18 IThe Urban Review Illlll IIII

Parochial Education and the Inner City by Thomas M. Gannon, S.Z It is hardly a secret that American Catholics are currently wrestling with the problems of parochial education in a m o r e determined way than ever before. For 130 years much time and m o n e y has been committed to the support of these denominational schools; so much, in fact, that American Catholicism has often been called a vast school system accompanied by a n u m b e r of churches. For almost the same length of time Catholics have been debating with nonCatholics, and m o r e recently with themselves, whether such schools are justified. Aside from the question of federal aid, much of this later controversy has focused on one aspect of effectiveness--the effectiveness of .tile Catholic school in f o r m i n g i n t e l l i g e n t , alert, and committed Christians Who bring the power of their faith to bear on the life of the nation and the world. T h e latest result of such questioning has issued in the much-publicized study by Andrew F. Greeley and Peter H. Rossi (The Education of Catholic Americans', Aldine, 1966). T h e concern here is not to add another chapter to this line of inquiry. It is time to ask another equally agonizing q u e s t i o n - - o n e raised obliquely by Richard Boardman in the N o v e m b e r 1966 issue of The Urban Review. To what extent is the Catholic school effectively addressing its resources and personnel to one of the great social responsibilities of our t i m e - - t h e education of the urban poor? Conceivably there are two ways in which such a contribution could be made: the formation of socially conscious Christian students who will apply their vision and talents to the task of bringing justice and de facto equal opportunities into society's political and social structures, and the involvement of the Catholic educational instituion itself in the on-going social revolution. This second contribution will occupy our attention first; and while both the p r i m a r y and secondary levels of parochiaI education will constitute the basis of discussion, some of the following observations will p r o b a b l y be m o r e appropriate to the Catholic high school. My purpose is less to provide soluti6ns tothese problems than to give some expression to the spirit of inquiry already evident in m a n y parts of the Catholic educational community. Hopefully, this kind of discussion will offer a perspective which might both facilitate exploration and sketch some of the background necessary for sensitive cooperation by public and parochial schools in their common educational and civic responsibility.

IT IS A L M O S T C O M M O N P L A C E to r e m a r k that the challenge of poverty in the world's most affluent society cannot be a matter of purely individual concern just as it is not a question of material possessions or an unwillingness for self-improvement. Certainly the material dimension can n e v e r be avoided. But it is much m o r e important to identify poverty as a cultural and social quality -- the absence of those things which enable a person to participate fully in our way of life, and the presence of those features that Oscar Lewis has described as the "culture of poverty." As Lewis writes in his recent La Vida, the culture of poverty consists in "both an adaptation and a reaction of the poor to their marginal position in a class-stratified, highly individuated, capitalistic society .... It represents an effort to cope with feelings of hopelessness and despair which develop from the realization of the improbability of achieving success in terms of the values and goals of the larger society." To state the problem this way, however, does not imply that its solution lies merely in providing more opportunities to the poor - - o p e n i n g the doors of our our schools, businesses, and city halls to the underprivileged. Even when opportunitles are made available, people cannot take advantage of them unless they are culturally and socially p r e p a r e d - - u n l e s s the poor have a chance to develop, to come alive, and grow. Education, in this context, becomes less a matter of studying lessons and mastering a body of knowledge or set of skills; education becomes a response of the total person.

This is the deeper problem of inner-city poverty that should be no discovery to readers of this Review; and it is this dimension of the p r o b l e m which constitutes the massive educational challenge that both private and public schools are seeking to, meet. T h e role of parochial education in this task is faced with several complex difficulties. For one thing, the Catholic school is a unique historical p h e n o m e n o n . In its origin, it was developed to meet particu!ar problems of a minority Church composed largely of underprivileged and frequently persecuted people. In fact, the religious differences between Catholics and Protestants might possibly have been more peaceably adjusted if the social disadvantages of the immigrants, and the active discrimination agaifis t them, had not been so great. But Catholics were thrown back on their religion as a sign of their social unity, and the school became the,spokesman and reinforcer of the community. Although the social situation of Catholicism has changed 'enormously since that time, one of the principal reasons for the existence of the parochial system has not c h a n g e d - - t o meet the demand for a genuinely Christian education. Consequently, the over-all policy of the Catholic school has remained. It exists for Catholic children. T h e r e are exceptions, of course, particularly where Negroes are involved; but, by and large, the policy has not changed. T h e parochial school has adequately verified James Conant's thesis in Slums and Suburbs, that "to a considerable degree what a school should do and can do is determined by the status and ambitions of the families being served." In maintaining this type of institution Catholic education has tended to assume m a n y elements o f the ghetto community of which it was such an important part. Moreover, in following the Catholic migrants to the suburbs either in fact or in function, the parochial school has created a structure that does not easily permit the Church to become seriously involved in the educational challenge of the inner city.

THE C A T H O L I C S C H O O L has often been charge d with thwarting integration both because of the Small n u m b e r of Negroes enrolled and because they draw white students away from public schools. In 1964-65, for example, there were 115,000 Negro children in the public elementary schools of Manhattan and the-Bronx, as compared with 6,400 in the Catholic schools. Since the Education Department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference is currently engaged in a nation-wide census to test the validity of these charges, we must await more precise information. But even if the survey demonstrates that m a n y Catholic school systems do not show significant de facto segregation (e,g., ne~lrly one-half 0 f t h e 13,000 students in the Catholic schools of Washington, D.C. are Negroes), or that almost a dozen dioceses have opened inner-city schools to non-Catholic Negroes when space is awdlable, few will gainsay the fact that more can be done through pupil exchanges, cooperative programs, etc. We must be honest about this and try to locate the real problem. It is easy to rationalize the blaine with the excuse that more Negroes are not in Catholic schools because so few of them are Catholic. Is religiou s affiliation really the problem? What of the Puerto Ricans, most of whom are baptized Catholics? In 1964-65, there were 111,000 Puerto Ricans in the public elementary schools of Manhattan and the Bronx, while in the Catholic schools there were 14,646 (about 12 per cent of all Puerto Rican school children living in these two boroughs). To quote g o r d h a m University's Father ,|oseph P. Filzpatrick, S.J.: "In this massive public responsibility for the education of the poor, our Catholic schools are not only out of action in the case of Protestant Negroes; they a r e a h n o s t out of action in the case of Catholic Puerto Ricans. Whatever else this may be, it is hardly relevance. ''* T h e question of enrolhnent policy is not the only issue. To have the Catholic school, as an institution, establish wider relations with the total urban community, especially the inner city, demands a civic mentality a m o n g the staff *I should say at this point that I am indebted to Father Fitzpatrick for several of the ideas in this essay.

June, 1967 } "19 IH

which m a y not have been part of its previous thought patterns. Aside from the private university, the parochial system is one of the last of the great private institutions found in the urban community. Perhaps for economlc reasons, m a n y Catholic high schools are still found in the central city, even when they no longer enroll students from these neighborhoods. Every m o r n i n g hundreds (~f children travel from their suburban retreats into the heart of the metropolis. In this e n v i r o n m e n t there are opportunities for learning unavailable to the youngster in the suburban public school. T h e tragedy is that every afternoon most of these children return to their s~burban enclaves without having been appreciably touched by the urban dynamism around them. In other words, even when admission policies might presently hinder direct involvement in educating the poor, the parochial school --especially the Cathotic high school -- fails to become involved in these problems in any significant way. T h e curriculum, on the high school level, is strongly college preparatory, and the school system as a whole is tuition-supported. Nevertheless, the obligation remains for the school to be a formative instrument for the common good. In a coordinated effort, working with other social and civic agencies, can we not actually affect the lite of the inner city and meet some of its needs? Brother Norbert Brockman, S.M. of the University of Dayton's Program in Urban Affairs, made the point forcefully at this year's annual meeting of the National Catholic Educational Assocation: "The paradox of the metropolis is that only tI-irough highly institutionalized forms will the sense of c o m m u n i t y be reborn in the city....Precisely because they are institutionalized problems, we must meet them with the answer of flexible institutions. T h e problem is not that we lack the means, but that we need new understandings and some new techniques."

I N ORIENTING

T H E C A T H O L I C schools to the challenge of the total comm u n i t y of which they are a part, we have few guidelines. T h e r e are stirrings on the horizon, several burgeoning programs, some proved experiments that offer considerable encouragement. It will be useful to discuss three of them as illustrations of the direction in which some parochial schools have m o v e d and could continue to move. From these examples several specific problems emerge that might indicate what has to be done n e x t .

I. Jesuit high schools, as tuition-supported institutions, are attended mostly by middle-class youngsters. Several of these schools, however, have organized special provisions to meet the needs of inner-city Catholic students who are intellectually qualified and who wish to enroll in a college p r e p a r a t o r y program. In the New York area, for instance, through its H i g h e r Achievement Program, the ]esuit schools have not only recruited children from the slum areas and offered them specific educational assistance in p r e p a r i n g them for high school; they also have awarded these students approximately 25 scholarships to their own schools. T h e Jesuit high schools in the MarylandPennsylwmia region are currently engaged in an effort to provide a similar ratio of scholarships for disadvantaged children. In the Middle West, s u m m e r enrichment programs for p r i m a r y and secondary school students have been inaugurated in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Indianapolis. All these proiects aim at making college a more realistic goal for inner-city youths. T h e p r o g r a m with which I am familiar is nondenominational in recruitment and financed without government help. As the government-sponsored Upward Bound program, it attempts to supplement the education the youngsters receive in public and parochial schools, and to encourage them to attend college. 2. St. Agnes G r a m m a r School on Detroit's Lower West Side offers another illustration. Plagued by the educational needs confronting the people of its neighborhood, the Catholic pastor decided to turn St. Agnes into a "Christian school" -- open to any children in the neighborhood, regardless of religious attiliation. Because ot its economic status as a parochial school, a nominal tuition tee is still charged. The local public school has provided certain facil-

11

IIII

ities (e.g., typing rooms, science labs, etc.) for the use of St. Agnes' students after regular school hours. As a result of this cooperative effort, both schools have developed a deeper respect for one another and regularly meet to discuss and assist with their common problems. Interestingly, this kind of experimental p r o g r a m is not unique to St. Agnes, but is one of the m a n y exploratory efforts encouraged and sponsored by Detroit's Archbishop John Deardon. 3. St. Joseph H i g h School, Victoria, Texas, is addressing itself to a different aspect of inner-city education with a p r o g r a m designed both to assist poverty areas and to foster the social consciousness of its own students. A Neighborhood Youth Corps organized in the school has undertaken a project to p r o v i d e a poor neighborhood with recreational facilities. A 21-block section was surveyed by teams of students to determine the needs of the area, and the proposed project was submitted to city authorities. Students eligible for assistance u n d e r the poverty p r o g r a m were then hired at $1.25 an h o u r to develop a small park from unused space in the neighborhood. T h e student-drawn design for the park was accepted by the city and federal government; through the Office of E c o n o m i c O p p o r t u n i t y it r e c e i v e d f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t , a n d local businessmen and civic groups contributed additional materials. Although for administrative purposes the official grantee is the diocesan office for poverty programs, the entire project is handled from the high school, with the principal serving as director. Each student participating in the p r o g r a m receives one h o u r of g r o u p instruction per week and a 15-minute personal interview with the faculty coordinator. Undoubtedly more examples could be cited. But these programs illustrate well enough the type of experiment the parochial school has undertaken in the inner city. What factors,can be isolated in these projects that might provide some clues for evaluation and expansion9 To start with the obvious, if the' Catholic school is to continue these experiments and explore further how it can adjust its structures to meet the needs of the poor, it will need money. This is not the place to engage the thorny issue of tederal aid. But if parochial schools are to widen their horizon and assume the greater civic involvement which inner-city education requires, it is simply unreasonable to demand that these nondenominational activities be supported by Catholic funds alone. T h e r e is no question of religious proselytizing, but of educational cooperation in the problems of the whole urban community. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that, for the sake of a unified educational effort, parochial schools be abolished. As Christopher Jencks pointed out in a controversial fea'ture article on urban education in the Saturday Evening Post (April 23, 1966), the ineffectiveness ot the public school in the slums derives, in large part, from the inevitable tendency of inst{tutions u n d e r direct public m a n a g e m e n t to be hidebound, bureaucratic, fearful of "trouble," and allergic to innovation and experimentation. "What we need in the slmns," Jencks says, "are privately managed schools, financed and ultimately controlled by the taxpayer." H e indicates two possible ways of getting such schools. " T h e first is tuition grants for needy parents who want to take their children out of the public schools and send them to a p p r o v e d private ones....The second possibility is tor public agenciesto begin contracting with private groups to manage schools." Surprisingly enough, Education, U.S.A. gave evidence that Jencks was not alone in his proposal. "Christopher Jencks' view is bound to tread on a lot of toes, but his arguments are compelling." What makes this comment worth m e n t i o n i n g is that Education, ~(S.A. is published by the National Scho61 Public ReIations Association in cooperation with a division of the N.E.A. T h e N.E.A. has traditionally favored public schools--and only public schools. Another factor evident in the examples above involves the problem of competence Nothing will u n d e r m i n e inner-city education so much as allowing untrained persons to do meaningful work with the romantic notion that their

20 [The Urban Rewew

I

I

social concern alone is sufficient qualification for educating lower-class children. T h e present educational challenge requires a deep and perceptive understanding of the life of the poor, and an adjustment of traditional structures and techniques to reach the slum youngster in the context of his whole life. Such an effort requires special teacher training and research. It also demands that we select people who are most qualified for this particular task.

BUT ABOVE

A L L , the challenge of inner-city education demands a change of perception. E d u c a t i o n - both public and p a r o c h i a l - stands in a privileged position in American society. With the country's great concern for education at all levels, the school has become an agency of social change as never before. Yet the Catholic school continues to serve a white, "middle-class" population - h o m o g e n e o u s in m o r e than religion. Much of the effort in these schools has centered on curriculum development in terms of enrichment programs, advanced placement, m o r e sophisticated language and science programs, etc. The blunt question is whether our efforts to maintain this structure leave the parochial school with little time, men, money, and energy to change the existing evils within the social s t r u c t u r e - - e i t h e r by redirecting their educational efforts or by developing the social dimensions of the y o u n g people enrolled in these schools. T h e question will not answer i'[self. T h e Catholic schools, especially on the secondary level, have no choice but to react to the current social revolution. T h e y ignore it at the peril of their own relevance. Several alternatives are available: raze the old high schools and m o v e to the suburbs; remain in the inner city but form insulated academic ghettos: stay wherever they are and become part of the changing e n v i r o n m e n t and serve its needs; build or buy m o r e buildings in the inner city and become involved. At this point we come up against the hard facts of implementation. Is it possible, for example, to change the character of Catholic enrollment to include many college-potential studentg from minority, groups who n o r m a l l y cannot afford the parochial school? Has what was originally intended to be intellectual selectivity become, in the course of time, de facto social selectivity? To put the question another way, do the economics of r u n n i n g today's parochial schools actually determine the kind of schools run? T h e answer is far from simple. It may well be that for the Catholics to integrate a school to a ratio of 60 per cent white to 40 per cent Negro is concretely impossible, even when it is believed desirable. It is hardly facetious to ask whether the parochial school as it now operates, and is allowed to operate by the larger society, can afford to be a pacesetter. No matter how one perceives the principles involved or the actual role of the school in the central city, bills must be paid. If economics becomes the main determining factor of the type of Catholic high school conducted, something m a y be radically wrong with the parochial system itself. Something also m a y be radically wrong with the social system that puts the Catholic school in such an unsettling position. A final factor arises from the preceding discussion; although it deals with the students enrolled in the Catholic school, the implications extend beyond parochial limits. Is it possible that the school can assume a meaningful place in the metropolitan secular community when its faculty, students, and backers are drawn from and represent only a segment of the social and religious groups that make up that community? In these days when new areas of educational cooperation are being imagined and defined, the suggestion has been made that we ought to explore the possibility of two significantly different types of school: an interdenominational Christian high school that would involve both Catholics and Protestants in its planning, support and use, and a comprehensive school in which the curriculum would meet the talents and interests of the professional man, businessman, artist, and craftsman alike, but which would also provide a basic c u r r i c u l u m - - l i b e r a l in the traditional sense of Western society. There are advantages in these suggestions. T h e comprehensive school is democratic in the full sense of the term, because it is aimed at overcoming the present fi'agmentation of American society; it provides an opportunity- for

educational cooperative efforts a m o n g groups often untouched by the present system; it offers a new base from which to solicit financial assistance for parochial and public schools alike. T h e interdenominational school, on the other hand, would broaden the community impact of a Christian-oriented education (a growing concern of both Catholic and Protestant educators); it would spread the burden of financial support to a wider segment of the community, making formal Christian education a realistic possibility for a larger n u m b e r of families; it would provide a rich experience both for the students served by the school and for the adults working together to support and direct this c o m m o n educational enterprise.

THE A D J U S T M E N T S needed in the Catholic and Protestant communities to i m p l e m e n t these or similar plans would be radical indeed. But it is not clear that the goal of i m p r o v e d inner-city education can be realized without radical adjustments. In the meantime, the parochial school cannot excuse itself from its" social obligation to form students aware of their society and its problems, with some notion of concrete ways to meet these needs. Only by encouraging projects s u c h as the student-operated Neighborhood Youth Corps, by working with other social and civic agencies even within existing educational structures, will the schools be the institutions they profess to be: educational and formational instruments for the common good. Secretary Robert C. Weaver put the matter well in an address to the National Catholic Social Action Conference last August: T h e Catholic Church--increasingly in recent y e a r s - - h a s demonstrated a real concern for social issues. At one time this took the form of support for decent working conditions and support for organized labor. Later it was expressed in a long and effective advocacy and championing of lowincome public housing. In the trying days of controversy relative to school integration, Catholic schools assumed a leadership role and opened their doors to minority groups. In some localities, y o u r Church was, and is, in the forefront in advocating open occupancy and housing. So, the projects I have discussgd are not new to you. But, since you are indigenous to America, you share with the rest of us the problem of translating statements of policy into reality. Today, more than a verbal c o m m i t m e n t is required. And I know you recognize this. T h u s I salute you for y o u r past achievements, but I add that the time has come for a new demonstration. In considering parochial education and the inner city I have posed questions that are as disturbing as they are complex. But the questions must be asked. And the challenge facing Catholic schools faces public schools as weU; m a n y of the foregoing observations can apply to either school system. Part of the difficulty in finding creative solutions to these issues lies in o u r facility to pose the more familiar questions for which an already formulated answer is at hand. If the structure being questioned is meaningful, it should not fear questioning. If the structure is not meaningful, the questions will be perceived as threatening. No one will deny that the problems implied here are m a m m o t h . T h e y may continue to be dodged or solved at an ad hoc level. T o the extent that the needs of inner-city education are avoided, the parochial school will be forced to limp along with that measure of contemporary social relevance which is often accepted because the realistic prospect of decided i m p r o v e m e n t seems so remote as not to be visible at all. Father Cannon teaches sociology at Loyola University and serves on the ch'nic staff of the Illinois Youth Commission. For the past two summers he has acted as research sociologist with the New York City Youth Board and consultant to the poverty program in Central ,Harlem.