| The Palo Alto History Project |
| The Tinsley Case |
| The Tinsley Case: Inching Toward Integration In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the doctrine of “separate but equal” schools, ruling that segregation must end immediately. Desegregating schools was certainly not easy in the South---in fact federal troops were needed to accomplish the task in Little Rock, Arkansas and the process took decades to complete. But at least with blacks and whites usually living within the same city limits, it was clear how to desegregate. In many northern and western cities, housing patterns made the problem of how to desegregate more ambiguous. Due to many factors, ranging from de facto economic segregation to the racism of landlords and real estate agents, many cities were racially divided by neighborhood. In the 1960s and ’70s, the courts dabbled in forced busing to achieve racial integration in much of the North. But even as busing was becoming a divisive local and national issue, the courts were flooded with a new round of plaintiffs arguing for even more extensive busing. In much of the country, racial integration could only be achieved by busing kids in and out of the largely minority inner-city from the mostly white suburbs. In cities like Washington D.C.and Chicago, where the city schools were nearly all black, it was hard to argue that any real segregation could be achieved without bringing the suburbs into the city. Ninety minute daily bus rides for kindergarteners and extremely hostile neighborhood associations and school boards were now facing the increasingly hesitant courts. And the resistance to forced busing was major. Most famously in Boston, white parents in South Boston took to throwing rocks and bottles at buses full of black children. At the same time, they kept their children home throughout much of 1974 after a suburban judge had ordered low-income white Southie to integrate with low-income black Roxbury. It was at this point that the politics of busing shifted and the courts and politicians backed away from integrating the North. The majority of Americans had lost faith in court- ordered busing to achieve racial balance. It was in this context that Margaret Tinsley and 33 other East Palo Alto and Palo Alto parents attempted to fight de facto segregation on the Mid-Peninsula. In the 1970s, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) was almost entirely white, while the Ravenswood District encompassing East Palo Alto and Menlo Park east of the 101, was nearly all Black and Hispanic (and still is). Considering how badly forced busing worked around much of the country, what happened in Palo Alto has to be considered at least a partial success. The case began in 1976 when the Midpeninsula Task Force for Integrated Education, representing disgruntled Ravenswood parents, claimed that their kids were not receiving an equal education to that of white students across Highway 101. They filed a lawsuit alleging that unconstitutional segregation existed in all the school districts from Palo Alto to San Carlos. After eight years in court, the case gained momentum in 1984 when California high courts ruled that the inter-district conditions violated the State Constitution. At this point, administrators within PAUSD and the other cities decided to seek a compromise through the court of San Mateo County Superior Court Judge William Lanam. Rather than attempting to bus kids all over the Peninsula, the parties agreed to begin what became known as the Voluntary Transfer Program (VTP). Starting in the 1987 school year, Palo Alto agreed to take 60 kindergarteners and first-graders whose parents wished to transfer them from the Ravenswood district. 7 other cities took varying numbers of Ravenswood transfers and a new group of youngsters would be added each year. The program has been largely successful, if not perfect. Minority students attending Palo Alto schools perform well above their neighbors who attend schools in the Ravenswood City School District on standardized tests. And while the VTP students still perform significantly below the scores of PAUSD white and Asian students as a whole, the district has made it a high priority to try to close this “achievement gap.” Teachers in the district spend a good chunk of their professional development time attending workshops receiving training in how to better help VTP kids succeed in their schools. Still challenges remain in successfully integrating minority students into the culture of Palo Alto. Although East Palo Alto students report feeling welcome in PAUSD, they often remain divided between the two communities. While being separated from their neighborhood friends during the day, they can also have difficulty fitting into the generally well-to-do culture of Palo Alto. Many white parents in Palo Alto are grateful for the presence of the VTP students. They say the diversity enriches the school environment, aids in social development and fosters respect for people of different backgrounds --- all strategic goals of PAUSD. While there is a small segment of Palo Alto parents who wish to sunset the Tinsley agreement, that opinion is certainly not widespread. On the other hand, the Ravenswood District continues to languish. The Tinsley agreement sought to improve the neighborhood schools in Ravenswood by establishing model schools, best practices guidelines, and to work to bring that district up to quality. But today Ravenswood remains a district in dire shape, both in terms of quality of education and test scores. But for those Ravenswood parents who feel that it is worth it for their children to cross the 101 each day into "a different world," most are happy with the education their children receive. -Matt Bowling |
| Jack Robertson, one of the Tinsley lawers who fought for what became the VTP program |
| The Burger Court of the 1970s tried to grapple with the difficulties of desegragation |
| The Supreme Court's decision on Brown v.s. Board of Education in 1954 began the desegregation process |
| Police in riot gear lead buses full of black children to South Boston High School in 1974 |
| The U.S. Army was called in by President Eisenhower to help desegregate Central High School in Little Rock in 1957 |
| A riot broke out at City Hall Plaza in Boston when Senator Ted Kennedy, a supporter of busing, attempted to speak |
| Palo Alto: Then & Now |
| 2007 |
| A Lytton School 4th Grade class in 1961: Not all that diverse (PAHA) |
| The Ravenswood High School class of 1975 |
| 1955 |
| The Palo Alto Unified School District offices at 25 Churchill Avenue in the mid 1950s. A few '50s era cars are in the decidedly barren looking parking lot. |
| Today more trees fill the parking lot of the vanilla painted buildings. Off to the right of the picture, PAUSD has set up a number of offices in portables as well that line Paly's football field. |
| Margaret Tinsley with her daughter Karen and brother-in-law Charles, after the 1986 decision |
| Links PAUSD's VTP Program |
| Sources: Palo Alto Times, Palo Alto Weekly |