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.”

Strategic Planning for 2020-21 in Light of Covid19

Let us be bold and daring!

Viewed negatively, the likely re-occurrence of the Covid19 virus during the 2020-21 school year is a real threat to all of us, and especially our most vulnerable Catholic schools. Parents may decide if their children are going to be home a significant part of the year anyway, if athletic and music programs are going to be canceled anyway, if they’re going to need to find a way to supervise their children themselves, what’s the point of paying tuition? Perhaps they should just homeschool, or enroll their children in the local public school and save the money. Every school that requires tuition, Catholic or private, should be worried. 

Viewed differently, however, this summer COULD be an unprecedented opportunity for our most vulnerable schools to make a stunning turnaround—a chance to reposition and “rebrand” as the safest, most forward thinking school in town.  And it’s a chance for well positioned schools to further distinguish themselves. 

It will all depend on the wisdom, daring and boldness of our plans this summer. 

In a prescient “open letter” dated April 9 to headmasters and principals of private schools, two Kennesaw State professors, Benjamin Scafidi and Eric Wearne, provide us with some very helpful perspectives to help us begin thinking about the fall.  

They begin with a survey of medical opinion, concluding that it even if we are able to relax some social conditioning restrictions this summer and open the new school year normally, it is highly likely that the Coronavirus will return at some point during the school year.  We must prepare, then,  for on-site and off-site instruction, perhaps toggling on and off several times through out the year,  as the 'new normal' for the next 18-24 months— and hope, by then, that we’ve developed a vaccine. Given that daunting new reality, Scafidi and Wearne say we must prioritize four areas in our planning: 

1. Are our schools the safest in town?
2. Have we fully considered the educational design and technological needs of our school to implement first tier instruction? 
3. Are we prepared to absorb some of the negative financial effects? 
4. Are we taking care of our teachers, students and families?

I’d like to reflect on each of these. 

First and foremost, how do we show parents, credibly, not that we are merely “safe”, but we are the “safest school in town” for their children? 

I find that a helpful way to frame the issue and push us to be bold. Do we, for example, arrange to take temperatures of every student in the school to begin the day? Are oxygen finger monitors a suitable substitute? Should we develop protocols whereby students sanitize their hands at the beginning of each class period?  Are there sanitizing stations all throughout the school? More radically, do we hire additional custodial staff to disinfect every doorknob, every handrail, every place students may touch when they change class rooms, after every class change? Do we consider hiring a school nurse to assess, monitor and care for students?  What is our crisis plan if a student, teacher or parent in the school is diagnosed with the virus? If local governments allow schools to remain open, but insist on strong social distancing practices,  can we create a realistic plan to support those practices? How do we communicate this plan, quickly and transparently, so as to not elicit panic? 

Second, Scafidi and Wearne ask, what are the educational and technological considerations? Do we have a common software “platform” to post and receive assignments and to communicate grades? Do students have laptops to do the distance learning? Might it be the case that there are some days that half the student body comes to school and the other half stays home to watch “live streamed” classrooms--and then these groups flip the next day--so as to support social distance norms? If so, are our classrooms equipped with HD video cameras, mounted on tripods, to broadcast to those at home? Does our school have enough bandwidth to host simultaneous live-streaming in all of our classrooms? Do we need to hire a tech support person, perhaps at the school level, or perhaps to serve 3-4 schools collectively, so as to assist us in all this? And what assignments can we give that don’t require students to be permanently glued to a screen? With more time to assign reading, do kids have access to worthwhile books? Do classes without textbooks need to consider adopting textbooks so there’s a physical text if kids must stay at home? 

Third,  how will we plan ahead to absorb the likely negative financial impact on our budgets, should Covid19 re-appear next year? Can we help families who may have a one year liquidity problem? How will we pay for the technological improvements?   Do we need to implement a temporary reduction in our staffs? Temporary reductions in their benefits?  How can we reach out to our donors effectively, and convince them that their donations are needed now more than ever?

Finally, what are the practical considerations for our teachers, students and families in the “at home” environment? How can we make the home environment better for our teachers and staff, many of whom have parental responsibilities as well? And how do we find ways to support our stressed out students and parents? 

The professors suggest that one helpful idea for families, if we must return to social distancing, is to create “quarantine circles,” whereby 2-3 families pair up to intermingle, giving parents the chance to share child-rearing responsibilities, and giving children some sort of social outlet with children their own age, keeping the loop “closed” to all others. Have we outfitted our teachers with adequate laptops to teach virtually? Should we consider paying them to upgrade their internet speeds to avoid “buffering” while trying to teach lessons remotely? (It wouldn’t be a “benefit” but a work related expense). Can the school be a catalyst for social connections during lockdowns?  Between students? Between adults ? How do we make the role of our counselor more prominent, so as to offer sound advice and counsel to families while in lockdown? 

And these questions are just the beginning. 

——

It is likely that principals like me, reading all this for the first time, may despair of the costs for these proposals. How in the world can we afford to upgrade teachers’ internet access? Or purchase video cameras for every classroom? Laptops for every student?  Hire a school nurse? And we’re supposed to give more financial aid on top of that? “Come on,” we’d be inclined to say, “be real!” 

I've been struggling with that, but I think there are two points to make in response. 

In an absolutely unheard of  “gift” to our schools, the federal government is giving us 8 weeks of money to cover payroll this spring, provided we don’t lay off teachers to meet our budgets.  Depending on the size of our staff, that money will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Except in a few dire cases, then, we should end the year with a surplus that would have other wise gone to payroll.  Before we allow that money to disappear into the black hole of our operational budgets, I believe we should set aside a portion of it to support whatever our strategic plan for next year requires, including increased financial aid. 

Second, we should remember these are emergency measures until we find a vaccine.  So if we can muster up the funds to hire a school nurse, full time or part time, that’s not a permanent commitment. We keep a nurse until the crisis is over. We don’t commit to paying teachers’ internet costs in perpetuity, just until we stop doing distance learning as a routine part of our schooling. 

When we create budgets to take on whatever extra commitments we deem necessary, then, we need to think in terms of 2-3 years, a year or two of which may show some deficit spending.  Within two years, God willing, we’ll have a vaccine, we’ll return to normalcy, and we can be back in the black again. This is what businesses do, after all, when they start up. When St. Michael first opened, I knew we’d have to spend more money than we made, so as to hire first tier teachers and to convince our families we were worth investing in—in effect borrowing money against our future. That worked, and enrollment grew dramatically each year.  We’ll need to think this way to get us through the pandemic.   

Here’s what we must wrap our heads around: These are unprecedented times.  To hold ourselves to austere spending when our very survival is at risk, in light of a once in a life-time pandemic, is foolish. If we don’t create a bold, convincing plan that tells our families we are safe, that we are educationally sound, that we are technologically capable, and that we’re operating creatively, with the best interests of our teachers, students and families in mind—even if that costs us—we might lose these families permanently. 

On the other hand, if we DO create bold plans and publicize them well, folks will talk about us admiringly with their neighbors, co-workers and friends. After nearly two months of staying at home this spring, one thing is very clear from a parent perspective: If there’s a school in town that convinces them it has the best chance of staying open because of exceptional pre-planning-- getting their kids out of the house-- they're going to be “all in” with that school! 

Let’s view this as an opportunity for us to boost our standing and make us stronger.  May God give us wisdom, grace and boldness to create these plans. 

Carpe Diem!