A04_SOW_(Attachment_1).pdf

S C O P E O F W O R K

SPECIAL HISTORY STUDY

BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR – NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

PMIS PROJECT NUMBER # 143745

I. Introduction

The National Park Service (NPS), through the Midwest Regional Office (MWRO), requires the performance of research and writing of a Special History Study for Brown v. Board of Education

National Historical Park headquartered in Topeka, Kansas. This Special History Study will focus on the Spotswood Thomas Bolling, et. al. v. C. Melvin Sharpe, et. al. case in the context of the fight against segregated schools in Washington, D.C., which was one of five such cases comprising the consolidated Brown v. Board of Education 1954 Supreme Court decision. The study will help complete basic historical documentation of the park’s history and resources as developed and managed by the National Park Service. Information contained in the Special

History Study is essential for present and future interpretation and resource management.

This Special History Study is a comprehensive synthesis of primary and secondary source material that conforms to professional standards regarding methodology of historical research and writing. Stylistic, bibliographical, and report production standards shall conform to the current edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. The study including enumerated appendices, graphics, and index shall be completed within twenty-four months from the date of contract award.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

--From the opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education

The Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park represents attempts by civil rights activists and the federal government to come to terms with important aspects of race relations in the United States. It functions as a symbol of the lengthy school desegregation campaigns which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 1896 Plessy segregation ruling. The Brown v.

Board of Education case inaugurated the desegregation of public education by declaring the unconstitutionality of racial separation. Initially composed of Monroe Elementary School and its adjacent playgrounds in Topeka, Kansas, this national park represents both historical fiction and irrefutable fact, refraction and reality, of the struggle to end segregated public education in the

United States.

Monroe first received national attention in the mid-1950s as a representative black school in the racially segregated Unified School District-501 of Topeka, Kansas. Just as the Browns served as the focal point for the plaintiffs in this and four additional school desegregation cases, in like manner, Monroe became symbolic among the segregated black elementary schools, even though it was hardly representative of most in the segregated South. Because relative parity existed between these black and white facilities, the Kansas case boiled down to a debate of the practice of segregation, per se. Counsel adeptly pointed out the obvious inconsistencies in Topeka’s segregation policies, whereby children were separated in the lower grades, but mixed in junior and senior high schools. The breach in segregation policy created a very potent opportunity for a successful challenge to end all racial separation in public education.

In a broader context, however, the course of events that many simply refer to as Brown involved a complex mix of social currents, federal action, extensive litigation on state and national levels, and direct action by individuals and groups across the United States. Under the successive leadership of Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) enacted a well-planned legal campaign to end racial segregation in graduate and professional education. Through the 1930s and 1940s, litigation by a very talented group of counselors in federal and county courts chipped away at the

“separate but equal” doctrine in higher education. By 1952, the organization undertook a full-fledged assault on segregation in public schools at the elementary and secondary levels. Co-counsel from the national NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Funds, Inc. (LDF) offices in

New York City oversaw the coordination of five separate cases which attacked segregation in public elementary and secondary schools.

The appeals process culminated a year later in a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court which dealt with these consolidated school desegregation cases. The lead case Oliver L. Brown et al v.

the Board of Education, from Topeka, Kansas, headed a docket which included Harry Briggs, Jr., et. Al. v. R.W. Elliott et. al. (South Carolina); Dorothy E. Davis et. al. v. County School

Board of Price Edward County, Virginia, et. al.; Francis B. Gebhart, et. al. v. Ethel Louise

Belton, et. al. (Delaware); and Spotswood Thomas Bolling, et. al. v. C. Melvin Sharpe, et. al.

(District of Columbia). The selection of Brown v. Board of Education as the name for the composite litigation is a matter of speculation, however, it is without question that it epitomized the basic issue of each; namely, the denial of due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth

Amendment through the practice of racial segregation. Expert witnesses focused on the majority group efforts to impose a badge of inferiority, by using the weight of the law to racially segregate classrooms.

On May 17, 1954, after two years of delay and re-argument, caused by the death of Chief Justice

Fred Vinson, newly appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren announced the unanimous landmark decision which overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson precedent of segregated facilities. The high court ruled that racial segregation had violated the right of due process granted to all citizens because separate schools were “inherently unequal” and separation sanctioned by law bestowed a sense of inferiority upon black students. The decision ended the 1896 “separate but equal” finding in Plessy which had sanctioned separate public facilities in the United States. On May

31, 1955, the Court issued another unanimous opinion regarding the implementation of the desegregation decree, urging states to comply “with all deliberate speed.” These constitutional victories stripped away the underpinnings of a segregated society and marked the commencement of the modern civil rights movement.

In 2022, Congress rebranded and expanded the Topeka-based NPS park unit.

Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park Expansion and Redesignation Act: P.L.

117-123 – 136 Stat. 1196 – May 12, 2022. Signed into law by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., this legislation, amends the ``Act to provide for the establishment of the Brown v. Board of

Education National Historic Site in the State of Kansas, and for other purposes'' (P.L. 102-525 -

106 Stat. 3439 – October 26, 1992) to provide for inclusion of additional related sites in the

National Park System, and for other purposes.

The 2022 Act redesignated the National Park System unit as Brown v. Board of Education

National Historical Park, expanded its boundaries, and established Affiliated Areas in order “to honor the civil rights stories of struggle, perseverance, and activism in the pursuit of education equity.” In addition to the Topeka, Kansas, case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Act acknowledged the national significance of the four other cases relating to school segregation pending before the Supreme Court in the early 1950s: Briggs v. Elliott, filed in South Carolina, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, filed in Virginia, Belton (Bulah) v.

Gebhart, filed in Delaware, and Bolling v. Sharpe, filed in the District of Columbia. All four, consolidated into the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, have associated nationally significant properties called Brown v. Board of Education Affiliated Areas enumerated below.

The Act authorized for inclusion of following into an expanded National Park Service unit:

(A) the Summerton High School site in Summerton, Clarendon County, South Carolina;

(B) the former Scott's Branch High School site in Summerton, Clarendon County, South

Carolina; and

(C) approximately 1 acre of land adjacent to Monroe Elementary School in Topeka, Shawnee

County, Kansas.

And once “an appropriate management entity has been identified for each area,” the following

Brown v. Board of Education Affiliated Areas “shall be established as affiliated areas of the

National Park System:

“(1) The Robert Russa Moton Museum in Farmville, Virginia.

“(2) The Delaware Brown v. Board of Education Civil Rights Sites, to include--

“(A) the former Howard High School in Wilmington, Delaware;

“(B) Claymont High School in Claymont, Delaware; and

“(C) Hockessin Colored School #107 in Hockessin, Delaware.

“(3) The John Philip Sousa Middle School in the District of Columbia [emphasis added].

“Each affiliated area shall continue to be owned, operated, and managed by the applicable public or private owner of the land in the affiliated area.”

John Philip Sousa Middle School, formerly known as John Philip Sousa Junior High School, serves as a public school serving grades 6-8 in Southeast Washington, DC, at 3650 Ely Place, opposite Fort Dupont Park. Built in 1950, the new building became the epicenter of civil rights action upon its opening when 12 African American students were denied admission to the all-white school. This challenge to the city’s Jim Crow segregation law led to a legal filing known as Bolling v. Sharpe, a component of the larger Brown v. Board of Education landmark 1954

Supreme Court ruling defeating the “separate but equal” legal doctrine and making segregated public schools illegal in the District of Columbia. The school was declared a National Historic

Landmark in 2001 for its role in the Supreme Court decision. In 2022, Congress made it a

Brown v. Board of Education Affiliated Area of Brown v. Board of Education National

Historical Park.

The school is a brick L-shaped Moderne style ranging from a single to five-stories in height. A three-story wing features a combination of classrooms and administrative offices with a main entrance has curved half-round elements. An extension wing houses the gymnasium and auditorium.

Completed in 1950 when District of Columbia schools were segregated, schools built for African

Americans were under funded and crowded, in stark contrast to white schools. Black residents had long been advocating for better schools and an end to segregation and a group of Browne

Junior High School parents met in 1949 to organize demonstrations and launch a legal challenge to eradicate segregated school practices. When John Philip Sousa Junior High opened in fall of

1950, the parents and their twelve students, accompanied by lawyers and a police escort, attempted to enter and register the students but were denied entry by the principal. The ensuing legal case, Bolling v. Sharpe, ultimately reached the Supreme Court in 1954 where it struck down the District’s segregation policy because it violated due process—in contrast to the larger

Brown decision which eliminated state-mandated segregation on equal protection grounds.

This Special History Study focuses on the Washington, D.C.-based Brown case: Bolling v.

Sharpe (1950) and its associated historic property: John Philip Sousa Middle School.

Mid-20th-century Washington, D.C. was a Jim Crow city. African American children attended overcrowded, substandard schools. An activist, Gardner Bishop, enlisted attorney Charles

Houston, who, becoming ill, referred Bishop to James Nabrit, Jr. Bishop then attempted, unsuccessfully, to enroll 11 African American students in an underused white school. The 14th

Amendment did not apply to D.C., so Nabrit argued that the students were denied due process of law under the 5th Amendment. The District Court dismissed the case. Nabrit appealed to the

Court of Appeals. It passed the case to the Supreme Court for hearing with the consolidated

Brown cases. Because of its due process argument, Chief Justice Warren wrote a separate opinion for Bolling.

This Special History Study will explain the Spotswood Thomas Bolling, et. al. v. C. Melvin

Sharpe, et. al. case in the context of the struggle against segregated schools in Washington, D.C.

The research project will collect and analyze material on the people, communities, and events associated with the fight for civil rights and desegregation of schools in the nation’s capital by examining John Philip Sousa Middle School and comparing/contrasting it with other schools. It will include: a historiography of published materials referring to the case; overview of the local

African American community; assess local struggle for change in public education 1869-1950;

analyze events in the larger context of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling; and continue that analysis in the decades following the Brown decision.

While considerable scholarly literature has been produced on the Brown v. Board of Education case, this material only tangentially addresses the individual histories of the events leading up to each case. The completion of this study will, by providing a detailed account of the African

American challenge to segregation in the District of Columbia in the decades before the Brown case, increase knowledge and understanding of the story of the struggle for school desegregation.

It will also increase public awareness and appreciation of the history and resources associated with the Brown case and encourage actions by District and local entities to help protect resources associated with the case while highlighting local civil rights activities.

It is anticipated there will be a substantial addition of materials (documents, photographs, and other research materials) to the Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park Resource

Room/Library. It will be used to assist NPS in providing technical assistance with interpreting case history, based on sound historical research and analysis.

Primary sources to be utilized (not a comprehensive list) will include the following:

Franklin Weekley, Rachel. “A Strong Pull, A Long Pull, And A Pull Altogether:” Topeka’s

Contribution to the Campaign for School Desegregation; Historic Resource Study, Brown v.

Board of Education National Historic Site. Omaha: Midwest Regional Office, National Park

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999.

A Project of the Brown Foundation for Educational Equity, Excellence and Research.

Recovering Untold Stories: An Enduring Legacy of the Brown v. Board of Education Decision.

Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Libraries, 2018. See “Washington, D.C. (Bolling v.

Sharpe)” and entries “Adrienne Jennings (Bennett)” and “Barbara Jennings.”

Sources available through the Brown Foundation for Education Equity, Excellence and Research website: http://brownvboard.org/

John Philip Sousa Middle School website: School Profiles Home (dc.gov)

Brown v. Board: Five Communities That Changed America, Teaching with Historic Places, National Park Service:

https://www.nps.gov/teachers/classrooms/brown-v-board-five-communities-that-changed-america-teaching-with-historic-places.htm

John Philip Sousa Junior High National Historic Landmark nomination, designated a National

Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior, August 7, 2001.

Many Washington, D.C. schools are either individually listed in the National Register or listed as under the umbrella Multiple Property Documentation Form “Public School Buildings of

Washington, D.C., 1862-1960” accepted by the Keeper of the National Register July 21, 2003.

Research Project – Develop and Complete this Special History Study for Brown v.

Education National Historical Park: Fight Against Segregated Schools in Washington, District of Columbia http://brownvboard.org/ https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Sousa+Middle+School https://www.nps.gov/teachers/classrooms/brown-v-board-five-communities-that-changed-america-teaching-with-historic-places.htm https://www.nps.gov/teachers/classrooms/brown-v-board-five-communities-that-changed-america-teaching-with-historic-places.htm

This history—of particular value to managers, planners, and interpreters—describes how the legal case was pursued and the associated school(s) played a role in the ultimate Brown decision.

The primary emphasis of this Special History Study will place the John Philip Sousa Middle

School in context with the African American struggle against segregated schools in Washington, D.C. Other topics, in addition to those enumerated above, to examine (in no particular order) include:

▪ A narrative analytic history containing:

o Summary of historical events leading up to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, and its aftermath.

o Describe key individuals promoting the challenging Jim Crow segregation in public education as well as legal involvement. Document the positions taken.

o Describe the legal process, as well as informal actions such as local advocacy

(and opposition), that resulted in filing and pursuing the legal case.

o Describe and document the land base of John Philip Sousa Middle School and its configuration. Document any outstanding boundary issues, and describe contextual impacts of adjacent ownerships to the schools’ present operations and management; this may include adjacent parkland, zoning, parking availability, and trail connectors.

o Describe the neighborhood context of the school.

▪ Describe the maintenance and/or rehabilitation of the John Philip Sousa Middle School property over time.

o Document the construction process o Describe management of the associated cultural landscape and provide a general description of changes to the surrounding neighborhood over time o Elaborate on the National Historic Landmark nomination.

▪ Describe physical evolution of School over time, describing implementation plans and actions.

o Describe the development of exhibits (if any) including any updates for accessibility.

o Describe major research efforts over time, including collection of oral histories.

o Summarize any archeological investigations.

o maintenance/facility management operations.

o The study will document how and why school operations changed over time.

o Describe any local events, including commemoration of 60th and 65th anniversaries of the Brown v. Board case.

o Describe other interpretive efforts, including wayside exhibits, web site introduction and development.

▪ Development and Collaboration Through Partnerships o Describe formal and informal partnerships o Document the Brown Foundation partnership

A. The contractor will provide within seven months of contract award a detailed outline and bibliography of the Special History Study for NPS review and approval. It will contain or consider all of the topics listed above. Contractor will supply five (5) hard copies as well as an electronic WORD document for the review. Draft material will have page numbering and line-numbering in the left margin (started over on each page). NPS will provide comments within 30 days. The outline will serve as the basis of the Table of Contents.

B. Eleven months after contract award, the contractor will supply draft chapters

(Introduction and community/school comparisons/filing of legal challenge) for NPS for review and approval. It will contain or consider all pertinent topics listed above. Contractor will supply five (5) hard copies as well as an electronic WORD document for the review. Draft material will have page numbering and line-numbering in the left margin (started over on each page). NPS will provide comments within 30 days.

C. Within one year of contract award, contractor will provide transcriptions of all oral history interviews for NPS inspection and approval.

Oral history interviews will be conducted with key case-related personnel and utilized to augment written records in the Special History Study. Contractor shall also locate and utilize existing oral history transcripts pertaining to the Bolling v. Sharpe legal case.

Five (5) formal oral history interviews will be conducted in person according to professional standards with case-related individuals to be identified by the contractor following contract award.

Oral history interviews will be conducted in person, digitally recorded, transcripts produced, a digital photograph of each interviewee taken, and assignment of interview rights forms signed.

All interviewees will be given an opportunity to review and edit his/her interview transcript over a one-month period.

D. Bibliography of source materials and contractor will provide electronic and hard paper copies of all research documents discovered during the course of research.

E. Appendices: Information including, but not limited to, all pertinent legislation, maps and/or drawings, a copy of the NHL nomination, etc., will be included in the Special History Study’s appendix. The study shall include appropriate maps and other figures within the narrative, including historic and contemporary photographs. The photographs shall have captions and identify their source.

F. Contractor shall also prepare two short articles (1 to 2 pages excluding illustrations) on any topic related to this Special History Study for NPS to the park’s website or other internet site.

The articles will be submitted for NPS review and comment at the same time as the draft

Special History Study History is submitted (20 months after contract award).

G. A draft of the completed Special History Study with all above specified elements will be prepared and provided to NPS for review and comment according to a planning schedule and matrix outlined between NPS and contractor at the start of the project. Contractor will then incorporate all comments and resubmit a final draft. Following approval of the Special History

Study by NPS, an index (generated by the latest version of Microsoft Word; all left margin line-numbering removed) will be prepared which incorporates all significant names, places, objects, activities, and programs referenced in the document. Used in conjunction with the Table of

Contents, the Index will assist readers find particular topics of interest with ease. The final draft will then be reviewed by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to ensure all NPS comments have been incorporated, and then submitted for approval signatures.

III. Additional Contract Requirements

A. General provisions

1. Prospective contractors should note that the research design submitted by the contractor becomes a binding element of the contract and is expected to be carried out. The research performed and reported must meet the minimum requirements.

2. Within 30 days of award of contract, the contractor shall attend a post-award scoping meeting at Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park in Topeka, Kansas, to discuss technical aspects of the contract and to confirm the planning schedule for the submission of the deliverables.

3. The production of the Special History Study shall be completed within 24 months of contract award.

B. Report standards/format and submission schedule

The final report will be in the latest version of Microsoft Word and include the information required in the specifications listed in Section II, above. It must be typed on 8-1/2 by 11-inch white paper. All pages must be numbered. Copies of photographs (screened for reproduction clarity), maps, drawings, and text must be clean, clear, and legible. The format must comply with the latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. The document must be Section 508 compliant.

In addition, all reports must contain the following:

1. Title/Cover page listing the name of the Principal Investigator. If the report is also authored by Project Historians, the title page must identify the author(s) and bear the inscription, "Prepared under the supervision of (name), Principal Investigator." The title/cover page shall also include signature and date lines for three approving officials in the following order:

"Recommended/Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, Midwest-DOI Region

3,4,5/Date; Concurred Superintendent, Brown v. Board of Education National Historical

Park/Date; and Approved/Regional Director, Midwest-DOI Region 3,4,5/Date."

2. Five (5) hard copies of the detailed chapter outline and bibliography (and also in electronic format) will be submitted seven months following contract award for NPS review and approval.

The outline shall include descriptions of each chapter containing sufficient detail to demonstrate the complete range of topics and themes to be discussed as well as chronological periods. All draft material shall have line-numbering in the left margins, starting over at “1” on each page, for the convenience of reviewers. NPS will provide review comments on the chapter outline to the

PI within 30 days of receipt of the document. The PI shall make necessary revisions and submit the final chapter outline to NPS within 15 days of receipt by the contractor. The outline will provide the basis for the “Table of Contents” for the Special History Study.

3. Five (5) hard copies of the draft report and two articles will be submitted twenty months following contract award to NPS for review. The draft will be typed, double-spaced, with numbered reference lines in the left margins on each page of text (numbering to start from “1” on each page) and will include all maps, graphics, footnotes, and appendices to be included in the final report. The draft will be reviewed by NPS for contract sufficiency and professional quality.

Within 45 days of receipt by NPS, the draft will be reviewed and the contractor will be notified when review comments will be transmitted. During the period of revision of the draft, the contractor will consult with NPS to ensure the satisfactory resolution of review comments and submission of a final draft in a timely manner.

4. A final draft report—and two articles (separate from the report) —addressing review comments transmitted to the contractor by NPS will be submitted to NPS prior to printing of the final document. The contractor will design appropriate cover art/graphics including the NPS

Arrowhead for the camera-ready final document. Printing on the document's spine will include title, author, National Park Service, and year of publication. Within 60 days of NPS acceptance of the final draft (indicated by the three required signatures specified above) and before expiration of the twenty-four month contract period of performance, the contractor will furnish one (1) camera-ready unbound final document printed on archival paper, 100 dry ink digital printed and separately perfect-bound copies of the report, and a compact computer disk or disks containing the final document in the latest version of Microsoft Word.

5. All formal oral history interviews conducted will be digitally recorded and transcriptions prepared. All interview candidates must sign an interview rights release form (format to be supplied by NPS). Any additional interviews which take place on an informal basis (i.e., telephonically) must be comprehensively documented in a memorandum of telephone call. All recordings, transcripts, interview rights release forms, photographs, and memoranda of telephone calls will be transmitted to NPS at the end of 12 months (1st year of contract) and no later than at the end of the contract. In addition, all research documentation collected during the course of the contract—both hard copies and digital--will be transmitted to NPS at the end of the contract prior to final payment.

C. Disposition of data

At the conclusion of research and within 60 days of written acceptance of the final camera-ready report, all notes, records, maps, drawings, photographs, negatives, slides, digital images, tapes, digital recordings transcripts, and other data acquired during the course of this study will be professionally organized for archival purposes and submitted to the Park Superintendent, to be deposited in the archives or research room of Brown v. Board of Education National Historical

Park.

D. Progress reports

Quarterly progress reports during the performance of the research and writing phases of this contract are required. The initial due date will be 90 days after contract award. All quarterly reports will be submitted to the Contracting Officer Representative.

IV. Payment

Partial payments may be made up to 80% of the contract award amount. Payments must be based on deliverables accepted by the government (see FAR 52.212-4(a), Contract Terms and

Conditions – Commercial Items, Inspection/Acceptance & FAR 52.211-1, Time of Delivery).

Payment requests must be in accordance with the clause titled, Electronic Invoicing and Payment

Requirements - Invoice Processing Platform (IPP).

V. Endorsement

Proposals submitted for consideration must be accompanied by a signed cover letter. If the proposal is submitted by an organization it must bear the endorsement of both the Principal

Investigator and a representative of the organization who is empowered to commit the organization to such an undertaking.