The "Catholic" in Catholic High Schools

The summer of my first year as headmaster of Pope John Paul II High School, I wrote a letter to parents, introducing myself, and attached a simple card, asking parents to tell me what was best about our school in their eyes, and also, their top concern. When the results came back, the #1 area of concern was “We’re not Catholic enough.” The #2 concern? “We’re ­too Catholic.”

Those results, of course, reflect a polarization in our contemporary Church of what it means to be “Catholic,” ranging from those who believe we should be hosting daily Marian devotions, to those who are more interested in social justice initiatives, to Catholics who don’t really care deeply either way. The results also reflected the estrangement of our non-Catholic families (40% of our school). How then, do we Catholic high school principals navigate these divides?

I think there are several wrong approaches.

The first wrong approach is to steer the school to a “lowest common denominator” Catholicism that emphasizes its “Christianity,” while de-emphasizing its more distinctively “Catholic” elements: Less frequent masses, less Marian devotions, less emphasis on the liturgical season and celebrations of that season, a singular emphasis on Scripture vs. a broader inclusion of the writings of the saints, popes, or doctors of the Church.  The problem with this approach is that it reduces Catholicism to a banal, uninteresting faith that very few students find attractive. It’s the weirdly odd people, celebrations and liturgical practices that give Catholicism so much flavor, so much “style,” and makes the faith memorable, distinctive and appealing to our students. 

When I came to JPII, for example, we had an Ash Wednesday mass, but no Mardi Gras celebration. Growing up in Mobile, Al (site of the first Mardi Gras celebrations--New Orleans take note), this was unacceptable to me, so now, as a small thing, students know that at some point during Fat Tuesday, I will come to their classrooms with bags of candy and throw candy at them. Lest students think our namesake Pope John Paul II was all work and no fun, we acquired the pope’s ski jacket as a gift from the Vatican, and put up a display in our hallway, emphasizing that JPII was not only a pope, but a skier, kayaker, poet, soccer player, linguist, and playwright. The ancient Catholic practice of veneration of relics supports this. Our  six “Houses,” the very framework of our students’ social life, are named after six popes, and once/year, the lives of each pope is celebrated, with students in those houses able to take a “dress down” day.  We built an outdoor “Stations of the Cross” path in adjacent woods, encouraging our students to pray the “Via Crucis.” 

I believe one of the real problems for our Church in the intermediate aftermath of Vatican II was that many Catholics became embarrassed by our more unusual celebrations and moved away from them, unwittingly reducing our faith to something that was trite and boring. We should do the opposite in our schools!

The second wrong approach, in my opinion, is to attempt to walk a middle path between liberal and conservative Catholicism and keep careful “score” that our schools are not veering off into either direction. I believe this is wrong-headed in that is continues to measure our Catholicism with the wrong metric.  “Liberal” and “Conservative” are political labels that carry a lot of baggage, and if that is the lens through which we allow ourselves to be understood, we’re likely to carry those bags with us and encourage those polarities to fester.  Instead, “orthodoxy” should be that lens, and that means, I think, embracing the FULL tradition and history of liturgical practices, past and present. 

Many Catholics have far too narrow a vision of their faith, often a function of their preference, upbringing and sensibilities. But one of the beauties of Catholicism is its all-inclusiveness of a variety of traditions, and we should be open to all of them! So, for example, during our weekly Masses, we want to expose kids not only to contemporary praise worship, but also to the ancient songs, chants and hymns of our tradition. The way we do this is alternate music groups every other Mass, with our choral program leading one week, singing the more traditional hymns, and a student led folk group leading us the next week, singing more contemporary music. We once hosted a Tridentine Mass for our student body, but we’ve also hosted a youth rally which culminated in a Christian rock musician, Matt Maher, leading the music for mass--two entirely different experiences!  We’ll do Eucharistic adoration once or twice a year, but we also have a strong service requirement, where kids are asked to work with the under-privileged. We frequently recite the Our Father and Hail Mary as part of our common life together, but we also encourage students to pray contemporaneously.  Quotes from scripture, the saints, various popes, decorate our hallways. We’re not trying to "balance" the various polarities of our faith as if they're in competition with each other. We’re doing these things in faithfulness to the "both-and-ness" of our wonderfully diverse tradition, hoping that students see and experience the fullness of what it means to be Catholic. 

I think, too, we need to be much more imaginative and bold in defining the mission of our schools and discussing this mission with others. John Paul II, Benedict and Francis have each articulated the faith in powerful, evangelical ways that are deeply appealing to youth and to their parents, regardless of where they stand on the theological spectrum and regardless of church affiliation. Here are three examples:

JPII once told youth:  “It is Jesus who stirs in you the desire to do something great with your lives, the will to follow an ideal, the refusal to allow yourselves to be ground down by mediocrity, the courage to commit yourselves humbly and patiently to improving yourselves and society, making the world more human and more fraternal.”

Benedict once said: “Young people, the world promises you comfort, but you were not made for comfort.  You were made for greatness!”

And Francis, recently, speaking to young people about marriage, had this to say: "Today, there are those who say that marriage is out of fashion... They say that it is not worth making a life-long commitment, making a definitive decision, ‘for ever’, because we do not know what tomorrow will bring. I ask you, instead, to be revolutionaries, I ask you to swim against the tide; yes, I am asking you to rebel against this culture that sees everything as temporary and that ultimately believes you are incapable of responsibility, that believes you are incapable of true love."

This way of talking about the Catholic faith, challenging young people to be cultural revolutionaries, to strive for holiness and seek greatness for their lives, cuts across religious divides and digs down to the heart of the gospel message. The gospels have the power to change lives! When we proclaim them boldly and creatively, we too, speak powerfully of our Catholic mission.

May we have the vision and confidence to so lead our schools!

Promoting Philanthropy in Catholic Schools

In development parlance, “fund-raising” is when we sell something to someone for the purpose of raising money—bake sales, car-washes, raffles and tickets for the annual dinner Gala, for example—and is therefore not tax deductible.  “Philanthropy” refers to straight up giving, either for unrestricted or restricted purposes, and is tax-deductible.

We in Catholic schools are excellent fund-raisers, but we are less adept in encouraging philanthropy. No doubt there are many reasons for this: the fact that we are parish schools wedded to a tithing model, such  that philanthropic appeals come primarily through the Church and not the school, the fact that we haven’t invested in development professionals, and the more generalized fact that we are short on administrative infrastructure across the board, meaning that principals don’t have time to "cultivate donors."  I think, too, there’s a general feeling that we already ask families to stretch to pay our tuitions, so we worry that asking for “more” seems to under-appreciate their commitment and make those unable to give feel inadequate. 

Even to the extent these are legitimate, I think it’s foolish of us to not focus more on improving philanthropic giving.  Let me address each of the concerns:

Yes, we ask for our parishioners to tithe, but some are more inclined to give generously to the school their children or grandchildren attend than to the parish they belong to or the priest that they are grumpy with. It doesn’t “take away” anything from the parish collections if philanthropists give to the parish school, since ultimately, the parish school’s money and the parish’s money are the same.  And in the case that the child’s family is from a different parish, even if a school appeal causes some discernible decrease in that other parish’s tithe, I’d argue the parish with the school is probably spending a lot more to support that school than whatever subsidy the second parish pays (once insurance, yard work, janitorial help, professional staffing and other “hidden” costs are factored in).

Yes, our Catholic schools are understaffed (especially our elementary schools—I have suggested ways to address this here), which limits how much philanthropic work our principals can do. But even with that, there are simple appeals that end up taking much less time (and raising more money) than the fund-raisers we do through-out the year. 

• At minimum, we should send out an “annual fund appeal” letter from a principal or deeply respected teacher in our school, with an envelope attached, during the November-December time frame.
• We should allow families to “check a box” to sponsor a second child’s tuition (or 50%, or 25%) whenever they register for next year, to “make the gift of Catholic education available for someone else.”
• At the annual gala, the principal of the school should make a brief public appeal on behalf of a few current (unnamed) families who are behind on tuition payments because of a job loss, or a divorce, or some unexpected event.  All of us have families that entered into tuition contracts with us in good faith, but because of an unforeseen event, are no longer able to meet their obligations. Most of us write these off, but we have families more than willing to help if they know their donations are going directly to these families and not to the “black hole” of administration.  I try to give just enough specifics about these families to inspire generosity without violating their confidentiality. We typically raise $15-25K in the couple of minutes it takes for me to make these appeals. Once I receive their gift, I call the family with the good news that an anonymous "angel" has given us money to support them, and ask them to send me a thank you letter, which I then pass on to the donor. 
• On-line giving is more prominent now than it was even three years ago, and is particularly used by our younger alumni. Putting a link on the web page is easy, and providing for this link in an email campaign in conjunction with the annual fund letter is a very efficient appeal.
• Ask your parish to include a “special collection” for the purpose of supporting the parish school during Catholic schools week or at some other appropriate time each year. Monies raised could either relieve the Church of that month’s allocation to the school, or could be used directly by the school itself.
• I believe that once a year during Sunday Masses, similar to what we do with the annual diocesan appeal, the pastor should appeal to his parishioners to make provisions for the Church or the school (again, it’s the same entity) in their will. Most families are incapable of making a transformative gift during their lifetime. But with a simple codicil in their will, they can leave their house, for example, (or 50%, or 33%, or 25% of it) to the school. Often parents create their wills when their children are very young, so they are concerned about providing for them and thus make them sole beneficiaries, but 20-30 years later, their children may be quite successful, so re-allocating a portion of their will to the Church is not unthinkable. There are likely lawyers and financial planners who would assist families in making a planned gift, gratis, as a means of contributing their services to Catholic schools.

Finally, as to the concern that asking parents for philanthropic gifts some how under-values the commitment they’re making with their tuitions, I think we simply need to get beyond that concern. For one, independent schools charge twice, three times or four times as much tuition as we do and ask their families (some, rather aggressively) to give to annual funds every year. Second, strapped families are not obligated to give if asked, and in fact, have other avenues to give, if inclined, through volunteer service. Third, we have to stop basing our decisions on the impact it might have on our least wealthy families! That formula simply won’t work for us over the long term because it subsidizes the wealthier families who can afford to give more, thus undercutting our ability to help those who can't more directly. It's the same with setting tuitions: we stress over whether our poorer families can absorb tuition increases of 3%, 4%, 5% or 6%,  but the truth is, our tuitions are already too high for these families, and whether we raise tuitions an extra 50, 100 or 150 dollars for the year doesn't matter nearly as much as whether we can give them $2,000 or $3,00o in direct financial aid. But we can't give that kind of aid unless we are maximizing revenue from those who can pay more. 

The mission of our schools is an extraordinary one. We should have no issues in asking people to support this mission in an extraordinary way. 

The President-Principal Model: My Thoughts

In the decade of the 1990’s, the “President-Principal” model became the dominant leadership model for mid to large Catholic diocesan schools across the country. Though each school varies a bit,  in general, the President is the “Chief Executive Officer” of the school, responsible for financial affairs, long term planning and external relationships (alumni, publications, marketing), whereas the Principal is the “Chief Operations Officer” responsible for day to day operations, the hiring and supervision of teachers, student discipline, and meeting the needs of the students and their families.

From 1989 until 2001, I served as “principal” in this model at Montgomery Catholic High School with Dr. Tom Doyle, president. When he left to become the academic director of the Alliance for Catholic Education at Notre Dame in 2001, I became the “president” of The school and served in that role until 2008. I then moved to Pope John Paul II just north of Nashville, partly because I was ready for a change from the model. Here I am “headmaster” and share leadership with a number of “assistant principal” level persons, whom we call “Deans” or “Directors.”

As a person who has held both principal and president roles for a significant period of time and who is now the single leader of a school,  I think I can offer "insider" insights on the strengths and weaknesses of the model, at least from my point of view. 

The breadth of skills and talents required to lead a successful Catholic high school is daunting. Principals are expected to be curricular experts, human resource professionals, financial wizards, strategic thinkers, public speakers, counselors, fund-raisers, marketers, and super-athletic directors (because it’s not likely that all athletic issues can be resolved at the A.D. level). At the same time, people feel best about principals when they see them in the parking lot before school, or when they're in classrooms, or when they're at the majority of the school’s athletic contests and fine arts concerts. Parents expect principals to know them by name and know their children personally. 

Adding to the challenge is the likelihood that the principal became principal through the ranks of teaching, with training and expertise in history, English, Math or Science (or in my case, Theology), but without formal training in development, management, finances or law.

Thus the logic of dividing leadership into two distinct roles is impeccable: Let the president be primarily the businessman whereas the principal can be primarily the educator.  Let the president think about the future, whereas the principal can focus on the present. Let the president serve the constituency outside the school, while the principal serves the constituency inside.

Savvy readers will object at this point: “Wait, you’ve drawn those distinctions too tightly. Shouldn’t the president have an understanding of the curricula of a high school, too, rather than be simply a businessman? Shouldn’t he be involved in creation of the policies and have relationships with the faculty?  And shouldn’t a principal also be a long-term thinker and a fund-raiser and care about the external constituency of the school?”

Yes! And that’s where problems develop in what is theoretically a good division of labor.  In fact, most of the excellent presidents I’ve ever met were first excellent principals. They trained originally as teachers, then became principals, and eventually became presidents. They had, at least originally, the same lack of training and skill sets in finance and fund-raising that most first time principals have. On the plus side, this means presidents typically understand teenagers, the curricula and the culture of high schools in a way that makes their leadership wise and authentic.  On the negative side, they have the same burden of learning these "M.B.A. skills" on the go like anyone else.

So I believe what one will find in most successful president-principal arrangements is not necessarily different natural skill sets. That’s not even the best argument for the president-principal model. Rather, the argument is one of both time and experience—time, because by dividing jobs, each has the time to do the disparate jobs more thoroughly than a single person, and experience, because usually the president is a veteran of Catholic schools and has learned things along the way which he or she can pass on to the (usually) less experienced principal.

I don’t want to trivialize those advantages.  A president who was first a principal can indeed mentor a young principal in an authentic, integral way. Such was my case when Dr. Doyle hired me as principal when I was only 27. I was too young to even know what I didn’t know. But as new situations came across my desk, I was able to walk across the hall, talk privately with him and receive excellent advice. And for sure, it was great not to have to worry about tuition, budget, operational expenses or long range planning during those early years; truthfully, I was simply treading water, taking in occasional gulps of water, trying not to drown!

But there are also problems with the president-principal model.

First, as I have noted, most schools end up with two people who have the same natural skill sets and proclivities. Often that tempts both leaders to dabble in the other’s realm, creating conflict between the two. Frequent communication, and even friendship, is essential to the model.

Second, while mentoring is an advantage in the model, it’s expensive for a school to hire two leaders and pay market rates for both! Hiring subordinate staff, like a school business manager, is cheaper. And if the school hires well, many of these staff members can learn the job of principal as they go.  A Dean of Students or Athletic Director can learn a lot about conflict resolution, handling parents and supervising staff without the school needing to pay them as principals.

Most importantly, if the lines are drawn too tightly between principal and president, the president’s job is often unsatisfying. Most Catholic school presidents take on the duties of president to serve his or her school more effectively—not because these duties are inherently attractive to him or her.  There was a reason they majored in history, or Math, or Science, but not Business! As C.E.O., the principal-turned-president often loses day to day contact with kids and their families, narrowing the breadth and depth of relationships that sustain a principal when a principals’ job turns unpleasant: an expulsion hearing, or firing a teacher, or simply wading through the paper-work. For sure, a good president builds different relationships—with alumni, with major donors, with key constituencies—but these relationships are more fleeting and less “authentic” than those formed by helping parents raise their kids through their formative years. 

That was my experience, in any case. In 2001 when I became president of Montgomery Catholic, we began a major capital drive to build a middle school for grades 7-8, then changed two K-8 elementary schools into K-6 schools, and merged all of the institutions into one entity called “Montgomery Catholic Preparatory School.” Except for the fact I insisted upon teaching one class of senior theology, most of my time was taken up raising money, or talking to Boards, parish councils or pastors, or putting into place a centralized financial office. We were successful in those changes, and I am proud of what we accomplished, but by the end of my 5^th year, I felt like I was losing the deep, intimate connection with the families I had known and served for so many years. Those relationships made all the difference!

So in the middle of my seventh year as president, I proposed to our Board that we merge the two positions together for a time and that I hire a business manager to manage the school finances. I was successful as president and willing to continue, but I needed the connection more typical of the principal’s position. Half the Board agreed, whereas the other half did not, so rather than become cause for controversy, I decided to look for a new school that didn’t have the president-principal model, which led me to Pope John Paul II High School. 

After six years at JPII, I feel (for sure) some of the challenge of my “both-and” roles as headmaster of the school.  In my first evaluation, the Board wanted me to be in the hallways more often, while being seen more around town. I’ve adjusted by hiring (for the first time in my 25 year career), a full time executive assistant. I have six “assistant principal-like” leaders to run the day-to-day operations, including a Dean of Studies, Dean of Students, Director of Finance and Operations, Athletic Director, Admissions Director and Dean of Advancement.  These people give me enormous flexibility and allow me to be involved in the day-to-day life of the school.

Even so, the president-principal model remains the most dominant model for mid-size to large Catholic secondary schools. Were I to counsel presidents and principals, I would counsel them not to draw the job descriptions too tightly. For sure, the president aims outward, but a school's external reputation is a function of what's going on inside. For sure, a principal aims to the day to day, but those daily decisions have communal impact. For this reason, better to define the president's role as "outside-in" and the principal's role as "inside-out" to recognize both must collaborate frequently on roles. Because there is so much cross-over,  friendship is key. 

New Wine into Old Wineskins: Renewing and Re-Presenting Our Schools

In an earlier article, I discussed how I thought it was possible for a diocesan Catholic high school to also be a "prep" school, despite tensions between the two models. In that article, I looked at the four lynchpin issues of access, cost, academic program and faith that would be the likely "trouble-spots" in the melding of those two models.

In this article, I want to focus on how a Catholic school may present itself as a prep school to its constituents in terms of the kind of programs it offers, its market presence in the community, and small steps an existing Catholic high school might take to "re-present" itself, pouring new wine into old wineskins.

1) Begin with new, elevated ways to discuss the school and its mission, steering clear of tired cliches such as "body, mind, spirit" constructions. I've written more about this here and here. I think that too many of us working in Catholic schools underestimate the power and importance of what we do in discussions with others, and we need to speak about the transformative power of our school with audacious optimism and enthusiasm.

2) Consider renaming the principal of the school as "headmaster" or "head of school" and the assistant principals as "deans." When I came to JPII after nineteen years as "principal" and "president" of a diocesan Catholic school, I almost choked on my new title as "headmaster." It sounded too snobbish or preppy. In fact, the first year of my tenure, I introduced myself as "principal" reflexively, until the president of our Board finally took me aside and told me, "You were hired as the school's headmaster, not principal, and that title is important to us. We want to create a market distinction with other diocesan high schools, and language matters." Reluctantly, I have come to realize he was right--that small changes in language, costing the school nothing in terms of advertising dollars, can slowly re-position the school in the marketplace, elevating the school's image and distinctiveness. Language does matter.

3) Look "across the pond" for ideas. JPII has a sister school relationship with St. Edmund in England--we send about 15 students from our school to live with their families for three weeks, and they send theirs to live with our families. As I have written earlier, it's a wonderful way to establish a cheap, meaningful international program. But to the point of this article, I have also been fascinated by some of the practices of the British independent schools, a few of which we've adopted:

• The creation of "Houses" as a way of building internal school communities. Yes, think Harry Potter, minus dorm living. New students and faculty and staff are "sorted" into one of six "Houses" (we name them after popes, consistent with our school name), with one "Housemaster" (a faculty member),  100 students and six or seven teachers/staff as "advisors". All social life of the school is built around the House System. We play "House games" once/semester in which school closes down at lunch and kids participate in a variety of games. We have can food drive contests between Houses, "penny-wars," and all sorts of other things, with each House earning points for the "House Cup" announced in April. The kids love it. 

• As part of the "House" system, all students are grouped into "advisories" consisting of 15-16 students each. "Advisors" (the British call them "tutors") meet with their students a minimum of once/week to check up on how they're doing. Each advisory group is comprised of roughly four students from each grade level,  and the same group stays together during their four years, +/- the outgoing seniors and incoming new students. In this way, the advisor builds a long term relationship with his or her students, and we are able to build in a layer of pastoral care for all students on an ongoing basis. 

• "Assemblies" as part of the school schedule. Twice a week, our school assembles in the school auditorium for about 20 minutes. On Mondays, I have a 3-5 minute "assembly address" and lead the assembly, whereas on Fridays, the student body president is in charge. The last five minutes of both, students and teachers come to the stage to make announcements for their club or athletic team (which, incidentally, solves the "problem" of announcements in the afternoon that no one ever listens to). These assemblies give our school a common life and identity which are important for building the culture of the school. 

Advocacy Begins With Us

History credits Theodore Roosevelt as first to recognize the “bully pulpit” potential of the presidency—the idea that the office garnered so much press and attention that he could use it effectively to build coalitions of public support for his ideas, support which he could then leverage with Congress to pass legislation against the various entrenched monopolies and trusts he so famously challenged.

I am convinced as leaders of Catholic education, we too have a kind of “bully pulpit” within our dioceses and townships—and even within our own parent community—to talk about the transformational difference our schools make in the life of our kids--and to advocate for more students, more donations and more diocesan support.

But we don’t use this pulpit enough.

Part of the problem is we don’t create enough opportunities for us to speak to our constituencies. When was I first hired as JPII’s headmaster, I learned that all the students met twice a week for “assembly” and that the headmaster gave an “address” to the students as part of that. I had been principal or president for nineteen years, but had never presumed to speak to students on a regular basis—only at special events or after ad hoc meetings after a pep rally or a school mass.  “What do you talk about?” I asked my predecessor, a bit skeptical.  “I like to tell the narrative of the school,” he said, cryptically.

Honestly, I thought that was a little nutty, but I had vowed as the new principal to accept the traditions and policies of the school as they were handed to me before beginning to put my own mark on the school in my second year. So I gave a 3-5 minute “assembly address” to students every Monday, convinced early on that I would punt that tradition in my second year and give the minutes back to classroom teachers for additional instructional time.

But six years later, I am still giving assembly addresses once a week.   I have found they provide a powerful opportunity for me to set the tone for the school—to discuss my perspectives on events in the news, or what happened at last night’s basketball game, or something the pope said recently. The four-year cumulative effect, I believe, has impact on the way our kids think about things, and gives them a vocabulary and perspective about the way they talk about themselves and about our school.  I even post my addresses, now, on my Catholic Educator blog, and send a link to parents if they’re interested in reading them. Roughly 150-200 parents read my remarks each week.

They understand all this in Britain—English headmasters have been giving assembly addresses for centuries. Perhaps it’s that the British have more faith in the power of words to shape attitudes and move people to action than we in America, who have become cynical of speeches in light of the puffery and demagoguery of politics or marketing. But I think we could learn a lot from the British here—we can’t trust that words matter unless we commit to using them thoughtfully and consistently to build up our school and our students.

But it’s not only that we don’t create enough opportunities to speak. It’s also that we don’t use the opportunities we DO have already.

I believe that we as principals should speak at every PTO meeting, and every pep rally, and every public event, if only for a few minutes, ideally to tell a story about something that happened in the life of the school and to remind everyone of our mission and the good work our school does for kids. I think also we should work hard to ramp up our language and vocabulary about our noble purpose, as I have written about earlier here. 

A week before the graduation of her younger son, a mother of two well known athletes in our community came to see me. “I am here to thank you for what this school has done for my boys,” she said, choking back tears. “They’re not only going to college on athletic scholarships, but they’re both going to schools which are excellent academic institutions where I know they’ll be graduating with a degree that means something. I am proud of the young men they’re becoming, and this school had a lot to do with that.”

Those are the kinds of stories we as principals must seek out, tell, and retell over and over in our communities, using the “bully pulpit” of our position to shape how people think about us and talk about us. 

If we don’t tell the good news about our school, we can guess with near certainty that someone will fill the vacuum with bad news.