Progressivism Meets Jim Crow: Curriculum Revision and Development in Houston, Texas, 1924-1929∗

As was true for many school districts across the United States during the early decades of the twentieth century, Houston Independent School District sought modernization through a multimillion dollar building program and curricular reform. Houston's new course of study, heavily influenced by the theories of child-centered pedagogy, received widespread praise from curricular experts at the nation's top schools of education. In the 1920s, Houston was a segregated, southern city that, in many ways, shared the conservatism of the region. Nevertheless, Houston's superintendent, E.E. Oberholtzer, was able to overcome resistance from taxpayers and teachers to successfully implement his program. Corporate elites from the petroleum industry, among the biggest boosters of progressive educational reform in Houston, believed that a child-centered curriculum would develop the leadership skills and creative ability needed to train white-collar workers for the expanding economy. Those left behind, primarily students of color, were further disadvantaged in the changing job market. Jim Crow was an essential component to the success of the reform policies in Houston. As twenty-five per cent of the population, African-American students deserved twenty-five per cent of the district's revenues. Segregation allowed the district to use almost one hundred per cent of the money for curriculum reform on only seventy-five per cent of the population. Nevertheless, Houston manufacturers were dependent on unskilled black labor and were hit hard by the exodus of the Great Migration. Thus, corporate elites could not be too blatant in their discrimination against African-Americans. The pro-industry school board responded to the threats of migration and the demands of Houston's vociferous black press by building two new modern African-American high schools, refurbishing "Old Colored High School," and vastly improving the number and condition of elementary schools for black children. Yet, although these new schools did represent a vast improvement over black education before Oberholtzer's arrival in Houston, in the face of massive expenditures and dramatic improvements in white education, the material gains of black students lagged far behind the educational opportunities for white students. While the new, child-centered curriculum excluded black students (except for the heroic efforts of individual black educators), curriculum development excluded the vast majority of teachers. White teachers lost considerable power over pedagogical decisions in their own classrooms as they faced onerous, top-down directives. The district maintained control over teacher education by opening a junior college in 1927 to train white teachers according to the new pedagogy. Many white teachers resented the district's efforts to tie salary raises to increased educational qualifications, even for experienced teachers. In 1928 conflicts with the superintendent contributed to the growth of new memberships in the all-white Houston Teachers Association. In response, the school district passed a significant salary increase for white teachers that was funded partially by reducing the automatic annual increases in black teacher salaries. Intense job competition within African-American schools kept black teachers from protesting their discriminatory salaries and treatment. Ironically, many black teachers, excluded from training in child-centered pedagogy, welcomed additional educational opportunities. Black teachers themselves fought for the creation of Houston Junior College for Negroes, although the new college failed to receive adequate funding. Thus, the school administration modernized white schools by denying new educational opportunities to black students and teachers. While many scholars have criticized the supposed "advantages" of progressive education, in Houston, at least, progressivism operated as another form of unearned white privilege