Five Contrarian Views Concerning Catholic Schools

We have operated our schools with certain assumptions that I believe no longer help us—indeed, holding onto them may even be hurting us. 

Here are a five, with brief comments:

“Our tuitions should be low, consistent with the gospel mandate to protect the least among us.”

A noble sentiment, but we have a competing obligation to pay our teachers a just wage, and if we don’t, we won’t be able to sustain their long term commitment, to the detriment of our mission and our competitiveness. Better to aim our tuitions at mid-market rates and then assist our most vulnerable families with financial aid. 

“Diocesan schools should be very similar, with the same calendar, roughly similar times, the same curriculum, teacher requirements, etc.”

Insisting so only makes our under-resourced schools less competitive—why wouldn’t parents drive a few extra minutes to the school offering the same program with better resources? Instead, we should give these schools a fighting chance by encouraging them to offer unique programs: Why not dual-language? Year round? Classical? Extended day? Diocesan central offices should view themselves as laboratories for innovation, not as regulatory agencies to protect diocesan liability. 

“We should pay our teachers according to a strict pay scale based on degrees and years of experience.”

This virtually guarantees we are under-paying our best teachers and overpaying others. I haven’t used a strict salary scale in twenty years. I use benchmark numbers—for example, I might say 45K for a first year teacher with a B.A., but consider a range of plus or minus five thousand off that benchmark depending on how difficult it is to fill that position and how competitive the candidate or important to the life of the school. 

“Principals should protect and defend our least gifted teachers from our most demanding parents.”

Principals should defend teachers when they are right, not when they’re wrong or because they’re mediocre and need us as advocates. Of course, even our best teachers can be off their game for a while due to difficult circumstances, like a death in the family, an issue in their marriage, or health issues. Those are temporary circumstances and the community will have to trust the principal. But our first obligation as principals is to our kids and families. Often, our parents are rightfully upset about a mediocre teacher. That doesn’t mean we take a public position against that teacher, but behind  the scenes we should give these teachers a specific improvement plan. If they can’t hit those marks, we must let them go, sooner than later. 

“Principals must do what they think best, independent of what parents think or want.”

While it is true that the mission of the school takes precedence over any one’s preferences, a principal who discounts parent preferences leads foolishly. Yes, I understand that parental love can skew objectivity. But I’m not talking here about specific situations involving someone’s child as much as what the parents hope and dream about the school more generally. Do they want us to invest more in our athletic programs? In a fence to protect their kids? Is there a general consensus on a coach or teacher? We must listen to our parents and deliver where we can. “Parents are the primary educators” isn’t just nice talk. It means they are partners with us.