The "Cardinal Way"

Note: I have tried to articulate, as briefly as I can, the foundational principles we've used at St. Michael Catholic High School in Fairhope, AL since its opening in 2016. We're now in our third year, our first as a complete 9-12 school.  

Our faith is the lens through which all else is focused.

We seek to build a joyful Catholic culture: learning together, praying, worshipping, celebrating and enjoying each other’s company. Weekly school mass is the centerpiece of our communal life. We welcome families from other religious traditions and are proud to build this community of faith with them.

We want our students to stretch. 

Students are children of God, capable of becoming “scholars, leaders and disciples of Jesus Christ” because of the transforming power of God’s grace in their lives. Our culture too often underestimates teenagers. We want students to stretch, to challenge themselves, to seek “more!"

We subscribe to a “Renaissance vision” for our students, encouraging them to get involved in many different things. 

We believe that students flourish when they develop in many areas—academics, the arts, athletics and faith—without “specializing” exclusively in any one area. We believe a “both-and” emphasis brings balance and wholeness to their lives.

Relationships govern.

Yes, there are rules, and if the authority of a teacher is challenged, the teacher must invoke his or her authority. But our relationships should be human ones first! Students respond well to a culture that “gives them space” to grow up.

We welcome students of varying aptitudes and socio-economic standing. 

Though we want our strongest students to be challenged and to graduate with the opportunity to attend excellent universities, we do not want to become merely an enclave for the intellectually elite or socially advantaged.  Rather, we believe the chemistry and interplay between students of different backgrounds and abilities give our school its authenticity, liveliness, and perhaps even, its  “flair.” 

We seek to be a school marked by generosity and philanthropy.

Generosity of spirit and willingness to serve others is at the heart of the gospel; we want our students to recognize and respond to the needs of others with compassion and courage. We also seek to build a school that inspires enthusiasm and generosity in our stakeholders, inviting them to participate in our ministry and to help establish our long-term viability.

A Culture of Philanthropy

“Raising money” is one of our most important jobs as leaders in Catholic education, whether we’re talking "annual fund" drives, or "capital campaigns, which happen every five to ten years. But as the title of this article implies, focusing too narrowly on the “techniques” of fund-raising is a mistake; rather, we must build a culture of philanthropy in our schools that inspires folks to be generous. 

I have five thoughts on this:

FIRST, I believe building a culture of philanthropy must start with the school developing an optimistic and pro-active vision for itself. Every school ought to have at its ready an updated strategic plan for its future: a combination of soaring rhetoric about its mission and founding principles, combined with bold and thoughtful ideas for its future. (As an example, here's the plan we wrote for St. Michael,  "Vision 2025: the Path Forward") 

Why do I believe such a plan is important? Because too often, we DON’T think highly enough of ourselves; in fact, if we’re worried about enrollment or finances, our worries often translate unwittingly to language that projects weakness and pessimism about our future. Nothing undercuts our ability to inspire generosity more quickly than if we ourselves don’t project confidence and optimism in what we’re doing. 

In the years leading up to his death, self-made Nashville entrepreneur Jim Carell began to give away much of his fortune to charitable causes, many of them schools, including Pope John Paul II, where I was the principal. His reasons for being generous, he told me, was “I can’t take it with me, and this way, I  enjoy seeing how my money can help people.”  As you might imagine, there were many of us lined up at his door!  

Once, I had occasion to visit him just after he had been solicited by a struggling school in the area.  He told me, grumpily, that the same school had asked for a gift the previous year "to keep from closing"  they had told him.  He gave them what they asked for, but they were back again this year, making the same appeal, so he told them no.  "Here’s the thing," he said to me, "I don’t back losers. It’s just throwing my money away.” 

That statement “I don’t back losers,” may sound harsh, but it’s a window into how donors think about their charitable giving. If, through their giving, they are merely sustaining the “same ole, same ‘ole” in our schools for another 6-12 months, their enthusiasm for giving diminishes rapidly. Rather, they want to know their giving can act as a catalyst for new ideas and programs at the school, that their gifts have the potential to re-vitalize our schools! 

That’s why how we project  ourselves is so vital. But not just in our  language—in practical things, too, like our tuition pricing! Catholic schools often feature the lowest tuitions in town, but in a market economy that equates price with value, I’m afraid that positions us in people’s minds as the “K-Mart” of educational options. Would we feel better about our doctor who was about to operate on us if we learned his fees were half as much as the other doctors in our area? Better, then, to aim our tuition rates at the middle of the market,  then be generous with financial aid to help our more vulnerable families. 

  

A strategic plan, on the other hand, allows us to talk confidently about our next steps and even our “what ifs?” if we had the resources. In some cases, donors might be intrigued by a particular element of our plan they’d like to assist with directly, but even if not, they’ll be more confident in us, more assured that their donations will not be wasted. “Look at these amazing new things we could do with additional financial backing!” is much more compelling than “We need your gift so we can keep doing what we’ve always done!” 

A SECOND important idea in building a culture of philanthropy is to recognize a “culture” is not built on the basis of a moment in time or single event; rather, it’s the fostering of relationships over time. We’re never going to get a big gift by writing a letter, nor will we likely get one on the basis of a single meeting or request. How well do we foster friendships in our schools? How well do we include older people in the life of our school, be they grandparents, or parishioners, or simply other interested parties? 

I am a big believer in “Grandparents” day for every school, but I’d caution schools against doing any solicitations as part of that. Rather, use the day to meet grandparents, to welcome them, to invite them back to ballgames, to to be active in the life of their grandchildren vis-a-vis the activities in the school. Of course, we do get names and addresses of all those present, and yes, we solicit them as part of our annual fund (coupled with a “prom-picture” they took with their grandchild before leaving), but it feels more natural and less intrusive. 

Jim Carell ended up giving us an amazing gift at JPII, which allowed us to turf our stadium, build concessions, a pavilion and bathrooms, and create a lower soccer stadium, complete with lights. But that gift came after building a friendship with him over three years, and a series of smaller gifts that led up to the large one. And it was truly a “friendship.” He was a graduate of Notre Dame, as I was, and we bonded over that—even went to a football game together. I found him to be wise about people, and I realized I could use him as a confidential sounding board for issues I faced as headmaster, and he appreciated that. He told me about some of the mistakes he had made, both in business and with his family, and we laughed a lot together. In fact, I was very affected by his death. 

A THIRD important part of building a culture of philanthropy is to build a culture of gratitude! I honestly don’t think our donors can be told “thank you” too many times! At minimum, every single gift to a school should be acknowledged by a hand-written thank you from the advancement “office” (see below).  If a larger gift, a donor should receive a phone call or hand written letter from the principal, too. 

An Annual Report, which lists all the donors to the school in a given year, is a way to publicly thank them a second time, and to inspire others, perhaps, to be generous, too.  It depends on the school, but at JPII, we had a “donor’s dinner” at the end of the year for large donors, and the highlight of that evening was we’d ask a senior on the cusp of graduating--a recipient of financial aid made possible by donor giving--to talk about what four years at our school  meant to him or her, and to thank them for making that possible. It always had an impact! When we give out financial aid at St. Michael, my only requirement is that the student writes a letter of thanks to his or her (anonymous) donor; he gives that letter to me, and then I pass on to the donor. 

Twice in the last year, we received generous gifts from older parishioners, who had no direct connection to the school except for their support for Catholic education. In both cases, I called and thanked them, and asked if they had been out to our school (which is only 3 years old). They had not, so I invited each to come out separately and let me show them around. We spent an hour or so together; I honestly enjoyed my time with them. Without any solicitation from me—in both cases!— they later told me they had decided to include our school in their will.  

FOURTH,  I believe a critical part of building a culture of philanthropy is having an advancement “office,” even if the advancement “officer” is only part time. Principals can’t do this on their own! I’ve been a principal for 29 years, and the job has simply become more and more demanding. Between juggling teacher-staff issues, parental concerns, curricular issues, discipline, budgeting, finances and supervision, there’s simply no time to do advancement work, except in the most piecemeal kind of way. 

I am aware that some struggling elementary schools will say: “We cannot afford to hire an advancement officer!” I understand that sentiment, but ask simply: “Do you have a Physical Education teacher?” “Do you have a music teacher?” Teachers can take their kids outside to play ball games, or listen to music in class and do sing-a-longs, if necessary. In fact, our Catholic schools used to handle music and P.E. exactly this way! But without an advancement person, the absence of the very blood we need to keep our schools healthy—capital— makes it harder for us attract and sustain good teachers, to assist families with financial aid, or to provide the necessary instructional materials for our students. If a school cannot afford a full time person, I’d recommend someone for 20-25 hours a week, perhaps a mother of a child in our school, who has the right organizational and people skills to infuse our schools with a generous spirit. Often these kind of positions fit very well into a young family’s calendar, synchronizing the child’s schedule with a family’s work schedule. 

FIFTH, if a school ministers primarily to under-resourced families, they cannot do this on their own.  No matter how willing, donors cannot give what they do not have! It has to be a diocesan effort, and it can take many forms!  One idea, which I think has real promise and is already in place in some dioceses, is to create a “Catholic School Financial Aid Fund” at the diocesan level, invite families to give to it in their wills and through a once/year "Catholic School Sunday” appeal, then allow needy families in particular under-resourced schools (only those schools!) to apply for a tuition voucher to those schools via some sort of third party financial assessment. Once a school receives the voucher from the parent, it can ask for reimbursement from the Catholic School Fund. 

I believe the “voucher” route is better for dioceses than giving money directly to the “black hole” of the operational budget of a struggling school. First, it is more apparent to the recipient of the generosity that his or her child's ability to attend the school is a direct result of the generosity of the Church and its donors. Second, it insists that each school must balance its own budget, without constantly “going to the well” for additional subsidies, hopefully creating a pro-active, creative culture in those schools.  Third, by saying the vouchers can only be used at certain schools, it incentivizes attendance at these schools and makes sure the money is not going to schools which can sustain their own financial aid programs.  Fourth, it helps the diocese navigate potential difficult steps ahead: If a school cannot meet its budget consistently, even with these vouchers, then perhaps the Holy Spirit is saying something about the long term viability of that school. It assures the Church that their limited resources are not consistently feeding something that is broken.  

 May God bless our efforts!

Motivated Teachers!

There’s been a lot of  research on what motivates highly professional people. In a youtube TEDtalk that’s now been watched over seven millions times, Daniel Pink summarizes this research in a compelling, interesting way:

This is very good news for us in Catholic education!   A big salary, it turns out, is not a motivator for adults engaged in highly complex tasks, such as teaching. We must do more for our teachers out of justice, but it's not ultimately what motivates them to do their jobs well (I've written about practical ways to pay teachers more here, here and here). Nor do extrinsic “if-then” reward systems (like merit pay) work. I’ve tried merit pay as a principal, and found out that Pink is right. I found it to be destructive to the cohesiveness and morale of our faculty, so much so that I abandoned the idea after trying to tweak and improve it for three years. Live and learn!

Instead, Pink tells us, we should focus on three things—all of which help build the intrinsic motivation of our employees. These are 1) Purpose 2) Mastery and 3) Autonomy

“Purpose”, he says, is the desire to be part of something important, to know that the work you’re doing matters.  “Mastery” is the desire to get better and better at things that matter. And “Autonomy” is the urge for employees to direct their own lives. Cultivate these three things, the research suggests, and we’ll generally have happy, productive employees. 

This is really important information for those of us in leadership in Catholic education, charged with building a culture of optimism and excellence in our schools!  

I think we’re strong on Purpose. It’s all about the mission! But it’s easy to forget the mission, swamped by the exigencies of the given moment! Even our best teachers need “good news” stories to remind them. I believe one of our most important functions as principals is to seek out good news stories and connect our various constituencies to them. They are most compelling when they are personal, focusing on a specific student or a small group of students, rather than abstract statistics. How has our school made a difference in this particular student's life? Better to detail how a struggling junior in our school increased his ACT score by X points than to to brag about the “average ACT score increase” of the junior class, even though the statistical increase says more about us. Though we are immersed in these stories each day, we have to be very intentional in making these stories public and explicit. Everyone is elevated when we do.   

My sense is that we’re not as strong in supporting teachers’ “Mastery.” For one, I believe we’re ambivalent about investing in their professional development—it takes too much money, and worse, it often means they will miss school time. But even within our own building, are we prioritizing mastery? Do we find ways for teachers to teach each other? Visit a classroom of a colleague? Invite “idea-sharing” as part of a faculty meeting? Recognize a teacher when they’ve done something really well? Do we give teachers enough time, enough “free” periods, to develop good lessons? Or are they busy from the opening bell to closing with duties that are ‘time suckers” away from reflective practice? Worthy questions, I think, for self-reflection. 

In the past, we’ve been relatively strong on “Autonomy,” partly due to the fact there’s not enough of us to monitor teachers and curriculum too closely. The ratio of  “teachers” to "administrators" in Catholic schools is relatively large compared to our public school counterparts,  and our “organizational hierarchies” are still fairly flat.  That gibes nicely with our Catholic social teaching tradition,  which stresses “subsidiarity,” that things are best handled at the most local level possible. In other words, we really do rely on the professionalism of our teachers, borne out of both philosophy and necessity! Pink would say the autonomy teachers feel as a result energizes them. 

But over the 30+ years I’ve been in Catholic education, it feels like the “autonomy” of teachers (and building administrators) is slipping rather precipitously. Due to lawsuits, diocesan lawyers are now having more direct say in shaping how we operate. Whereas we talked previously about “policies” that were understood as “broad parameters” within which we exercised discretion,  we are now more likely to focus on “practices,” which are a euphemisms for “scripts” of things we must say or do when X happens. A colleague of mine, talking about his diocese, told me if a parent alleges a bullying incident with his school, he must send the accuser a specifically worded email, already pre-approved by the diocesan attorney. He is then handed a step by step “playbook” of what to do next. Child protection policies in Catholic schools across the nation are hyper-specific about the kinds of things teachers can or cannot do with students, even though the vast majority of abuse incidents in our Church have had nothing to do with teachers. I could go on, but let's not. 

I’m not a naive idealist, and I don’t really begrudge the lawyers, who are doing their jobs to protect us from large lawsuits that would threaten the very viability of our schools. But it is quite easy for us in administration to begin to think and operate like lawyers, surrendering pastoral judgment and discretion for the sake of minimizing liability and risk. The pessimistic culture that results from “template thinking” and “playing it safe” throws a wet blanket on the creativity and intrinsic motivation of our employees.   

If we want to keep employees who are highly motivated, we can’t relate to them using scripts. We must fight against a culture that slowly persuades us to think legalistically, even while applying the insights of lawyers to protect our schools. Teachers must know they are trusted. The research indicates it’s relationships founded on trust and respect, not rules founded on authority, which causes them to be happy, creative and pro-active. 

May God give us the wisdom and grace to find and keep such teachers! 

Changing of the Guard

We don’t do it very well. Too often, our board feels slighted, our community gets mad, our faculty is upset, and the principal gets his or her feelings hurt. In light of the controversy, the diocese often feels compelled to publicly assert its authority, which adds to conspiracy theories and speculation that taints the process even further. The school is tarnished in the public eye, and enrollment suffers. 

I am talking about removing a principal from a school. 

To begin with, folks are often confused as to who has the authority to remove a principal. In a diocesan or archdiocesan school, canon law is absolutely clear: In a parish school, it’s the pastor. In a diocesan high school, it’s the bishop (who usually acts through the superintendent). If the school is in a president-principal model, it's the president (and the president is evaluated by pastor or superintendent). Boards can neither hire nor fire a principal; they can only make recommendations to the pastor or bishop. 

What lends to this confusion is that dioceses often allow (and in some places encourage)  Boards to do yearly “performance reviews” of the principal. This is not the Board’s proper role in a diocesan or parish school, and creates the inevitable understanding that Boards are in a line-staff relationship “over” the principal, with the power to hire and fire. Instead, it should be the pastor or superintendent who conducts the “performance review” each year,  and part of that—an important part!—is to ask the board for its joint commendations and recommendations. I believe the inputs from the board should be done as a board, not a collection of comments from individual board members, some of whom might have opinions that do not reflect the mainstream sentiment of the board or community at large. Board members have “weight” only as a corporate group, not as individuals. 

That performance review should happen on a recurring, regular basis—at least once every two years, though my preference as principal is once/year. It should NOT only occur when support for the principal is waning or the school is faltering!  A solid, honest evaluation each year, aimed at helping principals grow, is the greatest gift we can give our principals, and by extension, give our school. If the principal addresses the recommendations, there will be no need to change leadership later and endure the collateral fallout that almost always occurs when principals leave. Everyone wins. 

I believe this annual or semi-annual performance assessment should include 4 parts:

First, it should ask the principal to make a “state of school report” to both the superintendent/pastor and board, using as many facts as possible to support his or her analysis (enrollment trends, budget, new programs, set-backs, challenges). I believe it’s really important to evaluate the principal’s individual performance in light of the school itself! Too often, we judge leaders on the basis of their personalities, but I remind people that just like head coaches, there are many types of leaders, some of whom are fiery and emotional, some of whom are quiet and tactical. The issue isn’t their personality, but their results. How the school is faring should be an important part of the evaluation of a principal. 

Second, it should ask the principal to do a self-assessment to the superintendent, or pastor: What progress have I made on the recommendations from last year’s annual evaluation? What are areas from this evaluation that are still unresolved? What were my successes this year? What were the disappointments? What areas in my leadership do I intend to work on next year? What professional development opportunities will I pursue? If we’re going to treat our principals as professionals, we should expect them to act like it, and what true professionals do is self-assess each year. And when it comes time for the superintendent or pastor to discuss his or her review of the principal, it’s likely that much of what she or he wants to say can piggy-back on what the principal has said already, affirming the principal's self-diagnosis, thereby lessening the tensions inherent in such reviews. 

Third, the superintendent/pastor should ask the Board for their inputs. I believe it’s helpful to ask a few direct questions, then allow the Board to comment beyond those questions. The direct questions would include questions about strategic vision, handling finances, resolving complaints, implementation of policies, and very importantly, the “chatter” in the parking lot. All this is discussed at the Board meeting, without the principal present, summarized and sent to the pastor or superintendent as a joint statement. 

Whatever the written report says, I also believe the board president should talk to the pastor or the superintendent personally, to “say" what sometimes cannot be publicly shared or written down, as a way of keeping the pastor or superintendent completely informed. 

Should teachers also be consulted for input? I am ambivalent. My experience is while certain teachers may have insights that would add to the panoramic view the superintendent/pastor is seeking to establish, others simply don't have the perspective that would add helpfully to the process, and treating them as "equivalent voices" would skew things.  I worry, frankly, about situations when principals must make difficult decisions that impact a teacher negatively, and this teacher now has a "voice" in the evaluation.  My preference would be for a pastor or superintendent to always be open to comments from teachers, if they take this step of their own volition, but not to seek out their comments in a formal, procedural way. 

Finally, there should be a confidential, face to face “presentation” of the annual evaluation of the pastor/superintendent with the principal. This will include both a summary of the Board’s thoughts, but ultimately, the evaluation must reflect the judgment of the superintendent/pastor. It should include, I believe, both commendations and recommendations. In the following year evaluation, part of it will include a discussion of progress to the recommendations discussed from the previous year. 

If this process is followed, I believe if it becomes clear that it's time for a “changing of the guard,” then the transition will be MUCH smoother. First, it will be cleaner and clearer to everyone that the ultimate decision-maker is the bishop (superintendent) or pastor, not the Board, not the parents through a write-in campaign, etc.  Second, the pastor or superintendent will be much more aware—on the front end— of the “descent” of opinion of the principal—too often, he or she finds these things out too late, and is then asked to “ratify” a request or decision that others have made, putting him or her in a difficult “either-or” position. Third, presumably if things are going south, elements of the issues have been diagnosed in previous year evaluations and the principal has been given a chance to improve in those areas, so that the process is fairer, allowing the superintendent/pastor to act in a just, timely manner. Fourth, it may even be the case the superintendent/pastor can say:  “These areas are of such concern, that unless you address these immediately, I will not be able to offer you a contract beyond this coming year,” so the principal himself or herself can “see it coming" the following year. 

So let’s suppose all of that is done well, and the superintendent/pastor believes it’s in the best interest of the school to make a change. I’d recommend the following:

• A private conversation, no later than January but perhaps earlier, between the superintendent/pastor and principal, informing the principal it is “not his or her intent to renew the contract for next year.”  The school needs time to publicize the opening, and beginning that process in March or April is simply too late. 

• The superintendent/pastor should ask the principal to abide by this decision gracefully, in such a way that the school will not be harmed or factions develop. 

• To that end, the superintendent/pastor should offer the principal the opportunity to send a letter of resignation to him or her, spelling out his or her “reasons for leaving” on his or her own terms, rather than the public narrative becoming “the principal was fired.”  This is important on two levels: First, for those who support the principal, the principal’s resignation helps those people accept the decision and keeps the school away from a civil war.  Second, for the principal himself or herself, it’s much better for future job prospects to resign for the reasons he or she gives in the letter, than to explain to future employers why he or she was fired. Giving the principal “control” over the narrative, as long as that narrative doesn’t harm the school, is a graceful way to navigate the tensions. 

• To the extent that both the principal and pastor/super are working together in the best interest of the school, the pastor or superintendent should allow the resignation letter and reasons for leaving to in fact, be the public narrative, without any winks or nods to the contrary.  However, if the principal “resigns” but then tells others he was “fired” or “let go,” then he or she must understand the pastor or superintendent may be compelled to act in the best interest of the school, not the principal, and could be forced to defend the “why” of the decision publicly. This is almost ALWAYS bad for the principal! If the principal seeks sympathy because he or she is “hurting,” it’s almost certain to reflect poorly on his professionalism, thereby implicitly making the argument his removal was correctly decided. 

• The pastor/superintendent should find some way of publicly thanking/praising the principal for the contributions in specific areas that principal has made to the life of the school. There are always things worthy of legitimate praise and gratitude, even in these hard situations. 

Even if all these things are done well, I still expect there will be some hard feelings. We principals pour our lives into our schools, and to be told we’re not wanted back is hard to swallow. I wish we could say we handle that disappointment with perfect professionalism, but that’s not the case. But I have also come to understand that there are times and seasons for everything, and changing schools is an opportunity for growth and development, both for the principal himself or herself, and for the school. God closes doors, but opens new doors, and life rolls on. 

May God’s grace prevail in these difficult moments!

Closing the Deal with Catholic Teacher Candidates

So you’ve now vetted the resumes, met and interviewed the candidate, perhaps invited that candidate back for a second interview,  watched him or her teach a class, and  now you’ve decided to make an offer. This is a crucial step in the process! For one, we have the person we want!  But also, we’ve invested a huge amount of time in this candidate, and it would be devastating to start over! 

So I believe—because I was this principal for years myself—that we don’t realize the flexibility and authority we have at this step in the equation. What I used to do was simply consult the salary chart, factor in years of experience and the degree, find the number, offer it, and then HOPE and PRAY.  

Hoping and praying is good, but we can do a lot more than that. Here are my suggestions:

First, wait for the paperwork to clear. Our archdiocese does background checks for any criminal history, and it takes 3-5 days once the forms are sent to process. 

Before you make an offer, ask the candidate directly: “If we are going to make you an offer, it would have to be something that makes sense for you to consider it.  Could you please tell me confidentially what you are making at your job right now?”  I have never met a candidate who didn’t appreciate that question, as it will only benefit him or her to be candid. 

Notice, I didn’t say, “What are your salary expectations?” We ask that question frequently, but I believe it’s the wrong question. Such a question introduces a subjective element to the equation, based (often) on what the candidate perceives him or her to be worth.  But chances are, ALL of us are working at the school for less than our “worth”—Catholic schools can’t pay people on that standard. (In fact, I will never entertain a current employee’s request for a raise on the basis of “worth,” but will be as generous as I can for a strong employee who has an additional “need.”)

Once I know the candidate is making X amount at their current job, I would like, if possible, to offer at least as much as he or she is making now, if not a few thousand dollars more. In some rare cases, often if they've taught in other schools, I can offer even more than that.  

But what if my “salary scale” cannot meet that amount? 

First, as I have argued here, I would not operate off a hard and fast salary scale unless compelled to do so. Pay scales are not market sensitive. They don’t account for the fact that some positions are harder to find than others. Further, they virtually guarantee that I will overpay employees and underpay others, at least as compared to their work ethic and value to the school. And they don’t give me the flexibility I need to land a particularly strong candidate. So for this reason, I recommend either no salary scales at all, or  "flex scales," which specify a certain number based on years of experience and degree, but then allows you to offer +/- up to $3,000 from that number to make an offer. 

But whether you have a hard and fast salary scale or a "flex" scale, you may not have the ability to match or exceed the candidate's current salary. Even so, there are options at your disposal. First, most of the schools I know which have salary scales don’t have externally fixed stipend rates. As principal, you can decide to stipend a person for various extra-curricular duties, scaffolding his or salary to a level that approximates your target goal. Second, if the candidate is from out of town, you offer to help assist with moving expenses. Or you could simply offer a signing bonus. The advantage of a moving stipend or a signing bonus is they are one time payments, and don’t obligate the school in the future.  And I’ve found a couple of thousand dollar signing bonus, payable after the contract is signed, is a particularly powerful way of landing promising young teachers, just graduating from college. They don’t have any income to make it to the first pay check in August, and the bonus helps get them through.  

Once you’ve crafted a number you’re able to give, always make the offer in writing. I send it through email. It gives you a chance to put your thoughts together—never get into a verbal negotiation and make an instant decision about salaries, as you really want time to consider all the implications, such as what you’re paying comparable teachers on your staff. Also, writing it down prevents both of you from remembering differently. I’ve had to eat crow before, accidentally creating a contract that was less than I had offered, and although I corrected it, I didn’t make a good first impression. 

I also use this written offer as a last chance to “sell” the candidate on the school. Why will they enjoy teaching here? How will they advance the mission of the school? What kind of activities might they get involved in? How do you see them as a colleague on the faculty? These are things that worry new or transferring teachers, and I think assuring them they have a lot to offer and that they’ll fit right in is helpful. 

I also include a copy of all the benefits they’ll receive in this same written offer. I’ve found it helpful to create a one page benefit overview sheet, which I update each year. It includes the benefits available, the premium costs for health care, etc. We need to recognize these are practical concerns of prudent candidates, and the more transparent we can be on the front end, the better they will feel about their choice. 

And after I do all that, yes, I hope and pray! God’s blessings in your searches! 

Interviewing Catholic Teacher Candidates

Many books have been written on how to conduct good interviews, and I don’t pretend to have “inside information” that trumps the wisdom of others. But I’ve been interviewing prospective Catholic school teachers for many years, and this approach works well for me, giving the practicalities of simultaneously running a school: 

First, as I mentioned in my earlier article, I interview as few people as possible, based on a review of their resume and cover letter. The whole interview process is a huge time sucker, and as principal, I have to be judicious about my time.  It may be also wasting candidates’ time,  raising their expectations in so doing. I only interview people whom I may be truly interested in hiring. 

How do I determine who makes the “cut” to be interviewed on the basis of a resume and cover letter?  I look for three things: 

First, do they have deep knowledge in their subject area, which means (at minimum), do they have a B.A. or B.S. in the field of teaching for which I am interviewing, or even better, a Master’s degree? Which university they graduate from matters, too: a graduate from a selective admissions school likely has the “smarts.”  Those from less selective schools may also have the smarts, so I don’t eliminate a candidate on that basis, but the better the university, the more confident I am.  

Colleagues of mine disagree with me, but I don't care whether they are "certified" or not. All "certification" means is that they've taken enough undergraduate education courses to earn a "Class B" certification (what they call it in Alabama). But education courses do not guarantee teaching ability, and I think requiring certification unnecessarily shrinks the talent pool of potential candidates. It's important to note, too, that Advanced Ed/SACS, our accreditation agency,  no longer requires "certification" to teach in our schools as they once did. Instead, the agency relies on the judgment of the principal to determine if the candidate is qualified, and then insists on a program of continuous improvement once hired. 

Second, I am interested in how well they write; if candidates butcher the cover letter, I surmise they are either too lazy to check their work, or lack the intellectual gravitas to present their ideas well. The ability to write compelling prose belies an agile mind, the kind I want leading our students. I’ll give a little latitude to Math or Science prospects, since their academic strengths are elsewhere, presumably.  But I don't give much! Even if one is teaching Math, he or she must be communicating in English.  

Third, though I review this carefully with candidates during the interview, in evaluating resumes,  I pay careful attention to transition points. Do they leave a job every couple of years? Then I’m not interested—I’ve found, over and over, that candidates’ histories are the best predictors of their futures with us, and I don’t want to invest the time and energy enculturating new teachers into our school unless they’re long term prospects. Also, does the transition make sense? Are they moving to a better job, with more responsibility, or more prestige, with (likely) better pay? If not, it may well be that I don’t interview. 

How do I conduct the interview? 

I believe most people who interview folks for a living will agree that they know if they’re NOT interested in a candidate within the first few minutes of the interview. At that point, they’re looking for a graceful way out, in however short a time that good manners will allow. For that exact reason, I tell candidates the first interview is typically short, perhaps 30 minutes, describing it as a “chance for us to get to know each other.” I tell candidates that I will have a second interview for candidates whom I believe will be finalists for the job. That gives me an "out" if need be. 

There are some critical things I need to know in this first interview, some of which are difficult to ask directly. Specifically, since teachers are understood as “ministers” in a Catholic school, I need to know the depth of their Catholic faith and whether or not they are in a sacramentally valid marriage. The way I get at both of these subjects is to ask the open ended question at the beginning of every interview I conduct: “Tell me about your family and faith.”  In so doing, I get them talking—and in every interview, I want them to do more talking than me! But it’s also interesting to see what they choose to focus on, and it gives me the chance to ask follow up questions as they go, like, “How old are your children? How long have you and your husband (or wife) been married? What does he (or she) do? Were you married at a local Church? Do you still worship in that Church? Are you involved in any parish ministries?” etc as part of a dialogue between the candidate and me. If they're "faking" their faith, they cannot speak about parish life very convincingly.   I cannot emphasize this point enough: where a candidate has been is a pretty good indication of where they are going. I want to understand WHO that person is, even more than I want to understand his professional accomplishments, especially in this introductory interview. 

After we cover the personal stuff, just as I have done pre-interview, I want to understand the chronology of a person’s professional career, especially the transition points.  I ask frequently, “Why did you leave that job?” If I get vague answers like “Just wasn’t happy,” or “Wasn’t being stretched,” or things like that, I am suspicious. In general, I don’t expect a candidate to leave a job unless they’re moving to a better situation. For sure, everyone can get into a bad situation through no fault of their own, or have a bad boss, or need to leave somewhere because they’re unhappy. But a candidate should be able to talk about those difficult situations in some detail, without throwing their bosses under the bus, and without resorting to generic answers. 

“If I walked into your classroom on a random day, what would I likely see and hear?” Yes, I want to deduce the teaching methods the teacher employs, but I want to get into that question in a concrete way, not a conversation about abstractions. Good teachers are practical, emphasizing the “how.” Content is important, but curriculum is more than content; it also involves pedagogy. And if they’re experienced, I ask them what their national curricular association thinks about “good English teaching, “ or “good History teaching,” and whether or not they agree with their association. I am trying to determine if they are up on things, or set in their ways, suspicious of new ideas. A lot has changed in the way we think about curriculum. I don’t want a teacher who has not seriously engaged in these new ideas, even if they’re cautious about implementing them lock, stock and barrel. 

Finally, I ask candidates if they have questions. What they ask me tells me how well they’ve thought about the job, whether or not they’ve engaged with our web page, what their priorities are. Ideally, candidates should have good, thoughtful, meaty questions about how we do things. I think it speaks well of them. 

That’s about it. The last thing I do is make a personal note to myself on their resume, giving the candidate a 1 (not interested), 2 (not very interested), 3 (interested) or 4 (hire this person!). It’s hard for me to remember interviews I had a couple of months ago! That number serves as a brief reminder to myself. 

If I like the person—a “3” or “4”, then I’ll do a little follow-up with references. If I can avoid it, I rarely call the references candidates list on the bottom of their resume. These are chosen by candidates for a reason, with predictable responses.  But if I know someone that knows that person, or worked with him or her, or was that person’s boss, I’ll call them and talk. Sometimes people will feel constrained to share things with me, but often, it’s what they AREN’T saying—silent on things where someone should receive praise—which tells me volumes. And I’ll also do a brief internet search on that person—what’s “out there” on him or her? Most people have some sort of online identity. 

If all that checks out, then I’ll likely take the next step: inviting them back for a second interview, to meet other people and possibly, to teach an actual class of students. And at that point, I also send out all the forms they must send me back and ask them to bring them completed to the interview, so we don't have to chase them down. We can't avoid the forms! But by now, they're convinced that we're really interested in them, so filling them out doesn't seem so terrible.  I ask them to bring all the completed forms to the second interview, so we don’t have to chase them down, a piece at a time.

If I decide NOT to hire someone I've rated a 3 or 4, I keep them in an "active file" if I need another teacher in the future  Maybe it wasn't quite the right fit for this "round," but I always want to keep a conversation going with strong candidates, and don't want to lose their resumes! 

So yes, interviewing and follow-ups take a lot of time, which is why I try and do as few as possible for each opening!. But when we have a real candidate of interest, we’re foolish if we don’t do a complete and thorough review of that person. 

Getting the right people to teach at our schools is the most important thing we do as principals.  

Hiring Excellent Teachers--Important First Steps

If we want really talented people to apply for teaching positions at our school,  then the "how" matters, especially in the initial stages of the hiring process!

Here are two suggestions:

We should take time to design a really pro-active, optimistic job description, explaining our vision for the school, and the role of teachers in our school. This is worth the effort! Talented people, the kind we want for our school, have many options for jobs, and it's foolish to believe they'll automatically want to work for us. We have to sell them! We have to tap into their idealism, their desire to do something important with their lives, to use their talents to build up the kingdom of God and make a difference in the lives of kids.  

We should then post all this on a web page, and get the link out using social media sites, in parishes bulletins, and job bulletin boards. Here’s what I’ve written up at St. Michael  as an introduction to our job postings, as an example. 

We should require very little upfront. I emphasize the point of needing to “sell” prospects on the school, because too often we assume the opposite. Too often, our first outreach is “Here are the forms you must send us.” —A diocesan application, a verification of work experience form, letters of reference, child protection screening forms, transcripts, whatever. Forms! Forms! Forms! Once ALL those forms are in, we say without meaning to, we’ll CONSIDER you for a possible interview—maybe. 

I believe a lot of talented people turn away from us, even before we know they’re interested. That's exactly the opposite of what we want! If there’s a talented prospect even marginally interested in a job, we want to be in a dialogue with that person! Yes, in this litigious world of ours, we'll have to fill out forms at some point, but those should come second, after a relationship has been established! 

So all I ask a teacher prospect to do, as a first step, is send me a cover letter, explaining his or her interest, and a resume. I ask for the resume to determine credentials, and the cover letter, to see how well they write.  The ability to write well speaks of intellectual depth; it’s not something a person can “fake.” 

With a resume and a cover letter, we can take the next step, which is deciding whom we want to interview or not. In general, I try and interview as few people as possible, simply because of the constraints of time, so I really do try and "pare down the candidates" from the resume and cover letter. 

I’ll write about the interview next.