*home | archive | FAQS | honorarium | submission deadline | submission policies | contributors | editorial board
Applied Anthropology and Participatory Action Research in an Urban Contextby David Butler
Anthropology is the study of human culture in all known cultural and temporal contexts. Traditionally, anthropological research is divided into four subfields aimed at engaging different forms of evidence of culture. These subfields include cultural anthropology (the study of the interrelated social elements of human culture such as political organization, family organization, subsistence strategies, economic systems, etc.), archaeology (the study of material cultural remains and their association with human behavior), linguistics (the study of language with an emphasis on its relationship to culture), and physical anthropology (the study of human variation as a byproduct of different environmental contexts and the assessment of human biological change through time). Contemporary anthropological practice has led to the development of applied anthropology as a fifth component of the discipline. Applied anthropology stands as a form of anthropological practice that might incorporate data from any of the four traditional subfields aimed at engaging real world (as opposed to theoretical) research problems. Applied anthropologists apply the theories and methods of anthropology to real-world situations in contrast to theoretical anthropologists who describe possible or theoretical social conditions or problems. Applied anthropologists must not only identify problems but also “apply” existing knowledge to make recommendations based on research findings and sometimes to take action. Anthropologists taking action move beyond making recommendations and choose to become involved in the process that dictates how recommendations affect the source or topic of research. Further, taking action as an applied anthropologist might lead to advocacy (as in the case of my research agenda involving Meacham Elementary). This article will recount my experiences as an applied anthropologist engaging a real world research problem in our own state. All that stands between us here in Orlando and my research context in downtown Tampa, Florida (where I have been involved in research since 2003) is a mere 80 miles along the monster known in our local cultural context as “I-4”. My Tampa research was thrust into the “real world” and I was motivated to take “action” as an applied anthropologist when I was contacted by the descendants of a local school’s namesake: Christina Meacham (the first African American female principle in Hillsborough County). The Harris family (Mrs. Meacham’s descendants) was familiar with my historical documentary ethnographic research in the community and asked for my aid in the historical preservation of Meacham Elementary.
Meacham Elementary represents the struggle by African Americans in Tampa to achieve social, political, and educational equality during the segregation era from 1926-1971 when school integration in Florida was formalized. In 1971, Meacham became an integrated sixth grade center as a part of Florida’s desegregation plan. During the late 1970s, the school was transformed into an early childhood center serving pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. Meacham has won three EDDIE Awards (Education Software Review Awards) and is one of the largest centers accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (Bair, 2000). This school is particularly significant as a symbol of African American history in Tampa because virtually all of the schools and other facilities that catered to Tampa’s historically segregated downtown black enclave were destroyed under the auspices of Urban Renewal policy in the 1970’s. For example, nearly the entire historic black downtown business district along with hundreds of homes in the surrounding historic neighborhood (just east and north of the business district) were destroyed in the early to mid 1970’s. This policy left this African American community without many of the spaces that formerly symbolized and served as social spaces for their community, and the fact that they are no longer elements of the landscape underscores the historical significance of Meacham Elementary as a symbol of American heritage in Tampa. I made the decision to align myself with the Meacham family and the community and take action as an applied anthropologist. When I agreed to advocate for the preservation of this school (and take the side of the family and the community) I moved beyond the realm of pure descriptive research and became an applied anthropological advocate taking action (i.e. an advocate pursuing action-oriented research). The problem faced by this family as well as the community surrounding the school was the potential loss of the school due to redevelopment of the entire neighborhood that encompasses the school (comprised of around 300 connected public housing units). The context of my research has defined my role as an applied anthropological action-oriented researcher engaging various political entities in concert with participating stakeholders while conducting ethnographic research and providing specialized technical historical preservation knowledge. Rather than documenting the effects of redevelopment in this neighborhood and reflecting on the process and its effects on culture and the symbolic representation of culture across this urban landscape, I chose to take action as an anthropologist and apply my research efforts explicitly toward the preservation of Meacham Elementary. Action-oriented research serves as a general approach to social science research that has been applied to a host of topics by scholars from a variety of disciplines. Common elements of this approach include the prioritization of engaging research questions or problems that address site specific (contextual) issues resulting in data that has the potential to affect the justification for the research (i.e. the problem). Further, this approach prioritizes collaboration with those potentially impacted by research. Contemporary accounts of action-oriented research in anthropological literature are often concerned with the application of ethnographic data to an agenda aimed at solving a problem. Therefore one might infer that anthropological research undertaken as action-oriented research is aligned with advocacy. LeCompte and Shensul (1999) assert that as anthropologists “…ethnographers are not only interpreters of words and deeds but participants or stakeholders in the uses of the research for problem solving. Stakeholders are people who have a vested interest in ensuring that the results of research are used to solve the problem the research is addressing” (1999). According to LeCompte and Shensul (1999) these stakeholders (which might include anthropologists as well as collaborating community members) collect and interpret data used to define the context of a given problem and to apply that data in order to maximize benefits to affected communities. They explain that one general approach to the application of anthropological data to the resolution or engagement of real world problems has been discussed in contemporary anthropological literature as both action research (discussed above) and participatory action research (LeCompte & Shensul, 1999). My research efforts surrounding the preservation of Meacham Elementary in Tampa serve as an example of action-oriented anthropological research applied by an anthropologist as what LeCompte and Shensul (1999) identify as participatory action research. Participatory action research (PAR) is a form of action-oriented research that has been described as “… one means of addressing the gap between researchers and the intended beneficiaries of research” (Turnbull & Friesen, 1998). Turnbull et al. also assert that PAR “refers to a process whereby the researchers and stakeholders (those who potentially benefit from research results) collaborate in the design and conduct all phases of the research process. PAR’s ultimate goal is taking action to solve the problem that is the basis of the research” (Turnbull & Friesen, 1998). Chambers explains how “The PAR model is based on a partnership between practitioner and applied research orientations” (1992). Likewise, consistent with the basic tenants of action-oriented research, Whyte (1991) “… stresses the importance of relating participatory practice to the socioeconomic and cultural context in which interactions occur” (Chambers, 1992). Therefore PAR is a manifestation of action-oriented research that serves to directly align researchers with stakeholders as “participants” in the research process with the common goal of solving a problem or engaging a specific issue. In the context of my research, I filled various research roles explicitly aimed toward action. With the preservation of Meacham Elementary as a common goal for myself and actively involved stakeholders, I collected archival research documenting the history of the community surrounding the school, gathered ethnographic data vis-a-vis key informant interviews, and served as a facilitator of technical preservation information and an advocate. My role as an applied anthropologist in this context facilitated the employment of PAR when the family of the namesake of Meacham Elementary contacted me and offered a research partnership aimed at the preservation of the school. Eight family members offered their assistance to the preservation project, and the family and I have worked together in various capacities since we joined forces in November of 2004. On more than one occasion, at meetings engaging various governmental entities involved with historic preservation at the local, state, and federal level, members of the family and I have served complementary roles. After conducting initial archival and ethnographic research focused on the school and the surrounding community, I accepted that the community’s recognition of this building as significant to its own history (as indicated by several key informant interviews) was not enough to prevent the building from being demolished (as a byproduct of the redevelopment in the area). I recognized a need for broader and more substantive support for this building and therefore chose to investigate historic preservation strategies applied by historic architects, developers and planners, and consulting and engineering firms. As I negotiated the technical aspects of historical preservation work such as historical architecture evaluation of Meacham Elementary along with the accompanying technical expertise required to complete state and federal forms and to interact with city, county, and state officials concerning the preservation process, I became a facilitator and interpreter of technical information that has led to the school being placed on the National Register of Historic Places in April of 2005. The timeline demonstrating this process was initiated when my historic preservation efforts related to Meacham Elementary began in August of 2003. I initiated research on Meacham Elementary as a component of background research that I undertook as a doctoral graduate assistant for the 2003 University of South Florida archaeological field school (under the direction of Dr. Brent Weisman, USF). This historic elementary school is located three blocks east of Perry Harvey Park (one of three project areas/excavation sites for the aforementioned archaeological field school). At this point, I had not been contacted by the Harris family and did not have any idea that researching the school would open a Pandora’s Box, nor that I would jump into the box and not climb out more than two years later. After searching Sanborn maps as well as county and school board records for documentation of the school, I found that the school was much older (around 50 years older) than the public housing units that make up the surrounding neighborhood. Subsequently, after learning that the school was constructed in 1926 to cater to the then segregated African American enclave adjacent to the “Tampa Black Business District” (the focus of excavation at Perry Harvey Park) it was recognized that the school was a component of the cultural and archaeological context of the excavation undertaken in June, 2003. It would have been an oversight not to have documented the antiquity of this structure as it represents infrastructure associated with the extant African American community in the immediate vicinity of the archaeology project. When I look back, it all seemed so simple: I thought I would just make sure the state knew the school was there and then be done with that portion of my research (and of course this documentary research would conclude at the end of the field school; at least that’s what I thought). After contacting the Florida Division of Historical Resources to make sure that they were aware of the school, I was shocked to learn that they had no previous knowledge of this significant structure. I had assumed that the school was documented because I am aware of at least one very recent Cultural Resource Assessment survey that was conducted in the neighborhood. Evidently this survey failed to include Meacham Elementary in its documentation of the area. Therefore, I felt obligated to do so (one might consider this “action” to represent my initial step toward Participatory Action Research). Since my initial background research assignment was to document the built environment of the neighborhood and this school represents a significant cultural resource that could not be overlooked, I decided to at least make sure that the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources knew where it stood and was aware of its relationship to the surrounding community. This endeavor entailed the filing of a Florida Master Site File state historic structure form. I began this form in August and it was accepted by the state (following two revisions) in October of 2003. These forms are typically available online from state Division of Historical Resources websites and are relatively easy to fill out. The state historic structure form provides basic information about a structure and is a low impact method of informing the state of the antiquity of a given building and clarifies that it is old enough to qualify for “historic” status according to state criteria. However, it should be noted that filing this form with the state typically only goes so far as to ensure “review” of potential affects on the property (this review might justify demolition or preservation). On the positive side, this recognition may set precedent for future preservation oriented designations aimed at protecting cultural resources. For example, if a city or county has historic preservation legislation as the City of Tampa does to protect cultural resources, local landmark status might be pursued as a means of protecting cultural resources from future harm. When available, this process should provide more concrete protection for cultural resources than being recognized by the state. At a minimum, this step includes filling out a local designation form detailing a property and justifying its significance to a city or county or both. The federal version of this recognition of historic significance is facilitated by filing a National Register of Historic Places Nomination form. The National Register of Historic Places is maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) and represents a list of cultural resources such as “… districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects, each determined by the NPS to be of historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological, or engineering significance at the national, state, or local level” (King 2004:362). Acceptance to the National Register symbolizes a designation that affords much more protection than state recognition as well as opportunities for tax breaks and grants for “significant” cultural resources. In the case of Meacham Elementary, after filing the state historic structure form, I learned that the school was on the agenda to be considered for local landmark status (a discovery that temporarily set my mind at ease). I was temporarily under the illusion that this might once again be the end of my research related to the school. As indicated by a public notice at the entryway (an entryway that was approximately 25 feet behind a locked four foot high chain link fence) Meacham Elementary was on the agenda for the October 28, 2003, Tampa Historic Preservation Commission board meeting (the local preservation entity). A large poster in the window adjacent to the front door of Meacham Elementary explained that the school was to be considered as a potential “City of Tampa Local Landmark” at the meeting; however, the school vanished from the agenda prior to the meeting and was therefore never officially considered by the preservation board. When I called the Commission to inquire as to why this was the case, I was given no details; that call made me suspicious about the City’s plans and motivated me to take further action (had I chosen to stop here, it would have been relatively unproblematic for me to have stopped my involvement in the on goings of the school). After revising the state form for a second time, I received a confirmation of acceptance of the form from the state and incentive that fueled my desire to take action to advocate for this school. In response to the structure form I submitted, the Division of Historic Resources Bureau of Historic Preservation communicated the following to me regarding the school:
In October of 2003 (partially in response to this letter and partly due to the fact that the school was suspiciously denied the opportunity to be recognized by the local preservation entity) I began working on the National Register of Historic Places nomination form (the next step toward having this school recognized as a significant cultural resource). This is called a form; however, it is really more like a short book including sections on historic and cultural context as well as architecture. Completing this form requires some expertise in both Cultural Resource Management and historic architecture, as well as a great deal of patience. I started the Meacham Elementary National Register of Historic Places form in October of 2003 and after a few revisions it was accepted by the state of Florida Division of Historic Resources in November of 2004. Subsequently, the school was placed on the agenda for the quarterly meeting of the Florida National Register Review Board in Tallahassee on January 27, 2005 (this time I thought for sure that my involvement with the school was over; but I had a question floating around in my head that wouldn’t go away … “if I stopped here, who would be in Tallahassee to advocate for the school at the meeting?”). This question was answered when later in November I was contacted by the descendants of Christina Meacham (the namesake of the school). Following a phone conversation with Arndrita Harris (the great granddaughter of Christina Meacham) it was decided that the family and I (along with other interested community members) would work together to do what we could to ensure that the school was not overlooked by the City, the State, or the Federal Government. This phone conversation initiated participatory action research involving myself (as a provider of technical information and an advocate), the Harris Family (including three generations of relatives from the Tampa area) and other interested community members (the most notable of who is Mary Alice Dorsett; a prominent local African American leader, advocate, and activist whose son attended the school and who knew Christina Meacham). On January 27 2005, I rented a bus and we traveled to Tallahassee for National Register Review Board meeting (around a 5 hour drive north from Tampa). To our surprise, we found that the school had been taken off the agenda for the National Register Review board meeting two days prior to our arrival (due to complications with the certified local government process). After a few tense moments at the meeting, we learned that the school was taken off the agenda because both the local government entities involved with preservation in Tampa had abstained comment regarding their opinion; before the board can vote, either the Mayor’s office or the local preservation commission is required to agree or disagree with the Florida Division of Historical Resources recommendation that the school be considered for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Thanks to the understanding of the board, Ardrita Harris, Mary Alice Dorsett, and I were afforded the unofficial opportunity to advocate for the school. After our presentation, we found the board to be very receptive, and, consistent with the initial assessment by the state, they unofficially indicated that the school was a fine candidate for the National Register of Historic Places. At this meeting we also learned that the only way to get back on the agenda was to receive the support of the Tampa Historic Preservation Commission (the entity that removed the school from their agenda in October 2003). Therefore, we regrouped and decided we would aim for getting on the agenda for their next meeting in Tampa. When we got back to Tampa we set our sights on the March 8, 2005, Tampa Historic Preservation Commission meeting. The political landscape of this participatory action research changed at this point. Specifically, it became apparent based on local media coverage that the neighborhood surrounding Meacham Elementary was definitely being considered for demolition and redevelopment by the City of Tampa (a process that would involve the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, the Tampa Housing Authority and eager private developers). It became clear that this redevelopment scheme that was in the works had likely been the source of resistance at the local level. At this point I decided to increase my resolve and to fight to prevent redevelopment from stealing history and heritage from this community that had so little left to symbolize the African American history of Tampa (this would have been another relatively easy time to disengage this research; however at this point I was in way too deep, so I decided I was not giving in without providing all the support I could muster for this cause). Prior to the March 8, 2005, Tampa Historic Preservation Commission meeting, members of the Harris family and I attended several critical meetings aimed at bolstering political and community support for the school. For example, on February 19, 2005, we attended and participated in a “community forum” meeting at the Kid Mason Center (I gave a short speech in support of the school), also we met with Hillsborough County school board members, the Hillsborough County School’s chief facilities officer, members of the Tampa City Council (including the chairman of the City Council), local community members and leaders (including residents, business owners, and Helen Taylor of the Kid Mason Center). At the preservation commission meeting on March 8, Arndrita Harris and I presented our case for the school. Following our initial comments, we met resistance from the Hillsborough County Schools when their chief facilities officer revealed that the county did not recognize the significance of the school and was not in favor of any steps that might complicate its destruction. It was readily apparent that Hillsborough County failed to comprehend the significance of this school to the history of African Americans in Tampa. Rather, it was clearly indicated that they considered the school to symbolize an economic asset that might be destroyed as a component of future development (rather than preserved as a symbol of African American heritage). Following the chief facilities officer’s comments, I had a successful rebuttal. Then, after another series of questions, the Tampa Historic Preservation Commission voted to support the school as a potential candidate for the National Register of Historic Places (they did not designate the school a local landmark, they simply allowed the NR process to proceed by allowing the school to be placed back on the Tallahassee Review Board agenda). This Tampa Historic Preservation Commission meeting was attended by around 20 supporters of the school including members of the Meacham family, supportive community members, and a couple University of South Florida anthropology graduate students (the successful vote was followed with jubilant applause). After gaining the local support needed to once again pursue National Register status for the school, it was placed on the April 2005 quarterly meeting of the National Register Review Board in Tallahassee. Once again, we traveled to the meeting and presented our case to the board (this time officially). Following a series of questions related to the context and significance of the school, it was voted on and accepted by the board for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The process leading to the listing of Meacham Elementary to the National Register was complicated and tedious; however, most of all it has been rewarding. It has been my honor to work with the Harris family and others to advocate for this significant structure. Interestingly, the steps in the preservation process stymied our efforts to protect the school while at the same time providing avenues for our group to circumvent those who sought to devalue this symbol of African American history in Tampa (we were able to make legitimate change by negotiating a changing and challenging political and preservation context). This political and historic preservation process represents participatory action research wherein interested community members work together with a researcher (in this case myself) to engage potential threats to cultural resources. This is a method that urban applied anthropologists might apply as a form of action-oriented research aimed at combating the destruction of public symbolic representations of community history and culture in the face of wide-ranging urban redevelopment. In urban context, components of culture such as Meacham Elementary should not be overlooked; just as those who prioritize culture should be weary of overlooking material components of culture, so, too, should city and county planners not fail to recognize the significance of historic cultural resources that symbolize heritage in urban space. By May of 2005, according to the head of the Tampa Preservation office (phone conversation May 4, 2005) the Tampa Housing authority initiated a Request for Proposals (RFP) from private investors interested in redeveloping the neighborhood that surrounds Meacham Elementary. Thanks to our efforts, this RFP mentioned Meacham Elementary and suggested that the private developers treat the school as a National Register property, which means they are much less likely to demolish the school and much more likely to incorporate the building into their redevelopment plans. Currently, the City of Tampa has accepted a contract for the redevelopment of the urban landscape surrounding Meacham Elementary with the initial plans calling for the treatment of the school as a historic structure to be incorporated into the “revitalized” neighborhood. As of September, 2005, what remains to be seen is how this significant historic structure will serve this rebuilt community and how its association with Tampa’s African American history will manifest as a byproduct of its use. My involvement with this project is significant as a classroom resource because it affords me the opportunity to provide a detailed account of a localized application of anthropological research to my students. This research serves to augment the educational experience of anthropology students here at Valencia because it demonstrates how social science researchers can make a difference by engaging real world problems and that localized manifestations of such research exist right here in Central Florida. Works Cited Bair, R. (2000). History of the School District of Hillsborough County. Tampa, Florida: Hillsborough County Schools. Chambers, E. (1992). Social Theory for Action: How individuals and organizations learn to change. American Anthropologist 94(3): 737-738. Lecompte, M. D. & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing & Conducting Ethnographic Research. New York: Alta Mira Press. Turnbull, A. R. & Friesen, B. J. (1998). Participatory action research as a model for conducting family research. Austin, TX: The University of Kansas and Portland State University. Whyte, W. F. (1991). Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Whyte, W. F. (1989). Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociological Forum, 4(3): 367-385. References Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Bennet, J. W. (1986) Applied and action anthropology: Ideological and conceptual aspects. Current Anthropology 37, 1, S23-S53. Bullock, H. A. (1967). A history of negro education in the South: From 1619 to the present. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Colburn, D. R. & Landers, J. L. (Eds.). (1995). The African American heritage of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Cook, S. R. (2003). Anthropological advocacy in historical perspective: the case of anthropologists and Virginia Indians. Human Organization 62(2): 191-201. Curtis, N. C. (1996). Black heritage sites: An African American odyssey and finder’s guide.Chicago, Illinois: American Library Association. D’Andrrade, R. (1995). Moral models in anthropology. Current Anthropology 36(3): 399-408. Davis, D. (2003). What did you do today? Notes from a politically engaged anthropologist. Urban Anthropology 32(2): 147-73. Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia, Penn.: Open University Press. Ervin, A. M. (2000). Applied anthropology: Tools and perspectives for contemporary practice. Boston, M.A.: Allan and Bacon. Ervin, A. M. (1997). Trying the impossible: Relatively “rapid” methods in a city-wide needs assessment. Human Organization 56(4): 379-387. Ervin, A. M. (1996). Collaborative and participatory research in urban social planning and restructuring: Anthropological experiences from a medium-sized Canadian city. Human Organization 55, 3, 324-333. Fluerhr-Lobban, C. (Ed.). (2003). Dialogue for ethically conscious practice. In Ethics and the profession of anthropololgy. (2nd ed). New York: Alta Mira Press. Greenbaum, S. (2002). More than Black: Afro-cubans in Tampa. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Jones, M. D. & McCarthy, K. D. (1993). African Americans in Florida. Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press. Kerstein, R. (2001). Politics and growth in twentieth-century Tampa. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. King, T. F. (2004). Cultural resource laws and practice: An introductory guide, 2nd ed. New York: Alta Mira Press. King, T. F. (1998). Cultural resource laws and practice: an introductory guide. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. King, T. F. (1997). Anthropology in historic preservation: Caring for culture’s clutter. New York: Academic Press. Klugh, E. L. (2004). African American schoolhouses: community, history and reclamation. Unpublished dissertation, University of South Florida Anthropology Department. Kottak, C. P. (2002). Cultural anthropology. McGraw Hill: Boston. McGee, J. R. & Warms, R. L. (1996). Anthropological theory: An introductory history. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Neuman, T. W. & Sanford, R. M. (2001). Cultural resources archaeology: An introduction. New York: Alta Mira Press. Panamerican Consultants. (2001). An archaeological and historical survey of the Perry Harvey Senior Park, Downtown Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Report prepared for Award Engineering, North Florida Avenue, Tampa. Piper, H. M. & Piper, J. G. (1987). Urban archaeology in Florida: The search for Tampa’s historic core. The Florida Anthropologist 40(4): 260-265. Rosen, F. B. (1974). The development of Negro education in Florida during Reconstruction: 1864-1877. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Ramos, A. R. (2003). Advocacy rhymes with anthropology. Social Analysis, 47(1): 110-15. Shensul, S. L. & Shensul, J. J. (1978). Advocacy and applied anthropology. In Social Scientists as Advocates: Views from the applied disciplines. G.H. Weber & McCall (Eds.), pp. 121-166. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Small, S. A. (1995a). Action-oriented research: Models and methods. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(4):941-955. Small, S. A. (1995b). Enhancing contexts of adolescent development: the role of community-based action research. In L. Crockett & A. Crouter (Eds.), Pathways through adolescence: Individual development in relation to social contexts. (pp. 211-233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stack, C. (1997). Holding hands: An American struggle for community. In Cultural diversity in the U.S. South. Athens, GA.: University of Georgia Press. Stack, C. (1996). Call to home: African Americans reclaim the rural south. New York: Basic Books. Stack, C. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a Black community. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Turnbull, A. R. & Friesen, B. J. (1999). Participatory action research as a model for conducting family research. Austin, TX: The University of Kansas and Portland State University. Van Willigen, J. (1992). Industrial democracy as process: Participatory action research in the Fagor cooperative group of Mondragon. American Anthropologist 96(2):456-457. Whyte, W. F. (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Whyte, W. F. (1989). Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociological Forum 4(3):367-385.
|
The
history of this school and its association with an African American
community that has persisted in the same neighborhood in Tampa
since the 1860’s demonstrates its significance to the history
of African Americans in Tampa. Meacham Elementary was constructed
in 1926 as the first modern facility in Tampa with the purpose
of educating the city’s African American children. This school
is located at 1225 India Street in Tampa, Florida, and is a
two story brick building constructed in 1926. This school was
originally located outside the city limits in a segregated African
American enclave that was established in Tampa in the 1860’s
and the school served as an educational facility for Tampa’s
African American students during times of educational segregation
in Florida (from 1926 until 1971). As the city expanded to the
north and east during the later half of the nineteenth century,
this African American enclave (along with Meacham Elementary)
was incorporated into the city. Within the city limits of Tampa,
Meacham Elementary lies 1.5 miles northeast of the center of
downtown, and is two blocks west of Nebraska Avenue (a primary
north-south thruway connecting downtown Tampa with its northern
suburbs). From 1926 until 1971 (the year desegregation was formalized
in Florida) the school stood as a segregated black school in
the heart of a formally segregated neighborhood, in the proximity
of Tampa’s former historical black business district. Although
its construction did not bring about equity in the matters of
teachers’ salaries and the availability of new books and other
educational needs, the construction of the new elementary school
did symbolize significant improvement to the infrastructure
of African American education in Tampa.