What I Believe: Twenty-Five Years (and counting)

As I complete the “silver anniversary” of my years as principal, president or headmaster of a Catholic high school this May, I’ve had occasion to reflect on some of my basic beliefs about running Catholic high schools. Here they are, in brief:

Schools should be governed by relationships, not rules.

There’s no question that schools need order, and there’s no order without rules that govern how things are done. But ultimately, “rules” should come second and relationships first in the running of a school. Last Friday, the senior’s last day of classes before exams, there was a rumor that seniors intended to “walk out” of class at 1:30 p.m. and whoop it up, disrupting classes up and down the hallways. Whereas in itself this would be harmless, it’s been a particularly stressful second semester for us, with three days missed due to snow days and teachers scrambling to “catch up,” two teachers on maternity leave, and two teachers who broke contract and left early, and I knew that such a protest would be very poorly received by our faculty.  So I asked to meet with the seniors that morning in an impromptu session, and with 145 of them there, I looked at them, asked them not to do the walk out and told them why.  I didn’t threaten them, I didn’t warn them of the consequence, I didn’t quote rules.  I simply asked them, as a favor, telling them that their teachers were really stressed out right now. “Can I trust you?” I asked. “Yes," they said. And that was that—the walk out never occurred.

It’s a dreadful mistake, in our interactions with students and their parents, to “lead” with authority. Yes, the rules are there for everyone to read, and if people disrespect the authority of the faculty or principal, they are there to support that authority. But our first interactions should always be human ones, founded on relationships that should develop in our daily life together. When a student is doing poorly in a classroom, the teacher shouldn’t threaten failure or bully, but meet the kid privately and express concern, and ask how he or she can help.  When an emotional parent calls us and is critical, we should attempt to break through the hostility and humanize the conversation, recognizing both the school and the parents want what is best for the child, even if we have different visions of what that means. We should be willing to forgive, where forgiveness is needed, and apologize, where apologies are called for.

Teenagers understand that schools have rules, and they also understand, sometimes grudgingly, that teachers must enforce them. But they want to be respected as people first, and not handled as objects placed within a template.

School rules should be written to give leadership flexibility in handling individual circumstances.

When JPII was first established, it was a school of last resort for many students, and according to our Dean of Students, some of those kids were really troubled young men and women. In its first year, the school expelled over thirty students. For that reason, the school’s disciplinary policies were written in such a manner that allowed the school to quickly remove kids. For example: “Students who are in possession of, use, or exhibit the effects of use of alcohol at school or any school sponsored activity will be expelled (italics, mine).”

When I came to JPII as headmaster in its seventh year of existence as a school, I decided to simply “run” the school I inherited in my first year. Policy handbooks had already been published and it made sense that I take a year to understand things before I started changing them. During spring break that year, the boys baseball team participated in a week long “away” tourney, and in the hotel room one night, three junior boys smuggled in a can of beer and drank it it before being found out by their coach. I did what the policy forced me to do—I expelled each of them (though I also invited each one to re-enroll two months later to begin their senior year).  As I started my second year, however, I changed the policy from “will be expelled” to “will be liable for expulsion” so as to give me discretion in handling individual circumstances.

“Should the punishment fit the crime or the person?” I am guessing that most people would say, “the crime” out of a sense of justice and fairness. But just as parents know, instinctively, that treating each of their kids exactly the same doesn’t work , so too should Catholic schools in their handling of students. Our primary purpose is to minister to kids, helping them become the kind of person God wants them to be, and often, like parenting, this takes creativity and wisdom. What works for that person?  For that reason, a school should not be too prescriptive in outlining its disciplinary consequences for each infraction of a school rule. After discussing possible disciplinary penalties (detentions, Saturday school, suspension and expulsions) our handbook says simply “The school will impose disciplinary consequences for the infraction of school rules, dependent on severity and context.”  I have written more about this here: http://ideasincatholiceducation.blogspot.com/2013/09/discipline-mercy-and-being-creative.html

Faculty are professionals, and should be treated as such.

I’ve never cared for the term “supervision” because it literally means I have a “higher” vision than the faculty. Perhaps I have a broader vision, because of my responsibility for all the disparate parts that create the school community, but I certainly don’t have a “higher” vision when it comes to Physics, or Calculus, or A.P. English! Rather, I’ve hired professional Physics, Calculus and A.P. English teachers.

I think that distinction is an important one. Yes, there are traits that all professionals exhibit: timeliness of grading, punctuality for meetings and classes, reliability in meeting one’s duties in the parking lot or lunch lines, timely communication with families and students about progress, professional dress and demeanor, appropriate care and concern for students. These expectations should be articulated by the principal, and when there are patterns of poor performance, he should hold teachers accountable.

Regarding matters that touch closer to curriculum, it’s appropriate for schools to require faculty to produce syllabi that reflect cognizance of the national curricular discussions and thoughtfulness of design, that details how students will be held accountable in grading, that gives approximate time frames as to the sequencing.  But the choice of curriculum and its sequencing, the grade that a teacher assigns an essay, the ultimate grade a teacher assigns a student in class—those are professional decisions of the teacher and department and not the principal or other school administrators.  I believe tight scripting of classroom content and sequencing by state Boards of Education, or local boards, principals or other administrators sends a clear message to faculty that they are NOT trusted professionals (who scripts doctor’s interactions with patients? Lawyers with clients?), and the unfortunate result of that messaging is faculty who begin to behave accordingly, passively receiving instructions about what to teach from someone else.

Angry parents some times want the principal to adjudicate disputes about a grade on an essay or to change a quarter grade. I don’t do that. I may advise a teacher privately on how to handle a situation, but I make it clear I will support them if the issue is a discretionary decision on their part. On the flip side, faculty must stand tall, and not pass on their decision-making authority up the ladder, as we’re all tempted to do when a decision we must make is unpopular.

Subsidiarity is the correct organizational principle.

In Catholic social teachings, the “principle of subsidiarity” means that things should be handled at the most local level possible. There is wisdom to this. From 10,000 feet, it’s impossible to distinguish a rich man’s crops from a poor man’s, but at ground level, one can detect irrigation systems, the quality of machinery, and which crops are plusher and greener. So too with school administration: the more decision making authority a school can invest in those closest to the “action,” the better--thus my belief that grades are teachers to give, not the school administration.

Subsidiarity doesn’t mean, however, that some decisions are not appropriately made at higher level-rather, they should be made at the lowest level possible. As much as faculty may see things clearly in their classroom, they do not necessarily have a panoramic vision of the entirety of the school or the competing interests within a school. They are usually not able to weigh, as an example, why a school might add P.E. teachers and not English faculty for the purpose of obtaining strong coaches, but assign them P.E. classes because they might be poor teachers in the core classroom. They may not be able to understand why a colleague’s contract was non-renewed, because they weren’t privy to the months and sometimes years of private discussions between the principal and that colleague, or the improvement plan that was defined for him or her, or the myriad complaints the principal has received from parents about his or her job performance.  They may not understand the desires of the Board of Trustees, or fully understand the limitations of budgeting, or donors who designate their giving for a specific end—a batting cage, perhaps, instead of more computers or new smart board technology.   Just as principals must trust faculties to make decisions within their classroom relative to students, so too should faculties trust principals to make decisions that require a broad assessment of overall school needs. We each have important roles to play.

Boards are important strategic partners.

When Boards focus on long term strategic vision, the allocation of monies to make that strategic vision come to life, and the creation of policies to support the leadership of the school and to preserve and extend the school’s mission, they are hugely valuable co-partners in the leadership of the school with the principal. They bring the school wise counsel in areas reflecting their expertise, and their influence can often move diocesan officials, reluctant by nature to think in terms of new paradigms, to action.

I have been blessed to work with Boards who think and act in this way, and the result is they become dynamic forces for positive change in the life of a school. But that’s not always the case. By the very fact that most Board members are parents in the school, it is very easy for Boards to get sucked into the day to day drama that all schools experience: the unhappy daughter, upset by not making the cheerleading team, or the spouse of a Board member who is unhappy with a teacher, or the cranky faculty member, upset by a perceived slight.   When Boards intervene in these affairs--when they choose to entertain the complaints of constituent parties or presume to have authority in these matters-- the principal’s authority is chopped off at the knees.

Long-term thinking is hard, because we are creatures of the present, and it’s unnatural to think outside of our paradigms and beyond the set of assumptions we all carry within us, unreflectively. It also requires discipline and patience because the “rewards” of the work are deferred into the future. Resisting the urge to stay out of the day to day, by tasking committees meaningful work that move the school thoughtfully toward these longer-term goals, is the lynchpin for successful boards.

Principals must be persons of great optimism and faith.

There’s a very human tendency in all of us, when things go wrong, to blame leadership. Many Americans blame Obama for Russia invading Ukraine. When rioting and looting started in Los Angeles after the Rodney King decision, some city leaders blamed Bush for policies that they said contributed to the rioting. 

If parents are unhappy with a school, rather than people wondering if there is dysfunction within the family that causes the unhappiness, or if the child isn’t working hard enough, or if there are financial pressures that are embarrassing for the families to admit publicly, it’s much easier to blame the school principal. After twenty-five years, I can tell you that unwarranted blame still hurts, and that a faculty's or  family’s “happiness” is such a subjective thing that it’s almost impossible to respond to or substantively address. Even so, principals must remain positive and resist becoming defensive or allow the school to devolve into “factions.” They must look for ways to create healthy interactions between parents, students and teachers, and they must foster traditions that unite.

One of the simplest and most beautiful traditions of our school is “Senior Walk.” On the last day of school for seniors, two days before their graduation, our seniors line up on one end of the school, students and teachers come out of their classrooms and line the hallways, and while music is being played, seniors “walk the hallway” for the last time, hugging their teachers and friends. The relationships formed over four years—between teachers and seniors, between seniors and underclassmen, between seniors themselves—are evident for all to see, and very often, our seniors (the guys, too) are in tears.

We live in a culture that veers quickly to the negative and assumes the worst.  The quality of family life has deteriorated, and parents often feel so insecure in their relationships with their children, they feel compelled to “take their child’s side” against the school or teacher when their child has done something wrong. Thirty years ago students begged for us “not to tell our parents,” more worried about their parents’ punishment than whatever the school might dole out.   No more. Now more than ever, principals must be people of deep faith, who can see through the insecurities of others, forgive those who say or do inappropriate things, and move on, positively, without holding grudges. Now more than ever, principals really need to pray regularly and stay connected to the liturgical and sacramental life of our Church.

Effective Board Meetings--An Agenda Template

Here’s a suggested meeting agenda format for Boards, used by the archdiocese of Mobile, Al. and created by its former Vicar of Education, Dr. Thomas Doyle. In my experience, Boards that hold to this format will conduct lively, productive Board meetings and will support the various relationships between its members and the school principal in a healthy, dynamic partnership.

I. Routine Matters:

a.     Prayer

b.     Roll call

c.      Approval of minutes from last meeting

       These are self-explanatory, except for one point: minutes are not typically narratives of all the discussion that take place at a Board meeting, but focus rather on “actions” taken by the Board. Since minutes of the Board are technically public documents, it’s unhelpful and sometimes destructive to catalog all discussions, some of which may end up being purely speculative on a single Board member’s part but alarming to segments of the school community without the context of the give and take discussions. Less is more in reporting Board minutes.

At the same time, everyone writes. There should no oral reports given at Board meetings--by pastors, principals, committees or anyone else--as people's memories often differ, and the discipline of writing things down helps clarify issues and pushes committees to submit their work prior to Board meetings, helping provide impetus for timely meetings and pre-planning.  Furthermore, when the Board votes for an item, the exact proposal should be in writing, so that no one misunderstands what they are voting on. 

II. Voting:

The “essence” of the Board’s work, acting as a whole, is to decide, not to talk.  If the Board is functioning well, one of the committees introduced an interim proposal at the last meeting to be voted upon this meeting (see V. below).  Voting items are thus at minimum two and sometimes three meetings “old” to the Board; there should never be a case where Board members don’t have at least a meeting in advance to consider the pros and cons of a position or are “surprised” by a voting matter that suddenly arises that night.

A proposal is made in writing (often, by the committee who worked on the proposal), someone proposes at vote, a second member “seconds” the vote, a brief discussion ensues, and then the vote is taken. 

If the committee has done its work, listened to concerns raised in the previous meeting, and included those concerns in its revised proposal, there should be a near consensus of the Board by the time there’s a vote.  If the Board still seems substantially divided in the brief discussion leading up to the vote, it’s the prerogative of the Board president to table the voting, ask the committee to re-consider its proposal in light of the dissenting views and re-propose at the next meeting.  As a general rule, Boards should operate out of a consensus model, and if everyone is following this agenda process, near consensus is usually possible.

III. New Business of the Board:

The executive committee, by virtue of its executive meeting a couple weeks before the Board meeting, assigns a new task to a committee of the Board.  This “new task” has two elements:

First, it asks a specific committee to answer a specific question and report back to the Board in an interim report. For example, if there is an adjacent ten acre plot to the school that the school is considering leasing or purchasing, the executive committee doesn’t tell its building and grounds committee to “study the issue”, but instead asks it to compare facilities of area competitor schools and list out possible uses for the land. It might also commission the finance committee to discuss actual costs of purchase or lease with the owner of that property and lay out various financial means to do so. Executive committees think.

Second, the committee is given a timetable of when to report back its findings to the Board. Typically, it might assign an "interim" report for the next meeting, with "final report" for the meeting after next. 

Ultimately, since  the Board’s work is to decide, not talk, the committee's work is geared toward an actionable item--something the Board will vote upon.  If at some future date the executive committee concludes there will be no actionable piece, it drops the issue. But at this point in the meeting, the executive Board is merely assigning a future task of its committees and making sure everyone understands that task. 

IV. Administrative Reports:

Here the principal (at minimum) and the person in charge of finance (recommended), file written reports to the Board, sharing with them issues that help the Board understand the pulse of the school.  Administrators share. A principal might share significant events which have occurred or which will occur; the finance person might share the income/expense ledger, noting abnormalities, strengths or weaknesses. As with all Board work, these are in writing, but the Board may ask questions or have comments to make about the written reports.

V. Interim Reports/Proposals from Committees:

Typically, a committee’s work takes two meetings before it proposes an actionable item for vote. Here the committees report work in process and what their findings are to the Board.  This interim report should be in writing, and this is the point at the Board meeting where the most “discussing” should take place.

One of the tasks of the vice-president of the Board in the archdiocese of Mobile’s model was to call committee chairs at least two weeks before the meeting and remind them of their task and check in with them. Committees work. The key to successful Boards are successful committees who do timely work, fulfilling the specific task assigned them by the executive team. This is also where less effective Boards break down.

VI. Proposals for Future Board work:

Board members at large are asked if they have issues they’d like the Board to consider in the future. This portion of the meeting is more to simply “list” these issues rather than talk about them. The executive committee, at its next meeting, will decide whether this topic or proposal is in fact assigned to a committee for the purpose of becoming an actionable item of the Board.

Agendas govern. If a Board member wants to talk about something, here’s where he or she speaks. But it’s aimed at a future Board action to take, not an opportunity to wax on about a pet issue. And whether it gets any traction for a future Board action will depend on the executive committee, meeting apart from the Board at its regular meeting.

VII. Closing prayer:

How long should such a meeting take that follows this agenda? When committees are doing good work and everyone knows the tasks and assignments in front of them, healthy Board meetings are typically between 60-90 minutes long. Why? Because Boards decide, while committees work.  Most of the detail work that takes time is done in committees, not at the Board level. The Board then hears what the committees propose and then votes.

Furthermore, agendas govern. If something isn't on the agenda, it can be proposed to be placed there in VI. above for next time, but the current meeting is not the time to discuss the issue. Not only does the Board avoid the trap of taking on the most emotional issue of the day, it cuts down on the length of Board meetings considerably in a way that respects people's time. 

I was principal and president of a school that followed this format for nineteen years. It works well and keeps all the relationships in proper perspective. I recommend it highly.

Six Commandments for Effective Catholic School Boards

Dr. Thomas Doyle was Vicar of Catholic Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile for over twenty years and then became the Academic Director of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education. During the time he was Vicar, he was a highly sought after speaker on how to create and sustain effective Catholic school boards, asked to speak in dioceses all around the country.

Tom gave so many talks on best practices for Catholic school boards, in fact, that he was able to summarize his talk into six simple “commandments.” Simple as they are, my experience is that if Boards commit to these six commandments, they become highly effective instruments in advancing the mission of the school and powerful partners with the principal in leading and guiding the school.  Here they are, with a brief explanation.

Boards Decide—The primary work of the Board is to make decisions—not to talk. Issues have been raised in previous meetings, they’ve been assigned to committees, committees have reported back to the Board, and now the Board either accepts, rejects of amends the recommendation of the committee.  A “committee of the whole” is rarely a good instrument for discussing or implementing an idea, as some personalities dominate, and others feel intimidated or marginalized.  There’s no reason meetings should last beyond ninety minutes if Boards hold to this principle.

Committees Work—Standing committees do the “work” of the Board. The finance committee recommends the increase in salaries, tuition and budget for the following year, and if they do their homework, there’s a lot of detail work to be done, examining current year income and expenses, noting 3-5 year trends, scrutinizing successful and unsuccessful revenue streams. Building and grounds committees might do annual or semi-annual inspections of the school and note areas that need cosmetic improvements or more serious issues that jeopardize student safety. Marketing committees could help the school create recruiting plans for the upcoming year. Education committees might review testing data and make recommendations, with the principal, for new curricular programs.  Each of these committees bring their recommendations to the Board as a whole, who then votes either to accept or reject them.  The key to successful Boards is active committees which have been assigned meaningful work by the executive committee.

Agendas Govern—The Board meeting is directed by an agenda, and if it’s not on the agenda, it’s not discussed at that meeting. Is there a Board member who is hot-fired on the cause for something and wants to speak out about it? Then the executive committee decides whether his issue goes on the agenda for next month.  Sticking to this discipline helps Boards stay future oriented and keeps them from being dragged into whatever the emotional issue of the day is. It also keeps the principal from being blind-sided by random complaints or concerns of a Board member.

Executive Committees Think—The executive committee of the Board (typically, the president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer, with the principal) has two primary functions: To create an agenda for the meeting, deciding on which matters the Board will take up (and which ones they won’t), and also, to assign tasks to the committees, establishing the parameters of the committee’s work and a time-table for presenting interim and final reports to the Board.

So, for example, in our school, the city has ten acres of land adjacent to us and has recently offered to lease it to us at very favorable rates. How might the executive team consider such an offer? They could assign part of the work to the building and grounds committee, asking it to study competitor schools and discuss what we lack in comparison, asking them to prepare an interim report in two months time. It could ask the finance committee to review costs for mowing and landscaping if the school wanted to secure the lease before any capital project in two months time. It could ask the marketing and admissions committee to propose school improvements, using this land, that maximized the school’s position in the marketplace, again to report in two months. Imagine how exciting this Board meeting would be, as each of these committees reported? And at the next executive committee meeting, it could decide on the next set of tasks, thinking through the next steps. 

Principals Share—Every board meeting, principals should inform the Board of issues at the school—successes, issues of concern, new faculty, new programs, ideas of the faculty and staff—all those things that help the Board understand the life of the school through the principal’s eyes.

Everyone Writes—A funny thing about our memories: we all remember differently. That’s why one of the cardinal rules of good board practice is no oral reports. Committees write down their findings. Principals write down how they’re doing. The secretary records the minutes, which are then voted as “acceptable” in the next meeting. What if a committee doesn’t have a written report that month? Their work and all discussion is tabled for the next meeting.

Boards which hold to these "commandments" will encourage active engagement of all its members and will build a supportive, visionary team that nicely complements the day to day responsibilities of the school principal. Together, we can do magnificent, important work that changes kids' lives!