NYC Municipal Archives
19th Century Stationery
Kenneth Cobb
Happy Birthday, Brooklyn Bridge!
Pauline Toole
How Many Mayors really?
Michael Lorenzini
The New York Parental School
NYC Municipal Archives
What’s New in the DORIS Gallery?  

19th Century Stationery

During the Covid pandemic in 2020 the Department of Records & Information Services assigned several Municipal Archives staff to assignments that could be completed remotely. The projects included transcribing collection inventories, lists, finding guides and other descriptive materials into searchable databases and spreadsheets.

Pen-maker John Foley to Mayor Abram Hewitt, 1887. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Recently, archivist Cynthia Brenwall resumed transcribing descriptions of documents in the Early Mayors’ collection. This series comprises correspondence and documents from New York City mayoral administrations from 1826 through 1897 and totals 157.5 cubic feet. The collection had been assembled by Rebecca Rankin during her 32-year tenure as the Director of the Municipal Library between 1920 and 1952. This was a core collection in the Municipal Archives when it opened in 1952, and remains one of the most important series documenting nineteenth-century government and policies.

One feature of the correspondence noted by Ms. Brenwall during her work in 2020 and again more recently, is the elaborate commercially produced stationery and letterheads used by businesses and governments. This week For the Record takes a closer look at these wonderful works of art that defined an era of letter writing.

Real-Estate Union letterhead form 1893. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

An example of the original documents that were transcribed by NYC Municipal Archives staff in 2020. Entry 146 is the reference to the Real-Estate Union letterhead shown above.

Pastor Nathan Hubbell to Mayor Gilroy, 1893. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Johnson & Johnson Company, 1893. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Twine, rope, cord and hammock makers the Travers Brother Company highlighted the products that they produced in this elaborate letterhead. 1892. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Sherriff John J. Gorman to Mayor Grant in 1893. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Leo Schlesinger & Company was located on Crosby Street and manufactured tin toys, among other items. 1893. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

The 1893 letterhead for the Tiffany Glass & Decorating Company the graphic logo of the original glass company. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle logo is boldly centered on this stationary dating from 1887. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Technically, the term letterhead did not appear until 1890. Before then, it was simply called “letter paper.” The rich illustrations depicted on the stationery corresponds with industrialization in America. By the 1860s, the images became more detailed and creative. It was a period when Americans could see their growing nation reflected in the artwork on their bills and correspondence.

The primary role of these illustrations was publicity. The images show busy factories, bustling street corners, and bold bank buildings. Government agency and department correspondence visually conveys the nature of their responsibilities.  

While the content of the letters in the Early Mayors’ collection might be standard government business, the stationery offers a delight for the eye and creates a window into the business and government culture of a time gone by. For more examples, readers are also invited to review two For the Record articles published in 2020:  The Transcription Project, Early Mayors’ Collection and Early Mayors Collection Part 2

The Grand Union Hotel was located across the street from the Grand Central Depot. 1888. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

William McCoy to Mayor Thomas Gilroy shows off the work of both the engraver and designer of this letterhead. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

This detailed letterhead features an image of a beehive to promote the business of a grocery and tea dealing company. Letter from the office of Callahan and Kemp sent to Mayor Hugh Grant, 1889. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Eureka Fire Hose Company logo on a letter dated 1893. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Cooper Union letterhead from 1888. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

H. Clausen & Son Brewing Company, located at 309 East 47th Street, to Mayor Gilroy, 1893. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Eva Mudge, Comedienne to Mayor Gilroy, 1893. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Letter from Albany Mayor James H. Manning to Mayor Hugh Grant, 1893. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Huber’s Palace Museum letterhead from 1892. Early Mayors records, NYC Municipal Archives.

Happy Birthday, Brooklyn Bridge!

Every day, thousands of New Yorkers and visitors enjoy walking across the Brooklyn Bridge. It is considered one of the most iconic experiences in the city. And it’s free of charge. Prior to 1891, however, that journey would have cost the pedestrian one cent. A rider on horseback would have paid three cents, and cattle cost two cents, each.

Pamphlet, 1954, Mayor Robert F. Wagner Departmental Correspondence, Public Works, 1954. NYC Municipal Archives.

This fee schedule appears in the “Souvenir Presentation at the Official Opening of the Modernized Bridge, May 3, 1954.” The lavishly illustrated booklet is located in the subject files of Department of Records and Information Services Commissioner Eugene J. Bockman (1977-1989). It is one of several items including correspondence, brochures, invitations, memos and other materials related to Bockman’s participation in the Brooklyn Bridge Centennial Commission. Formed in 1980, the Commission organized dozens of events and activities culminating in the day-long celebration of the Bridge Centennial on May 24, 1983.      

Mayor Robert F. Wagner speaks at the Brooklyn Bridge reopening ceremony, May 3, 1954. Mayor Robert F. Wagner Photograph Collection. NYC Municipal Archives. 

The Bridge, along with Central Park, two of the most important public works achievements of the 19th  century, are well documented in Municipal Library and Archives collections. The Archives recently completed a three-year project funded by the Institute for Museum and Library Services to preserve and digitize more than 9,000 plans of the Brooklyn Bridge. For the Record tracked project progress in several posts, most recently, Archives Conservation Teams Up With The Metropolitan Museum of Art highlighting an exhibition of several iconic bridge plans at the Museum.

Frederick H. Zurmuhlen, Commissioner, Department of Public Works, produced the multi-part booklet located in Bockman’s files. It commemorated completion of reconstruction and modernization of the bridge in 1954. It begins with several self-congratulatory essays, “Magnificent Achievement,” by Brooklyn Borough President John Cashmore, “Part of a Plan,” by City Construction Coordinator Robert Moses, and “An Engineering Marvel,” by Commissioner Zurmuhlen.   

The Approach to the bridge from Manhattan as it appeared in 1883. Booklet, Modernized Brooklyn Bridge, May 3, 1954. DORIS Commissioner Eugene J. Bockman Collection, Brooklyn Bridge Centennial, 1983. NYC Municipal Archives. 

The booklet continues with illustrated text describing the new truss system, roadways, and lighting. Most helpful is a graphic chart, “Evolution in Use,” that summarizes how modes of transportation across the bridge had evolved from 1883 to 1954.

Evolution in Use, Top of page, the bridge as of 1933, with elevated trains, trolleys and cars. Middle diagram, conditions as of 1945 with cessation of elevated trains and transfer of trolleys to elevated tracks. Bottom, modernized bridge with three lanes for passenger cars in each direction. Booklet, Modernized Brooklyn Bridge, May 3, 1954. DORIS Commissioner Eugene J. Bockman Collection, Brooklyn Bridge Centennial, 1983. NYC Municipal Archives

When it opened in 1883, the bridge had a walkway for pedestrians and a roadway for carts or coaches. Passengers could ride across in a cable car. Trolley service commenced in 1899. By the 1940s, with the increased volume of automobile traffic, “… it became clear that the Brooklyn Bridge would have to be modernized to derive from it its full potential in carrying capacity.” Since trolley and rapid transit service ceased in 1945, by 1950, construction work began to widen the roadways to three lanes in each direction and connect to the then-new arterial highways in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Completed in 1954, the result is essentially what the bridge looks like today.   

In 2021, the City Department of Transportation separated bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the bridge by installing dedicated, two-way bike lanes on the Manhattan-bound roadway. Most recently, on March 27, 2026, Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani announced a redesigned bike and pedestrian connection to the bridge along Centre Street at its Manhattan entrance, creating fully separate bike and pedestrian access for the first time.

On Sunday, May 24, the Brooklyn Bridge will celebrate its 143rd Birthday. What better way to mark the occasion than a walk across the “Symbol of Greatness,” as Mayor Wagner called the iconic structure in 1954. Enjoy the holiday! 

Aerial View Of Brooklyn Bridge, Looking North Toward Manhattan, 1962, color transparency. Department of Marine and Aviation, Department of Ports and Terminals/Ports and Trade Photograph Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.  

How Many Mayors really?

A recent For the Record blog received a good deal of attention and triggered a recalculation of the number of New York City mayors.  Was it 111 or 112?  Eventually, including all of the New York mayors from colonial times to the present, the conclusion was that the current mayor, Zohran Kwame Mamdani, is mayor number 112.

New York’s first government, authorized by the Dutch West India company and established in 1653, consisted of a sheriff, two burgomasters (who had duties similar to mayors) and five legislators as described in this blog post.

Robert Van Wyck, First Mayor of Greater New York.

From that auspicious beginning, subsequent English charters issued in 1655, 1686, 1708 and 1730 “all provided for an appointed mayor,” according to a 1929 article written by Rebecca Rankin, the City’s principal librarian. By 1775, the mayor was appointed by the Royal Governor, who in turn, was appointed by the King of England. Mayoral duties included Water Bailiff, Clerk of the Markets, and Justice of the Peace, as reported in the 1976 Green Book.

The majority—92 of the 112 mayors—presided over a smallish island, sometimes called Manhattan or New York. In the late 1800s, New York County annexed a large portion of what is now Bronx County including the towns of Morrisania and Kingsbridge. It became the last county in the State in 1914. The mayoral count does not include mayors of the City of Brooklyn or Long Island City… just those from Manhattan. Between 1834 and 1898 the City of Brooklyn had 27 mayors. Seth Low, Mayor of the City of Brooklyn from 1882-1885, went on to become the second elected mayor of the Greater City of New York. Williamsburg received city status in 1851 only to be annexed by the City of Brooklyn in 1854, along with Bushwick. The New York mayors held no sway over Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens and the many towns and cities located in those counties.

The title page for the 27th Annual Report of the Department of Parks of the City of Brooklyn, shows the changes in governance that occurred between 1897 and 1898. NYC Municipal Library.

On January 1, 1898, the City of New York was transformed, becoming the largest city in the country—second largest in the world, behind London. Government and civic leaders had discussed and debated combining the cities of New York and Brooklyn for approximately 20 years prior to consolidation. Andrew Haskell Green, a storied civic leader whose ventures included creating the New York Public Library and Central Park, is largely credited with the notion of combining the four counties, the annexed Bronx territory and the many small municipalities into one entity.

Green conceived of one great metropolis—a city that had uniform regulations instead of the inconsistent and conflicting rules that made the multiple governments inefficient. Opponents to the scheme expressed concern about taxes—would Brooklyn be saddled with New York’s debt? They also questioned political control: the dread Tammany machine ran politics and government in New York while the Republicans controlled Brooklyn. Brooklyn was the third largest city in the country and its leaders were loath to cede power.

An earlier blog post dealt with the origin of the Greater City of New York, describing efforts that led to the consolidation of unannexed territory and local governments.

Another post showed the evolution of the mayoralty from 1810 when the Council elected the mayor from among its members to direct elections in 1834 (although only a small portion of residents could vote) and the increasing power of the office.

The budget for the fiscal year of 1899 was the first for the consolidated greater New York. NYC Municipal Library.

The creation of the Greater City of New York combined existing municipalities and counties into one government consisting of five boroughs: Brooklyn, the Bronx, New York, Queens and Richmond. A new government was established with a mayor, a board of estimate that included representatives from all of the boroughs as well as the Comptroller. This effectively ended the run of mayors from the preceding governments, including that of New York.

If the question instead is: How many Mayors have represented the Greater City of New York, the city that includes 50 Bronx neighborhoods, 76 in Queens, 77 in Brooklyn, 63 Staten Island neighborhoods and the 57 in Manhattan, the answer is very different. There have been 23 mayors representing the millions of City residents since 1898, including Acting Mayors Ardolph L. Kline, Joseph V. McKee and Vincent R. Impelleteri, who was subsequently elected Mayor.

Some might suggest that this is an outer-borough gripe. But, really it is a claim for full representation of the wonderful diversity that comprises the Greater City of New York.

The New York Parental School

The New York Parental School for “truant” boys opened in 1909 in Flushing, Queens on what is now the Queens College campus. The stated goal of the boarding school was to provide structure, discipline, and industrial training. It was supposed to be a model of progressive reform, but just twenty-five years after it opened, a Brooklyn Daily Eagle headline blared: “Terror Reign Revealed by School Jury.” What went wrong? 

Hand-tinted lantern slide showing the three original cottages of the New York Parental School, ca. 1909. BPQ_ls_157: Borough President Queens Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

A Progressive Ideal

In 1907, New York City purchased the Kane and Wright Manure Farm in Flushing, Queens in order to provide relief to “the present congested truant schools.” Prolific architect and Superintendent of School Buildings Charles B.J. Snyder, responsible for more than 400 iconic schools, designed a campus of buildings in the Spanish Mission style. The 1906-07 Annual Report of the Board of Education stated that: “The New Parental School farm is located in the Borough of Queens on the road leading from Flushing to Jamaica. The farm consists of about 107 acres of rolling land in a superb location about one mile from Flushing, from which all the buildings can be seen.” The report had progressive hopes for the institution:

“These boys will have advantages for obtaining an education which shall be equal to those offered in any public school in New York, and the teachers to be engaged shall be the best in their line. Industrial education will be a special feature. Agriculture and horticulture will be taught as well as manual training and the elements of some trades, which we shall teach in our well-equipped shops. The boy who is tending toward criminality and indolence from habits of truancy, will be shown the path to upright citizenship and industry.” (p. 341-343)

New York Parental School, Queens, Administration Building, August 5, 1929. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Only five buildings had been completed by the May 19, 1909 opening of the school: an administration building, three double dormitories or “cottages” located on the north side of a parade ground, and a power plant. Underground tunnels connected the buildings. The administration building had in its basement a tailor shop, manual training shop, carpenter shop, print shop, tin shop, shoe shop, and gymnasium. The first and second floors contained classrooms, offices, a library, a medical room, and an art room. Bedrooms on the third floor housed school staff. The cottages had east and west sections, each to be self-contained residential unit with a living room, a dining room, a pantry, reception room and a house master and matron’s room (sometimes referred to as a “house father and mother” and presumed to be a married couple). 

New York Parental School, Queens, Review, August 2, 1929. View looking east toward Administration Building. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

The 1909-1910 Annual Report was glowingly positive:

“No better demonstration of the wisdom of establishing the school need be given than is presented in the character of the classroom work, and in the mechanical and agricultural work performed by the boys…. Boys in all grades from 1A to 4B, inclusive, attend school in the morning, and all those in grades 5A to 7B, inclusive, attend in the afternoon. The time not spent in school is devoted to work in the shops, to farm and garden work, to helping in the bakery, the kitchen and the laundry, to cleaning the cottages and to practice in the band. Ample time is allowed for recreation, military drill and athletic sports.” (p. 385-386)

Superintendent’s Cottage and Hospital, Parental School, Queens, May 20, 1925. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

The report also stated, “additional buildings should be erected for the accommodation of truants on the lands of the Parental School.” By 1915, the school was deemed so successful that the Board of Education asked C.B.J. Snyder to draft plans for three additional cottages, a hospital/quarantine station, and a cottage for the principal of the school. In order to pay for these improvements, they planned to close the Manhattan and Brooklyn Truant schools, transfer their students to the Parental School and sell the Brooklyn land. The only negative noted about the school in the 1915 correspondence was “the extravagant criticisms that have been freely lodged against it for munificence and luxurious surroundings...” It was noted that a stable was currently being constructed by the boys themselves under instruction of the shop teachers. The additional buildings were not completed until 1925 and consisted of two quadruple cottages on the south side of the parade ground, a hospital, a principal’s cottage, and a barn, piggery, and chicken house. In 1927 a house for the custodian was added.

New Dormitories, Parental School, Queens, May 20, 1925. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

In 1929, the Brooklyn Eagle published an article about the school (using some of the photographs shown here) and noted that “more than 90% of the boys discharged from the city’s truant school are never brought back.” This was taken to be a mark of success. They called the school “a model for the entire country...” By the 1929-1930 school year there were 335 students boarded at the school although it had beds for nearly twice that number.

In 1930, William J. O’Shea, Superintendent of Schools, made “Retardation, truancy, and problems of personality and conduct” the first section of his 1930 Annual Report. He had appointed a committee to study the subject and one of the questions they investigated was “Is the Parental School discharging its functions in a satisfactory way?” This was the first sign that all might not be right with the school. The report noted that “a child be not committed to the parental school until it has been shown that his delinquency cannot be overcome by required attendance at a special day school.” (p.47) And that,

“It is the function of the New York Parental School to provide school care for boys who have violated the compulsory education law or who are incorrigible, and who on that account have been committed to the parental school by the courts or by the Director of Attendance.”

Under a section labeled “Progressive Steps” the report stated,

“Considerable improvement was noted in the work of the parental school during the past school year. This was due in a large measure to (1) a general improvement in the physical condition of the boys, resulting from the treatment and cure of physical defects, (2) the establishment of a plan for the systematic and scientific reception and placement of the boys and (3) the extension of industrial work.” But it noted that “medical and dental service is inadequate.” (p. 300-301)

New York Parental School, Queens, Class, August 5, 1929. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

The 1930-31 Annual Report asked: “should a special school similar to the parental school for boys be established for the behavior-problem girl?” Representatives from the schools were unanimous in favor if the selected girls came from homes with a “vicious environment.” But, “representatives of the social agencies were in general opposed to such segregation and strongly recommended that the girl be adjusted in her home environment by trained psychologists and social workers.” (p.109) But again, this remark signaled possible problems: “On the basis of a number of inspections, studies and recommendations.... a number of improvements have been made in methods and practices at the New York Parental School.” Including “the elimination of all practices smacking of a penal institution.” (p.119) Not much mention was made of the Parental School in the 1932 Annual Report, other than noting a piggery had been converted to an auto-mechanic shop.

Troubling Reports

In April 1934, Harold J. Campbell, Superintendent of Schools, sent a letter to Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia’s secretary, acknowledging receipt of an anonymous letter charging “irregularities” at the Parental School. Mayor LaGuardia had been sworn in on January 1, 1934, after running on an anti-corruption platform. He picked Paul Blanchard, a socialist reformer, to be the Commissioner of Accounts, charged with investigating corruption (the office became the Department of Investigation in 1938). On April 30th, Blanchard received a preliminary report on the Parental School from his investigators, led by lawyer Will Maslow, cousin to the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow. The report was compiled through interviews with staff members willing to talk and through secret interviews with the boys conducted by a nightwatchman. The investigation had revealed “boys between eight and seventeen years are committed for nothing but truancy...” and subjected to “abuses such as brutality, sodomy and bad food, worse than those in prison.”

“Office of the Commissioner of Accounts, In Reference to New York Parental School – Preliminary Report,” April 30, 1934. NYC Municipal Archives, Mayor LaGuardia Collection, box 3114, folder 5. 

In accompanying oversize sheets of paper, the investigators catalogued reports of brutality by the cottage masters and other employees, detailing the name of the employee, the names and age of the boy, the offence or provocation, description of brutality, consequence or injury, remarks, and a citation to a ledger where the interviews were recorded. For what appear to be very minor offences students were kicked, punched, beaten with objects, and routinely received “muchachos,” beatings on the buttocks. One house master, noted to be a former guard in a southern chain gang, used a rubber hose on the boys in his charge, many of whom were Black and he referred to them as “Dirty black bastards.” Another cottage master was so brutal a boy attempted suicide after a beating.

Despite corporal punishment being banned by the Board of Education, Director William D. Pulvermacher was accused of not only tolerating these beatings, but himself being guilty of acts of felonious assault. His punishments, meted out in his private office, included hitting a boy over the head with a phone. Pulvermacher, it was noted, was a close personal friend of School Superintendent Campbell. Although none of the staff were accused of sexual assault, under a section titled “immorality” it was stated that some older boys routinely raped younger boys. These incidents were said to be covered up when reported to the masters or Director Pulvermacher.

Poor nutrition was also well-documented, in particular the difference between the diet of the boys and the staff. The typical boys’ supper was bean soup or stew of leftovers while the typical master’s supper would be ham, steak, lamb, or fresh fish on Fridays. Contamination of the boys’ food supplies with insects or vermin was common. The fourth item, almost minor compared to the first three, was the lack of an adequate education either in basic subjects or vocational training.

Battles in the Press

Daily News, June 22, 1934.

Things came to a head when the Daily News, on June 18, 1934, under the headline “Truant School Nest of Crime, Probe Charges,” revealed that the LaGuardia Administration had been secretly investigating the school for two months after “complaints of brutality and shocking moral conditions....” Grace Robinson, a pioneering investigative journalist, authored the article. Over the following week, she published an article almost daily with new revelations. Mayor LaGuardia did not have direct oversight of the schools; Mayors appointed the members of the Board of Education but until their terms ended the existing Board had complete control. What LaGuardia did have was a bully pulpit, speaking out and feeding the story to Grace Robinson and other journalists.

Superintendent Campbell pushed back in the press, criticizing LaGuardia for overstepping his authority and revealing that he was conducting his own investigation into the school. The United Parents Association called for an outside investigation, and District Attorney Charles S. Colden responded to the call, bringing the matter to the Queens County Grand Jury. Director Pulvermacher also pushed back against the accusations, although he admitted to the press “it was not a Sunday School.” In a June 24, 1934, New York Times article, he attributed the claims of brutality to “a dismissed employee and the supporting affidavits to ‘some of these boys who would say anything for a carton of cigarettes.’”

Daily News, June 24, 1934.

But that same day the Daily News dropped Grace Robinson’s bombshell, from 1931-1932, “a murderer who had served sixteen years in Sing Sing and Comstock prisons was employed as a guard....” What’s more, the man in question (not named, but Edward F. McGrath) had a soon-to-be published autobiography, I Was Condemned to the Chair. Queens DA Colden, already investigating the institution, was horrified. According to the Daily News, those familiar with the school were less shocked and reported “that the boys teach each other the gentle art of pickpocketing and how to pick locks, that their heroes are Al Capone, Owney Madden and Jack Diamond, and their idea of real achievement is to kill a cop.” Other “affidavits charge that boys have been brutally whipped for small offenses, given insufficient and inferior food, and that immorality is practiced in the dormitories almost under the eyes of masters.”

Conflicting Investigations

On July 6, 1934, Owen R. Lovejoy, secretary of the Children’s Aid Society, submitted a report to the Board of Education, “Cottage Life at New York Parental School.” Overall, it is upbeat in tone, with passages like “the writer was deeply impressed by the spirit, resourcefulness and interest in the welfare of the boys manifested by every one of the house fathers and mothers interviewed.” Claims of abuse are dismissed as rumors, but Lovejoy also noted under a section “Moral Condition” that “in the past men had been discharged from the staff because of either encouraging or condoning sex offenses....” Health Commissioner John L. Rice submitted a report on his medical investigation of the school on July 16th. It too was positive and contained no shocking revelations.

New York Parental School, Queens, Dressing Room, Infirmary, August 2, 1929. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

When it came out on August 28, 1934, the Queens Grand Jury report was unsparing: “the Board of Education of the City of New York maintains... an institution known as the Parental School... for the care, maintenance, education and rehabilitation of truant and delinquent boys. No evidence we have been able to discover indicates that this has even remotely been accomplished.” They noted it more closely resembled “a place of detention with amenities that would hardly distinguish it from a reformatory.” However, they did not summarily call for its closure, but for “sweeping reform to salvage these children from becoming the criminals of tomorrow,” by putting the school under “competent direction.”

The main problems the Grand Jury identified were the lack of long-term improvement of the boys, “no use of psychiatrists, psychologists, physiologists, or other modern scientific and sociological aids...,” no follow-up after discharge, a lack of useful training, ill-trained and screened house masters and matrons (who were noted to range from fair to mediocre to brutal), corporal punishment, poor nutrition, and an overall sense of a penal institution. After listing a 16-point plan for improving the school, the Grand Jury concluded that unless these recommendations were followed the school should be closed and the buildings and land repurposed.

New York Parental School, Queens, Plumbing Shop, August 5, 1929. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Although a September 4th New York Times article noted the conflicting reports from Lovejoy and Rice, by September 30, 1934, all students at the Parental School were returned to classes in the public schools. The school was effectively closed while debates on whether to reform or abandon it continued.

The 192-page Board of Education final report was submitted in November 1934. It approached the school from a variety of angles, educational, medical, psychological, and incorporated the earlier reports by Rice and Lovejoy dismissing claims of abuse. Joseph K. Van Denburg, a teacher and educational reformer, had been assigned to review the staff at the school. His report was most critical, saying “The Parental School is still in the Dark Ages... the Home in 1934 shows few advances over the Home of 1904” despite advances in psychology and psychiatry. (p.114) The biggest problems noted by the survey committee were that the school was underfunded (and therefore not able to hire staff with the requisite training) and overcrowded with too many students assigned to each housemaster. Additionally, the mixing of ages, wildly different intellectual capacities, and developmental or behavioral issues almost guaranteed problems. In its conclusions, they outlined a roadmap for reforming and reopening the Parental School with a maximum capacity of 240 boys, 20 to each cottage division, and large increases in staffing and operating budget.

New Ideas

While “some members of the Board... favored closing the school permanently and ‘farming out’ incorrigible pupils to religious and social welfare organizations,” some still hoped to turn the institution around. In March 1935, Pulvermacher resigned as Director and the Board appointed Dr. Leon W. Goldrich, director of the Bureau of Child Guidance, to usher in a new era “marked by sympathetic treatment and the most advanced thought in mental hygiene and child guidance.” Dr. Goldrich stated that the Parental School would not be reopened until it had “adequate and well-trained personnel.” But in June 1935, at the request of Mayor LaGuardia, the Board turned control over the Parental School to the City to temporarily house patients from the NYC Children’s Hospital for Mental Defectives on Randall’s Island—soon to be displaced by Robert Moses for the construction of the Triborough Bridge.

Long Island Daily Press, June 15, 1935.

Meanwhile, Charles S. Colden (now a Queens County Judge) had established a committee “to study the feasibility of establishing a free city college in Queens.” In September 1935, the committee unanimously voted in favor of it and asked the City to turn over the campus of the Parental School. The plan gained the support of Johanna Lindlof, Queens member of the Board of Education, who envisioned an education center with a college and three high schools: a general, a vocational, and an agricultural high school. She hoped “the center would be completed in time for the World’s Fair of 1939 as ‘a progressive experiment for the whole world to see.’” (Brooklyn Eagle, Nov 3. 1936)

In April 1937, The Board of Education formally surrendered forty-eight acres of the 107-acre campus and the buildings of the New York Parental School to the City for Queens College. The remaining fifty-five acres of the site were set aside for a public-school educational center. The Board of Superintendents of the Department of Education recommended “that an industrial high, a general high and an elementary school be built on the remaining acres, thus turning the area into an educational center for the borough.”

On October 4, 1937, Queens College welcomed 400 high school graduates as its incoming class. Of them, 95% were from Queens and 50% were women. The high school educational center was never built, as college administrators stated they would need room for expansion. Beginning in 1950, with the addition of the first new campus building, two of the original three cottage dormitories were torn down, along with the Superintendent’s Cottage. However, the Administration Building, the Hospital, and three cottages remain, repurposed into classrooms and offices. Few who pass through these buildings know of the troubled history of the New York Parental School.

Sources:

Doing justice to this story required researching multiple collections and reading often conflicting reports and newspaper articles. In order to show the way this story unspooled in the public eye I have arranged my sources chronologically.

Annual report - New York City Board of Education. Superintendent of Schools 1906/07

Annual report - New York City Board of Education. Superintendent of Schools 1909/10

Annual report - New York City Board of Education. Superintendent of Schools 1910/11 PT.1

Annual report - New York City Board of Education. Superintendent of Schools 1929-1930

Annual report - New York City Board of Education. Superintendent of Schools 1930-1931

Annual report - New York City Board of Education. Superintendent of Schools 1932/1933

36th Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools, City of New York. NYC Municipal Library.

“City’s Parental Home to be Dedicated Dec. 11,” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 30, 1909.

NYC Municipal Archives, REC0007 Records of the Board of Education, Series 755 Bureau of Reference, Research, and Statistics (BRRS). Vertical File. ca. 1888-1966.

“90% of Boys Discharged from City Truant School Become Useful Citizens,” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 11, 1929.

“Office of the Commissioner of Accounts, In Reference to New York Parental School – Preliminary Report,” April 30, 1934. NYC Municipal Archives, Mayor LaGuardia Collection, box 3114, folder 5.

“Truant School Nest of Crime, Probe Charges,” Grace Robinson, New York Daily News, June 18, 1934.

“Board Willing City Probe Truant Home,” Grace Robinson, New York Daily News, June 19, 1934.

“BEATING TRUANTS AT SCHOOL DENIED; Dr. Ryan and Director of the Flushing Institution Hold Charges Are Baseless. MAYOR DEMANDS CHANGE ‘Looks Like Typical Callousness,’ He Says—Will Turn Over Affidavits to Inquiry.” New York Times, June 19, 1934.

“Early Clean-up Predicted for Boys’ School,” Grace Robinson, New York Daily News, June 20, 1934.

“Boys Home No Sunday School, Dean Admits,” Grace Robinson, New York Daily News, June 21, 1934.

“Truant School Data Going to Grand Jury,” Grace Robinson, New York Daily News, June 22, 1934.

“Killer Guarded Them? Truant School Master Bared As a Murderer.” Grace Robinson, Daily News, Sunday, June 24, 1934, page 127.

“Truant School Long a Problem—Parental Institution Under Inquiry,” New York Times, June 24, 1934.

“Mother Near as Truant Got Brutal Beating,” Grace Robinson, New York Daily News, June 25, 1934.

“Cottage Life at New York Parental School – Flushing, N.Y. Report of Owen R. Lovejoy,” July 6, 1934. REC0007 Records of the Board of Education, Series 755 Bureau of Reference, Research, and Statistics (BRRS). Vertical File. ca. 1888-1966

“Boy Bares Bruised Head in Parental School Probe,” New York Daily News, July 7, 1934.

“Grand Jury Hears Them, Jury Reviews School Abuses Told by Pupils,” New York Daily News, July 11, 1934.

“Medical Findings, Parental School, Flushing,” Submitted by Health Commissioner, John L. Rice, July 16, 1934. REC0007 Records of the Board of Education, Series 755 Bureau of Reference, Research, and Statistics (BRRS). Vertical File. ca. 1888-1966.

Queens County, New York. “In the matter of the New York Parental School,” August 28, 1934. NYC Municipal Library.

“Surveys Conflict on Truant School; Findings of Dr. Rice and of Owen R. Lovejoy at Variance with Grand Jury Report.” New York Times, July 6, 1934.

“Jury Demands Reforms for Truant School,” Robert Conway, Daily News, August 29, 1934.

“Terror Reign Revealed by School Jury—Boys Beaten, Badly Fed at Queens Parental Institution, Says Report.” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 28, 1934.

“Report of the Survey of the New York Parental School,” November 1934. REC0007 Records of the Board of Education, Series 755 Bureau of Reference, Research, and Statistics (BRRS). Vertical File. ca. 1888-1966.

“Parental Home Enters New Era; Sympathetic Treatment to Be Basic Policy in Handling Wayward Boys,” New York Times, February 24, 1935.

“City to House Wards in Parental School; Education Board Lends Flushing Institution as Hospital for Mental Defectives,” New York Times, June 15, 1935.

“Truant Home Will Be Used For Hospital—Officials Admit Parental School May Never Be Reopened,” Long Island Daily Press, June 15, 1935.

“Queens College Backed; Colden Committee Holds Proposal for New Institution Feasible,” New York Times, September 13, 1935.

“City College for Queens is Pressed in New Education Center Proposal—3 High Schools Added to Plan By Mrs. Lindof.” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 3, 1936.

“College Site Given to City In Queens; Education Board Cedes 48 Acres and Buildings of Flushing Parental School,” New York Times, April 1, 1937.

“FIRST CLASS MEETS AT QUEENS COLLEGE; 400 Selected Freshmen Are Greeted as Pioneers by Dr. Klapper, the President WORK TO BEGIN MONDAY Students Are Reminded That They Largely Will Shape New Institution’s Destiny Looking Only Forward Dean Welcomes Students,” New York Times, October 5, 1937.

https://www.untappedcities.com/the-past-lives-of-queens-college-the-parental-school-a-hospital-a-farm-and-walt-whitman/

What’s New in the DORIS Gallery?  

The challenge: tell the story of New York City’s first four hundred years using the resources of the Municipal Archives and Library. The result is two new exhibits, the interactive online RememberNYC.nyc, and NYC’s Story: The City on Record in the DORIS gallery at 31 Chambers Street. Both include a wide range of images and documents that capture both defining events and everyday moments in New Yorkers’ lives from the 1600s to the twenty-first century.  

Statue of Liberty New York Bay And Lower Manhattan Skyline, 1950-1977, Department of Ports and Trade photographs, NYC Municipal Archives.

Planning for the challenge began soon after the New Visions of Old New York exhibit opened in the DORIS gallery on January 23, 2025. Produced in collaboration with the New Amsterdam History Center’s Mapping Early New York project, the New Visions exhibit featured an interactive 3-D map and displayed 17th-century records that focused on the lives of women, enslaved people, and Native Americans in the Dutch West India Company settlement that eventually became New York City.   

Staten Island Panel, DORIS Gallery, 31 Chambers Street.

Building on the success of the New Visions exhibit, DORIS staff from multiple divisions continued planning the next phase to continue the story. Initially, we organized the effort by centuries, with each subgroup identifying key records in the Municipal Archives and Library collections. Then collectively, we decided to identify 100 items in the collections that speak to some aspect of city history. As we selected documents, photographs and other material, we developed a framework of three questions to present the content: – 1) Who is a New Yorker? 2) How was New York City built? and 3) What makes NYC, NYC?      

Plan for Bronx Terminal Market, ca. 1923, Department of Public Markets Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

There is not a set order of the records. In answering one of the questions, users choose a record that allows a connection to a different record and another, and so-on. For example, to answer the question, Who is a New Yorker? the user might begin with the 1810 census coversheet that lists the population of Manhattan by status—property owners, white residents, alien residents, free Black people and enslaved people. Next they may open a photo of a street in Manhattan’s Little Italy circa 1930, and then move on to the Accessible New York report. Each item shows the diversity of the City’s residents.  

The Brooklyn Bridge and Brooklyn waterfront, ca. 1982. Department of Ports and Trade Photograph Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

The interactive exhibit is fully accessible. It includes transcribed text and descriptions. There is an accessibility widget that allows users to manipulate the content, i.e. change the font, magnify the text, supply word definitions, etc. The user can also select to have the content read aloud and converted to a different language.   

Queens Panel, DORIS Gallery, 31 Chambers Street

The goal of the exhibits is to help visitors of all ages both understand the city’s past and shape a better future by inviting open exploration and engagement with the archival and library collections. The DORIS gallery exhibit at 31 Chambers organizes content by borough. Photographs, documents, and other visual items that capture highlights of the borough’s identity and history are mounted on individual panels. Brief explanatory text accompanies the panels. Visitors can also enjoy outtakes from The City of Magic. Produced by WNYC soon after the municipally-owned broadcast station established a film unit in 1949, the color footage captures street scenes teeming with well-dressed pedestrians, movie and theatre marquees in Times Square, and lots of traffic. It is mesmerizing.   

Staten Island Ferry, ca. 1980, brochure, Vertical File Collection, Municipal Library. 

The DORIS gallery also premieres the Neighborhood Stories project which shares stories from community residents that reflect the city’s diversity and development.  

Astoria Pool, 1948, Department of Parks Photograph Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Interactive aspects let visitors build a skyline and show immigration patterns in each borough. See you in the gallery! 

Managing the Records of New York City

In recognition of Records and Information Management Month, this week For the Record highlights the work of the Department of Records and Information Service’s (DORIS) Records Management Division. Their efforts ensure that active records remain accessible, and that records with historical value are properly preserved by transferring them to the Municipal Archives.

Records Management is a vital part of the DORIS mission to set policy and provide leadership to all city agencies in their work to maintain efficient control of records in all formats.

Each type of record created by a city entity has its own lifecycle—from creation, through periods of high activity, then less frequent use and inactivity, and eventually to final disposition. At that stage, a record is either eligible to be destroyed or is transferred to the Municipal Archives for permanent preservation. Record lifecycles can be short, such as a weekly report that is regularly replaced by new information; or long, in the case of official policies that have lasting impact on city operations. DORIS’ Records Analysts work with Records Management Officer (RMOs) in each agency to create an inventory of all records, by type. They determine how long each type of record must be kept, and what happens when it reaches the end of its usefulness to the creating agency. The inventory is known as a record retention schedule. Records Analysts ensure that retention schedules align with all relevant legal authorities, and that the disposal process, which requires several levels of approval, is properly carried out at the end of the record’s useful life.

Collections currently in the Municipal Archives serve as a testament to the diligent work of prior records managers, and the efficacy of these procedures. For example, the Parks Department retention schedule includes a record series called “Blueprint/Design Files,” described as containing original design and construction plans for parks, playgrounds and buildings. In collaboration with Parks staff, DORIS Record Analysts assigned the retention period for this series as “permanent.” This designation informed the Parks record custodians to keep them safe, organized and available to Parks employees. When the records were no longer in active use at Parks, a DORIS Records Analyst and the Parks Records Management Officer collaborated to document approval for transfer to the Municipal Archives. Now, the records are held permanently in a preservation environment at DORIS. Some of these materials have been digitized and are now publicly accessible on the Archives digital repository in the Department of Parks Buildings and Plans collection.

Establishing record retention schedules is only one aspect of the complex work of DORIS’ Records Management Division. In addition to developing policies governing new record types—social media, texts—and offering guidance, this arm of the agency also operates a vast facility to store and manage access for more than 800,000 cartons of active city records. This means the records are still needed by the creating agency for regular business, but not needed on a daily basis so are not stored in the office. When needed, the agency submits a request to retrieve the carton, or file, from the DORIS storage facility.

The Records Management Division is simultaneously overseeing implementation of an electronic records management (ERMS) platform that is used by dozens of city agencies.  This software solution gives agency RMOs a tool to connect retention schedules with electronic repositories. DORIS staff are training RMOs to develop record inventories to apply retention periods to email and other electronic records in order to ensure proper disposal and/or preservation, as appropriate.

Records Management work at DORIS is dynamic and multifaceted. The efforts of this unit ensure that the city’s records are available to serve the citizens of New York City now, and in perpetuity.