Context s an d Concepts : Parenta l Choic e o
r Chose n Parents?
Aim s an d Objective s
'Mother' s in charg e of choic e of school ' wa s th e Evening Standard headlin e reportin g o n th e official result s of ou r Leverhulm e researc h projec t (1 1 May 1993). Indeed , ou r aim ha d bee n t o explor e wh o in th e family contex t mad e th e choic e of secondar y schoo l an d als o t o loo k at ho w tha t choic e wa s mad e and/o r negotiate d amongs t variou s family members W e wer e particularl y intereste d in whethe r gende r mad e a difference amongs t parent s and/o r childre n abou t choic e of schoo l an d th e different factors tha t wer e take n int o accoun t b y families whe n thinkin g abou t th e proces s of changin g schoo l from primar y t o secondary . W e wer e als o intereste d in whethe r a rang e of social factors suc h as social class, ethnicit y and/o r race , o r formal religiou s affiliation o r belief affected thes e processe s an d decisions , if suc h the y were . I n Choosing a Secondary School: The Parents' and Pupils' Stories,' w e reporte d o n ou r surve y of primar y schoo l parent s an d pupil s in tw o Londo n borough s in th e immediat e post-ILEA er a an d w e produce d ou r initial repor t for ou r funders , th e Leverhulm e Trust (West, David , Hailes , Ribben s an d Hind , 1993).
This boo k build s upo n th e quantitativ e analysi s presente d in th e publishe d repor t an d provide s a mor e in-dept h stud y of th e parent s an d pupils . It is abou t th e way s in whic h families g o abou t th e proces s of choosin g school s and , specifically, ho w parent s mak e choice s abou t th e secondar y school s t o whic h t o sen d thei r childre n at th e en d of stat e primar y schooling . W e als o loo k at ho w th e childre n ar e involve d in th e proces s of choosing . W e d o no t loo k at th e result s of th e proces s in term s of wha t happen s whe n childre n g o t o thei r secondar y school s bu t w e wer e rathe r mor e intereste d in th e factors leadin g u p t o th e 'choice'
W e wante d t o problematiz e th e concep t of 'choice ' whic h ha s becom e a ke y notio n in curren t politic s especiall y aroun d consumerism . It is a them e whic h seem s t o b e becomin g increasingl y importan t throughou t Wester n societies , as Bjornber g observes
To a growing extent, women and men are adopting a cultural model of individual choice . . .The individual is to choose his/her own options in creating his/her welfare. (1992, p. 6)
As a concept, 'choice' is integrally linked to the theme of 'the individual' and the ideology of 'individualism' (Bellah et al., 1985).
The self is not merely enabled to choose but obliged to construct a life in terms of choices, its power and its values. Individuals are expected to construct the course of their life as the outcome of such choices, and to account for their lives in terms of the reasons for those choices. (Rose, 1989, p. 227)
Yet the concept of 'choice' glosses over a number of difficult underlying dimensions, such that its blessings may in reality be quite mixed (Baker, 1994). We explore the choices made from a quantitative perspective and we address the issues in a more qualitative vein, trying to shed light on the complex processes and reasonings for the choices ultimately made. We are concerned to show that making a choice, especially such a momentous one of a child's school, is not a simple decision but involves a complex set of issues and may involve a variety of family members. Moreover, the question of what constitutes a 'family' and therefore who is involved is no simple matter. Instead the notion of family covers a diversity of social relationships We are able to present some of the basic quantitative factors but we also try to tease out the complexity of the processes by illustrating the ways in which we tried to listen to family members and analyse their feelings in a more qualitative fashion. We are particularly concerned to go beyond some of the common-sense notions about these processes, such as that reported in the Independent on 18 November 1993 when discussing the new league tables of all schools that 'choice' may be based on 'mother's intuition', although this may indeed be relevant.
This study then relies on a mixture of methods to illustrate our argument that choice is, in itself, a very complex topic and not one that is easily susceptible to analysis or simple presentation of the issues Moreover, it is further complicated by the fact that families themselves are complex phenomena and may be infinitely varied and not subject to simple quantitative analysis.
Outline of the Chapters
In this introductory chapter we outline the various contexts in which our study was set and we discuss the various approaches to studying the notion of parental choice In Chapter 1 we discuss the ways in which we selected our methods for studying parental choice and then move on to discuss our selection of schools, parents and pupils In Chapter 2 we discuss the characteristics of our sample of parents of 'target children' in terms of social class, ethnic and
family backgrounds and circumstances We also raise their earlier education and upbringing. In Chapter 3 we debate the question of who in the family took responsibility for the 'decision' about school choice and discuss the relationships between parents and children over this matter In Chapter 4 we move on to look at the ways in which parents were informed of the procedures for transfer to secondary school from the last year of primary school and we analyse their own approaches to looking at the processes and procedures.
In Chapter 5 we broaden our discussion to look at the reasons parents offered for their choice of particular secondary schools, using evidence from previous research studies about the various possible factors that parents might bring into consideration, such as academic performance, results or reputation versus a child's happiness and the location of the school In Chapter 6 we discuss both the other side of the coin — factors that would militate against parents selecting particular schools — and broader concerns, such as their approaches to the issues of order and discipline. We present a lengthy discussion of discipline because this was one issue of salience to all parents, although the way it was considered varied amongst parents.
In Chapter 7 we widen our discussion even more to consider the ways in which the parents used their own prior experiences of schooling and education to inform their consideration. We also address their current 'political' and educational concerns and their hopes and expectations for their children's futures. In Chapter 8, we consider the pupils' own perspectives and stories about their views of, and involvement in, the processes of 'choice'. Finally, in Chapter 9, the conclusion, we draw together the many threads and try to reach some conclusions about the ways in which we now understand the processes of school choice and the responsibilities for selection or decision-making amongst and within families.
The Various Contexts for the Research Study
The study is set in a number of important contexts; it is based on two local education authorities (LEAs) in post-ILEA (Inner London Education Authority) London and took place at a time of major change in national educational policies towards more 'parental choice' of education in the early 1990s. We undertook the study to explore whether or not the current policy debates about parental choice in education, markets and consumerism were at all salient to particular groups of parents and families in primary schools in inner London at the time. We were also interested in the broader context of the debates about policy changes.
On the one hand, policy issues about parental choice of school were located in wider debates, raised by the Conservative government, about the transformation of social and educational policies from public and state provision and bureaucracy towards consumer choice in a market situation. Indeed, the ideological underpinnings of policy by the New Right administrations in the
1980s an d earl y 1990s focuse d specifically o n creatin g market s in publi c an d social service s an d transformin g user s int o 'consumers ' o r 'customers' Thes e debate s wer e no t confine d t o th e British contex t bu t hav e thei r parallel s an d similarities in othe r wester n industrial or, rather , so-calle d postmoder n societies . It is particularl y th e cas e tha t in th e USA, Canada , Australia an d Ne w Zealan d question s of political an d social citizenshi p an d consume r choic e ar e bein g raise d in th e political arena . In some , if no t all th e countrie s cited , it ha s bee n Ne w Right administration s tha t hav e sparke d th e debates , especiall y wit h respec t t o educatio n (Guthri e an d Pierce , 1991; Ginsburg , 1992; Kenwa y et al, 1993)
However , th e way s in whic h change s in publi c polic y deliver y ar e bein g transforme d from publi c t o private , voluntary , charitabl e o r eve n family agencie s is no t confine d t o educatio n bu t is a vital characteristi c of socia l an d politica l transformation s in a n internationa l contex t in th e late twentiet h century
O n th e othe r hand , thes e debate s wer e bein g raised b y right-wing politicians in Britain at a tim e of major social an d economi c change , includin g particularl y change s in family an d cultura l diversity. Thes e kind s of societa l change s ar e als o par t of far wide r social an d economi c processe s o n a transnationa l scal e an d ten d in th e directio n of individualis m rathe r tha n collectivism. The y ar e often dubbe d a s par t of postmodernis m o r critically appraise d in thi s contex t (Giddens , 1992; Ribbens , 1994 forthcoming ; Taylor-Gooby , 1994). The y hav e als o bee n raise d a s a seriou s matte r for political chang e b y bot h Ne w Right politician s an d social critics in man y industria l societie s (Berge r an d Berger , 1984; Halsey , 1992; Davies , 1993).
W e hope , therefore , t o contextualiz e ou r relatively small-scale an d detaile d stud y of parenta l choic e of stat e schoolin g in thes e wide r discussion s abou t social fragmentation , individualis m an d consumeris m in postmoder n societies . W e als o aim t o addres s thei r implication s for social an d educationa l policie s an d practice s as wel l a s th e mor e theoretica l relationship s an d linkages .
Th e Politica l an d Socia l Scientifi c Researc h Contex t
In Britain, ther e ha s bee n a grea t dea l of academi c social scientific, a s wel l a s media , interes t in th e polic y development s of th e 1980s an d earl y 1990s, particularl y aroun d educationa l reform. Th e media , for instance , hav e tende d t o focus o n th e question s abou t changin g nationa l policie s in orde r t o improv e educationa l standards . The y hav e als o becom e involve d in th e processe s of contributin g t o th e wide r politica l an d polic y debate s b y producin g thei r ow n leagu e table s of school s (an d othe r educationa l institution s as wel l a s othe r social o r publi c polic y institutions ) t o ai d th e processe s of educationa l choic e an d decision-making In fact, ther e ha s develope d a comple x interpla y betwee n medi a an d governmen t ove r ho w bes t t o judg e educationa l standard s an d achievement s an d contribut e t o th e processe s of decision-makin g in families. Moreover , th e medi a hav e begu n t o pla y a par t in decidin g wha t constitute s educationa l standards , whic h ar e a s muc h t o d o wit h judgin g th e performanc e
Contexts and Concepts: Parental Choice or Chosen Parents?
of educationa l institution s throug h thei r teachin g staff as the y ar e wit h judgin g th e performanc e of pupils/student s an d attemptin g t o rais e thei r educationa l standards
Nevertheless , th e leagu e table s in th e pres s d o no t see m t o hav e contribute d significantly t o changin g practice s in tha t the y hav e mainl y bee n produce d in th e qualit y rathe r tha n tabloi d pres s an d hav e focuse d o n middle-clas s value s an d aspirations T o tha t extent , the y hav e als o tende d t o concentrat e o n hig h level s of publi c examinatio n attainmen t in bot h th e publi c an d privat e sector s (particularl y selectiv e schools ) an d hav e no t focuse d o n th e processe s of secondar y schooling . In othe r words , the y hav e bee n concerne d wit h specifying examinatio n result s for GCSE an d A levels , o n th e assumptio n tha t parent s ar e mos t concerne d wit h academi c result s a s a basi s for choosin g schools . This ha s bee n fuelled b y th e governmen t who , in th e 1992 Educatio n Act, require d th e productio n of medi a presente d leagu e tables ' of bot h examinatio n result s an d truanc y rate s of school s from 1993 onwards
Examinatio n result s ar e on e of th e mai n issue s relatin g t o ho w parent s choos e school s tha t w e will explor e belo w in Chapte r 5. It is interesting , however , t o not e at thi s junctur e tha t th e debat e abou t leagu e table s ha s take n o n a recen t ne w twist, in tha t th e governmen t ha s concede d thei r inappropriatenes s at certai n age s an d stage s (namel y age s 7 an d 14), give n th e report s of Sir Ron Dearing , th e Chairma n of th e Schoo l Curriculu m an d Assessmen t Authority . H e ha d bee n invite d b y th e Educatio n Secretar y o n 7 April 1993 t o revie w th e scop e of th e nationa l curriculu m an d its assessmen t an d testin g system In othe r words , th e questio n of examinatio n result s an d leagu e table s remain s a thorn y issu e of debat e tha t ha s bee n susceptibl e t o pressur e from parents ' group s an d governors , a s wel l as teache r union s an d teacher s themselves . Much of th e academi c socia l scientific debat e abou t changin g educationa l policie s especiall y aroun d choic e an d market s has , in Britain, focuse d upo n th e contex t of th e changin g legislation , first in Scotlan d an d late r in England , a s note d elsewher e (Macbet h et al, 1986; Adle r et al, 1989; Coldro n an d Boulton , 1991; Glatte r an d Woods , 1993; David , 1993). Curiously, compare d wit h social scientific researc h in th e previou s perio d of socia l democracy , it is rathe r administrativel y dominate d an d no t s o concerne d wit h socia l processes . But researcher s hav e als o raise d issue s abou t th e concep t an d implementatio n of th e notion s of choic e an d th e creatio n of market s and/o r quasi-market s in educatio n amongs t othe r socia l polic y issue s (Bow e an d Ball, 1993; Le Gran d et al, 1993; Ball, 1993). As a result of this kin d of detaile d analysis an d approac h ther e is no w a goo d dea l of evidenc e abou t aspect s of th e processe s of chang e an d choic e ove r different level s an d type s of educatio n in a numbe r of area s an d region s of Britain an d th e UK an d in contras t t o othe r industria l societies . As a prelud e t o conductin g thi s researc h study , Davi d embarke d upo n a wide-rangin g revie w of th e literatur e an d debate s abou t polic y development s whic h summarize s a grea t dea l of thi s evidenc e an d t o whic h w e will hav e occasio n t o retur n (David , 1993).
Ther e has , however , bee n ver y little concer n abou t th e impac t of thes e
changes on families and those in different or changing socio-economic or cultural circumstances (David, 1993) Indeed, most of the research has only raised the issue of the impact of changes on the parents through LEAs and schools, whether LEA maintained or financed directly from central government or through a partnership between business, and whether primary or secondary schools. Much of it focuses on the management of the change process from the point of view of either educators or education managers and administrators. It is highly specialized and largely linked to managerial or bureaucratic questions of a specific kind (Edwards et al., 1989; Glatter and Woods, 1993).
We set out to try to reverse this kind of approach and look at what parents thought about choice and the processes to which they were subjected when their children were in the final year of state primary school. Given the burgeoning educational research, it is curious that little of it has emphasized these questions or 'problematized' notions of parents, consumers or choice. However, that may have to do with the fact that the traditional focus of educational research has been on educational effectiveness and the emphasis is therefore on the role and workings of the educational institution rather than the perspectives of family members (Mortimore et al., 1988; David, 1993; David et al, 1993) Indeed, this is a common feature of research around family issues; it is the policy agenda and resulting perspective that predominates, while the agendas of family members themselves go unrecognized
We were also particularly interested in the concept of the family and the ways in which family and cultural diversity might influence the processes that went on at home as well as at school — the various interactions between mothers and fathers and their children We also knew that in London, especially the inner London boroughs, there is evidence of a great variety of family patterns and cultures, particularly as mediated by religion and ethnicity and/or race. This kind of evidence has emerged from surveys commissioned in the days of the ILEA (Hargreaves, 1984; Thomas, 1985). It has also been the subject of much academic analysis and scrutiny (Brannen and Moss, 1991; Joshi, 1991; Solomos, 1993).
Moreover, we knew that while there has been considerable continuity in certain aspects of family life there have also been trends away from traditional nuclear families towards different family households, reconstituted families and towards an increase in lone parent families, particularly lone/single mother families and ones in which there are considerable amounts of maternal employment (Brannen and Moss, 1991; Wicks, 1991; David, 1993). We were eager to explore whether these had any effects on the processes and patterns of choice and decision-making in families over schools We were particularly concerned with whether or not the policy changes were having any impact on the lives of parents, especially mothers, in difficult and straitened circumstances. We were surprised that, despite the massive numbers of particular research studies on parental choice, none had thought to 'problematize' the concept of parent in terms of gender, race/ethnicity or family context. It remained the case that all the studies addressed the question of family and parents through
Contexts and Concepts: Parental Choice or Chosen Parents?
socia l class and/o r ethnicit y onl y b y mean s of socio-economi c indicator s suc h a s parenta l o r family backgroun d o r circumstance s (David , 1993; Ball, 1993). At a mor e theoretica l level , w e wer e als o intereste d in th e exten t t o whic h change s in family structures/contexts , suc h a s lon e parenthoo d o r reconstitute d families, an d characteristics, suc h a s rac e and/o r ethnicity, affected th e traditional notion s of socia l class influence s o n education . W e wante d t o explor e th e meaning s of educatio n an d schoolin g for a particula r grou p of parent s at wha t ha s traditionall y bee n considere d a tim e of decision-making Wa s it in fact th e cas e tha t parent s — eithe r mother s o r father s — giv e a grea t dea l of consideratio n t o different factors ove r th e choic e of a secondar y schoo l for thei r child? O r wa s it mor e a matte r of th e parent s — mother s and/o r fathers — seein g th e processe s of educatio n an d schoolin g a s contributing , relatively automatically , t o th e type s of schoo l t o whic h a chil d move s from th e primar y t o secondar y schoo l stage?
Th e ERA an d th e Curren t Researc h
Th e curren t researc h wa s carrie d ou t after th e passin g of th e 1988 Educationa l Reform Act (ERA), wel l befor e th e 'major' change s toward s mor e market s an d consumeris m in education . Th e ERA 1988 buil t upo n th e 1981 Educatio n Act in respec t of parenta l choice . Th e latte r ha d allowe d for parental preference of schoo l bu t in th e contex t of th e LEA's efficient us e of resource s whic h als o include d th e settin g of 'planne d admissio n levels ' t o LEA school s t o balanc e size withi n th e locality. It als o allowe d for th e publicatio n of schoo l prospectuse s an d informatio n abou t school s t o assis t wit h th e expressio n of parenta l preferences This itself ha d built upo n th e 1944 Educatio n Act an d its subsequen t amendin g legislatio n t o ensur e tha t parenta l wishe s wer e me t an d childre n educate d accordin g t o thei r ages , aptitude s an d abilities , bu t in th e contex t of efficient us e of publi c resources . Joh n Patten , th e Secretary of State for Education, an d autho r of th e Whit e Pape r entitle d Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools, describe d th e prehistor y of educationa l polic y prio r t o th e 1980s as on e of 'deadenin g uniformity ' (1992 Cm 2021). In othe r words , h e contrast s publi c bureaucracie s wit h interna l market s in education , o r wha t Le Gran d ha s recentl y calle d quasi-market s (Le Gran d et al., 1993).
Thu s th e ERA of 1988, in hi s vie w an d tha t of th e government , widene d th e notio n of parenta l choic e b y creatin g a rang e of different type s of school . In additio n t o privat e o r independen t school s an d th e local authorit y syste m of schoolin g of state-maintaine d o r voluntary-aide d o r controlle d schools , it allowe d for school s t o 'op t out ' of loca l educatio n authorit y (LEA) contro l an d becom e 'grant-maintained ' school s (GMSs) an d it als o allowe d for cit y technolog y college s (CTCs) t o b e established . Moreover , it change d th e natur e o r characte r of thos e school s remainin g withi n th e local authorit y ambit . It abolishe d th e notio n of planne d admissio n level s (whic h target s number s at lowe r tha n full physica l capacity ) an d replace d it wit h th e ide a of 'ope n
enrolment ' whereb y school s ar e require d t o accep t a highe r numbe r of applicants , wit h th e numbe r limited onl y b y physica l space However , researc h b y Morris (1993) point s ou t tha t ther e is a grea t diversit y of assessment s of schoo l capacit y an d LEA officers ar e 'greatl y concerne d at th e continuatio n of thre e o r four quit e separat e method s of calculatin g it'.
It als o require d LEAs an d school s t o publis h mor e extensiv e informatio n throug h booklet s etc. , a s a basi s o n whic h school s coul d b e chosen State school s themselve s becam e mor e autonomou s from th e LEA throug h financial an d manageria l change s an d delegatio n of fundin g of school s throug h loca l managemen t of school s (LMS). Most importan t wit h respec t t o parenta l choice , however , wa s th e ide a tha t parents , throug h a parenta l ballo t of th e parenta l body , coul d b e involve d in th e decisio n abou t whethe r a schoo l shoul d remai n in LEA contro l o r becom e grant-maintaine d an d funde d b y centra l rathe r tha n local government .
Thes e variou s an d varie d change s wer e quit e comple x an d th e proces s of creatin g grant-maintaine d school s wa s rathe r bureaucratic Researc h b y Halpi n et al. (199 D an d Fitz (1991) ha s reveale d ho w slo w th e change s hav e been But th e balanc e of powe r betwee n parent s an d school s — at least in theory , as far as choic e of schoo l is concerne d — ha s altere d considerabl y in th e directio n of parent s as th e significant, if no t main , decision-makers . In an y event , thes e change s in organizatio n hav e bee n accompanie d b y massiv e change s in th e curriculu m an d th e assessmen t of pupil s throug h th e nationa l curriculu m an d assessmen t withi n stat e primar y an d secondar y schools , als o prescribe d in th e 1988 ERA. Th e focus of th e 1988 Educatio n Reform Act wa s no t onl y o n organizationa l chang e bu t als o o n change s in pedagogy ; a combine d proces s tha t ha s bee n characterize d a s 'marke t forces versu s centra l control ' Whitty (1990) (Lawto n et al, 1987; Ranson , 1990) W e chose , however , t o start ou r stud y of change s in educationa l organizatio n in thi s perio d of massiv e educationa l as wel l a s othe r organizationa l changes .
It is onl y subsequentl y tha t organizationa l change s an d th e mor e extensiv e creatio n of consumeris m an d market s in educatio n hav e becom e th e paramoun t issue s in educationa l reform (Lawto n et al, 1987; Ranson , 1990). Thes e massiv e change s in educationa l policy , awa y from local governmen t suppor t for school s toward s a variet y of different type s of schoo l funding , o r wha t hav e bee n calle d quasi-markets , hav e no w bee n see n a s th e centra l featur e of educationa l reform (Le Grand , 1991) Thu s ou r stud y wa s designe d befor e Major replace d Thatche r as Prime Minister an d starte d upo n hi s polic y of consumeris m throug h th e Citizen's Charte r in 1991 (Pag e an d Baldock , 1993). It therefor e predate d th e Parent' s Charte r for Education , entitle d You and Your Child's Education (199 D an d th e spat e of subsequen t legislatio n tha t wa s attendan t o n this , namel y th e 1992 Educatio n (Schools) Act, th e White Pape r Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools (Cm 2021 , 1992) an d its subsequen t legislation , namel y th e 1993 Educatio n (Schools ) Act. Take n together , all thes e subsequen t development s creat e a ne w syste m of market s an d customer s in educatio n an d all othe r socia l policie s (Ranson , 1993; David , 1993b; Tritter , 1994)
Contexts and Concepts: Parental Choice or Chosen Parents?
Nevertheless , give n ou r method s an d approac h w e hop e t o b e abl e t o she d light o n th e ke y issue s for families in changin g circumstance s abou t choice s of education .
Conceptua l Issue s abou t th e Stud y o f Parenta l Choic e o f Secondar y Schoo l
Before designin g ou r stud y w e decide d t o loo k further at tw o set s of question s abou t th e concep t of 'choice' : first, ca n parent s indee d b e regarde d as consumer s in relatio n t o thei r children' s educatio n an d second , wha t is choic e an d diversity? Th e notio n of parent s makin g choice s — t o asser t thei r wishe s wit h regard s t o thei r children' s educatio n — require s som e careful analysi s t o conside r its meanin g an d relevance . For example , a s Bell an d Macbet h (1989) poin t out , in theory , wheneve r childre n atten d schoo l at all, parent s hav e 'chosen ' t o sen d the m sinc e the y d o hav e th e righ t t o educat e the m 'otherwise' . However , it is har d t o defen d thi s usag e of 'choice ' whe n parent s themselve s ma y b e unawar e of, o r unabl e t o activate , an y suc h alternative . Is it als o stretchin g th e notio n of 'choice ' to o far t o appl y it t o situation s wher e a chil d is sen t t o th e thir d o r fourt h schoo l liste d b y th e parent s (Macbet h 1984)? Thu s th e University of Glasgo w stud y (1985) preferre d t o us e th e ter m 'placement ' a s th e overarchin g term , potentiall y coverin g processe s tha t coul d b e variousl y describe d a s choice , allocatio n an d selection .
Wha t is it tha t parent s ar e choosin g between ? Is ther e an y rea l sens e of choic e an d if so , wha t is its nature ? Choice s coul d cove r a whol e variet y of educationa l matters , from choosin g betwee n school s attended , t o issue s withi n th e schoo l itself suc h a s th e subject s taught , th e teachin g method s used , o r th e individual s wh o d o th e teachin g (Naul t an d Uchitelle , 1982; Macbet h et al., 1984; Raywid, 1985). Her e w e shall concentrat e onl y o n choic e betwee n different secondar y schools .
Th e concep t of choic e is als o intimatel y linke d t o tha t of diversity, as th e governmen t acknowledge d wit h th e title of th e Whit e Pape r a s a prelud e t o th e 1993 Educatio n Act But ther e ar e variou s othe r conceptua l argument s t o b e mad e abou t diversity an d nationa l integration/cohesivenes s (cf. Hirschman , 1981; Crittenden , 1988). Ho w far ar e parent s choosin g betwee n spam , spa m an d spam? Echol s et al. (1990) foun d tha t in Scotland :
Choic e amon g stat e school s als o increase d wit h th e option s for choice , othe r thing s bein g equal . . . Th e option s for choic e explaine d a large r fraction of th e variatio n in choic e amon g stat e school s tha n of th e variatio n in choic e of th e privat e sector , (p 215)
If parent s d o no t wan t spam , ca n the y gai n financial suppor t for somethin g othe r tha n spam? Bell an d Macbet h (1989) distinguis h betwee n 'weak ' an d 'strong ' choices , pointin g ou t tha t th e UK ha s in th e pas t tende d t o provid e
wea k choices , wher e someon e els e decide s th e option s available This ma y b e contraste d with , for example , Denmar k an d th e Netherlands , wher e parent s ca n se t u p thei r ow n school s an d ge t governmen t fundin g for the m (Macbet h et al., 1984; Bell an d Macbeth , 1989). Thus , parent s ca n creat e thei r ow n alternativ e forms of schoolin g if the y s o wish This is no w becomin g a n optio n tha t th e governmen t wishe s t o encourag e (Bow e an d Ball, 1992; Whitty et al, 1993). Macbet h et al (1986) distinguis h broa d variation s in th e policie s withi n th e Europea n Communit y toward s schoo l choic e from:
• full choic e (wher e school s hav e t o adjust t o accommodat e everyon e wh o want s t o attend , for exampl e Belgium , althoug h parent s canno t late r chang e thei r mind s onc e th e schoo l yea r ha s started) , throug h
• filling th e gap s (wher e school s hav e t o gran t a plac e t o thos e wh o appl y if ther e ar e space s availabl e withi n th e school , for exampl e Englan d an d Wales) , t o
• choic e at th e discretio n of th e local authority , withou t an y nationa l rule s laid dow n (for exampl e Denmark) .
Crittende n (1988), however , point s ou t tha t th e existenc e of alternativ e school s ma y no t just reflect a straightforward respons e t o parenta l demand s for diversity, bein g strongl y affected als o b y pressur e le d b y local communit y leaders , for example , of particula r religiou s o r ethni c groups : Th e existenc e of a n ethni c group' s school s ma y depen d mor e o n th e effort of its leader s t o preserv e th e group' s identit y an d vitality tha n o n th e wishe s of parents ' (1988, p . 6) . Option s ma y als o b e strongl y affected b y othe r practica l issues , no t just legislatio n an d polic y decisions . Thu s geograph y ma y b e highly significant, eithe r b y effectively rulin g ou t an y alternative s t o th e neares t schoo l (University of Glasgow , 1985), o r b y providin g a vas t arra y of alternatives , a s wher e parent s in Ne w York City ca n choos e betwee n 'som e 360 different magne t programme s in mor e tha n 90 different buildings ' (Jackso n an d Cooper , 1989, p . 268).
Economi c factors ma y als o b e highl y significant in limiting choices , no t onl y in relatio n t o payin g schoo l fees bu t als o in relatio n t o transpor t costs , for bot h stat e an d privat e sector s of schoolin g (Darling-Hammon d et al, 1985; Stillman an d Maychell, 1986). For th e majority of parents , proximit y is crucial , particularly at th e primar y stag e (se e West, 1994 for a revie w of recen t research) , alongsid e a numbe r of othe r issue s — for example , th e perceive d academi c recor d of th e school , th e perceive d disciplin e in th e school , th e chil d wantin g t o g o ther e (West an d Varlaam, 199 D an d local contact s via children' s sibling s o r friends (se e for example , Coldro n an d Boulton , 1991). Consequently , the y canno t b e regarde d a s necessaril y choosin g betwee n a grea t variet y of options . Rather, for man y parents , ther e is a tendenc y t o stay wit h a local school , unles s thi s tendenc y is overridde n b y ver y stron g reason s for rejecting th e schoo l (discusse d further below) Th e othe r sid e of thi s particula r coi n though , is th e ange r expresse d if parenta l choic e asserte d b y othe r out-of-area parent s prevent s attendanc e at th e local schoo l (Strickland, 1991).
Anothe r questio n t o b e addresse d is whethe r o r no t th e school s ar e als o engage d in a consumer-oriente d productio n process . Ho w far ca n school s themselve s b e see n a s respondin g t o consumers ? If parent s ar e t o b e truly actin g as consumers , the n administrator s hav e t o b e truly actin g a s producers : 't o mak e thei r school s special , t o recruit openl y an d forcefully for paren t interest, an d t o organiz e thei r school s in variou s way s t o reflect local markets ' (Jackso n an d Cooper , 1989, p . 269). But ar e school s bot h abl e an d willin g t o respon d in thi s wa y t o th e exercis e of parenta l choices? Th e conflict her e is betwee n exit (i.e consumer/economi c behaviour ) an d voice (i.e collective/politica l behaviour) , in communicatin g t o school s wha t it is parent s actuall y wan t t o chang e abou t school s (Hirschman , 1981). Thu s producer s ma y no t kno w ho w t o respon d t o 'exit ' becaus e thi s is a ver y imprecis e form of communication Consumer s ma y neve r hav e bee n offered wha t the y really wan t in th e first place , an d exit alon e will no t expres s this . A numbe r of unconnecte d 'exits ' from different school s ma y cance l eac h othe r ou t overall , allowin g parent s t o exercis e choic e bu t failing t o eve r 'voice ' t o th e school s th e reason s for th e variou s departures . Stillman an d Maychell (1986) foun d tha t 'in numerou s LEAs n o informatio n abou t wh y parent s preferre d som e school s ove r other s reache d eithe r th e educatio n officers o r an y of th e school s themselves ' (p . 183). Whethe r thi s is still th e case , however , is b y n o mean s certai n give n th e curren t pressur e t o increas e pupi l number s an d henc e funding .
D o parenta l choice s actuall y hav e a n effect at a collectiv e level? Ther e ar e conflicting view s here ; Bell an d Macbet h (1989) sugges t tha t parenta l choic e ha s a ver y mino r effect o n schoo l rolls ('for all bu t a small minorit y of schools ' p . 16), wherea s Tweedi e (1989) expresse s considerabl e concer n at th e effects o n schoo l rolls. Are school s abl e t o chang e t o suit parenta l choices? Headteacher s d o no t appea r t o thin k tha t the y should chang e in thi s wa y in respons e t o parenta l preference s (Universit y of Glasgow , 1985). In othe r words , is th e obvers e of parenta l choic e 'chose n parents' , tha t is parent s wh o ar e in som e wa y 'chosen ' b y th e school s and/o r teachers ? Thi s is a poin t tha t Whitty et al. (1993) mak e strongl y in relatio n t o th e creatio n of city technolog y college s in a chapte r entitle d 'Chooser s o r Chosen? '
It is possibl e for 'choices ' t o b e see n bot h a s threatening professiona l autonom y b y allowin g parent s t o questio n professiona l judgment s abou t a child' s education , bu t als o a s potentiall y enhancing professiona l empowermen t at th e expens e of administrators , a s in th e Minneapoli s Southeas t alternative s projec t whic h combine d choic e wit h decentralizatio n (Raywid, 1985). Othe r system s ma y see k variou s way s of combinin g parenta l choic e wit h professiona l expertise , as in German y wher e childre n receiv e professional assessment s befor e the y transfer t o secondar y school , s o tha t parent s ca n b e bette r informe d in th e choice s the y the n mak e (Macbet h et al, 1986). However , thi s issu e of th e relationshi p betwee n parenta l choic e an d professiona l authorit y is no t alway s ver y wel l though t through , a s Crittende n (1988 ) comment s in relatio n t o Australian educationa l policies
Yet anothe r questio n t o conside r is whethe r parent s ar e realisticall y
describe d as activ e an d assertiv e decision-makin g 'choosers' . 'Choice ' is a ter m tha t denote s activ e decision-makin g (University of Glasgow , 1985), bu t ho w far d o parent s regar d themselve s a s havin g rea l scop e for decision-making , an d ho w far d o the y feel abl e t o b e assertively activ e consumers ? In wha t sense s d o the y 'actively choose ? If th e procedur e require s the m t o list school s in orde r of priority, ho w d o the y actuall y vie w thi s procedur e — ho w man y school s d o the y actuall y pu t down , d o the y actively prioritiz e all of the m o r onl y th e first on e listed? If the y kno w tha t a schoo l tend s t o b e oversubscribed , d o the y still actively conside r it at all? If the y pu t dow n th e closes t school , doe s thi s mea n tha t the y hav e no t really considere d an y alternatives? Ho w far doe s thi s ide a of active choic e necessaril y reflect parenta l interest , tha t is, migh t parent s not exercis e activ e choic e bu t still hav e considerabl e interes t in th e child' s schooling ? In othe r words , ho w d o w e asses s th e existenc e an d significanc e of 'non-choice' ?
Placing request s d o see m t o relat e t o socia l class an d parents ' education , althoug h ther e ar e als o a hig h numbe r of placin g request s from th e skilled working-clas s group s (Naul t an d Uchitelle , 1982; Echol s et al, 1990). Even withi n th e strictly define d sens e of choic e laid dow n withi n th e curren t Scottish educationa l system , 3.5 pe r cen t of th e parent s interviewe d b y Echols et al. (1990) wer e no t sur e whethe r o r no t the y had exercise d choic e ove r thei r child' s secondar y school . O n th e othe r hand , Stillman an d Maychell (1986) foun d tha t 'th e act of filling in a form stating a preference , regardles s of whethe r th e choic e is betwee n similar o r different schools , is sufficient t o giv e th e feeling of havin g bee n offered a choice ' (p 154) Yet 'th e percentag e of parent s wh o felt tha t the y ha d bee n give n a choic e range d from 26 t o 84 pe r cent ' (p 187) Simply havin g a choic e doe s see m t o lea d t o a mor e activ e searc h for informatio n abou t school s (Nault an d Uchitelle , 1982).
Nevertheless , Hughe s et al. (1990) foun d tha t 45 pe r cen t of primar y schoo l parent s interviewe d foun d th e whol e ide a of bein g a 'consume r of education ' t o b e a puzzlin g one , an d half th e parent s di d no t se e themselve s in thi s wa y at all. Amongs t thos e 34 pe r cen t wh o sa w themselve s 't o som e extent ' as consumer s of education , ther e wer e variou s reservation s expresse d in usin g th e term . Thes e include d th e feeling tha t assertion s of parenta l powe r undermine d th e sens e of trus t betwee n paren t an d teacher , an d th e vie w tha t parent s themselve s ar e producer s withi n th e educationa l system : 'no t entirel y like buyin g a packe t of biscuits , you'r e puttin g in a s muc h a s you'r e takin g out ' (paren t quote d b y Hughe s et al, 1990, p . 14). Ther e ma y thu s b e a desir e t o wor k wit h an d in respons e t o teachers , rathe r tha n mak e demand s of them , bu t als o potentiall y a sens e of vulnerabilit y in relatio n t o teachers : 'a t present , if I moa n an d groa n it will b e a ro d for [my child's ] back ' (paren t quote d b y Hughe s et al, 1990, p . 17).
Certainly parent s d o no t see m t o regar d themselve s a s powerfu l in relatio n t o schools , no t least becaus e the y ma y feel the y hav e limited knowledg e of wha t is actually happenin g t o thei r childre n in daily schoo l life (Ribbens , 1990;
Spey, 1991). Evidence from studies of client rights in other contexts also suggest that people may not use their rights to protect their own interests, either through lack of administrative skills, or through a fear of antagonizing officials (reviewed by Tweedie, 1989). There is a degree of variation in the actual procedures by which parents could express a choice, which related to whether LEAs had a policy of providing minimal or maximal choice to parents (Stillman and Maychell, 1986). How do parents and children understand the placement procedure? How far are they aware of the choice and appeals procedures, and of the criteria used to assign places in oversubscribed schools? To which parental characteristics does this awareness relate? Do parents believe they have any real choice in practice?
A more pragmatic set of questions also needs to be considered here Does the system actually permit choice in practice? Even within all these constraints, does the system actually let parents assert their choices when they try to do so? If not, parents may perhaps be better described as expressing preferences rather than making choices (Stillman and Maychell, 1986) The same point has been made by Morris (1993) in his study for the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. Stillman and Maychell found that the vast majority (about 86 per cent) of parents who knew which school they wanted for their children had obtained a place at it a year later, although 'we still do not know how much the parents' choice had been conditioned by the LEA's arrangements' (1986, p. 187). More recently, press coverage suggests that the English system is disappointing parents more than the Scottish system, where 96.7 per cent of parents' school requests were granted in 1985 (Tweedie, 1989) There has been, at least in Britain, a degree of variation in the published criteria for allocation of places in different areas (Stillman and Maychell, 1986). The criteria actually used in practice to allocate places in oversubscribed schools seem to be obscure or at best, highly variable, once the published allocation criteria have failed to reduce the numbers of candidates sufficiently (University of Glasgow, 1985; Strickland, 1991). Even so, this could indeed be the intention of the system, if the aim is to really treat parental appeals individually (Stillman and Maychell, 1986). But there is a lack of official national statistics in England and Wales to reveal in detail how policies are operating in practice. It is, however, worth noting that the research cited above (Morris, 1993), which involved a survey of LEAs to which 69 responded, did not demonstrate that 'choice' was becoming more limited. However, successful first preference has been high and so scope for improvement has been limited: 'Some decline of numbers of successful first preferences has occurred, notably in urban areas' (p. 29). He also found the numbers of appeals to be increasing, but the proportions of successful appeals to be declining.
A further set of pragmatic questions relates to how far the whole issue has been localized and the variabilities within this and the extent to which this may be further extended. There is some evidence of the significance of localized historical situations (Stillman and Maychell, 1986; Echols et al, 1990):
local authoritie s differed enormousl y bot h in thei r educationa l policie s an d thei r administratio n of schoo l allocation s an d th e roo t of thi s variatio n seeme d t o lie in th e existin g variet y of LEA procedure s upo n whic h th e 1980 Act an d 1981 Regulations wer e superimposed . (Stillman an d Maychell, 1986, pp 5-6 )
Further, w e nee d t o conside r th e significance of local network s an d communitie s in mediatin g parents ' interaction s wit h school s (Bell an d Ribbens , 1994; Jackso n an d Cooper , 1989). This ma y occu r in bot h directions , wit h suc h network s acting as powerful influences shapin g parents ' perception s of school s (discusse d further below) , bu t als o a s significant channel s whic h shap e whether , an d how , parenta l Voice ' is hear d b y th e schoo l (e.g . as see n in th e William Tyndal e disput e in Britain; David, 1978). Thus , Echols et al (1990) not e th e significance in particula r area s of a concentratio n of educate d parent s wh o wan t t o exercis e schoo l choice .
Ther e ar e als o interestin g question s abou t ho w peopl e decid e t o live in particula r areas , wha t ar e thei r image s of thes e area s an d ho w doe s thi s tie in wit h th e parenta l population s of particula r schools? Ribbens , for example , ha s experienc e of a particula r primar y schoo l attractin g a disproportionatel y hig h numbe r of parent s of certai n political persuasions , whic h seeme d t o b e partl y t o d o wit h parents ' perception s of th e typ e of communit y th e schoo l served . Nault an d Uchitelle (1982) sugges t tha t in th e particula r localities the y studie d in th e USA, peopl e ha d often move d int o th e are a becaus e of th e typ e of communit y it was
Ther e ar e als o consideration s t o b e give n t o th e different avenue s of choice . Different incom e group s ma y exercis e choic e (wher e the y see k t o d o so ) in different forms suc h a s throug h purchas e of educatio n in a particula r system / schoo l (althoug h not e tha t privat e educatio n ma y represen t a n absence of active choosin g — Darling-Hammon d et al, 1985; Fox, 1985), throug h purchas e of housin g in a particula r area , o r throug h th e exercis e of rights throug h th e legislative/administrativ e system . Bell an d Macbet h (1989) poin t ou t tha t 'th e legislation mad e th e syste m marginall y mor e egalitaria n b y openin g u p choic e t o thos e wh o wer e no t home-owners ' (p 16) Darling-Hammon d et al (1985) als o foun d tha t in th e USA th e mos t active chooser s wer e parent s wh o sen t thei r childre n t o stat e schools , wit h th e choice s exercise d via thei r decision s abou t wher e t o live, whil e low-incom e parent s sough t t o exercis e choic e throug h alternative s mad e availabl e b y th e state . This stud y als o foun d a significant relationshi p betwee n th e mother' s educationa l level an d us e of th e residentia l avenu e for schoo l choice . Thus , onl y 31 pe r cen t of non-hig h schoo l graduat e mother s ha d take n choic e of publi c schoolin g int o accoun t in thei r choic e of residence , compare d wit h 72 pe r cen t of colleg e graduat e mothers . Th e linkag e betwee n residenc e an d choic e of schoo l ma y als o operat e in mor e comple x ways , accordin g t o th e way s in whic h people , th e typ e of local communit y an d th e schoo l itself interac t (a s discusse d above) Ironically, therefore , som e of th e recen t British dispute s abou t giving priorit y t o local childre n ma y represen t
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
of which set closely enough together to keep fragments of shells from going through should one hit and explode on deck.
On our battleships the main battery is generally made up of four 10 inch, 12 inch or 13 inch breech loading guns and these are mounted in revolving turrets one of which is forward and one aft. The Alabama had four 13 inch guns in the large turrets and twelve 6 inch guns on the broadsides. I’m telling you that if Huerta had been at Vera Cruz when we got there and taken a look into the muzzle of one of our 13 inch guns he’d have saluted the flag without any more of that mañana business. As it was he was safely out of range of our guns for Mexico City is over 200 miles from Vera Cruz.
In the early days of wireless when every Tom, Dick and Harry was getting up a “new” wireless system the Navy Department tried out all of them. It would not use the Marconi system because the government wanted to buy the apparatus outright while the policy of the Marconi Company was to lease their apparatus.
The favorite type of wireless apparatus used by the Navy Department was known as the Telefunken, a German getup that was a combination of the Slaby-Arco and the Braun-Siemens and Halske systems. The transmitter of our station was one of this kind and consisted of an induction coil with a mercury turbine interruptor, an electric motor to run it and the usual key, loose coupled tuning coil and condensers.
The receiver was of a later type and had both a crystal detector and a vacuum tube detector, the latter being the invention of Dr. Fleming of England who has been Marconi’s technical adviser for many years. This detector is really a small incandescent lamp bulb with not only a filament but a metal plate sealed in it. The filament is kept at a white heat by a current from a storage battery.
When the telephone receivers are connected to the hot filament and the cold plate electrodes, the high frequency currents that are set up in the aerial by the incoming electric waves are changed into direct currents and the varying strength of these act on the headphones. This detector is very sensitive and needs no adjusting.
Many of the messages we sent and received were in straight English but nearly all the important ones, especially those for and from Washington, were in code, the purpose of which was to prevent
any one else, except our officers, from reading them and this kind of message is not very interesting but we know that something is going on anyway.
We anchored off Vera Cruz on the 21st and the natives must have thought from the number of warships that hemmed them in that we were going to blow them to smithereens. A few hours after our arrival we landed a thousand marines and they drove back Huerta’s soldiers and captured the customs house.
The chief reason this was done was because our government had got wise to the fact that a couple of German ships were scheduled to arrive at Vera Cruz with a cargo of guns and ammunition for Huerta, and our Commander had received orders on the way down to prevent this by seizing the customs house.
There was not much show of armed resistance on the part of Huerta’s men but in the scuffle that took place four of our men were killed and about twenty were wounded. I made up my mind right then and there that if I ever got a chance I’d blow the sombrero off of some greaser out of pure revenge.
The favorite method of warfare that is waged by the Mexicans is sniping, that is, they hide behind something and take a shot now and then at you. As a result of sniping a few days later the number of our men that had been killed was brought up to eighteen and the number of wounded to 71.
When things had quieted down Hart Douglas, another operator and I got a six hour shore leave. We buckled on our holsters and slipped our revolvers into them with small thought of having a chance to use them. We took a look around the town and all went well for awhile when zip, zip, a couple of bullets whizzed by my ear and Hart dropped with a bullet in his lung.
I whipped out my gun and wheeled around just in time to spot a couple of snipers lying on a near-by roof with their rifles pointing toward us. I emptied the five chambers at them as fast as I could pull the trigger. I got one of them; he raised himself to his feet and pitched headlong into the street. But the other one got me for he drew a bead on my gun arm which, also don’t forget, is my key arm. A couple of marines put poor Hart on a stretcher and carried him over to a field hospital. Another bound up my arm, walked with me
over to the launch and when I got aboard my ship the doctor dressed it.
“I WHIPPED OUT MY GUN JUST IN TIME TO SPOT A COUPLE OF SNIPERS”
No more shore leaves were granted the men because two perfectly good operators had gone ashore and two miserable goodfor-nothing operators had returned. Hart hovered between life and death for weeks but he finally pulled through though he never will be as good a man as he was. I came along all right but my hand seemed paralyzed from the wrist down and it was many a moon before I could use a key again with my right hand. I guess you see now why I like those greasers so well.
Our marines remained on duty until the end of the month when General Funston arrived from Galveston with about four thousand troops and took possession of the port. It was hard to see what turn affairs would take next for Huerta had an army of 5,000 men not very far from Vera Cruz. But I guess he had heard of General Funston before and he didn’t care about being captured as Aguinaldo, the Philippine leader, was.
Instead of having some small war the diplomats of the A B C governments of South America, as Argentine, Brazil and Chile are called, offered to try to negotiate a friendly settlement between the United States and Mexico. President Wilson, who liked peace and hated war, at once accepted their kind offer and agreed to send representatives to their proposed conference. The following day Huerta agreed to send his representatives to the A B C conference which was to be held in the town of Niagara Falls on the Canadian side of the river.
Finally, when all the representatives met, the first thing that was done was to have an armistice signed by the United States and Huerta’s government. As soon as this was done Huerta’s representatives tried to have the United States withdraw its forces from Vera Cruz and the United States forego the salute for the insult to our flag. The representatives of the United States asked only that Huerta resign.
After deliberating for five weeks the representatives of all the countries agreed that a provisional government should be established in Mexico, and that Huerta should resign; that the United States should not ask Mexico to pay an indemnity nor to ask for a salute or other apology for the insult to the flag at Tampico and that our troops were to remain at Vera Cruz.
In the meantime Huerta was being hard pressed by Carranza on the north and the rebel Zapata on the south and with our troops occupying Vera Cruz it evidently suited him very well to resign. So on the 10th of July Huerta appointed Chief Justice Corbajol to be president in his place.
It was common talk among the blue-jackets on our ship that Huerta had some 3,000,000 dollars deposited in banks somewhere in Europe and that he planned to go there. Be that as it may he handed in his resignation to the Chamber of Deputies a week later and left for Puerto, Mexico, on a special train under heavy guard. From there he sailed for Jamaica and thence for Europe.
Thus it was that Huerta, the Indian descendant of the Aztecs, who always went one way and came back another, got out of saluting our flag and probably saved his life.
CHAPTER IX—ON A SUBMARINE CHASER
Very shortly after Huerta resigned the presidency of Mexico and made his get-away, the ex-Kaiser let loose the war-dogs of Europe and here I was signed up for four years in the Navy and, I figured, didn’t stand a ghost of a chance of breaking into the fight. It seemed to me a pretty tough deal that old Huerta could resign his job while I, a free American citizen, couldn’t quit, resign, go-over-the-hill, or anything.
What I wanted to do was to get over to England and sign up there for it was dollars to doughnuts in my mind that there would be some small bickerings going on between the British and the German navies and it would be well worth while to see those big guns get into action. I hadn’t the remotest idea, then, that the Imperial German Navy, as those boches so loved to call it, would be afraid to come out in the offing and put up a fight. But when it came to torpedoing unarmed passenger ships loaded with women and children, or hospital ships carrying wounded soldiers they were right there Fritzyon-the-spot with their blackheads as they called their Whitehead torpedoes.
While the ex-Kaiser’s navy could not be induced to leave its mineprotected harbors and do battle with the British fleet—no, not even if all Germany starved to death—crafty, old Admiral von Tirpitz began to build up a frightful fleet of U-boats with the avowed intention of sinking every merchant ship, no matter what flag she flew, if she carried foods or munitions to England and her Allies.
As the United States was shipping cargoes of both of these commodities to Great Britain and France, which was entirely within her rights according to international law, it was not long, as you can imagine, before the German U-boats were sinking our ships and killing our men.
It was bewhiskered Admiral von Tirpitz who figured out and showed the ex-Kaiser that the only way left open for Germany to win
the war was to sink every ship afloat that did not fly the German flag, and soon after this program was agreed to by the war-lords they seemed in a fair way to succeed, for they were sinking ships faster than the Allies and the United States could replace them.
Any number of schemes to beat the U-boats were thought up and while most of them were quite impracticable there were a few that proved effective when put to the test. One way was to build more merchant ships every month than the U-boats could sink and when Uncle Sam put the job into Mr. Schwab’s hands this was done. Another plan was to hunt down the U-boats with submarine chasers. A submarine chaser is a small, high-speed boat carrying one or more rapid fire guns.
As you know a submarine can shoot a torpedo at the biggest ship afloat and if it hits her she is sure to sink in a few minutes and yet it is the easiest thing in the world to send a U-boat to the bottom if you can only get a chance to land a shell on her.
Just before we got into the war Germany built two great submarines each of which was over 300 feet long. One of these Uboats was the Deutschland and the other was the U-53, and both had a cruising radius of about 5,000 miles, that is, they could travel that distance without having to take on food or fuel.
No one here ever thought that a submarine could make a trip across the ocean but the Deutschland did it. She left Bremen, Germany, and submerged while in the river, then she slipped out into the seaway under the British fleet that had the German warships bottled up, made the passage of the North Sea on and under the water, thence through the English Channel going this dangerous route entirely under water and across the Atlantic Ocean during which she submerged only when she saw some of the Allies’ warships.
Then one fine morning, 16 days later, she came to the surface in Chesapeake Bay and docked at Baltimore. There she unloaded a cargo of dye-stuffs and synthetic gems and took on a cargo of rubber, and, what was of more importance, secret papers which Count von Bernsdorf, Germany’s ambassador to the United States, could not trust to go any other way. On sailing she made her way to the mouth of the bay, submerged to escape the British ships which
were laying in wait for her beyond the three mile limit and returned to her home port. Later on she made another round voyage with equal success.
When we got into the war it was clear that we had a war-zone right here at home and one that was not to be sneezed at, for, since a submarine could be built large enough to travel the whole distance from Europe to America without having to be convoyed by a base, or mother-ship as she is called, Germany could as easily send over to our shores one or a dozen submarines as large as the Deutschland, fitted out with rapid-fire guns and torpedoes and do a lot of damage to our shipping and even to our cities. The Navy Department believed that the best way to protect our coast was to build a large fleet of U-boat chasers and this work was gone ahead with as fast as possible.
Now while I can use a key with my left hand nearly as well as I could with my right, still my arm pained me a good deal and I could have gotten a long leave of absence if I had asked for it. So when I told the commander I wanted to be transferred to a U-boat chaser he fixed it O. K. for me and I was assigned to the Second Naval District which patrolled from Newport to the First and Third Naval Districts.
The chaser I was assigned to was a brand-new one just off the ways and of the very latest type; she had a length of 110 feet, a beam a little under 15 feet and a draft of about 4 feet. She was built chiefly of wood but she had a pair of steel masts and a crow’s nest for the lookout whose job it was to watch for U-boats. She was powered with a steam engine but instead of coal she burned oil under her boilers. Her large size made her very speedy and she could do 25 knots, if she had to, which was twice as fast as the fastest U-boat could do.
The aerial was stretched between her masts and the leading-in wire was connected to it near the rear mast and followed it down to the deck where it passed through an insulator in the latter, and on into the operating room. This was about the smallest space I ever got into which was graced by the name of an operating room but I had no kick coming as we were not afloat all the time.
The sending set had a ½ kilowatt transformer and the receiving set was fitted with both crystal and vacuum detectors; the whole
space taken up by them was probably not more than 5 cubic feet. Well, so much for the chaser.
There were only 14 men in our crew and there was far less formality on board than on a battleship. Bill Adams and I got to be pretty good pals. The first time I met him he was trying out one of her Hotchkiss semi-automatic guns and I was watching him.
“Where did you get that chunk of mud?” he queried as he pointed the gun at an imaginary U-boat.
“Speaking to me?” I asked in turn.
“You said it,” he replied bluntly.
“If you refer to the sparkler on my annularis finger I have to inform you, sir, that it came from the land of the Raripunas about 1500 miles up the Amazon river,” I explained with great perspicacity.
You see, I had had the diamonds cut that Princess Mabel gave me and the one I wore was a regent weighing about 2 carats and it was mounted in a Tiffany setting. In fact it was altogether too big a diamond for any ordinary blue-jacket to come by honestly.
“That’s where it came from, but I’m askin’ you, as man to man now, where did you get it?”
“Right where it came from,” I put it straight back to him.
If it hadn’t been for my game arm I guess Bill and I would have settled the mooted question as to where my chunk of mud came from by referring it to the court of last resort, by which I mean the manly art of hit-’em-again, gob
“Put up your dukes,” commanded Bill at the same time striking an attitude of a gas-house slugger.
Now to get my right hand up I had to lift it with my left and when Bill saw this he yelled, “time, you win!”
Then his eyes softened, his voice lost its harshness and he became sympathetic. He wanted to know how it happened and all about it. And then we got the matter of the chunk of mud straightened out to Bill’s satisfaction. From that time on Bill and I were pals and we used to swap stories. He had been in every corner on the face of the earth except South America and his stock of experiences was a large one. To keep even with him I had to manufacture tales out of raw material as I went along and I often
thought he did the same thing. Say, he certainly put over some regular crawlers. He never got tired of talking about the prospects of mining diamonds in Brazil and all I had to do to get him going was to flash my sparkler on him and he was transported as if by magic to equatorial South America.
Like dozens of other fellows I have met, Bill was a strange contradiction of brains in that he was a natural born hard boiled egg and yet when a fellow needed a friend he was as compassionate as a Salvation Army lass in a trench under fire; again he was ignorant, yet wanted to learn. For instance he wanted me to teach him wireless; it was all vague and intangible to him. He had to have something he could see in three dimensions instead of having to visualize it in his mind; his one big talent lay in his being able to hit a target with a projectile of small or large size and accordingly he was able to serve his Uncle Sam nobly and with telling effect.
You may or may not know it but a fellow can join the navy and live aboard ship a long time and still know but very little about any part of her, except his own particular branch, unless he keeps his eyes and ears open and talks with fellows who know and can and will answer his questions intelligently. Bill was ignorant when it came to booklearning but he knew all about submarines and submarine chasers from their bottoms up.
I had asked him why it was that a torpedo from a U-boat couldn’t hit a submarine chaser and also to tell me something about the fighting qualities of U-boats.
“You see, matey,” explained Bill wisely, “the torpedoes made for the Kaiser’s U-boats are adjusted so that after they are shot from their tubes they run through the water at an even depth of between 8 and 9 feet below the surface. Now a boat of any size draws far more water than this and, of course, if the torpedo hits her at all it will be below the water line and she goes down. But this chaser of ours draws only 4 feet of water and so a torpedo, if it behaves itself, would pass clean under her and never touch her.
“The trouble is,” he went on, “that there never was a torpedo made that stuck to its course and it is liable to shift to the port or starboard or to come to the surface and for this reason we never take a chance but dodge them. You can always tell when a torpedo
is coming by the thin white wake she makes on top of the water and while a ship can’t get out of its way, a speedy little boat like ours can make a quick turn and give it a wide berth.”
“Who got up the idea of a submarine chaser?”
“Well, that I don’t know about, matey, but I do know that when Germany sent out her first U-boats to the coast of Great Britain to sink her ships, all sorts of motor boats which had a length of 40 feet and over were pressed into service; these boats had guns mounted in them and they combed the sea in search of the submarine enemy
“The first German U-boats were slow old craft and they stuck close to the coast where the ships were the thickest. This made it easy for the British armed motor-boat patrols to hunt them out and send them to the bottom. It was soon seen that larger and faster patrol boats carrying heavier guns were needed to keep up with the newer and faster U-boats that were sent to take the place of those the British sunk and so speedy 80 foot boats were built specially for patrolling.
“By the time we got into the war the U-boats were so big and fast that to catch them we had to have regular torpedo boats, except they are without torpedoes, built to run them down and this is exactly what this chaser we are now on is. With our chaser we can go twice as fast as any U-boat the Germans ever sent out and I’m telling you, matey, that if I ever spot a U-boat coming to the top and she is inside the range of this Hotchkiss her crew might just as well kiss the Kaiser good-night.”
The way the submarine chasers work is like this: A base is set up on shore close to that part of the coast waters, or zone as it is called, that a squadron, which is formed of a dozen chasers has to patrol. The shore base is fitted up with living quarters for the crews of the chasers, besides reserve crews who may be needed in an emergency, and there are also artificers, that is mechanics, carpenters, painters, etc., who stayed on shore so that when we were relieved from duty and came in, our boats were looked after as carefully and overhauled as thoroughly as a millionaire’s automobile.
The base also has a wireless station and any chaser can get in touch with it should occasion arise for her to do so. Each base also has one or more destroyers which carry heavier guns and these are
stationed near by so that should the enemy loom up and prove too much for the guns of our chasers the larger boats can be signaled to help.
When a squadron of chasers leaves its base for the zone it is to patrol it is split up into two divisions of six boats each and a division officer is in charge of each one. Each chaser is given a certain area to patrol and she works with all the other chasers in her squadron, the shore station and ships at sea. If a U-boat has been sighted at sea, the ship who has picked her up immediately sends a wireless message to the base which in turn informs the commander of the squadron.
Should a U-boat venture into one of our zones the chasers get as busy as hornets and scout around until she either slips away or comes to the top to enable her commander to take a look around through his periscope to see if there is a ship in sight worth using a torpedo on.
Besides the regular wireless set each submarine chaser is fitted with a sound conduction signalling system and this is used to detect the presence of a U-boat when it is submerged and cannot be seen, though to do this the enemy boat must be near-by. This conduction scheme is very simple and you’ll get me fine as I explain it.
Water, as you know, conducts sound waves to much greater distances than air does. You must have often made the experiment when in swimming of ducking your head under water and listening while another fellow would strike a couple of stones together under water at a distance of thirty or forty feet away from you; and yet you could hear them click as they struck each other as plainly as you could in air a couple of feet away.
Now, signalling between submerged submarines or a submarine and a chaser is carried on on exactly this same principle, that is by the conduction of sound waves through the water. To do this kind of wireless signalling each submarine has a high-frequency sound producing apparatus, or oscillator as it is called, attached to the hull. It consists of a diaphragm, or disk, that is set into very rapid vibration by means of an electromagnet, just as the diaphragm of a telephone receiver is made to vibrate by its electromagnet.
The disk, or diaphragm, which is very much larger than that of a telephone receiver, sets in the water and when it is made to vibrate by closing the circuit with the key it sends out trains of sound waves to considerable distances through the water.
The other submarine, or chaser, is fitted with a like disk which is fixed to a microphone, or telephone transmitter, and to this a battery and telephone receiver is connected. When the high frequency sound waves from one submarine reaches the second submarine they impinge on the disk of the microphone when it vibrates; this varies the battery current flowing through the microphone and you hear the dots and dashes in the receiver.
Now when a U-boat, or any other kind of a power vessel, gets within a certain range of the chaser the hum of the machinery in her sets the hull into vibration and you can hear it in the receivers. So, you see, whether a U-boat is afloat or submerged it is pretty hard for her to escape the eternal vigilance of the chaser
We had received word by wireless that a U-boat had been sighted about a hundred miles off the coast and that she was one of gigantic size. We swept our area with great zeal, the lookouts in the crow’s nest being changed every two hours; the gunners were at their guns ready for instant action and John Paul Jones Boggs, the other operator and I took turn about listening-in.
I don’t want to brag about myself but I found out a long time ago when I was a kid operator back home that I had a more sensitive ear than any of the other fellows, that is, I could differentiate dots and dashes and take down messages that they could only get as a jumble of signals. Later on I began to experiment with head-phones and tried out every make I could get hold of in order to find one that was particularly sensitive and especially suited to my ear.
When I was chief wireless operator on the Andalusian I met operators from all over the world. Once when I was in London I scraped up an acquaintance with a young Swede and he had about half-a-dozen pairs of head-phones that he had picked up in different countries. Telephone receivers for wireless work are like violins in that no two of them are alike and you can’t tell by their appearance what they are really worth; like violins, too, telephone receivers improve with age provided the magnets are made of the right kind of steel and properly tempered.
One of the pairs of head-phones this Swede operator showed me was made in Sweden by the Ericsson Telephone Manufacturing Company, and it was by far the most sensitive phone I had ever used. I bought the pair off him for a sovereign but they are worth their weight in gold. With this pair of Ericsson’s on my head I was listening-in for all I was worth. I kept this up intermittently for about 6 hours when I was rewarded by hearing the faint whirring sound of a propeller. I reported it to my commander and he said it was a U-boat all right.
He had our engine stopped so that I could hear her to the best advantage. The sound of her machinery through the water got a little louder and then stopped entirely and we guessed that she was resting. Not to be fooled we stuck right to our posts another five hours but there was nary a sound from her.
Then the lookout in the crow’s-nest telephoned down that he had sighted the periscope of a U-boat. Did you ever see a field of race horses just before the signal was given them to start? Well, every man-jack of us felt just as high strung and spirited only we didn’t show it. The commander ordered me to signal all the other U-boat chasers of our squadron to join us.
The U-boat had come to the surface so that her captain could take a look around and see if there was a ship in sight that was worth sinking. Seeing nothing but our little boat the U-boat came awash, that is her conning tower projected above the water and her deck was just level with the surface of the sea. The captain of the U-boat was evidently observing us through a port from the inside of the conning tower and seeing that our guns were manned and that we were making for her at full speed he had ordered her guns to be brought into action. Each gun was mounted on her deck in a gunwell and was hoisted into place together with its gunner by a plunger worked by compressed air.
We closed in on her and then the shells began to fly. A high sea was running so that it was well nigh impossible for her gunners to hit us or for ours to hit her, but soon a shell, bad luck to it, carried away one of our masts and my aerial with it. I rushed up on deck and there I saw eight or ten of our little chasers heading for the U-boat, which was the U-53, the largest submarine that Germany had turned out with the exception of the Deutschland.
As each chaser came up the fight got hotter but the U-boat stayed in the game until her captain saw our destroyer coming and then he concluded it was time to submerge her. We knew her captain had given the order to his wheelsman to make her dive for her guns and gunners began to disappear in the deck-wells and in a few seconds the covers closed down on the latter watertight. Her hatches were closed and her engines, which had been started, propelled her slowly through the water which must be done to make her dive at the proper angle.
“A BRIGHT FLASH OF BLUE FIRE SHOT UP THROUGH THE HOLE”
Just as her bow submerged Bill put over a shell with a bow trajectory, that is, he aimed his gun so that when he fired the projectile shot high into the air and seemed as if it would go far over the U-boat. But Bill knew what he was doing and the shell fell squarely on the U-boat’s deck just aft her conning tower.
Having found the range he planted three more shells on her with marvelous accuracy; the last one went through her bow and must have exploded in her torpedo room for a bright flash of blue fire shot up through the hole for fifty feet and this was followed by a dense greenish smoke that rolled out as though she was a blast furnace.
After a couple of misses Bill landed another shell on her stern and this one ripped an awful hole in her; the water poured into her and amid a series of explosions that threw steaming water into the air like young geysers, with much sizzling and hissing she went down sternend on never to rise again.
A great hurrah went up from all hands on our boat and our Commander commended Bill on his excellent shots.
“Three cheers for big Bill,” I shouted and the gobs responded with mighty lung-power.
“That’s the way to swat ’em, eh, matey?” remarked Bill with grisly joy as we were cleaning away the wreckage.
“I say it is, Bill,” I made reply.
CHAPTER X—A SIGNALMAN ON A SUBMARINE
Don’t think for a moment that Germany was the only country that had a fleet of submarines. The reason that her U-boats came to be so well known was because they had torpedoed the Lusitania and sunk helpless ships right and left no matter who was on them or what they carried.
England and France had fleets of submarines, too, but as their warships had blockaded Germany’s ports there was nothing to torpedo. And when we declared war on the Kaiser, Uncle Sam began to build submarines just as he did chasers, merchant ships and everything else. Except airplanes, did you say? There was no such fizzle made of building submarines as for a time was made of building airplanes in the beginning of the war. Within a short time after we got started our Navy Department was able to turn out a brand-new submarine every two weeks. Think of it! Once the kind and the size of the submarine we needed had been agreed upon by our naval experts, that is, standardized as it is called, machines and jigs were made by which each part was stamped out of a solid sheet of metal, and this was done, not in one or a dozen factories, but in hundreds of factories scattered all over the country and each of which made a single part.
These parts were shipped to docks at various ports on the Atlantic seaboard and there artificers of all kinds were ready to assemble them, that is, to put them together. Thus it was that in two weeks after the ore was mined it was made into parts, assembled and the submarine was ready for its perilous cruise.
While the building of submarines was thus speeded up there was another factor that made for their efficiency as a destructive engine of war which was just as important as the boats themselves and that was the crews to man them. Aye, and there was the rub, for a crew could not be trained for this highly specialized work in less than two months’ time and sometimes it took three or four months.
Because the submarine job was considered an extra-hazardous one, volunteers were called for to man the boats and as an inducement for bluejackets to do so a good bonus, that is, extra pay was offered. Now Bill Adams knew all about submarines, as I think I told you before, for he had worked for the Holland Submarine Boat Company long before the world-war started.
“Let’s me and you go to it, matey,” he said, in one of his bursts of patriotism; “it isn’t quite as soft a snap as we’ve got on this here chaser but we gets more time ashore and then we helps our Uncle Sammy. Besides I’ve made up me mind to buy me mother a flivver; all the washladies in our neighborhood is ridin’ to and from work in them baby land-tanks of Mr. Ford’s, and I guess what they can do she can do, eh, matey?”
“Why not?” I allowed. “She’s got a better right to ride in a motor car than a lot of those high-falutin’ women who live in glass conning towers on Fifth Avenue and never had a son to fight for Uncle Sam. They take everything and they give nothing.”
“Well, I wouldn’t quite say that, matey,” Bill answered thinking hard within the limits of his ability; “I used to be a kind of anarchist myself, I guess, as I always felt as how I’d like to throw a bomb—no, not a bum—into some of them swell places, but I’ve got all over it. Why? Because if it wasn’t for them big bugs, them rich Janes, there wouldn’t be any Red Cross, see? Every last one of ’em that is over eight and under eighty is handin’ out the coin, givin’ the glad hand and workin’ like gobs holystonin’ the decks and scrapin’ cable for us guys what’s in the navy and army. But I’m askin’ you, as man to man, matey, will you volunteer with me for submarine duty?”
“I’m willing to try anything once, Bill, and I’ll take a chance with you on this submarine deal,” I told him.
So Bill and I signed up for submarine service and after the crew to which we belonged had had intensive training for several weeks we were assigned to the H-24 and we went down to Newport to man her. There the first time I saw her she was swinging from a crane high in the air for this was the way they launch these sea babies. She was simply lifted bodily from the dock where she was assembled, swung over the water and gently deposited on the surface.
