Progressivism and Curriculum Differentiation: Special Classes in the Atlanta Public Schools, 1898–1923

  • Barry M. Franklin


Addressing the Atlanta Board of Education at its January 1898 meeting, Superintendent William F. Slaton called for the adoption of a regulation to “prevent children of dull minds and weak intellects from remaining 3 or 4 years in the same grade.” Their presence, Slaton stated, was leading “to the annoyance of the teacher and detriment of the grade.”1 This call to deal with low achieving students was not the only recommendation to alter existing school policies and programs that the city’s Board of Education heard that year or the next. In his annual reports for both 1898 and 1899, Slaton called on the Board of Education to introduce vocational education into Atlanta’s course of study to meet the needs of high school students who, as he put it, “are bread-winners early in life and subsequently heads of families.”2 And during May 1899, the Board of Education received proposals urging it to introduce physical education into the curriculum and to establish kindergarten classes in several of the city’s schools.3 Here were the first stirrings of Progressive educational reform, which would lead in Atlanta, as in other urban school systems, to a differentiated program, including vocational education and guidance, kindergartens, junior high schools, and special classes for handicapped children.4


Special Classis Junior High School White Child Grammar School Cumulative Record 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Atlanta Board of Education, Minutes, 6 Jan. 1898, 2: 522.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atlanta Board of Education, Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 31 Dec. 1898, 52–53, and Twenty-eighth Annual Report, 31 Dec. 1899, 28.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    Atlanta Board of Education, School Directory, 1920–1930. The two special classes for black children in existence in 1920, one at Carrie Steele School and the other at Pittsburg Night School, were closed the following year and replaced by two classes at Storrs School. The next year, however, those classes were also closed. There were no other special classes for black children until 1929. For a discussion of special education for blacks in Georgia, see Jane Vivian Mack Strong, “A Study of Educational Facilities Available to Atypical Negro and White Children in Georgia” (M.Ed. thesis, Atlanta University, 1949).Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    David L. Angus, Jeffrey E. Mirel, and Maris A. Vinovskis, “Historical Development of Age Stratification in Schooling,” Teachers College Record 90 (Winter 1988): 211–36;Google Scholar
  5. David Tyack, The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (Cambridge, 1974), 182–88.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Raymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces That Have Shaped the Administration of the Public Schools (Chicago,1962), ch. 5;Google Scholar
  7. Edward A. Krug, The Shaping of the American-High School, 1880–1920 (Madison, 1969), 304–27.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    David John Hogan, Class and Reform: School and Society in Chicago, 1880–1930 (Philadelphia, 1985), xx–xxv, 138–39, 228–35;Google Scholar
  9. Martin Carnoy and Henry M. Levin, Schooling and Work in the Democratic State (Stanford, 1985), 80–97.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ira Katznelson and Margaret Weir, Schooling for All: Class, Race, and the Decline of the Democratic Ideal (New York, 1985), ch. 6;Google Scholar
  11. Wayne J. Urban, “Educational Reform in a New South City: Atlanta, 1890–1925,” in Education and the Rise of the New South, ed. Ronald Goodenow and Arthur O. White (Boston, 1981), 114–30;Google Scholar
  12. Julia Wrigley, Class Politics and Public Schools: Chicago, 1900–1950 (New Brunswick, 1982), Ch. 3.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    The definition of the state used in this essay derives from Theda Skocpol, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Bringing the State Back In, ed. Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol (Cambridge, 1985), 3–37;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. and Martin Carnoy, The State and Political Theory (Princeton, 1984). For a discussion of the role of the state as an actor in policy formation, see Skocpol, “Bringing the State Back In.” I am indebted to Joseph Tropea for the suggestion that I look at special classes from this vantage point.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. For his attempt to use a state-centered interpretation for examining the development of special classes, see Joseph L. Tropea, “Bureaucratic Order and Special Children: Urban Schools, 1890s–1940s,” History of Education Quarterly 27 (Spring 1987): 29–53; and idem, “Bureaucratic Order and Special Children: Urban Schools, 1950s–1960s,” ibid. (Fall 1987): 339–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 12.
    Atlanta Board of Education, Minutes, 24 Sep. 1908, 4: 273.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    Atlanta Board of Education, Minutes, 26 Jan. 1911, 5: 123.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Atlanta Board of Education, Minutes, 15 Dec. 1914, 6: 246–47; ibid., 8 June 1915, 6: 295.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Ibid.; Atlanta Constitution, 31 July 1915; Atlanta Board of Education, School Directory, 1915–1919, 19, 39.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    United States Department of the Interior, Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ended June 30, 1916 (Washington, D.C., 1916), 24.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Robert Kunzig, Public School Education of Atypical Children, United States Department of Interior, Office of Education Bulletin no. 10 (Washington, D.C., 1931), 14, 25.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    David N. Plank, “Educational Reform and Organizational Change: Atlanta in the Progressive Era” (Unpublished manuscript, 1987), 6–7;Google Scholar
  23. David N. Plank and Paul E. Peterson, “Does Urban Reform Imply Class Conflict? The Case of Atlanta’s Schools,” in The Social History of American Education, ed. B. Edward McCIellan and William J. Reese (Urbana, Ill., 1988), 217–18;Google Scholar
  24. Paul E. Peterson, The Politics of School Reform, 1870–1940 (Chicago, 1985), 86.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Atlanta City Council, “Evidence and Proceedings before a Special Committee of Five, Appointed under a Resolution of City Council,” 12 June 1918, 386–89 (located in Office of City Clerk, Atlanta).Google Scholar
  26. 28.
    Atlanta Board of Education, Minutes, 4 Jan. 1912, 5: 288.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    Melvin W. Ecke, From Ivy Street to Kennedy Center: Centennial History of the Atlanta Public School System (Atlanta, 1972), 14, 16–17, passim; Atlanta Constitution, 25 Oct. 1914, 3, 4, 7 Feb. 1915.Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    Atlanta Board of Education, Minutes, 22 Oct. 1914, 6: 228–29; Atlanta Constitution, 23 Oct. 1914.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    For a discussion of how school reformers saw curriculum differentiation as a means of reconciling the public school’s historic democratic goal of accessibility with the demands of a capitalist economy for selectivity in admissions, see David F. Labaree, The Making of an American High School: The Credentials Market and the Central High School of Philadelphia, 1838–1939 (New Haven, 1988), 7–8, 70–72, 161–62, 173–77.Google Scholar
  30. 35.
    St. Paul Board of School Inspectors, Forty-seventh and Forty-eighth Annual Reports of the Board of School Inspectors of the City of St. Paul, 16 June 1906, 67.Google Scholar
  31. 36.
    Boston Public Schools, Annual Report of the Superintendent, School Document no. 13, July 1909, 15.Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency, ch. 8; David Tyack and Elizabeth Hansot, Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1820–1980 (New York, 1982), 106–14.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    For a discussion of the symbolic role of educational policy in legitimizing the educational professions, see Herbert M. Kliebard, “Curriculum Policy as Symbolic Action: Connecting Education with the Workplace” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif., 27 Mar. 1989).Google Scholar
  34. 40.
    Atlanta Board of Education, Minutes, 1 Jan. 1912, 5: 286; ibid., 28 Mar. 1912, 5: 309; Atlanta Constitution, 1 Jan. 1912.Google Scholar
  35. 41.
    Martin Schiesl, The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America, 1880–1920 (Berkeley, 1977), chs. 6–7.Google Scholar
  36. 42.
    Atlanta Constitution, 27 Feb. 1914; Urban, “Progressive Education in the Urban South,” 132–33; Charles Strickland, “Parrish, Celeste Susannah,” in Notable American Women, ed. Edward T. Jones, Janet Wilson-Jones, and Paul Boyer (Cambridge, 1971), 3: 18–20.Google Scholar
  37. 43.
    Celeste S. Parrish, Survey of the Atlanta Public Schools (1914; reprint, Atlanta, 1973), 22.Google Scholar
  38. 46.
    Ecke, From Ivy Street, 107–109; Atlanta Constitution, 6, 29 June 1915; Atlanta Journal, 29 June 1915; Dorothy Orr, A History of Education in Georgia (Chapel Hill, 1950), 387.Google Scholar
  39. 49.
    Atlanta Public Schools, Curriculum Suggestions for Ungraded Classes—Junior High Schools (Atlanta, 1938).Google Scholar
  40. 52.
    PTA Association, Lee Street School Enrollment, 1921–22, 1922–23, box 2, Lee Street School Collection, Atlanta Historical Society; George D. Strayer and N. L. Engelhardt, Report of the Survey of the Public Schools of Atlanta, Georgia (New York, 1921–22), 2: 117.Google Scholar
  41. 53.
    Atlanta Board of Education, Minutes, 27 July 1916, 7: 59.Google Scholar
  42. 55.
    To protect the identity of the Lee Street special class students, I have given them pseudonyms that indicate their gender. For a discussion of the meaning of the scores on this first version of the Stanford-Binet Test, see Lewis M. Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence: An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale (Boston, 1916), ch. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 57.
    U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920: Population (Washington, D.C., 1922), 4: 1053–55.Google Scholar
  44. 58.
    James D. Anderson, The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935 (Chapel Hill, 1988), 229–31.Google Scholar
  45. 60.
    The cumulative records of thirteen of the Lee Street special class students listed the occupations of their fathers. I categorized those occupations according to Thernstrom’s Socio-Economic Ranking of Occupations as follows: high white collar-owner of a furniture factory (1 child); low white collar—foreman (1), insurance agent (1), postman (1), shipping clerk (1), skilled-railroad engineer (1), carpenter (2), plumber (1), semiskilled/unskilled—packer (1), textile worker (2), waiter (1). I combined semiskilled and unskilled because it was not possible to tell from the information on the cumulative record in which of these categories the occupations fell. See Stephan Thernstrom, The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880–1979 (Cambridge, 1973), 289–302 (Appendix B). Although this data set is exceedingly small, I have decided to report the results. I am doing so because after three years of searching records in Atlanta, I have not been able to identify any other special children.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 62.
    For a discussion from a Marxist vantage point of how the initiative of state bureaucrats may be independent of the interests of business classes yet ultimately advance capital accumulation, see Fred Block, “The Ruling Class Does Not Rule: Notes on the Marxist Theory of the State,” Socialist Revolution 7 (May 1977): 6–28.Google Scholar
  47. 63.
    For a discussion of how Progressive Era school reforms undercut the ideals of the common school movement, see William J. Reese, “Public Schools and the Common Good,” Educational Theory 38 (Fall 1988): 431–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© John L. Rury 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry M. Franklin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations