Something New?

“SEE, I am doing something new! Now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? In the wilderness I make a way, in the wasteland, rivers. “  (Isaiah 43: 19)

At the time of his writing, Isaiah was speaking to a Hebrew people that had been utterly destroyed by the Babylonian empire. Their families were split apart, exiled to foreign lands. Jerusalem, their holy city, decimated. Their Temple, reduced to rubble. Yahweh, the “warrior” who had once “triumphed gloriously,”  who had “cast a horse and chariot into the sea” (Exodus 15), thoroughly defeated.  And yet remarkably, Isaiah challenges them to see that God is doing something new through all of this, and encourages them to see in their suffering, a chance for their purification and redemption, promising not just a king who shall rise against Babylon (Cyrus, king of Persia), but also a servant, who shall, one day, “justify many,” and by “whose stripes (they) will be healed” (Isaiah 53). 

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the impact of Covid-19 on our Catholic schools. Many of our more vulnerable schools could end up closing, the virus in effect “fast forwarding” their eventual demise. What does this mean for us? How might this impact the future of our Church? What might we consider doing differently? 

It is difficult to be in the middle of a crisis, crushed by the emergencies of the moment, and step back enough to discern, perhaps, good that may come from it. But as people of hope and faith, who believe in the mercy and providence of God, I think that’s what we are being called to do. In times of prosperity, we often slip into patterns that cramp us, locking us into practices that may have once been effective, but now no longer help us flourish. A crisis forces us to rethink everything. How can we, as one pundit phrased it, “not waste a good crisis” to do what needs doing?   

I have a few tentative thoughts, both at the school level and more broadly. 

One of the more detrimental trends over the last 25 years  is decreasing parental involvement in our schools.  If we host a PTO meeting, we’ll have very few parents attend. If we invite an expert to talk to our parents about health and wellness of teenagers so as to help those struggling with their teens, typically the most committed parents—the ones who are good at it!—are the only ones to show up. I’ve caught myself moaning about this, decrying the insane “busy-ness” of our parents, who at the end of a work day are stressed and exhausted, unwilling to leave their house once home. 

But if truth be told, despite raising four kids and understanding this parental exhaustion first hand, as principal, I’ve never really done anything differently to help accommodate our parents at night.   In early May, however, having read articles on the importance of “connection” during the shut-down,  I decided to host five “zoom” sessions with parents, beginning with senior parents, then junior parents, sophomores, freshmen. and finally, incoming families. I scheduled them for one hour, at 7 p.m., on successive nights. Turnout was huge—close to 70%. No doubt some of the interest was fueled by anxiety over the virus. But I think part of it, too, was how much more convenient it was for them. They didn’t have to arrange child care, spend time getting dressed up, or waste time getting back and forth. Might we be able to do more of this post-vaccine? Could we not schedule parent-teacher conferences this way? Have “coffee with the principal” via zoom to talk about issues of mutual concern? Host virtual “open houses?” Could coaches host meetings with team parents from time to time? 

We were forced to learn how to use “Facebook live,” so as to broadcast our  press conference announcing Philip Rivers as our future football coach, and later, to present our end of year Awards assembly. While broadcasting live video, Facebook simultaneously records the event, allowing people who missed it to review the video.  This provides excellent, meaningful content to our social media pages, which can then be shared by viewers to other social media, expanding our reach. Could we do more of this, for music concerts, ball games, other school events, or even a “state of the school address” by the principal and advisory council chair?

In the past, teachers who are sick or out for professional development have been asked to create “assignments” for substitutes to give to our students—kids are inclined to view this as “busy work” (and they’re often right).  But with a full 8 weeks of synchronous and a-synchronous learning under our belt, might we be able to create more meaningful class work and videos for our students, perhaps even “zooming” in live? Could we host summer “faculty meetings” if something arises, which we need to discuss as a school?  These are possibilities we’ve never really considered. 

And what about the diocesan level? 

Though huge western dioceses have been doing so this for years, why not conduct more diocesan principal meetings virtually? The cumulative time lost for everyone getting to a physical site and back could be saved, even while allowing principals to maintain a physical presence in their schools. Perhaps virtual meetings could be shorter, but more frequent, improving their effectiveness.  

And could not dioceses arrange “cohorts” of principals, some with more experience, to virtually mentor younger principals? Assistant principals? Or advancement folks? Could not superintendents check-in more frequently with school leaders, if through video-conference?  Could not new diocesan policies, or changes to employee benefits, be promulgated via zoom, with a chance for Q/A at the end? 

And as schools close, making our “system” of schools ever smaller, is it time to rethink the very idea of a “system” of schools? One of the inevitable results of a thinking of ourselves as a “system” is template thinking: each school is governed by a set of diocesan policies, each follows the same calendar with an 8-3 school day (or thereabouts), each implements the diocesan curriculum, using diocesan-approved textbooks, and taught by teachers who meet the same certification requirements. Even tuitions are similar.  Being part of that system may seem like a great benefit to our smaller, more vulnerable schools, but I believe the lack of differentiation actually hurts them, because it makes them less competitive vs. Catholic schools with more resources and better economies of scale. If a smaller school tries to run the same program as a larger, wealthier school with newer buildings, better manicured lawns, better paid teachers, and with more bells and whistles, why would parents send their children there? Why wouldn’t parents drive an extra ten minutes or so to put their kids in the “better” school?

What if, by contrast, we had a Montessori option within a diocese? A dual-language school? A “classical school” option? Perhaps a “year-round” school? In light of the school closings that Covid19 is causing, I believe we’re going to need to provide parents with real options that may cause them to reconsider us anew. Otherwise, we may face an accelerated “Darwinian evolution,” whereby only the strongest, wealthiest schools survive. I write more about this idea here. 

And if we moved in that direction—less a “system” of similar schools and more of a “consortium” of a wider variety of distinctive schools—might we need to rethink the role of the superintendent’s office? One of our current problems is that canon law is very clear that pastors of parishes have authority over their schools, but too often, they abdicate their authority—or more charitably, delegate their authority—to the superintendent, which has the unfortunate effect of undercutting local initiative and entrepreneurialism. If a local school is looking upward and not inward for its “renaissance,” it need not expect to escape the “dark ages” very soon. 

Pastors and principals should be the two lungs that help parishes breathe, solving problems and planning together, but the average principal spends much more time with central office personnel, at meetings, responding to diocesan directives and emails, following diocesan protocols. In fact, it’s relatively rare that principals and pastors even have a set weekly meeting time together. Our relationships are upside down!

What, then, of the central school office? Could the central office become less regulatory in nature, and more of a catalyst for innovation and experimentation? What if, for example, it hosted a zoom conference with a principal of a well regarded Montessori school from some other diocese, together with 2-3 diocesan principals as a possibility for their consideration?  Or the same idea, but with a dual language school, or a classical Christian school principal? Could the diocese survey families about their interest in a year round school option? Might there be interest in a kind of “hybrid” school that made a special appeal to home-schooling families, allowing parents to teach the humanities one part of the day, but providing them the option of taking math and science classes at a particular school, or being part of its athletic program? 

Could one school pool the best teachers in the diocese for a truly excellent summer learning experience? Could the diocese host monthly sessions (via zoom), whereby it invited principals who were particularly good at some area of administration (finances, hiring practices, discipline, curriculum, etc. ) to lead discussions with the other principals on that topic? Could diocesan high schools share their best teachers in hard to hire positions by “live streaming” to the other high schools? Could we invite interested teachers to attend principal training seminars once or twice a month via zoom, preparing them, but also getting to know them well enough to discern talent, and giving the diocese a “bench” for the future? 

I believe Covid19 puts all of this on the table for serious discussion and consideration. May God give us the wisdom, courage and grace to embrace new ideas and new forms, so that He may create a “way through the wilderness,”  and “rivers,  from wastelands.”