic performance for some minority groups is the perceived job ceiling that limits occupational and financial success. As we can see from this study, Mexican Americans in the grandparents ’ generation were severely limited in occupational mobility. This was a direct result of the agrarian lifestyle that dominated Texas until very recently. Large numbers of field workers and unskilled urban laborers were needed to maintain the economy, so they were consciously produced by means of inferior schooling and harassment, in conjunction with economic hardship. We see a dramatic change in the parents’ generation, however. In this generation Mexican American high school graduates, and even high school drop outs, obtained steady government jobs in Austin. This is possibly due in part to the influence of affirmative action hiring practices in government �247 agencies during the 1970s and 1980s. The maintenance of steady income, coupled with good medical insurance and other benefits, often for the first time in these families, has improved the general living standard of many family members besides the actual employee and his or her nuclear family. Interdependent Mexican American families often help support the grandparents and others financially, either directly or indirectly. The interviewed families also explicitly talk to their children about the financial benefits of more education, which they see as leading to a good job in the future. In addition to the parents, the grandparents also encourage the children to stay in school and do well. One grandparent recalled telling her recalcitrant daughter one day, “Do you want to be like me? and know nothing? the only job I could get is in the laundry or the kitchen. No money. Do you want to be like that?” This is a powerful argument in today’s economy. It appears that the shift towards upward economic mobility is presently continuing for many Mexican American families in Austin, due not only to a changing economy, but also in part to federally imposed regulations including equal opportunity hiring and bilingual education. It would be unfortunate if these broad equalizing structures ended before the next generation has a chance to fulfill their potential. Families in Austin may I �248 have seen greater benefit from these government programs that elsewhere because of the particularly healthy economic growth in the area over the last 25 years. As the state capital, Austin has more government jobs than anywhere else in the state. It is also in the midst of a high-tech industrial boom, making it one of the fastest growing economic markets in the country today. Thus, good jobs are plentiful in various segments of the economy. Actually, the wealthiest member of any of the interview families owns a Mexican restaurant that grosses six figures every month in a burgeoning part of town. Even though the restaurant is making a lot of money, the owners work 12 to 16-hour days. “I don’t want any part of that,” commented the owner’s sister, who works for a state agency. Child-Rearing Practices The final element in Ogbu’s theory concerns the child-rearing practices of the families. In at least one interview family, a distinct change in attitude has occurred toward schooling in the past few generations. For instance, the woman whose mother told her “you’re never gonna be a teacher...you don’t need to go to school,” now tells her grandchildren to finish high school and go on to college. “I’m so glad children must go to school now,” she says. Tm not saying I would be a teacher now, but I would know more [if I had been able to stay in school].” Other families demonstrated a willingness to �249 sacrifice to send their children to the best school possible, as shown by the migrant family who sent their son to parochial school. Interview families and parents also exemplified concern about education by walking children to and from school each day, and making sure their homework got done. Another critical practice verbalized by the families is their vigilant protection of their children. The children in some of these families even today are not allowed to play at other children’s houses or to go anywhere unaccompanied by family members. This limits the variety of stimulating experiences children may have, but it also protects them from negative influence by peers to a great extent. In a neighborhood where drugs and gangs are a daily problem, this watchful behavior is important for both the moral and physical safety of children. As was seen in the discussion in Chapter Four, Mexican American families tend to protect their children’s emotional well-being, even if it limits them in worldly knowledge or experience. The child’s innocence and vulnerability are valued and staunchly guarded in many Mexican American families. Lastly, the issue of respect is important in Mexican American families. This concept is at the heart of various other cultural ideals such as familism and educacion, which form core values for most Mexican Americans. The “trappings of respect,” or daily behaviors, have changed over the generations I �250 in many families to reflect varying degrees of modernization and acculturation. The meaning of respect has not changed, however. Children are still supposed to be obedient to elders, quiet inside the house, compliant, and cooperative. Several families in this study are highly religious. Even in the one family that is not Catholic nor particularly involved with any other church, the notion that church should be respected is still strong. Respect for elders and authorities is a measure of being a “good” person, or proper behavior, for most Mexican Americans. It is difficult to label these child-rearing practices as adaptations to low status in society. If anything, parents’ concerns about school, respect, and watchfulness are protective of children both at the present time and for their future. As shown by the families in this study, Mexican American child­ rearing practices have modified over the generations to some degree, like families of any ethnicity in the U.S. They are not indicative of any lack of social mobility, however. Again, it must be pointed out that the families in this study have multiple social supports and a stable home base, including fairly steady income. Unfortunately this is not the case for all families, so undoubtedly other child-rearing behavior might be found in a different group. The prominent modes of training children in the present study represent the modification of old protectionist values brought by immigrants from Central Mexico (see Foster 1979), through accommodation to the I �251 modern era in the U.S. They function to safeguard children from negative influences and promote their future security. Considering the difficulties many children in America encounter today, implementing these protective measures might enhance the life chances of many other youngsters as well, not just Mexican American children. Critique of Ogbu’s Theory D’Amato (1987) and Pieke (1991) criticize Ogbu for relying on a static model of behavior which does not allow for intra-group variability or change over time. For instance, Ogbu’s model does not account for the differences between Mexican American children who succeed in school and those who fail. Nor can it explain the differences between new immigrants and long­ time Texas residents (see Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995), or how Mexican American experience has changed over the past 85 years. Mexican Americans: A Study in Complexity The Mexican American case as illustrated in the present study is more complex than Ogbu’s original formulation for persistent school under­ achievement by some minority groups. Some of this complexity can perhaps I �252 be accounted for by adopting a bicultural view of long-time Mexican Americans; that is, accepting that they show traits from two cultures. For I instance the desire to retain the Spanish language, which has been the paramount battle in bilingual education, is a Mexican American boundary­ maintaining technique, or secondary cultural difference in Ogbu’s (1987) terminology, which he associates with castelike minority status. On the other hand, for the past 160 years, there have always been people of Mexican extraction in Texas who took English as their dominant language and promoted it as desirable in others (see Chapter Two concerning the League of United Latin American Citizens and Chapter Five for families who made a conscious choice to lose Spanish as their mother tongue). Therefore, as a group, Mexican Americans exhibit traits of both boundary maintenance and boundary diminishment through their language choices. Another problem with Ogbu’s formulation is its inability to account for change over time. One example from the present study concerns the role that school creditialing plays in the Mexican American folk theory of success (Ogbu 1987). This study presents what may be a shift in thinking by some Mexican Americans on this issue. As Grandmother Lopez put it, “having a diploma is important for getting a good job.” Yet just two generations ago, at least one little girl was told by her mother that she did not need to go to school because she was “never gonna be a teacher.” The change in thinking I �253 shown in this example has also occurred in many Anglo and Black families during the past 70 years as well. Thus it is an effect of generational change over time, which is not accounted for by Ogbu’s theory. The Mexican American folk theory of success is one that needs further exploration, both for past generations and today. In Ogbu’s (1987) usage, “success” seems to mean independent financial security or wealth. Yet that may not be an appropriate definition of success at all for Mexican American families that value close physical and emotional interaction with each other. It is possible that success could be defined in terms of family togethi which case financial stability is seen as only a means to an end, rather than the end itself. For instance, two cases from the present study support this view: 1) the young man with perfect attendance for 12 years and straight As who went to work in the family auto parts shop rather than go to college; and 2) the young man who wants to go to the University of Texas at Austin rather than any other school, mainly so he does not have to leave home. Family solidarity is more important in both these cases than independent achievement. Other definitions of success for Mexican Americans should also be investigated, for instance the effects of residual cultural values from Central Mexico (see Foster 1979) and other possible alternative meanings. I �1 253 shown in this example has also occurred in many Anglo and Black families during the past 70 years as well. Thus it is an effect of generational change over time, which is not accounted for by Ogbu’s theory. The Mexican American folk theory of success is one that needs further exploration, both for past generations and today. In Ogbu’s (1987) usage, “success” seems to mean independent financial security or wealth. Yet that may not be an appropriate definition of success at all for Mexican American families that value close physical and emotional interaction with each other. It is possible that success could be defined in terms of family togetherness, in which case financial stability is seen as only a means to an end, rather than the end itself. For instance, two cases from the present study support this view: 1) the young man with perfect attendance for 12 years and straight As who went to work in the family auto parts shop rather than go to college; and 2) the young man who wants to go to the University of Texas at Austin rather than any other school, mainly so he does not have to leave home. Family solidarity is more important in both these cases than independent achievement. Other definitions of success for Mexican Americans should also be investigated, for instance the effects of residual cultural values from Central Mexico (see Foster 1979) and other possible alternative meanings. �254 In summary, the details of Mexican American experience in Texas schools do not support all elements of Ogbu’s theory about low academic performance for several reasons. One aspect is the complexity of the Mexican American case in Texas, which does not correspond to Ogbu’s formulation. Another reason is that things have changed over the past 50 to 80 years. Social change has brought general improvement in education and job opportunities for all people, including Mexican Americans, in Texas. While it is true that in many cases schools serving primarily lower income Mexican American students in Texas do not offer as enriched a curriculum as those serving mostly upper middle class Whites, nonetheless students of Mexican heritage today are obtaining more education than their grandparents. Lastly, in contradiction to Ogbu’s conclusion that certain child-rearing practices are indicative of adaptation to low social and economic status, Mexican American child-rearing behaviors serve to protect children physically and emotionally and cannot be labeled low status without comparative research with middle and upper status Mexican American groups. Conclusions Broadly, this study shows that schooling conditions for Mexican Americans in Texas in the past were generally poor. Before World War II, Texas public schools were designed to offer the minimum possible academic training to �255 students of all ethnicities in rural areas, but especially Blacks and children of Mexican heritage. Schools during the early part of this century upheld the agrarian cultural value of child labor on the farm in order to support the dominant economic system of plantation agriculture. Racist attitudes and techniques were used by Whites to enforce these primary survival v; IS. Metz Elementary School in Austin, Texas, a well-funded, integrated, urban school when it started in 1916, is an example not only of better than average educational conditions for children of Mexican descent in the state, but also an example of how conditions change over time. The first 20 years at Metz saw better funding, facilities, teachers, and so forth than many other schools. Even with the hardening of segregation in the 1930s, Mexican origin children continued to attend this school with Anglos. The rhetoric of separation during the 1930s to 1950s and the deterioration of the building after World War II, combined with the demographic change in the Metz neighborhood, made many Mexican American people in the Metz area believe their education was inferior to that of Whites. Even after the introduction of an excellent bilingual program in the 1970s, the perception of people in the neighborhood was, and continues to be to some degree, that the Anglo power structure works to oppress Mexican Americans by reducing the quality of their publicly financed education. Some Mexican American families struggle against this through community activism, but state and L I �256 local school authorities as well as local media remain relatively insensitive to their needs and demands. The previous schooling experience of family elders has a residual influence on the educational choices and behaviors of today’s children. In many Mexican American families, strong mutual dependence, or familism, and the inculcation of proper behavior, or the concept of educacion, work together to influence schooling decisions. The Abuela Effect, or the transmission of mediated past experience from an older generation to a younger, can have positive or negative consequences depending on 1) what the past experience was, and 2) how it has been mediated. In the case of some Mexican American families with multiple support systems, even if the grandparents had severe or discordant experiences with school, they may nonetheless be able to impart messages of hope and encouragement for the future to the children in the family. A positive Abuela Effect also encourages greater parental participation in education, whether externally in school affairs or internally at home. An Alternative View of Mexican American Experience This study differs from others in several significant ways. First, it embeds issues of schooling for Mexican Americans in deep historical context in order I �257 to understand the various forces at play. This study offers evidence that Mexican heritage students were not necessarily singled out for inequitable treatment in Texas schools before the Depression, as rural schools for all ethnic groups in Texas were poor during the early part of this century, not just those for Mexicans and Blacks. In addition the detailed chronology of Metz Elementary School is possibly the only account of 80 years of integrated, urban schooling for children of Mexican heritage in the United States. The focus on English-speaking Mexican American families who have lived in the U.S. three generations or more and are active in community affairs is also of note, particularly since most research has concentrated on Mexican immigrants only, who tend to have little community involvement. This study demonstrates that educational and occupational status for many Mexican Americans who have lived in the U.S. for several generations has risen dramatically in the past 30 years, thus presenting important within- group differentiation (see Chapa 1988). Chapa (1988) examined Census Bureau data concerning the Mexican origin population in the United States from 1940 to 1979. He found a pattern of increasing years of schooling from first generation immigrants to third generation Mexican Americans which nonetheless continued to lag behind �258 years of schooling attainment by Anglos, much as demonstrated in the present study. He concludes that the educational levels of third generation Mexican Americans show no indication of converging with Anglo levels. The process of achieving more years of schooling from generation to generation is not simply a matter of assimilation, as some have contended (see Chapa 1988). It is also a matter of the policies and structures of the particular schools involved. For instance, if a school segregates non-English speaking children and provides little real opportunity for them to learn English (as in Texas prior to the 1970s), these children will probably not learn much English. If schooling for certain children ceases to be available after the sixth grade (as in many parts of Texas in the past), then not many of those particular children will continue further in their education. If the school only offers a six-month term (as in the past in the rural Texas cotton belt), then children will only get six months of formal education. Policies such as these, combined with the particular characteristics of many Mexican children in the past such as frequent work-related migration, economic hardship, and perhaps sometimes a generalized feeling of inferiority and/or distaste for mixing with higher economic groups (see Gamio 1931), created the conditions for minimal academic achievement by Mexican heritage students in Texas in the past. The number of years of �259 schooling for Mexican American children since the 1970s have greatl increased, however, due to changed school policies such as 1) uniform ninemonth, full-day school terms for all; 2) bilingual education; 3) and more stringently enforced compulsory education. This is true despite the cultural and economic characteristics of the children, which is many cases have remained relatively unchanged. Thus even though Mexican American students continue to drop out of school at a high rate, and thus lag behind Anglos in overall schooling attainment, their average years of schooling have increased. Some studies conclude that second generation immigrant youth are the best positioned to excell academically (Kao & Tienda 1995; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995). But in Texas to a large extent, this favorable moment was lost in the 1920s and 1930s due to oppressive school policies. Presently second generation Mexican children face a different school climate, one such as decribed for Metz Elementary School (Chapter Three) where two-thirds of the children are long-time Texas residents whose families have experienced the Texas school system and economic realities for several generations. By the time many of these children become young adolescents, they are often disillusioned about school. This may be due to having experienced repeated academic failure and public humiliation such as the testing fiasco of 1993 at Metz. Kao and Tienda (1995, p. 5) theorize that some “native-born minority �260 parents may pass on their leveled aspirations to their children”, thus decreasing the liklihood of high academic achievement by the children. The present study is different in that it examines the perspectives of families who have ‘‘made it” by achieving both higher educational attainment and higher employment status than former generations. Factors that play important roles in this achievement include both community activisim and support, and the Abuela Effect. This study traces change over time, placing particular importance on how change is experienced and mediated by family units, rather than individuals. It illuminates patterns of family strength and transcendence over difficult circumstances of the past. Finally, it identifies the influence of elders’ past experience on children, or the Abuela Effect, as an important component of family background. Recommendations for Further Research It is clear that more research is needed from many perspectives on the internal interaction of Mexican American families, with particular attention on elders. We need to understand more about how the grandparents’ schooling experiences in the U.S. have affected them and their families for �261 good or for ill over succeeding generations. We also need to learn how children process their ancestors’ experiences. It is also important to understand the differences within the complex group known as Mexican Americans from the stand points of social class, immigration status, and specific history. Implications for Schools It seems clear from the present perspective that many schools in the U.S. serving historically oppressed minority groups need to value the unique histories and strengths of their students’ families rather than merely consider them in need of “fixing” so they can be like middle class Whites. This philosophy of worth must be expressed consistently at all levels within the school and the district in order to convince families that they are wanted and respected. If schools can do this, fewer students will feel alienated and families will feel safer about encouraging children to work hard and persevere in the school environment. All the families interviewed for this study expressed the desire for their children to attain more education and more financially rewarding jobs than the current parents (also see Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995). If increased educational attainment continues in each generation as �262 documented here, it seems highly likely that in the next decade educators will see the highest enrollment ever of Mexican American students in colleges and universities who are the first members of their families to attend college. A network of support systems will be necessary for these students to succeed, especially if they are far away from home. Institutions of higher education would do well to reach out to the parents and grandparents of these students as much as possible in order for the families to continue to give emotional support to their children as they engage in new activities. Final Thoughts The protection and guidance of children by adults is important to Mexican American families. Schools need to make sure they are safe, welcoming places for all children in order to promote greater academic development by all members of American society. As we begin to see the limits of individualism and competition in world business and politics and turn more towards cooperation and the importance of communities, it behooves us as a society to consider ways to embrace all our children in such a way that they will be able to use the lessons of the past for the well-being of the future. �263 We need to consider thoughtfully how to incorporate the best examples of nurturing from the multitude of cultural styles in the U.S. and the world to mold a more psychologically healthy nation. But to do this, we must be able to see what is around us and recognize the strengths which have been hidden under the blanket of “Otherness.” Mexican American families are an example of people with great strength that has been hidden by and from Anglo eyes. Research with Mexican Americans needs to be reconsidered from a perspective of strength and health, so we all may grow. �Appendices �264 Appendix A Life-Course Analysis as Used in This Study Life-course analysis as advocated by Elder (1974;1986) provides a helpful perspective for viewing individual life chances within the context of family circumstances over a period of many years. Life-course analysis tries to account for the multiple layers of social influence on persons in specific contexts over time. It also considers individuals as independent agents capable of affecting change within themselves and the environment. Elder (1984) has demonstrated that influences on behavior are contingent on the material and experiential resources people bring to each new situation. Elder (1985) claims that “the developmental implications of social change can only be studied within a theoretical framework that relates individual and family change.” Life course analysis recognizes that individuals are agents in their own development, making decisions about the options life presents rather than following a predetermined pattern. Some of the decisions people make based on past experience (such as whether to teach children English or Spanish as the language of the home) constitute the individual’s contribution to mass social change. Continued theory development is still necessary to explain adequately how historical experiences influence personal choices, particularly as they relate to child-rearing decisions and the transmission of cultural values to future generations. As Bronfenbrenner (1993, p. 31) describes it however, life­ course analysis “gives elegant support to the central Vygotskian thesis that psychological development, in all its aspects, is a function of the flow of history.” Methodologically, the present study differs from Elder’s conception of life­ course analysis (1974) in several ways. Elder used large data bases from the Oakland Growth Study and the Berkeley Guidance Study (1984) to generate quantitative studies of individual development and life choices over time, particularly concerning the effects of the father’s unemployment during the Depression of the 1930s. His contention was that the past experiences of parents continue to affect children, even into adulthood. The present study is different in that it uses historical and interview data to trace social and individual change influenced by family circumstances over several generations. One reason for the different methodology of the present study is that the details of the historic situation are not widely known; therefore, they had to be illuminated before other developmental �265 considerations could be analyzed. Because of the necessity for thick historic description and the fact that no large body of data about the effects of the experiences of elders on children’s schooling outcomes was pre-existing, this study used the qualitative methods of historiography and ethnographic interviewing to gather data. This study works within the paradigms of life-course analysis by 1) considering multiple layers of influence on human development, including biological aging, social history, other social factors, psychological factors and more; and 2) recognizing that the individual person is an agent in his or her own development and change. I used different methodology from Elder’s classic studies, however, to accommodate the necessarily different levels of data collection and analysis. �266 Appendix B Context and History: How My Life Experiences Contribute to This Study My own experiences have contributed to insights I bring to this study of Mexican American schooling. I am a native Texan, Anglo, and female. My grandfather moved his family to town during the 1920s in Texas specifically so my father and his sisters could go to high school and then to college. I heard this story so often I never paid it any attention. As a young adolescent I was greatly impressed by the Civil Rights struggle in this country, as I watched it on television and hear it discussed at the dinner table. When I graduated from high school, I became a newspaper reporter for my hometown paper, churning out five or six human interest stories each week. I learned a lot about interviewing (and meeting deadlines) from this. I went to Japan shortly thereafter to live for four years. This undoubtedly is one of the most important experiences that affects this study because it taught me what it is like to be a stranger in an ethnocentric land. During that time, I was a complete foreigner, made illiterate overnight, struggling with language and strange customs for each day’s survival. I was also an acute observer of behavior as I tried desperately to learn a new culture. Some years after that adventure, I moved to San Antonio, Texas, which is over 50% Mexican American and has a long and unique Mexican heritage. I lived there for twelve years and became, like many other Anglos, comfortably “Hispanicized.” I taught history in San Antonio public schools for several years. Teaching Texas history, which has often been couched in terms of Anglo victories over Mexico, to Mexican American seventh graders in a way that promoted learning and self-esteem was a pedagogical challenge that greatly sensitized me to the messages we convey to children. I came to the multidimensional, yet strangely gray, world of Harvard directly from San Antonio, still wearing my tropical pinks and blues. I decided to use every opportunity during my course work to investigate and write about issues concerning education for Mexican American students. As I read and studied, in my mind’s eye I could see my former students’ faces smiling at me. I remembered how I used to close my eyes and mentally go down each row, saying their names and sending them love. All these experiences shaped the knowledge, assumptions and abilities that I bring to this current research. �267 Appendix C Texas Environment for Mexican Schoolchildren, 1910-1930 Conditional Matrix ^tananCultural^es wtemational fcsues Rational Issues %.\ ■/A t, c,\ate 'ssues ^°Ol,Ss% f$ / co s? £ \%\ \ s. X? / <tr s £> / / I I %\ % Family Issues Money Children 2 Co i o z> o 3 s. / / Am**1’ 9- I I 6 ? o ■5^regati°r'^^x' \% 1 3 3 / ¥t �268 Appendix D Family Interview Questions Questions about YQurchild’s or grandchild’s schooling: 1. Do you currently have children in school? If so, how many? 2. What grades are they in? 3. What do you like about the school? 4. What do you dislike about the school? 5. Do you children have homework very often? (a) everyday (b) several times a week (c) once a week (d) once every one or two weeks (e) once a month 6. Do you think children should have more or less homework? 7. Do you or anyone else in the family ever help your children with homework? Who? 8. Please give an example of a typical way you or others help children with homework. What do you typically do? 9. Have you ever called the Homework Hotline? (a) everyday (b) several times a week (c) once a week (d) once every one or two weeks (e) once a month (f) only occasionally 10. Have you ever met your children’s teachers? On what occasion? What happened? 11. Have you ever visited their classrooms? On what occasions? What happened? 12. How do you find out what your child is doing in school? 13. Do you attend PTA meetings or other school programs? (a) once a week (b) more than once a week (c) once every two weeks (d) once a month (e) a few times a year (f) once a year 14. Are you satisfied with your child’s grades and progress in school? 15. Do you think tests accurately reflect what a child knows? 16. Do you think teachers and administrators are fair? 17. Do you think school is important for children? If so, why? 18. Is there anything you would like to change about the school? If so, what? 19. What do you think parents can do to help their children do well in school? �269 20. What do you think is the most important thing for children to do in school? 21. How much education do you think is enough for children today? How much do you want your child to have? 22. What kind of job would you like your child to have when he/she grows up? 23. Some elements of our society, such as gangs or drugs, have very negative influences on children. How do you keep your child from being influenced by these things? 24. Some children rebel against school and may influence other children to do so as well. How do you protect your children from this? Questions about the schooling experiences of parents and grandparents: 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. How long have you lived in this neighborhood? Where were you born? Where did you grow up? Where did you go to elementary school? What was it like? Where did your parents go to elementary school? Can you tell me anything about what that was like? Was your elementary school bilingual? Were you bilingual as a child? If you were a Spanish-only speaker as a child, what happened when you first went to school? What was it like? Did you like elementary school? What was one of the best things that happened to you in elementary school? What was one of the worst things that happened to you in elementary school? What level of schooling have you completed? What is your past or current occupation? Did your parents ever tell you about their experiences in school? If so, were they mostly happy experiences or not so happy? Can you give an example? �270 Appendix E Growth and Development of the Austin Public Schools Information for this section on the beginning of the Austin public school system and the pre-history of Metz Elementary School is drawn primarily from the history of Austin High School compiled by journalism teacher Thomas A. Prentice (1981), and surveys of Austin public schools done in 1914 by progressive educator E.D. Jennings (1917) and twenty years later by Winifred Hart (1937). For both surveys, each investigator visited every school in the city to give us a detailed view of schooling conditions. The description of East Austin in 1924 is from Connell’s (1925) study of Mexican barrios in Austin. The files of the Metz Elementary School Parent Teacher Association (PTA) contain facts about the founding of the school. Information from the court proceedings concerning desegregation in Austin are.also used. A precious few newspaper articles round out the sources used to construct the early history of public schooling in Austin and Metz Elementary in particular. The Beginning of the Austin School System, 1881-1915 The official beginning of English-language public schooling in Austin was on September 12, 1881 (Prentice 1981). The city’s first public school served all grades, 1-10. About 600 students and 25 faculty comprised the entire school system, which was supported by taxes from the city of approximately 10,000 people. There were separate schools for Black and White children, and in many cases, girls were taught separately from boys. The first elementary school was built three years later and named after a prominent Swedish immigrant in the city. Austin was a growing, dynamic place, reflected by the fact that the city’s first electric outdoor streetlights, locally romanticized as “moonlight towers”, were installed in 1895. By 1900, however, Austin’s school buildings were in need of certain repairs (“Sanitary Conditions”, August 5, 1900). Several buildings needed roof repair, some had broken windows, and drainage was a problem at several school sites. In 1901 the first building specifically constructed as Austin High School was built at 9th Street and Trinity Avenue. When it eventually burned in 1956, it caused a spectacular blaze that could be seen by much of the town (Prentice 1981). One of the first programs in the South in domestic arts (modern cooking and food preservation methods, sewing, etc.) for girls was begun at the high school in 1904. Manual training (industrial education) for high school boys had been featured since 1896, thanks to a private grant from a well-to-do local citizen. Hot lunches were served �271 starting in 1906, with vegetable soup and crackers going for five cents a serving. In 1910 the city was growing fast and electricity had become common in middle class homes. That year the first supermarket, Piggly Wiggly, opened at 117 W. 6th Street. Also in 1910, a school bond of $75,000 was passed to build new schools to accommodate a rising student population. In 1912, the per pupil expenditure in Austin was $22.00 per year, compared to the highest in the state (El Paso) at $33.00 per year and the lowest (Laredo) at $7.00 per year (Jennings 1917, p. 34). Austin had an average of 34 pupils per teacher in 1912; Brownsville had 30:1; and Laredo had 52:1 (p. 36). Austin had only four volumes per student in the high school library in 1912 (p.37); while in the elementary school, often the only dictionary in the school was the teacher’s own personal copy (p. 239). The Austin school district did hire its first paid librarian in 1912, however, to address this matter (Prentice 1981). Early Mexican School Enrollment In 1912-13 there were only 243 children of Mexican heritage out of a total of 6047 students enrolled in Austin’s public schools (Jennings 1917). Mexicanheritage children comprised the highest number of students considered to be “immigrants”, “non-English speaking”, or “foreign” by the Austin public schools. By 1916, a special school for Spanish-speaking children had been established on West Avenue (Price v. A.I.S.D. 1989). The number of Mexican-heritage children reflects the massive immigration from Mexico during the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920). In the years just prior to World War I, about 41% of the children in Austin public schools were either “non­ American” (immigrants) or Black (Jennings 1917). According to a 1913 report (Bulletin 126, United States Census Bureau), Austin had total school expenditures of $104,205 in 1913, at a cost per capita of $3.21. The city spent only $21,903 on police in that year, or $0.68 per capita. Thus, Jennings says, “She pays a greater percent of her total government expense out for schools than does any other city in the state, and at the same time has to pay the smallest percent for police service” (1917 p. 42). “These figures are valuable”, he continues,’’since they tend to show that the less that is paid out on schools the more there is needed on police departments” (p. 42), a warning rarely heeded today. Jennings (1917) decried the fact that there was no industrial training of any kind offered in the Austin elementary schools in 1913. Manual arts and domestic science were only taught at the high school level, but very few students continued that far in their education. “The schools almost utterly fail to prepare the masses to make an efficient living, being established for �272 the professional classes...it is imperative that the school prepare them for this line of life work (manual arts) without habituating them to a trade that they cannot change if ambition and opportunity direct otherwise” (p. 56). Evaluating Excellence, Pre-Modern Style Progressive concepts were not unknown in the city, however, and in the winter of 1914, a teacher preparation class at the University of Texas at Austin visited every elementary school and high school in the city to observe classrooms, children and teachers (Jennings 1917). Their objective was to rate various aspects of education, as was the progressive craze at the time. Eighty years later, however, their ratings seem quaint and arbitrary, but are included here to illustrate not only the beginnings of educational evaluation, but also the qualities considered important to education by early 20th Century educators. Possible ratings went from “excellent” to “very poor” for such undeniably important elements of the classroom environment as the teacher and the pupils, their “companionship”, discipline, study, assignments, methods, pupil’s knowledge, “appreciation”, responses, the room, and even the air. For instance the category “air” was rated excellent if it was “invigorating,” but very poor if it was “stifling.” The teacher was rated excellent if she was “beautiful, properly dressed”, and had a “proper voice,” and very poor if she was “sickly and improperly dressed with a harsh voice.” The teacher was rated somewhere in between excellent and very poor if she was “comely, homely, or ugly.” The idea of rating pedagogical technique rather than personal characteristics was missing from this ambitious study. This was all in the name of “efficiency in education”, reported Jennings (1917, p. 117). According to Jennings’ own rating scheme, about 12% of the Austin teachers would be rated poor, which he considered average with other American cities of the day (p. 156). In 1914-15, there were 1641 students in Austin public schools at least one year overage for their grade level, or “retarded”, in the terminology of the times. There were 577 students at least one year underage for grade level, or “accelerated” (Jennings 1917, p. 159). In Jennings’ estimation, these retardation and acceleration figures could be at least partially accounted for by the influx of foreigners into the schools on the one hand, and the influence of the University of Texas on the other (i.e., professor’s children tended to start early and were thus regarded as accelerated). The year before, Austin teachers had cited the causes of 1623 cases of retardation in the schools as follows: 540 students considered mentally slow; 229 students had outside distractions; 227 students suffered from lack of application; 173 were poorly prepared; 156 showed irregular attendance; 76, sickness; and �273 222, other causes (Jennings 1917, p. 163). Jennings thought that the schools should be held at least partially responsible for the “mentally slow” students since too often discouragement and poor teaching led to such labeling. He stressed that the problem of retardation could be addressed by making the curriculum more lively and relevant. He also predicted great improvement when the compulsory attendance law went into effect in 1916. Jennings reported that principals spent a lot of time in the classrooms, supervising or directing student activity. “This accounts for much of the good spirit and work found in the school” (Jennings 1917, p. 264). Principals held weekly teachers’ meetings to discuss the school. They visited each teacher quite often and reported the observations to the superintendent. At least two principals in Austin in 1914 had to teach almost every hour, however, and had no time for supervision. By 1913, all high school teachers in Austin were required to have university degrees (Prentice 1981). Corporal punishment was rarely administered in Austin public schools immediately before World War I (Jennings 1917). In 1914, the superintendent believed that each teacher should correct all troubles with the students and the parents. There had been no appeals to the Committee on Grievances about punishment from 1910 to 1914. Principals settled cases every day; and in the high school, the student council along with a committee of teachers administered discipline. Still, about 10 cases were referred for suspension to the Superintendent every month. Health and Recreation Health was an important issue that was tied to public schools early in the 20th Century. Austin public schools had a school nurse in 1914 who visited “all schools and homes” to instruct teachers and parents about symptoms of disease and health (Jennings 1917). This was carried out in a “very satisfactory manner,” according to Jennings, but he advised hiring an additional nurse and a male physician to handle the workload. Organized social and recreational groups for White children in Austin were limited prior to World War I (Jennings 1917). In 1913 the American Statesman newspaper organized the Working Boys Club composed of about 100 messenger boys. There was also a Newsboys Club with 75 members, made up of newsboys from all over the city. Boys in these two clubs pledged not to smoke cigarettes or swear. There was much sentiment against tobacco and cheating shown by the high school students, according to Jennings (p. 190). There was also a Covenanter Club of about 50 boys sponsored by the Presbyterian Church. The Boy Scouts, formed in 1911, had about 150 high school boys as members. �2TS 222, other causes (Jennings 1917, p. 163). Jennings thought that the schools should be held at least partially responsible for the “mentally slow” students since too often discouragement and poor teaching led to such labeling. He stressed that the problem of retardation could be addressed by making the curriculum more lively and relevant. He also predicted great improvement when the compulsory attendance law went into effect in 1916. Jennings reported that principals spent a lot of time in the classrooms, supervising or directing student activity. “This accounts for much of the good spirit and work found in the school” (Jennings 1917, p. 264). Principals held weekly teachers’ meetings to discuss the school. They visited each teacher quite often and reported the observations to the superintendent. At least two principals in Austin in 1914 had to teach almost every hour, however, and had no time for supervision. By 1913, all high school teachers in Austin were required to have university degrees (Prentice 1981). Corporal punishment was rarely administered in Austin public schools immediately before World War I (Jennings 1917). In 1914, the superintendent believed that each teacher should correct all troubles with the students and the parents. There had been no appeals to the Committee on Grievances about punishment from 1910 to 1914. Principals settled cases every day; and in the high school, the student council along with a committee of teachers administered discipline. Still, about 10 cases were referred for suspension to the Superintendent every month. Health and Recreation Health was an important issue that was tied to public schools early in the 20th Century. Austin public schools had a school nurse in 1914 who visited “all schools and homes” to instruct teachers and parents about symptoms of disease and health (Jennings 1917). This was carried out in a “very satisfactory manner,” according to Jennings, but he advised hiring an additional nurse and a male physician to handle the workload. Organized social and recreational groups for White children in Austin were limited prior to World War I (Jennings 1917). In 1913 the American Statesman newspaper organized the Working Boys Club composed of about 100 messenger boys. There was also a Newsboys Club with 75 members, made up of newsboys from all over the city. Boys in these two clubs pledged not to smoke cigarettes or swear. There was much sentiment against tobacco and cheating shown by the high school students, according to Jennings (p. 190). There was also a Covenanter Club of about 50 boys sponsored by the Presbyterian Church. The Boy Scouts, formed in 1911, had about 150 high school boys as members. �i 274 For girls there was the Camp-Fire Club. There were also various school clubs, such as a literary society, debating society, student council, and sports teams. Football and baseball were popular for boys; and volley ball and basketball were organized for girls (Jennings 1917). The beginning of organized high school sports occurred in 1914 when the first athletic director was hired (Prentice 1981). In the following year, the school board appropriated $125.00 for new band instruments, thus officially beginning formal music instruction. The school system was growing, and more attention was given to enrichment beyond the basics of literacy and arithmetic. There were also eight Mother’s Clubs around the city to assist the schools by stressing home-training (Jennings, 1917, p. 193). Funds were raised for school enrichment. For instance $800.00 had been raised at Pease Elementary to pay for play ground equipment and $725.00 the year before to equip lunch rooms. At Woolridge Elementary the club spent $75.00 on the library, athletic uniforms, and lunch room improvements. At Winn Elementary they built an outdoor room for recitation, put in a sanitary drinking fountain, and maintained the afternoon story hour for the children. Clubs contributed free lunches to economically deprived children, and a committee of mothers visited needy parents to offer various sorts of aid. Sometimes, however, these clubs “interfere with proper administration authorities,” reported Jennings (p. 193). It was into this milieu that Metz Elementary School was built at the end of World War I. The city constructed a fine building to serve a growing part of town. People were concerned about education and wanted the best for their children. Citizens were also eager to produce “real Americans” out of the ethnic mix of settlers in the young city. Austin had been founded in the wilderness in 1839, and was trying hard to be a modern urban center 75 years later when the new school was built. Population Increases During 1920s Manuel (1930, p. 50A) indicates that there had been a considerable increase in the number of schoolchildren of Mexican origin in Travis County, in which Austin is located, from 1922 to 1928. According to the Public School Directory of 1928-29 from the State Department of Education, as cited by Manuel (1930, p. 164), there was a total of 17,000 public school students in Travis County, of whom 4,727 were Black, 9,425 were White, and 2,848 were of Mexican heritage. The 1920 Census (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1920) gave Austin a Mexican population of 1663, with an overall population of �275 34,876. Connell estimated there were about 2000 people of Mexican origin in the city by 1925 (Connell 1924). Depression Era Stability Austin was more stable than some other areas of the state and the nation during the Depression. For instance, public school teachers’ pay was never cut, although professors at the University of Texas did sustain a pay decrease. New construction at both the university and the public schools in Austin continued during the entire Depression, due in part to the discovery of oil on state-held land in West Texas (Prentice 1981). All public schools in the city of Austin offered students a nine-month term by the mid-1930s, while rural schools in the county sometimes were in session as little as five-months in the year (Hart 1937). About 18% of the white students in Travis county received less than nine-months of schooling in rural schools. Of the 12 separate schools for Mexican heritage children in the Common School Districts of Travis County (rural schools, not including the city of Austin), school sessions ranged from seven months to slightly less than five months. “These shortened terms,” declared Winifred Hart (1937), “are important factors in the retardation of the pupils”. These one-teacher rural schools usually had less than 20 students in daily attendance, with seven grades taught all in one room. Educational progress by Spanish-speaking children was very slow in the segregated county schools of Travis County in the mid-1930s, with 90.4% of the children concentrated in the first three primary grades, compared to 39% for Whites, and 44% for Blacks (Hart 1937). Only 10 Mexican students out of an estimated 355 that were eligible in 1936 went on to sixth grade. In Austin city schools, the average number of pupils per teacher was 32 for Whites and 38 for Blacks in the mid-1930s (Hart 1937). In the three independent school districts in Travis County (Austin, Manor, and Pflugerville), 86% of the teachers held degrees. In the rural districts in the county (Common School Districts), only 17% of the White teachers and 35% of the Black teachers held degrees. In comparison, in Dallas County all teachers were required to have a degree (Hart 1937, p. 30). The average per pupil cost in Austin elementary schools was higher ($42.57) than in the common schools in the rural parts of the county ( $36.66) because facilities were better, and teachers were better trained and better paid. In contrast to attitudes sometimes encountered today, schools were perceived as serving the needs of the community by many people. For instance, during the 1930s the Parent Teacher Association was considered a �276 pleasant social activity as well as civic function by many parents (Prentice 1981). In addition, in 1939 Austin schools organized into 12 grades for the first time, giving many students two more years of upper-level course work before they joined the work force, the college crowd, or the military. Austin Continues to Grow During the 1940s and 1950s By 1940 the population of Austin had grown to 87,930 (“Austin population,” May 24, 1955), with a total school enrollment of 14,998 (“Austin public school enrollment”, June 25, 1955) and a per pupil expenditure of $21.79 (unpublished memo, Board of Trustees, April 22, 1940). Even though the total school budget had more than tripled in the nearly 30 years since 1913, from $104,205 to $326,806, the per capita expenditure for Austin schools remained near the 1913 level ($3.21), only rising to $3.72 in 1940. Twelve other Texas cities with populations over 9,000 provided more money per pupil than Austin. The average annual teacher’s salary in Austin in 1940 was $1,150.00, or about $95.00 per month. The school board wanted to build an addition to Metz in 1940, but World War II intervened before new construction could begin (unpublished memo, Board of Trustees, April 22, 1940). Perhaps as a nod to expanding horizons, conversational Spanish was introduced for grades 7,8, 9 in 1941 (Prentice 1981). This marked a contrast to the widely-held attitude during World War I that English was the only language suitable for educated people. Schools were seen as a necessary part of the defense effort on the home front, but the city’s attention turned to the war abroad, rather than focusing on local issues during the 1940s (unpublished memo, Austin Public Schools: Centennial Committee, 1954). By 1950, the Austin population had increased by almost 45,000 people to 132,459 (“Austin population”, May 24, 1955), but total school enrollment only showed an increase of about 3000 students from 10 years before. Zavala Elementary School, only four blocks away from Metz, was almost 100% Mexican American in 1950, with an enrollment of 665 (unpublished memo, Austin Public Schools: Centennial Committee, 1954). A new addition to the Zavala building had been necessary in 1949, adding a lunch room, auditorium, and restrooms with showers. The industrial arts class at Zavala was discontinued in 1951 on the grounds that there were no longer many over-age children attending. Evening classes in “Americanization” were still held at several Austin high schools in 1950, although who attended and what was taught is not known. By 1954, all Austin public schools had libraries, some of which had been started by earlier Mother’s Clubs (unpublished memo, Austin Public Schools: Centennial Committee, 1954). In 1954 the city of Austin had 30 elementary schools (unpublished memo, Austin Public Schools: Centennial Committee, 1954). The five smallest were �277 segregated schools for Black children. Four of these were small, one-room schools with enrollments ranging from 28 to 58. One Black school had an enrollment of 198. Of the other 25 schools, five out of the top six in enrollment were located in East Austin and served primarily minority students. Implementing Desegregation, 1954-1989 Austin came to national attention immediately following World War II, when postal worker Hernan Sweatt sued to attend the all-White Law School at the University of Texas, located in the state capital (Kluger 1975). The battle was fought in the Travis County District Court, where state Attorney General Price Daniel and Thurgood Marshall, attorney for the plaintiff and later a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, went head to head in dramatic confrontation. The state tried various maneuvers to prevent Sweatt, who was Black, from attending the publicly funded state university. Marshall called in expert witnesses to testify that segregation was unjustifiable and educationally unsound, among them Robert Redfield, chairman of the department of anthropology at the University of Chicago. The case was widely followed by Austinites and others for more than four years before the Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of Sweatt, thus ending the White-only reign on the university (Kluger 1975). Headlines and local speculation from such an event could not have failed to affect the city’s public schools as well. Integration in the public schools became an issue in Austin soon thereafter. In 1953, a brand new high school opened exclusively for Black students (Prentice 1981). After Brown v. Board of Education the following year, however, 14 Black students enrolled in three formerly all-White Austin high schools, and 1 student with a Hispanic surname, though characterized as ‘White” in the newspaper, entered the previously all-Black Anderson High (“Additional students expected”, September 8, 1955). The city’s desegregation plan allowed students to attend the high school nearest their home (Prentice 1981). Thus all the high schools in Austin became legally desegregated. This first try at desegregation was “going smoothly”, according to the newspaper in early September, 1955. Desegregation was generally played down in the Austin papers that first year, with high enrollment receiving much more attention. The years 1958 through 1963 saw a neighborhood school desegregation plan for Austin that allowed all students in high school and grades 1-9 to attend the school nearest their home (Price v. A.I.S.D., September 13, 1989). In 1967 the plan was modified to allow all students living near the formerly all­ Black Anderson high school to attend any high school of their choice in the district. Beginning in 1968, however, the district was found to be in non­ �r 278 compliance with the 1964 Civil Rights Act by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare because the desegregation plan was too restrictive. Thus began a period of unrest in the city over the issue of integrated schools. In 1971 District Judge Jack Roberts ruled the school district was not discriminating against Mexican Americans, but did order several all-Black schools closed because of segregated practices. One-way busing of minority students to White schools was instituted. Roberts again found no unlawful segregation of Mexican Americans in 1973 when the case was reviewed. Racial disturbances began to spill over from the community into the schools themselves by 1974, however (“Racial disturbances rock school”, December 2, 1974). Community reaction continued to escalate culminating in an appeal to the Supreme Court in 1976. The next year, however, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case for the third time that Austin had indeed intentionally segregated minority children in schools, including Mexican Americans (Prentice 1981). A full-time desegregation worker was hired to help the city through this crisis, but district desegregation efforts were found inadequate again for a fourth time in 1978. In 1979 the Supreme Court refused to hear the Austin case, thus affirming the Circuit Court decision that Austin was denying the civil rights of Black children in particular by adopting a relatively non-aggressive desegregation policy. Public meetings were held in the Austin High School gym amid emotional, chanting crowds to discuss the next step: the busing of over 10,000 students around the city daily to achieve the federally mandated integration standard. The new busing plan was implemented in Fall, 1980, creating the need for the district to operate more than 200 school buses per day (Prentice 1981). The Aftermath of Busing Austin experienced two-way busing of public school students from Fall 1981 until the end of Spring 1987. In Spring 1987 Metz enrollment reached 531 and was 72% Mexican American, with White students bused in. The end of busing the next fall made the school 98% Mexican American again, as it had been in the 1970s before the court-ordered desegregation plan. A lawsuit was immediately filed in the summer of 1987 by several parents with children enrolled in the Austin Independent School District (A.I.S.D.) to halt the neighborhood school assignment plan which allowed children to attend the school nearest their home, but would not ensure a broad ethnic mix at many schools (Price v. A.I.S.D., August 7, 1987). The lawsuit alleged that the district had maintained racially identifiable schools and purposely segregated Black and Mexican American children in the past. It claimed that A.I.S.D. deliberately withheld necessary enrichment and compensatory �r 279 academic programs for minority children, delayed repairs to school buildings in minority neighborhoods, and failed to provide adequate equipment to those schools. Disparity between Anglo and minority children’s standardized test scores was blamed on segregated schools, saying the effectiveness of existing academic programs was reduced or eliminated by the racial isolation of the students. In further proceedings of this suit, the plaintiffs contended that the student assignment plan of April 13, 1987, was racially discriminatory against Blacks, Mexican Americans and Anglos in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (Price v. A.I.S.D., September 13, 1989). The plaintiffs contended that the school district failed to eliminate the vestiges of segregation and that racial imbalance in the schools was the result of past segregative acts. The plaintiffs claimed that conditions had not changed enough to warrant abandonment of the cross­ town busing plan for school integration in effect from 1981 through 1987. The school district, on the other hand, claimed that no remnants of past racial discrimination existed within the Austin public schools, and that the neighborhood school assignment plan of 1987 had no racially discriminatory impact and was not adopted for racially discriminatory reasons (Price v. A.I.S.D., September 13, 1989). Many schools in Austin today are ethnically mixed in ways that compliment a rich education, but others are almost wholly comprised of one ethnic group. A variety of methods to promote ethnically integrated schools are currently used in Austin, such as magnet schools and open enrollment in other special programs. These efforts are generally limited to secondary schools, however, leaving some elementary schools like Metz in a condition of de facto segregation. �280 References Additional students expected. (1955, September 8). Austin AmericanStatesman, p. Al. Austin population 1930-1960. (1955, May 24). Austin American-Statesman, p. B2. Austin public school enrollment. (1955, June 25). Austin AmericanStatesman, p. Bl. Connell, E. M. (1925). The Mexican population of Austin, Texas. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Hart, W. W. (1937). A survey of the present conditions of the schools of Travis, County, Texas, with a proposed plan for their reorganization. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Jennings, E.D. (1917 [title page] /1924 [catalog date]). Educational efficiency: A study of the work of the Austin public white schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Kluger, R. (1975). Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education and black America’s struggle for equality. New York: Vintage Books. Manuel, H.T. (1930). The education of Mexican and Spanish-speaking children in Texas. Austin: The University of Texas Press. Prentice,T. (1981). 100 years of Austin high school. Austin Independent School District: Austin. Price, Samantha, et al. v. Austin Independent School District, et al., docketed, No. A 87 CA 483 (W.D. Tex. August 7, 1987). Price, Samantha, et al. v. Austin Independent School District, et al., docketed, No. A 87 CA 483 (proposed pre-trial order and findings of fact, September 13, 1989). Racial disturbances rock school. (1974, December 2). Austin AmericanStatesman, p. A3. Sanitary condition is bad. (1900, August 5). Austin Daily Tribune. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1913). Bulletin 126. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1920). Fourteenth census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. �~1 I 281 Appendix F Principals of Metz Elementary School 1916-1996 Clara Stubbs W.L. Darnell Mami Dell Barrow Lee Wilborn L. M. Fertsch M. S. Norton Carl Wheeler Don Hafner R.D. Evans Bob Kanauth Jose G. Flores Jorge Luis Rodriguez Jose G. Flores Celia Martinez 1916-1932 1932-1942 (Supervising principal) 1932-1947 (Building principal) 1945-1954* 1948-1954* 1954-1959 • 1959-1964 1964-1967 1967-1972 1972-1984 1984-1990 1990-1992+ 1992- * Overlapping dates because of split duties. + Children bused to Webb Elementary during construction of new Metz bull ng. �282 REFERENCES Acuna, R. (1988). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos. (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row. Additional students expected. (1955, September 8). Austin AmericanStatesman, p. Al. Austin American-Statesman. 1993, December 5, graph, p. B2. Austin population 1930-1960. (1955, May 24). Austin American-Statesman, p. B2. Barrera, M. (1984). Class segmentation and the political economy of the Chicano, 1900-1930. In R. Romo & R. A. Paredes (Eds.), New Directions in Chicano Scholarship. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Center for Chicano Studies. Bearden, D. (1989, September 8). Metz school crowded, old and inadequate. La Prensa [Austin, TX], p. 3. & Revilla, C.V. (1989, September 15). Parents and community leaders unite to make Metz top priority. La Prensa [Austin, TX], p. 3. Before the 1st brick falls, compromise on Metz. (1990, May 21). Austin American-Statesman, p. A6. Berdichewsky, B. (Ed.) (1979). Anthropology and social change in rural areas. The Hague: Mouton. Block meetings help erase parent tension. (1978, December 17). Austin American-Statesman, p. B2. Bobbit, J.F. (1915). The San Antonio public school system: A survey. San Antonio: San Antonio School Board. Bogardus, E. S. (1919). Essentials of Americanization. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press. Boldt, J.S. (1985). Patterns of intergenerational helping among Mexican Americans: A three-generational study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky. Bolger, N., Caspi, A., Downey, G., & Moorehouse, M. (1988). Development in context: Research perspectives. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons in context: Developmental processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Education reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R.H. Wozniak & K.W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. �283 Brooks, A.P. (1993, November 13). Higher school standards adopted. Austin Amer lean-Statesman, p. Al. Brown, Mrs. J. C. (1929). A comparative study of the teachers in the public schools of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Unpublished masters' thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Bryant, J. (1992, August 27). Visiting Metz alleviates pupils ghostly fears. Austin American-Statesman, p. Al. Callahan, R.E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carter, E. L. (1925). The educational program of the Mexican government, 1920-1924. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Carter, T. P. (1970). Mexican Americans in school: A history of educational neglect. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. --------------- & Segura, R.D. (1979). Mexican Americans in school: A decade of change. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Chapa, J. & Valencia, R.R. (1993). Latino population growth, demographic characteristics, and educational stagnation: An examination of recent trends. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15, (2), 165-187. Chavez, D. J. (1923). Civic education of the Spanish-American. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Cockerill, B. (1978, June 5). Readin’ and writin’ are changin’. Austin American-Statesman, p. B2. Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Comer, J.P. (1984). Home-school relationships as they affect the academic success of children. Education and Urban Society 16, 323-37. Connell, E. M. (1925). The Mexican population of Austin, Texas. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Cottrell, D. M. (1993). Pioneer woman educator: The Progressive spirit of Annie Webb Blanton. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press. Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education 1876-1957. New York: Vintage Books. .............. (1988). American education: The metropolitan experience 18761980. New York: Harper and Row. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990, (2nd ed). New York: Teachers College Press. Curti, M. (1959). The social ideas of American educators. Paterson, N.J.: Pageant Books. �284 D’Amato, J. (1987). The belly of the beast: On cultural differences, castelike status, and the politics of school. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 18, 357-360. Davis, E.E. (1923, July 22). A report on illiteracy in Texas. The University of Texas Bulletin, No. 2328. (1940). The white scourge. San Antonio: Naylor. Death, weird accidents in ‘haunted’ schoolhouse. (1990, November 6). Star, 17 (45), p. 3. De Leon, A. (1983). They called them greasers: Anglo attitudes toward Mexicans, 1821-1900. Austin: University of Texas Press. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1988). The value of conformity: Learning to stay in school. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 19, 354-381. . (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children's education. New York: Falmer Press. . (1992). School matters in the Mexican American home: Socializing children to education. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 495-513. & Trueba, H. (1991). Crossing cultural borders: Education for immigrant families in America. New York: Falmer Press. Delmet, D.T. (1930). A study of the mental and scholastic abilities of Mexican children in the elementary schools. Journal of Juvenile Research, 15, 267-279. Deutsch, M. (1967). The disadvantaged child. New York: Basic Books. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Donato, R., Menchaca, M., & Valencia, R.R. (1991). Segregation, desegregation, and integration of Chicano students: Problems and prospects. In R.R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s. New York: Falmer Press. Dupre, Mrs. F.S. (1925). Play as factor in the education of children. Unpublished master’s thesis. The University of Texas at Austin. Douthat, B. (1981, January 22). Ellis visits Metz bilingual classes. Austin American-Statesman, p. Bl. Dunn, L.M. (1987). Bilingual Hispanic children on the U.S. mainland: A review of research on their cognitive, linguistic, and scholastic development. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Duran, B.J. & Weffer, R.E. (1992). Immigrants aspirations, high school process, and academic outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 29, (1), 163-181. Eby, F. (1925). The development of education in Texas. New York: Macmillan. Elder, G.H., Jr. (1974). Children of the great depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. �285 . (1981). History and the family: The discovery of complexity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 489-519. , Liker, J.K. & Jaworski, B.J. (1984). Hardship in lives: Depression influences from the 1930s to old age in postwar America. In K.A. McCluskey & H.W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Historical and generational effects. New York: Academic Press. , Nguyen, T.V. & Caspi, A. (1985). Linking family hardship to children’s lives. Child Development, 56, pp 361-375. , Downey, G. & Cross, C.E. (1986). Family ties and life chances: Hard times and hard choices in women’s lives since the 1930s. In N. Datan, A.L. Greene, & H.W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Intergenerational relations. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. , Caspi, A. & Burton, L.M. (1988). Adolescent transitions in developmental perspective: Sociological and historical insights. In M. Gunnar (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 21). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ellis, C. E. (1932). The relation of socio-economic status to the intelligence and school success of Mexican children. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Epstein, J.L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research and implications for integrating sociologies of education and family. Marriage and Family Review 15, (1-2), 99-127. Evans, C.E. (1955). The story of Texas schools. Austin: Steck. Featherman, D.L. (1983). Life-span perspectives in social science research. In P.B. Baltes & O.G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior, (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press. Fehrenbach, T.R.(1983). Lone star: A history of Texas and the Texans. New York: American Legacy Press. Fernandez, R.R. (Ed.). (1988). Achievement testing: Science v. ideology [Special issue]. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science 10, (3). Foley, D. E. with Mota, C., Post, D.E. & Lozano, I. (1988). From peones to politicos: Class and ethnicity in a south Texas town, 1900-1987. (Rev.ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. ------ -------- . (1990). Learning capitalist culture: Deep in the heart of Tejas. Austin: University of Texas Press. Foley, N. F. (1990). New South in the Southwest: Anglos, Blacks and Mexicans in central Texas 1880-1930. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Foster, G.M. (1979). Tzintzuntzan: Mexican peasants in a changing world (Rev. ed.). New York: Elsevier. �286 Gamio, M. (1931). The Mexican immigrant: His life story. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Garcia, G. (1989, July 21). We own our schools. La Prensa [Austin, TX], p. 2. . (1989, September 29). Metz elementary: A classic example of community leadership. La Prensa [Austin, TX], p. 2. Garcia, R.A. (1991). Rise of the Mexican American middle class: San Antonio, 1929-1941. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press. Garretson, O.K. (1928, January). Studies in the causes of retardation among Mexican children in a small public school system in Arizona. Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 31-40. Garth, T.R. (1931) Race psychology: A study of racial mental differences. New York: McGraw Hill. Geertz, C. (Ed.). (1963). Old societies and new states: The quest for modernity in Asia and Africa. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Goble, K. (1973, July 22). City schools see big step in fall for bilingual education. Austin American-Statesman, p. Bl. Goldenberg, C.N. (1987). Low-income Hispanic parents’ contributions to their first-grade children’s word-recognition skills. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, (3), 149-179. —------- ---------& Gallimore, R. (1995). Immigrant Latino parents’ values and beliefs about their children’s education: Continuities and discontinuities across cultures and generations. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in achievement and motivation, Vol. 9. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Gonzalez, A.M. (1932). A study of the intelligence of Mexican children in relation to their socio-economic status. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Gonzalez, G. G. (1982). Progressive education: A Marxist interpretation. Minneapolis: Marxist Educational Press. (1990). Chicano education in the era of segregation. Philadelphia: Balch Institute Press. Gordon, I. (1978). What does research say about the effects of parent involvement on schooling? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chicago, IL. Grebler, L., Moore, J.W. & Guzman, R.C. (1970). The Mexican-American people: The nation's second largest minority. New York: The Free Press. Greer, C. (1972). The great school legend. New York: Basic Books. Greene, M. (1961). Dewey and American education, 1894-1920. In W.W. Brickman & S. Lehrer (Eds.), John Dewey: Master educator. (2nd ed.). New York: Society for the Advancement of Education. �287 Guerrero, S. (1991). Memorias: A west Texas life. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. Handlin, O. (1959). John Dewey's challenge to education: Historical perspectives on the cultural context. The John Dewey Society Lectureship, Number Two. New York: Harper and Brothers. Harris, J. K. (1927). A sociological study of a Mexican school in San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Hart, W. W. (1937). A survey of the present conditions of the schools of Travis, County, Texas, with a proposed plan for their reorganization. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Henderson, R.W. (1966). Environmental stimulation and intellectual development of Mexican-American children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. & Merritt, C.B. (1968). Environmental background of Mexican American children with different potentials for school success. Journal of Social Psychology, 75, 101-6. Herrnstein, R. & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American Life. New York: Free Press. Holloway, D. (1991, May 17). Mutant TV during a week of the weird. Austin American-Statesman, p. C5. Holtzman, W., Diaz-Guerrero, R., & Swartz, J.D. (1975). Personality development in two cultures: A cross-cultural longitudinal study of school children in Mexico and the United States. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hurtado. A. (1995). Variations, combinations and evolutions: Latino families in the United States. In R.E. Zambrana (Ed.), Understanding Latino families: Scholarship, policy, and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Irving, R. (1978, May 29). New teaching plan to be tried. Austin Citizen, p. A6. . (1978, May 30). Three schools selected for pilot program. Austin Citizen, p. A2. Jackson, J.S. & Hatchett, S.J. (1986). Intergenerational research: Methodological considerations. In N. Datan, A.L. Greene & H.W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Intergenerational relations. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jennings, E.D. (1917 [title page] /1924 [catalog date]). Educational efficiency: A study of the work of the Austin public white schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Jensen, A.R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1-123. �288 Johnson, R. M. (1932). History of the education of Spanish-speaking children in Texas. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Joncich, G.M. (1968). The sane positivist: A biography of Edward L. Thorndike. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Kaderli, A.T. (1940). The educational problem in the Americanization of the Spanish-speaking pupils of Sugar Land, Texas. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Kagan, S. (1983). Social orientation among Mexican American children: A challenge to traditional classroom structures. In E.E. Garcia (Ed.), The Mexican American child: Language, cognition, and social development. Center for Bilinugal Education. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. .(1986). Cooperative learning and sociocultural factors in schooling. In California Bilingual Education Office (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, 231-98. Karier, CJ. (Ed.). (1975). Shaping the American educational state 1900 to the present. New York: The Free Press. ----- ------ (1986). Scientists of the mind: Intellectual founders of modern psychology. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Keefe, S.E. & Padillo, A.M. (1987). Chicano ethnicity. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Keefe, S.E., Padillo, A.M., & Carlos, M.L. (1979, summer). The Mexican American extended family as an emotional support system. Human Organization, 38, (2), 144-51. Kertzer, D.L. & Schiaffino, A. (1983). Industrialization and coresidence: A life course approach. In P.B. Baltes & O.G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior, (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press. Kingston, M. (Ed.). (1989). 1990-91 Texas Almanac. Dallas: The Dallas Morning News. Kileff, C. (1976). The rebirth of a grandfather's spirit: Shumba's two worlds. In J. I. Roberts & S. K. Akinsanya (Eds.), Schooling in cultural context: Anthropological studies of education. New York: David McKay. Kirk, J. & Miller, M.L. (1986). Realiability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Knox, W. J. (1927). The economic status of the Mexican immigrant in San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. �289 Kibbe, P. R. (1946). Latin Americans in Texas. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press. Koch, H. L. & Simmons, R. (1926). A study of test performances of American, Mexican, and Negro children, Psychological Monographs, 35, (5). Laosa, L.M. (1978). Maternal teaching strategies in Chicano families of varied educational and socioeconomic levels. Child Development, 45,1129-1135. -...... & Henderson, R.W. (1991). Cognitive socialization and competence: The academic development of Chicanos. In R.R.Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s. New York: Falmer Press. Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education 60, 73-85. Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw Hill. Leichter, H.J. (1974). Some perspectives on the family as educator. In H.J.Leichter (Ed.), The family as educator. New York: Teachers College Press. LeVine, R. A. & Campbell, D.T.. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons. LeVine, R. A. & White, M.I. (1986). Human conditions: The cultural basis of educational development. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage. Little, W. (1944). Spanish-speaking children in Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lopez, L.C. (1993). Mexican-American and Anglo-American parental involvement with a public elementary school: An exploratory study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 15, (1), 150-155. Lott, T. (1992, October 19). Neighbors take pride in Metz rebirth. Austin American-Statesman, p. Bl. . (1993, August 5). Low scores endanger 9 schools. Austin AmericanStatesman, p. Al. . (1993, August 6). Parents ask why 9 schools are failing. Austin American-Statesman, p. Bl. Manuel, H.T. (1930). The education of Mexican and Spanish-speaking children in Texas. Austin: The University of Texas Press. ------- -------- (1965). Spanish-speaking children of the Southwest: Their education and public welfare. Austin: University of Texas Press. Markides, K.S., Boldt, J.S., & Ray, L.A. (1986). Sources of helping and intergenerational solidarity: A three-generational study of Mexican Americans. Journal of Gerontology, 41, (4), 506-511. �290 McClintock, E., Bayard, M.P., & McClintock, C.G. (1983). The socialization of social motivation in Mexican American families. In E.E. Garcia (Ed.), The Mexican American child: Language, cognition and social development. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Center for Bilingual Education. Mead, M. (1974). Grandparents as educators. In H.J. Leichter (Ed.), The family as educator. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University. Meier, A. & Rudwick, E. (1970). From plantation to ghetto. New York: Hill and Wang. Menard, V. (1994, November). Green injustice: Who’s winning the race for environmental dollars? Hispanic. Austin: Hispanic Publishing Corporation. Menchaca, M. & Valencia, R.R. (1990). Anglo-Saxon ideologies in the 1920s1930s: Their impact on the segregation of Mexican students in California. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21, 222-249. Menefee, S. C. (1941). Mexican migratory workers in south Texas. Washington, D.C.: Works Progress Administration. Metz book fair. (1977, April 17). La Fuerza, [Austin,TX] p. 3. Metz helps kids with toy library. (1976, February 10). Austin Citizen, p. 11. Metz memories. (1986, April 26). Austin American-Statesman, p. A 8. Meyer, M. C. & Sherman, W.L. (1983). The course of Mexican history. New York: Oxford University Press. Mi mundo y yo. (1977, May 26). La Fuerza, [Austin,Tx] p. 1. Migrant students art work displayed. (1973, March 17). Austin AmericanStatesman, p. Bl. Miles, M.B. & Huberman,M.A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mirande, A. (1982). The Chicano family: A reanalysis of conflicting values. In L.I Duran & H.R.Bernard (Eds.), Introduction to Chicano studies. New York: Macmillian. Montejano, D. (1987). Anglos and Mexicans in Texas 1836-1986. Austin: University of Texas Press. Moore, J.W. with Cuellar, A. (1970). Mexican Americans. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Murray, M. (1983). Bilingual education at Austin’s Metz Elementary and how it works. The National Hispanic Journal, 2, (1), 14-20. Neal, E. A. & Storm, O.P. (1927). Open door primer: First and second reader, prepared especially for teaching Spanish-speaking children. New York: Macmillian. Neff, J. (1978, May 30). East Austin plan to pump talent, funds in schools. Austin American-Statesman, p. B.2. �291 Ogbu. J.U. (1974). The next generation'. An ethnography of education in an urban neighborhood. New York: Academic Press • (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press. & Matute-Bianchi, M.E. (1986). Understanding sociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. In California Bilingual Education Office (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students. Los Angeles: Evaluation. Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, 73-142. ............ (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 18, 312-334. Orfield, G. (1992). Status of school segregation: The next generation. Washington, D.C.: National School Board Association. Paschal, F.C. & Sullivan, L.R. (1926). Racial differences in the mental and physical development of Mexican children. Comparative PsychologyMonographs, 3, (14). Paredes, A. (1984). On ethnographic work among minority groups: A folklorist's perspective. In R. Romo & R. A. Paredes (Eds.), New Directions in Chicano Scholarship, Santa Barbara. CA: University of California, Center for Chicano Studies. Paredes, R. A. (1984). The origins of anti-Mexican sentiment in the United States. In R. Romo & R. A. Paredes (Eds.), New Directions in Chicano Scholarship. Santa Barbara, CA: University’ of California, Center for Chicano Studies. Peterson, C. (1979, October 11). Metz school students learn about elections. Austin American-Statesman, p. B2. Peterson, P.E. (1985). The politics of school reform 1870-1940. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pieke, F.N. (1987). Chinese educational achievement and “folk theories of success.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 22, 162-180. Platt, H. (1917). Negro education in Texas. Unpublished master’s thesis. The University of Texas at Austin. Prentice,T. (1981). 100 years of Austin high school. Austin Independent School District: Austin. Price, Samantha, et al. v. Austin Independent School District, et al., docketed, No. A 87 CA 483 (W.D. Tex. August 7, 1987). Pi-ice, Samantha, et al. v. Austin Independent School District, et al., docketed, No. A 87 CA 483 (proposed pre-trial order and findings of fact, September 13, 1989). �292 Ramirez, O. & Arce, C. (1981). The contemporary Chicano family: An empirically based review. In A. Barron, Jr. (Ed.), Explorations in Chicano psychology. New York: Praeger. Raymond, J.S., Rhodes, D.L. & Raymond, R.I. (1980). The relative impact of family and social invovlement on Chicano mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology 8 (5), 557-569. Redfield, R. (1976). Culture and education in the midwestern highlands of Guatemala. In J. I. Roberts & S. K. Akinsanya (Eds.), Schooling in cultural context: Anthropological studies of education, New York: David McKay. Reese, L.R., Gallimore, R., Balzano, S. & Goldenberg, C. (1991). The concept of education: Latino family values and American schooling. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Romo, R. (1983). East Los Angeles: History of a barrio. Austin: University of Texas Press. . (1984). The urbanization of southwestern Chicanos in the early Twentieth Century. In R. Romo & R. A. Paredes (Eds.), New directions in Chicano scholarship. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Center for Chicano Studies. Richardson, R. N. (1943). Texas: The lone star state. New York: PrenticeHall. , Wallace, E. & Anderson, A.N. (1981). Texas: The lone star state. (4th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall. Rueschenberg, E. & Buriel, R. (1989). Mexican American family functioning and acculturation: A family systems perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 11 (3), 232-244. Sabogal, F., Marin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marin, B.F. & Perez-Stable, P. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science 9 (4), 397-412. Sanchez, G.L (1931). A study of the scores of Spanish-speaking children on repeated tests. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. (1934, December). Bilingualism and mental measures: A word of caution. Journal of Applied Psychology. ....... . (1951). Concerning segregation of Spanish-speaking children in the public schools. Inter-American Education Occasional Papers IX. Austin: The University of Texas. Sanchez, R. (1984). Chicano bilingualism. In R. Romo & R. A. Paredes (Eds.), New directions in Chicano scholarship. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Center for Chicano Studies. �293 San Miguel, G.,Jr. (1987a). "Let them all take heed": Mexican Americans and the campaign for educational equality in Texas 1910-1981. Austin: University of Texas Press. (1987b). The status of historical research on Chicano education. Review of Educational Research, 57 (4), 467-480. (1986). Status of the historiography of Chicano education. History of Education Quarterly, 26 (4), 523-36. Schmidt, A. & Padilla, A.M. (1983). Grandparent-grandchild interaction in a Mexican American group. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 5 (2), 181-198. Schumm, W.R., McCollum, E.E., Bugaighis, M.A., Jurich, A.P., Bollman, S.R. & Reitz, J. (1988). Differences between Anglo and Mexican American family members on satisfaction with family life. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 10 (1) 39-53. Sharlip, W. & Owens, A.A. (1925). Adult immigrant education. New York: Macmillian. Sheldon, W.H. (1924). The intelligence of Mexican children. School and Society, 19, 139-142. Singleton, J. (1976). Implications of education as cultural transmission. In Spindler, G.D. (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Toward an anthropology of education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Smith, S. (1989, January 24). Water causes classroom ceiling to fall. Austin American-Statesman, p. Bl. . (1990, May 20). History is now Metz’s n Statesman, p. Bl. . (1990, May 22). Metz elementary not preservation. Austin American-Statesman, p. Bl. . (1990, June 1). Final bell rings for Metz. Aus Statesman, p. Al. Sotomayor, M. (1989). The Hispanic elderly and the intergenerational family. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 20 (3-4), 55-65. South, J. (1976, February 19). Calm class difficult in poor schools. Austin Citizen, p. 3. Spindler, G. D. (1976a). The transmission of culture. In G. D. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Toward an anthropology of education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (1976b). Schooling in Schonhausen: A study in cultural transmission and instrumental adaptation in an urbanizing German village. In In G. D. Spindler (Ed.), Educat ion and cultural process: Toward an anthropology of education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. �I 294 (1976c). Village or city? Identity, choice, and cultural change. In J.I. Roberts & S.K. Akinsanya (Eds.), Schooling in cultural context: Anthropological studies of education, New York: David McKay. Spring, J. (1990). The American school 1642-1990. New York: Longman. Stanley, D. (1995, May 7). Austin Interfaith conference stresses involvement. Austin American-Statesman, p. Bl. Steen, R.W. (1939). History of Texas. Austin: Steck. Stoddard, E. R. (1973). Mexican Americans. New York: Random House. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage. Strickland, V. E. & Sanchez, G.I. (1947). A study of the educational opportunities provided Spanish-name children in Texas school systems. Unpublished report. University of Texas. Suarez-Orozco, C. & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Migration, family life and motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sumner, W.G. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn. Taylor, P. S. (1934). An American-Mexican frontier: Nueces County, Texas. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Termin, L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, (3). Texas Education Agency. (1993, June). Texas Assessment of Academic Skills Summary Report. Austin: Texas Education Agency, Department of Accountability. . (1994, June). Texas Assessment of Academic Skills Summary Report. Austin: Texas Education Agency, Department of Accountability. . (1994, February). Campus report for performance-based accreditation, Metz Elementary, Austin Independent School District. Austin: Texas Education Agency, Department of Accountability. Texas Educational Survey Commission. (1924). Texas educational survey. Austin: Author. Texas State Department of Education. (1924, September). Manual and course of study, Elementary grades, public schools of Texas, 1924-25. Bulletin no. 184. Austin: Author. Thomas, R.K. & Wahrhaftig, A.L. (1971). Indians, hillbillies, and the ‘education problem’. In Wax, M.L., Diamond, S., & Gearing, F.O. (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on education. New York: Basic Books. Thompson, F.V. (1920). Schooling of the immigrant. (Americanization Series). New York: Harper and Brothers. �295 Thorndike, E.L. (1914). Educational psychology: Briefer course. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1930). Fifteenth census (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1975). Historical statistics of the United States, colonial times to the 1970. (Bicentennial Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Social and economic characteristics, Texas, 1990. Census of Population, CP-2-45. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Vaca, N.C. (1970). The Mexican American in the social sciences, 1912-1970: Part I, 1912-1935. El Grito: A Journal of Contemporary Mexican American Thought, 3, 3-24. Valencia, R.R.(Ed.). (1991). Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990’s. New York: Falmer Press. , Henderson, R.W., & Rankin, R.J. (1981). Relationship of family constellation and schooling to intellectual performance of Mexican American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 524-32. . (1985). Family status, family constellation, and home environmental variables as predictors of cognitive performance of Mexican American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 323-31. Velez, M.T. (1983). The social context of mothering: A comparison of Mexican American and Anglo mother infant interaction patterns. Unpublished dissertation, Wright Institute of Psychology. Warburton, A.A., Wood, H. & Crane, M.M. (1943). The work and welfare of children of agricultural laborers in Hidalgo County, Texas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept, of Labor, Children's Bureau, Publication 298. Williams, N. (1990). The Mexican American family: Tradition and change. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall. Willie, C.V.(1979). The caste and class controversy. Bayside, N.Y.: General Hall. — (1989). Caste and class controversy on race and poverty: Round two of the Willie/Wilson debate. Dix Hills, N.Y.: General Hall. Wollenberg, C. (1976). All deliberate speed: School segregation and exclusion in California public schools. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wright, S.W. (1989, September 16). Parents protest school lease plan. Austin America -Statesman, p. Bl. �296 . (1989, September 17). “Forgotten again”. Austin AmericanStatesman, p. A10. �297 VITA Mary S. Black B.A., 1979 Humanities 1977-1979 The University of Texas San Antonio, Texas 1984-1985 Trinity University San Antonio, Texas 1985 Teacher, Social Studies Anson Jones Middle School San Antonio, Texas 1985-1988 Teacher, Social Studies Bradley Middle School San Antonio, Texas 1988-1989 Graduate School of Education Ed.M., 1989 Harvard University Human Development Cambridge, Massachusetts and Psychology 1989-1991 Director Global Education Office World Affairs Council Boston, Massachusetts 1990-1996 Doctoral Candidate Human Development Graduate School of Education and Psychology Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 1991-1992 Teacher, Social Studies Leander Junior High School Leander, Texas 1992-1996 Director Learning Enhancement Center School of Nursing University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas Teacher Certification March-June �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Timeline Items & Metz History Description An account of the resource Materials or items to be found in the timeline of Metz Elementary. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Annabella Denzel Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Annabella Denzel Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Minakshi Swaminathan Language A language of the resource English Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Historical Factors Affecting Mexican-American Parental Involvement Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Abigail Moorhead historia history