How the Job Has Changed: Thirty Years a Principal

Kids are kids, and they’re the great constant in my profession. They're honest, quirky, hard-working, and lazy-- rascally at times, but then again,  sometimes charming. They appreciate attention, like to be teased, but want to be taken seriously. They're the reason I've been a principal for so long.  

Even so, the job has changed since I first started as principal in 1989. For one, families have undergone significant changes: no longer is there an army of mothers who can volunteer at the school as in years past. Schools must fill in by increasing the size of administrative staffs to compensate. 

I was speaking recently to a relative of mine from a different city,  and she was unhappy with her daughter's principal. The principal “doesn’t know the children” and “doesn’t communicate well.” I asked her how big the school was, and she said about 600 kids. Guessing, I asked her if the "administrative staff" was part of the problem--the "assistant principals, finance director, advancement director, receptionist or office manager.” She looked at me blankly, and said “What do you mean? It’s the principal and her secretary.” I had guessed correctly. “Not possible anymore," I said.  "They could be amazing, but it's too much for two people. That’s the problem.” 

I don’t think people fully appreciate this fact.  A friend of mine, a well-regarded principal of a large elementary school, told me that recently she was helping in the school parking lot at dismissal time and was approached by a mother.  She asked the principal if her daughter seemed to be responding well to the recent change in medication dosages.   Wisely, the principal said "I only see your daughter briefly each day. Send me an email, " she said, "to remind me to check with her teachers who are with her each day."  The principal later admitted to me , smiling, that she had no idea who the mother was, much less the child she was talking about, and looked forward to getting the email to find out!

Parents love that principals are in classrooms, walk the hallways,  and are seen frequently in the school parking lots or playgrounds.  They want the principal to know their child personally! But they also want the principal to have relationships with donors and members of the community,  so as to raise money effectively.  They may grumble if they don’t see the principal at enough athletic events.  This "inside-outside" tug of war is felt by every principal I know. 

Parents, of course, have always had high expectations. But the difference is that since both parents are now working, the team of magnificent mothers who used to volunteer—women who would plan and execute events, cover classes, give sage counsel, help with mailings, know when to intervene and when to stand back— are not able to help us as much anymore, and these functions must be now be absorbed by the school. Too often, we’ve not added to our staffs proportionately, leading to stressed out secretaries, administrators and unhappy parents. There's not enough of us, in many cases, to go around. 

Parents, too, have changed. Perhaps less certain of their relationships with their children, they feel a more urgent need to “defend” their child against a teacher who grades in a challenging way, or who may tell their child a blunt truth. When I first began as principal my  “go to” talk with teenagers for minor transgressions was “Can I expect that we will settle this matter now, between us, or do we need to involve your parents, too?” “No, please don’t involve my parents, “ the teen would plead. “I’ll do better.” But for many teens today, that is no longer a threat. One teen girl brazenly said to me not so long ago: “Please call them. They will take my side.” She was right! I find myself in meetings with parents today that I rarely had twenty years ago. In a previous school, I asked a long time Dean of Students how his job had changed over the years. He was quick to answer: a big portion of his day is now talking with parents, helping them accept or support the school’s discipline for their child, and counseling them how to handle their child at home. 

Another big difference: Schools must be much more intentional about communications, even while navigating the various platforms that parents use.  Would that all used the same social media platforms, but we don’t!  And because there is SO much competition for our attention, it’s hard for schools to “box out under the basket” to grab hold of parents’ attention. 

It’s a sign of the times: we email out a weekly newsletter, keep 2 updated school calendars (for athletics and other events), have 3 active social media sites,  stock full of pictures and events, keep current a beautiful, information-laden web page, and make grades available to both parents and students on line, “24/7.”  But on every survey I’ve ever conducted in the last 15 years, parents inevitably say “The school needs to improve its communications.” 

It was somewhere in the late 1990’s when email became the common means of communicating. I remember it was hailed as a huge time saver, and indeed it was: Instead of hand writing a letter, giving it to my secretary to type, letting me check the typed letter for mistakes, and then making “white out” corrections—a process that could take two people a combined 60 minutes of work—I could rip off an email in 5 minutes and never involve anyone else. 

But we all know what happened next, right? We bury each other with emails, and expect the recipient to respond quickly!  I now spend nearly two hours a day simply responding to 50-100 emails I get (and I never spent that much time writing letters)! 

In fact, I find myself spending much more time behind the desk, which sounds, intuitively, to be a bad thing, but I’m convinced it’s probably wise.  Part of it is email,  but part of it is generating content for social media sites, or school publications, or how we describe ourselves on web pages or school brochures. It’s telling many stories! Language matters, and often, we in Catholic schools don’t spend enough time crafting our words or our written speech to communicate the fantastic things our schools can do in our kids’ lives. And if we don’t fill the spaces with good news—nature does indeed abhor a vacuum; people will fill the silence with gossip and negativity. 

One thing hasn't changed:  In the end, it’s still about relationships! The most effective way to address an unpleasant email is not to send back a witty refutation, but to invite that person to meet with you. It’s always been that way. But in an odd sort of way, these meetings may prove more effective than they’ve ever been before: I’ve found people are TRULY grateful that we’re taking the time to meet with them, given how rare face to face meetings have become. That gives us some momentum for a meeting of the minds, or at least, a detente! 

The Indianapolis Controversy

As a Catholic high school principal, I have read with a great deal of interest the recent happenings in Indianapolis regarding Brebeuf Catholic High School, Cathedral High School and Archbishop Charles Thompson.  Both schools have an employee in a same sex civil marriage. The Archbishop has asked both schools to not renew their contracts. 

Cathedral, run by a private corporation of parents, has complied with the bishop, but with public reluctance, citing the potential loss of their 501 (c) (3) non-profit status and the fact they’d no longer be able celebrate the sacraments because of their dependence on archdiocesan priests.  Brebeuf, a Jesuit high school,  has decided to renew the contract of its employee against the Archbishop's wishes, citing their autonomy as a religious order to govern their own schools. 

Because of this refusal,  Archbishop Thompson has formally declared that Brebeuf is no longer a “Catholic” high school.

When I read about the story, I had two overarching questions:

Does the Archbishop have the  authority to tell these schools to non-renew contracts, given that both are “private” Catholic schools, not owned by the archdiocese? 

There are two canon laws that directly address this question:

Regarding the bishop’s general authority over Catholic schools, canon law 803 says:

§2 “Formation and education in a catholic school must be based on the principles of catholic doctrine, and the teachers must be outstanding in true doctrine and uprightness of life.

§3  “No school, even if it is in fact catholic, may bear the title 'catholic school' except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority. “ 

Regarding schools run specifically by religious orders, canon 806 says: 

§1 “The diocesan Bishop has the right to watch over and inspect the catholic schools situated in his territory, even those established or directed by members of religious institutes. He has also the right to issue directives concerning the general regulation of catholic schools; these directives apply also to schools conducted by members of a religious institute, although they retain their autonomy in the internal management of their schools.”

Given Canon 803, the Archbishop has clear jurisdiction in the case of Cathedral High School. Because Cathedral is not associated with a religious order—run instead by a Board of Trustees— there is not a Catholic founding to “stand” on, absent the bishop’s consent. Canon 803 says the bishop has full authority to insist teachers in a Catholic schools must be “outstanding in true doctrine and uprightness of life.”  I understand there are many people of good will who dispute the idea that those involved in monogamous homosexual relationships are not living an “upright” life. But their argument, then, is not so much with the Archbishop as it is Catholic doctrine, which is clear on the issue. 

Regarding Brebeuf, it’s a little murkier, because the school is owned by and operated by a religious order.  The Jesuits, through their midwest provincial, V. Rev. Brian G. Paulson, state their position directly,  implicitly referencing canon law: 

“I recognize this request by Archbishop Charles Thompson to be his prudential judgment of the application of canon law recognizing his responsibility for oversight of faith and morals as well as Catholic education in his archdiocese.”

In other words, Paulson recognizes canon 803 and the first half of 806, giving the bishop the authority to watch over, inspect and issue general directives concerning religious schools within his diocese, especially on matters of faith and morals.  However, Paulson relies on the second half of the 806, concerning a religious order’s “right to attain autonomy in the internal management of their schools,” as the basis for not complying: 

“Our disagreement is over what we believe is the proper governance autonomy regarding employment decisions which should be afforded a school sponsored by a religious order.” 

Paulson points out that the teacher in question is not a religion teacher, and that such an intervention is historically unprecedented among the 84 Jesuit schools serving in North America. 

How should these two phrases from 806 be interpreted, then, given an apparent tension between the bishop’s right to "issue directives” and the religious order’s “autonomy in the internal management of their schools?”

Archbishop Thompson is careful in his words: 

“Every archdiocesan Catholic school and private Catholic school has been instructed to clearly state in its contracts and ministerial job descriptions that all ministers must convey and be supportive of all teachings of the Catholic Church.” 

In other words, following 806, the archbishop has given this “directive concerning the general regulation of Catholic schools” to all schools—not just Brebeuf—that employees are “ministers” of the Church, and therefore must follow Church teaching within his diocese.  Typically, this language is included within the contracts, or as part of a “lifestyle policy” employees must sign. But the Jesuits deny this as a licit directive and have not required it for its employees. 

My question is, given that the Jesuits acknowledge that the Archbishop has “responsibility for the oversight of faith and morals,” what WOULD the Jesuits consider a LICIT directive from the archbishop? This isn't the case of the Archbishop telling Brebeuf what its bell schedule should be, what athletic teams it should sponsor, how it should handle student discipline, or what it should pay its teachers. Rather, it’s a directive concerning the conduct of its teachers regarding faith and morals, over which canon 803 gives the archbishop explicit authority.  Furthermore, because the lifestyle policy is a general directive applying to all schools, I believe it’s inaccurate to suggest that the Archbishop is trying to interfere in the specific, day to day, internal management of Brebeuf. 

My conclusion : I believe canon law gives the Archbishop authority to do what he did in both schools.

Second, should the Archbishop have exercised this authority, at this moment in time?  

This is obviously a different question—not one of authority, but of prudential judgment. I also believe the answer is less clear. 

Let me outline three arguments I’ve heard put forward that says the archbishop should not have acted as he did: 

First, it’s hard to imagine a worse time for the Church to act in a strong, authoritative way.  Opinion of ecclesial authority is at a very low point, even among faithful Catholics, given the widespread scandal of priestly sexual abuse, and perhaps even worse, the instinct of too many bishops to cover up the scandal for reasons of institutional self-interest. Many people have left the Church because of this scandal, while many hold on, though their allegiance is more fragile. In such an environment, the argument goes, exercising strong authority simply deepens disdain for the faith and hastens those inclined to leave. 

Second, there is no brighter line of difference between Church teaching and culture than the issue of homosexuality. Our culture sees sexual preference as a civil right, and those who argue otherwise are bigots. The Church teaches that homosexuality is an “intrinsic disorder” from natural law and that the practice of homosexuality is gravely sinful.  Taking such a strong, controversial stand on this particular issue, in light of the Church’s public failure to live as it teaches, strikes many as highly hypocritical.

Third, this issue is already being used against Catholic schools in the very important public debate over “school choice” or “voucher” initiatives that have been gaining momentum in state legislatures across the country. Anti-voucher folks are saying that Catholic schools are clearly discriminatory in their employment policies, and arguing that “public monies” should not be used to support discriminatory institutions. I read two  opinion pieces earlier this week that referenced the Indianapolis situation and made that exact argument. 

There are hundreds of Catholic schools, most of them serving the poor, whose future hangs in the balance over the next 3-5 years, dependent on these public monies for their survival. Making the public argument easier for our opponents, some might say, is a kind of self-inflicted wound. 

On the other hand:

Whereas strong authority may have a corrosive effect in the public opinion of the faith when exercised, weak authority and lack of clarity have a similarly corrosive  and arguably longer lasting effect over time. For 22 months, the Archbishop and these two schools have been in a conversation behind the scenes. The fact the employees remained employed as the discussions played out indicates the archbishop was acting temperately, trying to give the schools “space” to handle the issue in a private matter.  I am guessing the precipitating event which caused the issue to become “public” in June is that both employees were offered new contracts for the 2019-2020 school year, in defiance of the archbishop.

Getting married is a public act.  Because the primary mission of Catholic schools is to raise children in the faith, as articulated by the Church’s doctrine and moral teachings, the fact both schools have employees living in open defiance of Church teaching is deeply problematic, creating scandal. High school religion teachers will attest that teenagers are more swayed by the example of their teacher’s lives than by what teach, and teens are quick to call out “hypocrisy” when there’s contradiction.  Can Brebeuf credibly teach students the Church’s doctrine on marriage and sexuality when members of its own staff live in defiance of those teachings? 

In trying to reconcile the Church's moral teachings with their actions, Rev. Paulson says:

Consistent with long tradition in our church, Brebeuf Jesuit, with my support as provincial, respects the primacy of an informed conscience of members of its community when making moral decisions. We recognize that at times some people who are associated with our mission make personal moral decisions at variance with Church doctrine; we do our best to help them grow in holiness, all of us being loved sinners who desire to follow Jesus.

Yes, the Church teaches the primacy of conscience, but that’s beside the point here. This issue is not a matter of someone struggling with a Church teaching as a private individual. It’s whether one can live publicly in opposition to Church teaching, while working for an institution whose primary mission is to teach the faith to young people.  These are quite different things. 

Even so, when I first heard what the Archbishop had done, my instinctive reaction was negative.  Surely, I thought, he could have done something less dramatic, something that would be less confrontational, in light of the present state of our Church? But as I began to think about it, what would that have been? I mean this quite sincerely: If you disagree with what the Archbishop did, what would you have advised him to do instead? 

I do worry about the fallout from the Archbishop’s action. But it is probably good to remind ourselves that the Church is not a political party, trying to create a platform with positions that will earn it the most votes. In fact, the Church makes a more radical claim: that when it comes to morality, it isn’t “creating” positions at all, but simply articulating what “is” as God designed it. Though we must always speak this Truth with charity--and ask God’s forgiveness when we or others fail to live by it--we do not have the “authority” to redefine or ignore this Truth, even if deeply unpopular. 

—

In conclusion, I confess a deep sadness about the whole controversy, especially regarding its effect on young people. Do a quick youtube.com  search and listen to interviews of students at Brebeuf, who speak proudly of their school taking a “stand” against the Archbishop and the Church. This is, of course, the opposite effect a Catholic school should be having on its young people! Even in the case of Cathedral, which acquiesced to the archbishop’s directives, it presented itself as a victim of a power play, stating it could not afford to lose its tax exempt standing, nor access to the sacraments—not, notably, because it agreed with the bishop or Church teaching.  So if I were a student at Cathedral, I'd likely feel the same way about the Archbishop as if I were a student from Brebeuf. And who knows how many other teenagers around the Indianapolis archdiocese, and even around the nation, have been provoked to feel similarly. 

My prayer is the schools and the archdiocese will find a way to reconcile and keep from a permanent divorce. But as our culture runs quickly away from what was once a “Judeo-Christian” consensus, my guess is this kind of controversy will become more common, to the harm of many.