Private Schools in the Inner City; H. Baetjer, Jr.

Stultifying regulations and controls would be lifted from their backs, and they would acquire added freedom to stimulate learning and imPUBLIC EDUCATION: HOW FREE? 433 prove achievement. In short, the entire aca demic atmosphere would obtain a shot of vigor in the course of competition, freedom, and choice. Now, why is all this a pipe-dream? Because people believe the experts whose self-interest is served by continuing the current system. Citi zens are too busy to examine the problem and too docile to take responsibility for education themselves. The government system is easy on such people because it makes choices for them and thinks for them. We must rouse ourselves and take responsibility for our own lives rather than leaving it to government to provide for us, to educate us, and to make our decisions. If we give the government 40 per cent of our national income and tell them to spend it for us, they will. And in fact, they do. Education is a good place to begin directing our own lives by allow ing people to choose their own schools, or no schools, and to see education as the opportunity and responsibility that it is. 0 Private Schoolsin the Inner City by Howard Baetjer Jr.

T hose who believe that educational ser vices should be provided by a totally free market, with no governmental in volvement in schooling, are frequently told: "You are advocating a completely private school system, with no public schools for the poor. How can the poor possibly afford private schools?" These are serious concerns, which need to be addressed. Thus, we welcome a recent Heart land Institute study of private schools in the poorer sections of Chicago. The study, by Joan Howard Baetjer Jr. is a member of the FEE staff. Davis Ratteray, president of the Institute for In dependent Education, shows that demand for private schooling is high and increasing among those in the city's poorest neighborhoods. "There are nearly fifty [independent neigh borhood schools for Black and Hispanic youth] in Chicago," says Ratteray, "with most of them located in the least affluent communi ties. " These are grade schools, for the most part, some high schools, and some schools of fering grades K-12. Their total enrollment is about 2.3 per cent of the enrollment in Chica go's public schools. Annual tuition ranges from $270 in the poorest areas to $3000 in more af434 THE FREEMAN • NOVEMBER 1986 fluent neighborhoods. Strikingly, " ... in the city as a whole, schools that are closest to poor neighborhoods have the highest enrollments, the longest waiting lists, and the greatest need for expanded facilities." One grade school within walking distance of five housing projects has a waiting list of over one thousand!

Why should poorer parents be so eager to pay extra for private schools? Because leaving their children in the public schools bears an even higher cost-in their children's education, per sonal development, and physical safety. Parents express deep concern about the low academic standards, the violence, and the unapproachable bureaucracy of the public schools. They want for their children discipline, safety, and a strong sense of values. " . . . [T]hey are willing to endure severe economic hardship in order to provide a better chance at learning for their children. ' , They are also willing to work hard and imagi natively to keep their schools going. According to Dr. Ratteray, "[T]hese schools are the epit orne of self-help, entrepreneurship, and innova tion. " Parents pay tuition out of meager savings from paychecks, by help from grandparents, and by working at the schools. They frequently participate in fundraising, which often pro vides a substantial portion of the schools' bud gets. One school augments inc~me with the profits from a thrift shop operated by the par ents; another "is part of an organizational structure that houses its own publishing com pany and bookstore . . . [O]ne-third of the school's operating capital comes from the suc cess of the other two enterprises."

Some of the schools take advantage of church buildings and in-kind help from their communi ties. Some receive support from foundations and church congregations with which they are affiliated. A few are blessed with energetic leaders who campaign around the country to raise additional operating funds. Through such programs as "adopt-a-child," churches and civic organizations undertake a child's costs. And in one school, "teachers participate in a salary-sharing program that is maintained by contributions from donors outside the immedi ate community. In this way, the contributors maintain a personal relationship with the teach ers they sponsor and come to learn a great deal about the program." The Chicago experience casts doubt on one of the main reasons given for public schools-that the private alternative is too expensive, espe cially for the poor. Certainly many of the less affluent parents have severe difficulty making tuition payments, and the low-budget schools often do without enough textbooks and ade quate facilities. Often parents must withdraw their children, and occasionally the schools fail.

Nevertheless, these schools on the whole are succeeding and growing, an accomplishment the more impressive for the financial difficulties involved. These financial difficulties would diminish in an education setting free of the government's massive presence. Chicago will spend about $1.84 billion on its school system next year, or $4279 for each of the 430,000 children in it. If parents or private benefactors didn't have to pay taxes toward this costly system, they would have more dollars to spend on schools of their choice. In the absence of competition from the tax-supported public schools, the demand for independent schools would increase-boosting the number, quality, and variety of private schools. What is occurring in Chicago is a dramatic illustration of market response to human wants, no less impressive for its small scale. Faced with the calamity of inner-city public schools, a dedicated core of poor parents are exercising their power of choice, and private enterprise (nonprofit in this case) is responding.

The tragic irony is that the very existence of public schooling restricts parents' power of choice. It obstructs them from providing the ed ucation they want for their children. Many well intentioned people believe that the poor have the most to gain from public schooling. In Chi cago, at least, the opposite seems to be the case. Chicago's neighborhood schools, persevering and growing despite economic hardship, show that private, voluntary endeavor can support schooling even in the lowest-income areas. A free society must put a premium on liberty. Parents' freedom to choose how they will spend their education dollars, and at what schools, is paramount. The growing movement to indepen dent neighborhood schools is a positive step to ward restoring education to private endeavor and free parental choice. D 435 Our School SysteD1: The Dream and the Reality by David Smyth O ne night I had. a dream. I dreamed that some of us got together in our small New Jersey town and abolished its public school system. We removed the public school system's legal privileges, and ended its tax support. From then on, all schools would have to compete on an equal footing in a free and open market.