'Catholic High School Principal"-- Reflections After 30 Years

When I was a younger Catholic school principal and talked about the importance of the Catholic faith, I tended to describe it as one of the “pillars” of the school, along with a strong academic program,  a vibrant fine arts program, and a vital athletic/extra-curricular program. 

But that’s wrong. Catholicism isn't a pillar of the Catholic high school. It’s the foundation upon which every other pillar stands. 

I’ve been reflecting on that idea as we complete our third year as a school at St. Michael Catholic High School in Fairhope, Al and as I finish my 30th year as a Catholic high school principal, president or headmaster.  

First, a quick autobiography: Growing up, my parents were devout Catholics, and lived out the gospel in a remarkably authentic way, making Jesus’ mandate to love the “least of these” as a core value in our home. It was common to have recovering alcoholics as honored guests for Thanksgiving or Christmas dinners. A drug addict, fighting through his addiction, once lived with us for six months, as did once an unwed mother, needing support through her pregnancy. Many times in my childhood, I remember helping my father do last minute evacuations for families evicted from their apartments, or repairing things in other people’s houses, or helping people who couldn’t afford a mechanic on their cars. Every summer for many years, my father loaned our V.W. bus to a migrant workers camp, so they could get back and forth to their jobs each day,  leaving us with one car for a family of 7 all summer.  My family began each day with morning prayer before school, which included (not very enthusiastic!) singing. None of this seemed heroic, “weird” or even different to my sisters and me, and it certainly didn't make us saints! But it was the family my parents created, and it was the only family we knew. 

Catholic education, too, was important to all of us. I attended Catholic schools straight through, from kindergarten through 12th grade, and then for undergraduate and graduate school. I majored in theology, then even earned a master’s in it. I’ve been a practicing Catholic all my life.

So it’s odd to me, looking backwards, why I understood the faith of the Catholic high school merely as a component part of the broader whole.

Perhaps it was the residue of 70’s and 80’s, which tended to over-emphasize the importance of “academic freedom” in Catholic education, fearing that a full throated embrace of the authority of the Church somehow compromised the school’s academic integrity.  Better to have the “faith piece” in “conversation” with the other important aims of the school, holding each other in some sort of “check and balance” system to keep one from dwarfing the other.

Or perhaps it was a result of an ecumenical sensitivity; indeed, the first two schools I led were 40% non-Catholic, so it was important to speak as inclusively as possible, driven partly by the John Paul II’s statements that ecumenism was central to the Church’s mission, yes, but also driven partly to widen our market appeal. 

Or perhaps it was because the first two high schools I led were shepherded by good and holy bishops, but whose administrative style was “hands-off,” allowing the boards and I to operate without a sense of immediate accountability to Church authority. 

I suspect it was some combination of all of those things.  But whatever the cause, coming to Fairhope and starting a new school at St. Michael has forced to rethink my prior assumptions.  

First, I am the first principal of a school that had been built and designed by the bishop, vicar general and superintendent’s office of our archdiocese. Long before I was hired, most  of the fund-raising, the choosing of the site, the architect, design, bids, contractors, the name of the school, its mascot and its color scheme had been settled. These were the decisions of archdiocesan leadership—assisted by the good people of Baldwin County to be sure—but with bishop at the helm. So from the beginning, this has been “his” school, the school that he founded. He is rightfully proud of us, something I find endearing now, though I wasn’t too sure early on. 

Second, unlike my two previous bishops, my current archbishop continues to play a very active role in the life of the school. He wants constant communication, and often emails me to get the latest enrollment numbers, asking questions like the percentage of 8th graders enrolling from the three Catholic elementary schools, or wanting me to explain some rumor he’s heard. If anything new is going to be built, he wants to understand why, how much, and to be engaged in the discussions prior to his green light to go forward. He takes his pastoral responsibility for the school quite seriously, saying mass with our kids early in the year, and teaching every theology class in the school (two full days) later on, so that the kids get to know him and can ask him questions. About two months before our first graduation, he asked me if we had written an alma mater yet, and when I said we had not, he handed me some music, saying "this would make a nice tune, see if you can put some words to it--it would be special to have an alma mater ready for graduation."   So we used the music and wrote the words, and singing it that night was yes, quite special.  

Third, certainly more so than my second school, we have the full backing and support of the 12 area pastors. In fact, the bishop named them all “co-chaplains,” and while some may argue that having twelve chaplains is the equivalent of having none, they've been remarkably enthusiastic and supportive, rotating through each week for our school-wide Wednesday mass, or coming out in great numbers for school reconciliation services, riding with students to Washington for the pro-life trip, or attending sporting events. 

Fourth, generations of Catholic families in this area wanted a Catholic high school for a long time,  dating back to the 1970’s when a local Catholic family deeded property to the archdiocese to build one.  When it was finally becoming a reality—40 years later!— the Catholic community poured itself into it, giving generously, devouring news about the first principal, the first teachers, the curriculum we were building here. And for these people, it is of greatest importance we are a great Catholic school.

The truth is, I found all this a little jarring when I first arrived the year before the school opened. Things happened I didn’t expect. I proposed a tuition figure the year before we opened in 2016, but when it went to the bishop and the finance committee, they lowered it by $1,000/child. When I proposed 32 credits for graduation to include two years each of language and music as a core requirement, I became embroiled in a four month debate with the Office of Catholic Schools (to their credit, they let me do it). When I inadvertently (I promise!) misinterpreted a hiring policy of the archdiocese one year, I was called before the superintendent and archbishop and reprimanded. When I wanted to introduce a couple of non-traditional courses in the second year, I was told (politely) “no.” In my first twenty-six years of being principal, I can’t recall being told “no” before, as long as I had gone through the right process! And I’ve never been reprimanded. So it’s been a bit humbling, and taken me a while to adjust. 

But here’s the thing—we’ve embraced it.  I’ve embraced it. Sometimes I’m the conductor of the band, sometimes I’m not! We just completed the school’s first graduation in May, and it was a glorious event. For the community of faith here, for the archdiocesan leadership, for the archbishop himself, it felt like a loop was being closed—the “completion” of a long dream, finally realized. We’ve all been building this school together. 

St. Michael is a deeply Catholic place, under the clear authority of the archbishop, fully supported by active pastors, managed by the Office of Catholic Schools, supported by the Baldwin County Catholic community. 

And the result? 

We are absolutely thriving, by any metric. Enrollment has been growing very quickly, so much so that we balanced the budget in our third year, one year ahead of schedule. Despite our unambiguous Catholicism, we continue to attract non-Catholic families, now comprising 25% of our student body. Students are generally devout in their faith, as evidenced by reverence at weekly masses, attendance at retreats, piety during morning prayer and before ball games. We even had two young men enter the seminary after graduating.  Our athletic and music programs are successful. 70% of our first graduates received scholarship offers for college. Fund-raising has been fantastic, evidenced by the fact we’re just about to reach our ridiculously ambitious goal of five million dollars for an athletic complex as we continue to build the campus.

And my sense is—that because of our full embrace of our faith and the authority of our Church, that despite the fact we are just three years old, our base is BROADER, DEEPER and STRONGER than many long-established private schools. Our faith is not “one pillar among many.”  It’s the firm foundation. 

As for me? Still learning after 30 years. It's been both challenging and wonderful. 

Rethinking Catholic Elementary School Principal Salaries

We often hear people say we need to increase our teacher's salaries. I agree, and have worked the better part of my professional career trying to be creative in doing so (here, here and here). Even if our teachers are committed to our mission, if our competition is paying $10,000 to $15,000 more than we are, there are bills to pay and mouths to feed. In the long run, we're going to lose out.


As true as that is, an even more compelling case can be made to increase the salaries of our elementary school principals, whose salaries lag even further behind our public and private school counter-parts. Consider the latest data published by the National Association of Independent Schools : 

• In NAIS schools, the median “head” of school salary is $255,000.
• The median “lower school” principal salary is $113,400.
• The median “middle school” principal is $114,900.
• The median “upper school” principal is $125,000.

OK, I know what you're thinking. These schools charge way more for tuition than we do, and so of course they can afford to pay their principals more. You'd be right-- but do you know HOW right? Here are the stunning facts: 

• The median tuition for an NAIS elementary school, grade 6, is $25,575.
• The median tuition for an NAIS high school is $29,745.

When I first saw those tuition numbers, I was almost certain that they were a mistake, so I looked back through earlier years of data as published by NAIS. No mistake! For comparison purposes, in the southeastern United States, I estimate the median tuition for Catholic elementary schools is about $4500/year  and $8800 for high schools. If that's a correct estimate, tuition at NAIS schools is LITERALLY 5 times more than southeastern Catholic K-8 schools and LITERALLY three times more than our 9-12 schools. 

So is the NAIS data irrelevant for a discussion of our salaries? In one way, absolutely. It would be pointless to argue that we should try and offer "matching" salaries. But that's not what I am arguing! Instead, I am interested in how NAIS schools prioritize principal salaries relative to other salaries. 

Given the massive tuition differences, what would you expect the median salary of an NAIS teacher to be? Happily, they give us that number:

Median salary, NAIS teachers, 2018-19: $57,521

Hmmm. That's pretty good, but not overwhelmingly so, and not even closely proportionate to their tuitions.  Though it's an estimate, as Catholic schools do not publish median teacher salaries, I am guessing the median salary for southeastern Catholic school teachers is somewhere around  40-45 K. At 45K, our teachers make roughly 79% of what an NAIS teacher makes.

But what of our principals? Again, we don't publish salaries, but I estimate $60,000 is close to the median for Catholic elementary principals in the south. But compared to NAIS, that equates to just 53% of our lower school counterparts or 52% of our middle school peers. In other words, as much as we may be trailing our competitors with teacher salaries, we're even further behind with principal salaries.

NAIS schools place a much higher premium on principal salaries than we do. One way to measure that is to compare principal and teacher salaries with each other.   NAIS schools pay their lower school principals 1.97 times what they pay their teachers (113.4 K to 57.5K), 2.0 times what they pay their teachers in middle school (114.9K vs. 57.5K) and 2.17 times in high school (125K to 57.5K). And for their "heads" of school, they pay a whopping 4.4 times their teachers (255K vs. 57.5K). The Boards of Trustees who run NAIS schools believe the quickest, most direct way they can positively impact a school is to secure the best leader. When they do, they pay him or her handsomely. 

And us? If my two estimates are correct, we pay our principals just 1.33 times what we pay our teachers (60K vs. 45K). I don't think that's a winning formula for attracting and sustaining young talent, given our competition. 

So what should we be paying principals? Well, that's a pretty complex question with a lot of variables,  but here's one way to look at it, using NAIS figures:  If Catholic schools pay their teachers roughly 79% of what NAIS schools pay theirs, then what is 79% of their principal salaries? Looking at their "lower school" principal salaries (not counting the head!) about $90,000/year (113,400 times .79). That strikes me as in the ballpark--about twice as much as the median teacher salary, or $30,000 more than the current median. In simplest terms possible: if “x” represents a school’s average teacher salary, then we should aim to pay our principals “2x.”

OK, OK, I know that we can't pull $30,000 out of the hat! So here are a few things I think we need to do to begin seriously addressing the issue: 

• Change mindset—Unwittingly, dating back to the heroic sacrifice of the nuns, people believe that Catholic schools are “supposed” to be the cheapest tuitions in town. But the sisters are no longer with us, and instead, we’re staffed by lay people who must make ends meet. We must be willing to pass these costs onto our parents and Church. In addition, price drives perception of quality. Being the “lowest price in town” no longer serves us in the marketplace, but suggests, instead, that we are the “K-Mart” of educational options.

• Increase tuitions, especially in elementary schools— Relative to NAIS schools, our Catholic elementary schools are severely under-priced ($4,500 vs. $25,575), literally 20% of the cost. Our schools must devise bolder plans to raise both costs and services for our families. Our high schools are a bit less underpriced relative to NAIS schools ($8800 vs $29745), or literally 30% of the cost, but should not be shy in raising rates and services either. 

• While increasing tuitions, Catholic schools should simultaneously increase financial aid for their more vulnerable families. This allows our schools to collect the additional revenue from those who can afford tuition increases while protecting those who cannot meet the higher costs. This is, in effect, what NAIS schools and colleges have been doing with tuition and scholarships for several decades.

• Develop an endowment for “Excellence in Leadership."  In order to assist schools that cannot fully fund these principal initiatives, we should build endowment funds in our dioceses for the purpose of augmenting principal salaries. Business folks and donors  instantly "get" that successful organizations must have top people. The corporate world works this way, too. Giving to something like this satisfies donors' persistent concern: that their donations go into the "black hole" of  the school's operations, without any long term or transformational effect (see my thoughts on this important principle here).  They want to know that their gift "teaches us how to fish," rather than simply  "gives us fish."  The application process for receiving funds from this endowment should be competitive, and aimed at filtering out innovative, bold and committed leaders. Such a fund would be a huge draw to a diocese for young, bold prospects. Each year, applicants must re-apply, encouraging them to continue to experiment with new ideas.

• Recognize that the quality of the school's leader is the greatest single variable for a school's success. Though in Catholic sensibilities it may seem "unjust" to pay our principals twice what we pay our teachers, our NAIS counterparts have no problem doing so, because they recognize this truth. Look, good schools have a lot going for them: talented, committed teachers, strong families, good kids. But the right or wrong school leader may account for 10-20 families enrolling or not leaving us each year. If we don't have the right principal, there's very little hope of having a robust enough budget to attract and sustain good teachers. The right principal is a necessary precondition. 

Particularly if dioceses are committed to the parochial model--each parish school on its own, without presidents, or without regional directors of a group of schools--we must have charismatic, confident, smart leaders in our schools! 

The "Cardinal Way"

Note: I have tried to articulate, as briefly as I can, the foundational principles we've used at St. Michael Catholic High School in Fairhope, AL since its opening in 2016. We're now in our third year, our first as a complete 9-12 school.  

Our faith is the lens through which all else is focused.

We seek to build a joyful Catholic culture: learning together, praying, worshipping, celebrating and enjoying each other’s company. Weekly school mass is the centerpiece of our communal life. We welcome families from other religious traditions and are proud to build this community of faith with them.

We want our students to stretch. 

Students are children of God, capable of becoming “scholars, leaders and disciples of Jesus Christ” because of the transforming power of God’s grace in their lives. Our culture too often underestimates teenagers. We want students to stretch, to challenge themselves, to seek “more!"

We subscribe to a “Renaissance vision” for our students, encouraging them to get involved in many different things. 

We believe that students flourish when they develop in many areas—academics, the arts, athletics and faith—without “specializing” exclusively in any one area. We believe a “both-and” emphasis brings balance and wholeness to their lives.

Relationships govern.

Yes, there are rules, and if the authority of a teacher is challenged, the teacher must invoke his or her authority. But our relationships should be human ones first! Students respond well to a culture that “gives them space” to grow up.

We welcome students of varying aptitudes and socio-economic standing. 

Though we want our strongest students to be challenged and to graduate with the opportunity to attend excellent universities, we do not want to become merely an enclave for the intellectually elite or socially advantaged.  Rather, we believe the chemistry and interplay between students of different backgrounds and abilities give our school its authenticity, liveliness, and perhaps even, its  “flair.” 

We seek to be a school marked by generosity and philanthropy.

Generosity of spirit and willingness to serve others is at the heart of the gospel; we want our students to recognize and respond to the needs of others with compassion and courage. We also seek to build a school that inspires enthusiasm and generosity in our stakeholders, inviting them to participate in our ministry and to help establish our long-term viability.

A Culture of Philanthropy

“Raising money” is one of our most important jobs as leaders in Catholic education, whether we’re talking "annual fund" drives, or "capital campaigns, which happen every five to ten years. But as the title of this article implies, focusing too narrowly on the “techniques” of fund-raising is a mistake; rather, we must build a culture of philanthropy in our schools that inspires folks to be generous. 

I have five thoughts on this:

FIRST, I believe building a culture of philanthropy must start with the school developing an optimistic and pro-active vision for itself. Every school ought to have at its ready an updated strategic plan for its future: a combination of soaring rhetoric about its mission and founding principles, combined with bold and thoughtful ideas for its future. (As an example, here's the plan we wrote for St. Michael,  "Vision 2025: the Path Forward") 

Why do I believe such a plan is important? Because too often, we DON’T think highly enough of ourselves; in fact, if we’re worried about enrollment or finances, our worries often translate unwittingly to language that projects weakness and pessimism about our future. Nothing undercuts our ability to inspire generosity more quickly than if we ourselves don’t project confidence and optimism in what we’re doing. 

In the years leading up to his death, self-made Nashville entrepreneur Jim Carell began to give away much of his fortune to charitable causes, many of them schools, including Pope John Paul II, where I was the principal. His reasons for being generous, he told me, was “I can’t take it with me, and this way, I  enjoy seeing how my money can help people.”  As you might imagine, there were many of us lined up at his door!  

Once, I had occasion to visit him just after he had been solicited by a struggling school in the area.  He told me, grumpily, that the same school had asked for a gift the previous year "to keep from closing"  they had told him.  He gave them what they asked for, but they were back again this year, making the same appeal, so he told them no.  "Here’s the thing," he said to me, "I don’t back losers. It’s just throwing my money away.” 

That statement “I don’t back losers,” may sound harsh, but it’s a window into how donors think about their charitable giving. If, through their giving, they are merely sustaining the “same ole, same ‘ole” in our schools for another 6-12 months, their enthusiasm for giving diminishes rapidly. Rather, they want to know their giving can act as a catalyst for new ideas and programs at the school, that their gifts have the potential to re-vitalize our schools! 

That’s why how we project  ourselves is so vital. But not just in our  language—in practical things, too, like our tuition pricing! Catholic schools often feature the lowest tuitions in town, but in a market economy that equates price with value, I’m afraid that positions us in people’s minds as the “K-Mart” of educational options. Would we feel better about our doctor who was about to operate on us if we learned his fees were half as much as the other doctors in our area? Better, then, to aim our tuition rates at the middle of the market,  then be generous with financial aid to help our more vulnerable families. 

  

A strategic plan, on the other hand, allows us to talk confidently about our next steps and even our “what ifs?” if we had the resources. In some cases, donors might be intrigued by a particular element of our plan they’d like to assist with directly, but even if not, they’ll be more confident in us, more assured that their donations will not be wasted. “Look at these amazing new things we could do with additional financial backing!” is much more compelling than “We need your gift so we can keep doing what we’ve always done!” 

A SECOND important idea in building a culture of philanthropy is to recognize a “culture” is not built on the basis of a moment in time or single event; rather, it’s the fostering of relationships over time. We’re never going to get a big gift by writing a letter, nor will we likely get one on the basis of a single meeting or request. How well do we foster friendships in our schools? How well do we include older people in the life of our school, be they grandparents, or parishioners, or simply other interested parties? 

I am a big believer in “Grandparents” day for every school, but I’d caution schools against doing any solicitations as part of that. Rather, use the day to meet grandparents, to welcome them, to invite them back to ballgames, to to be active in the life of their grandchildren vis-a-vis the activities in the school. Of course, we do get names and addresses of all those present, and yes, we solicit them as part of our annual fund (coupled with a “prom-picture” they took with their grandchild before leaving), but it feels more natural and less intrusive. 

Jim Carell ended up giving us an amazing gift at JPII, which allowed us to turf our stadium, build concessions, a pavilion and bathrooms, and create a lower soccer stadium, complete with lights. But that gift came after building a friendship with him over three years, and a series of smaller gifts that led up to the large one. And it was truly a “friendship.” He was a graduate of Notre Dame, as I was, and we bonded over that—even went to a football game together. I found him to be wise about people, and I realized I could use him as a confidential sounding board for issues I faced as headmaster, and he appreciated that. He told me about some of the mistakes he had made, both in business and with his family, and we laughed a lot together. In fact, I was very affected by his death. 

A THIRD important part of building a culture of philanthropy is to build a culture of gratitude! I honestly don’t think our donors can be told “thank you” too many times! At minimum, every single gift to a school should be acknowledged by a hand-written thank you from the advancement “office” (see below).  If a larger gift, a donor should receive a phone call or hand written letter from the principal, too. 

An Annual Report, which lists all the donors to the school in a given year, is a way to publicly thank them a second time, and to inspire others, perhaps, to be generous, too.  It depends on the school, but at JPII, we had a “donor’s dinner” at the end of the year for large donors, and the highlight of that evening was we’d ask a senior on the cusp of graduating--a recipient of financial aid made possible by donor giving--to talk about what four years at our school  meant to him or her, and to thank them for making that possible. It always had an impact! When we give out financial aid at St. Michael, my only requirement is that the student writes a letter of thanks to his or her (anonymous) donor; he gives that letter to me, and then I pass on to the donor. 

Twice in the last year, we received generous gifts from older parishioners, who had no direct connection to the school except for their support for Catholic education. In both cases, I called and thanked them, and asked if they had been out to our school (which is only 3 years old). They had not, so I invited each to come out separately and let me show them around. We spent an hour or so together; I honestly enjoyed my time with them. Without any solicitation from me—in both cases!— they later told me they had decided to include our school in their will.  

FOURTH,  I believe a critical part of building a culture of philanthropy is having an advancement “office,” even if the advancement “officer” is only part time. Principals can’t do this on their own! I’ve been a principal for 29 years, and the job has simply become more and more demanding. Between juggling teacher-staff issues, parental concerns, curricular issues, discipline, budgeting, finances and supervision, there’s simply no time to do advancement work, except in the most piecemeal kind of way. 

I am aware that some struggling elementary schools will say: “We cannot afford to hire an advancement officer!” I understand that sentiment, but ask simply: “Do you have a Physical Education teacher?” “Do you have a music teacher?” Teachers can take their kids outside to play ball games, or listen to music in class and do sing-a-longs, if necessary. In fact, our Catholic schools used to handle music and P.E. exactly this way! But without an advancement person, the absence of the very blood we need to keep our schools healthy—capital— makes it harder for us attract and sustain good teachers, to assist families with financial aid, or to provide the necessary instructional materials for our students. If a school cannot afford a full time person, I’d recommend someone for 20-25 hours a week, perhaps a mother of a child in our school, who has the right organizational and people skills to infuse our schools with a generous spirit. Often these kind of positions fit very well into a young family’s calendar, synchronizing the child’s schedule with a family’s work schedule. 

FIFTH, if a school ministers primarily to under-resourced families, they cannot do this on their own.  No matter how willing, donors cannot give what they do not have! It has to be a diocesan effort, and it can take many forms!  One idea, which I think has real promise and is already in place in some dioceses, is to create a “Catholic School Financial Aid Fund” at the diocesan level, invite families to give to it in their wills and through a once/year "Catholic School Sunday” appeal, then allow needy families in particular under-resourced schools (only those schools!) to apply for a tuition voucher to those schools via some sort of third party financial assessment. Once a school receives the voucher from the parent, it can ask for reimbursement from the Catholic School Fund. 

I believe the “voucher” route is better for dioceses than giving money directly to the “black hole” of the operational budget of a struggling school. First, it is more apparent to the recipient of the generosity that his or her child's ability to attend the school is a direct result of the generosity of the Church and its donors. Second, it insists that each school must balance its own budget, without constantly “going to the well” for additional subsidies, hopefully creating a pro-active, creative culture in those schools.  Third, by saying the vouchers can only be used at certain schools, it incentivizes attendance at these schools and makes sure the money is not going to schools which can sustain their own financial aid programs.  Fourth, it helps the diocese navigate potential difficult steps ahead: If a school cannot meet its budget consistently, even with these vouchers, then perhaps the Holy Spirit is saying something about the long term viability of that school. It assures the Church that their limited resources are not consistently feeding something that is broken.  

 May God bless our efforts!

Motivated Teachers!

There’s been a lot of  research on what motivates highly professional people. In a youtube TEDtalk that’s now been watched over seven millions times, Daniel Pink summarizes this research in a compelling, interesting way:

This is very good news for us in Catholic education!   A big salary, it turns out, is not a motivator for adults engaged in highly complex tasks, such as teaching. We must do more for our teachers out of justice, but it's not ultimately what motivates them to do their jobs well (I've written about practical ways to pay teachers more here, here and here). Nor do extrinsic “if-then” reward systems (like merit pay) work. I’ve tried merit pay as a principal, and found out that Pink is right. I found it to be destructive to the cohesiveness and morale of our faculty, so much so that I abandoned the idea after trying to tweak and improve it for three years. Live and learn!

Instead, Pink tells us, we should focus on three things—all of which help build the intrinsic motivation of our employees. These are 1) Purpose 2) Mastery and 3) Autonomy

“Purpose”, he says, is the desire to be part of something important, to know that the work you’re doing matters.  “Mastery” is the desire to get better and better at things that matter. And “Autonomy” is the urge for employees to direct their own lives. Cultivate these three things, the research suggests, and we’ll generally have happy, productive employees. 

This is really important information for those of us in leadership in Catholic education, charged with building a culture of optimism and excellence in our schools!  

I think we’re strong on Purpose. It’s all about the mission! But it’s easy to forget the mission, swamped by the exigencies of the given moment! Even our best teachers need “good news” stories to remind them. I believe one of our most important functions as principals is to seek out good news stories and connect our various constituencies to them. They are most compelling when they are personal, focusing on a specific student or a small group of students, rather than abstract statistics. How has our school made a difference in this particular student's life? Better to detail how a struggling junior in our school increased his ACT score by X points than to to brag about the “average ACT score increase” of the junior class, even though the statistical increase says more about us. Though we are immersed in these stories each day, we have to be very intentional in making these stories public and explicit. Everyone is elevated when we do.   

My sense is that we’re not as strong in supporting teachers’ “Mastery.” For one, I believe we’re ambivalent about investing in their professional development—it takes too much money, and worse, it often means they will miss school time. But even within our own building, are we prioritizing mastery? Do we find ways for teachers to teach each other? Visit a classroom of a colleague? Invite “idea-sharing” as part of a faculty meeting? Recognize a teacher when they’ve done something really well? Do we give teachers enough time, enough “free” periods, to develop good lessons? Or are they busy from the opening bell to closing with duties that are ‘time suckers” away from reflective practice? Worthy questions, I think, for self-reflection. 

In the past, we’ve been relatively strong on “Autonomy,” partly due to the fact there’s not enough of us to monitor teachers and curriculum too closely. The ratio of  “teachers” to "administrators" in Catholic schools is relatively large compared to our public school counterparts,  and our “organizational hierarchies” are still fairly flat.  That gibes nicely with our Catholic social teaching tradition,  which stresses “subsidiarity,” that things are best handled at the most local level possible. In other words, we really do rely on the professionalism of our teachers, borne out of both philosophy and necessity! Pink would say the autonomy teachers feel as a result energizes them. 

But over the 30+ years I’ve been in Catholic education, it feels like the “autonomy” of teachers (and building administrators) is slipping rather precipitously. Due to lawsuits, diocesan lawyers are now having more direct say in shaping how we operate. Whereas we talked previously about “policies” that were understood as “broad parameters” within which we exercised discretion,  we are now more likely to focus on “practices,” which are a euphemisms for “scripts” of things we must say or do when X happens. A colleague of mine, talking about his diocese, told me if a parent alleges a bullying incident with his school, he must send the accuser a specifically worded email, already pre-approved by the diocesan attorney. He is then handed a step by step “playbook” of what to do next. Child protection policies in Catholic schools across the nation are hyper-specific about the kinds of things teachers can or cannot do with students, even though the vast majority of abuse incidents in our Church have had nothing to do with teachers. I could go on, but let's not. 

I’m not a naive idealist, and I don’t really begrudge the lawyers, who are doing their jobs to protect us from large lawsuits that would threaten the very viability of our schools. But it is quite easy for us in administration to begin to think and operate like lawyers, surrendering pastoral judgment and discretion for the sake of minimizing liability and risk. The pessimistic culture that results from “template thinking” and “playing it safe” throws a wet blanket on the creativity and intrinsic motivation of our employees.   

If we want to keep employees who are highly motivated, we can’t relate to them using scripts. We must fight against a culture that slowly persuades us to think legalistically, even while applying the insights of lawyers to protect our schools. Teachers must know they are trusted. The research indicates it’s relationships founded on trust and respect, not rules founded on authority, which causes them to be happy, creative and pro-active. 

May God give us the wisdom and grace to find and keep such teachers! 

Changing of the Guard

We don’t do it very well. Too often, our board feels slighted, our community gets mad, our faculty is upset, and the principal gets his or her feelings hurt. In light of the controversy, the diocese often feels compelled to publicly assert its authority, which adds to conspiracy theories and speculation that taints the process even further. The school is tarnished in the public eye, and enrollment suffers. 

I am talking about removing a principal from a school. 

To begin with, folks are often confused as to who has the authority to remove a principal. In a diocesan or archdiocesan school, canon law is absolutely clear: In a parish school, it’s the pastor. In a diocesan high school, it’s the bishop (who usually acts through the superintendent). If the school is in a president-principal model, it's the president (and the president is evaluated by pastor or superintendent). Boards can neither hire nor fire a principal; they can only make recommendations to the pastor or bishop. 

What lends to this confusion is that dioceses often allow (and in some places encourage)  Boards to do yearly “performance reviews” of the principal. This is not the Board’s proper role in a diocesan or parish school, and creates the inevitable understanding that Boards are in a line-staff relationship “over” the principal, with the power to hire and fire. Instead, it should be the pastor or superintendent who conducts the “performance review” each year,  and part of that—an important part!—is to ask the board for its joint commendations and recommendations. I believe the inputs from the board should be done as a board, not a collection of comments from individual board members, some of whom might have opinions that do not reflect the mainstream sentiment of the board or community at large. Board members have “weight” only as a corporate group, not as individuals. 

That performance review should happen on a recurring, regular basis—at least once every two years, though my preference as principal is once/year. It should NOT only occur when support for the principal is waning or the school is faltering!  A solid, honest evaluation each year, aimed at helping principals grow, is the greatest gift we can give our principals, and by extension, give our school. If the principal addresses the recommendations, there will be no need to change leadership later and endure the collateral fallout that almost always occurs when principals leave. Everyone wins. 

I believe this annual or semi-annual performance assessment should include 4 parts:

First, it should ask the principal to make a “state of school report” to both the superintendent/pastor and board, using as many facts as possible to support his or her analysis (enrollment trends, budget, new programs, set-backs, challenges). I believe it’s really important to evaluate the principal’s individual performance in light of the school itself! Too often, we judge leaders on the basis of their personalities, but I remind people that just like head coaches, there are many types of leaders, some of whom are fiery and emotional, some of whom are quiet and tactical. The issue isn’t their personality, but their results. How the school is faring should be an important part of the evaluation of a principal. 

Second, it should ask the principal to do a self-assessment to the superintendent, or pastor: What progress have I made on the recommendations from last year’s annual evaluation? What are areas from this evaluation that are still unresolved? What were my successes this year? What were the disappointments? What areas in my leadership do I intend to work on next year? What professional development opportunities will I pursue? If we’re going to treat our principals as professionals, we should expect them to act like it, and what true professionals do is self-assess each year. And when it comes time for the superintendent or pastor to discuss his or her review of the principal, it’s likely that much of what she or he wants to say can piggy-back on what the principal has said already, affirming the principal's self-diagnosis, thereby lessening the tensions inherent in such reviews. 

Third, the superintendent/pastor should ask the Board for their inputs. I believe it’s helpful to ask a few direct questions, then allow the Board to comment beyond those questions. The direct questions would include questions about strategic vision, handling finances, resolving complaints, implementation of policies, and very importantly, the “chatter” in the parking lot. All this is discussed at the Board meeting, without the principal present, summarized and sent to the pastor or superintendent as a joint statement. 

Whatever the written report says, I also believe the board president should talk to the pastor or the superintendent personally, to “say" what sometimes cannot be publicly shared or written down, as a way of keeping the pastor or superintendent completely informed. 

Should teachers also be consulted for input? I am ambivalent. My experience is while certain teachers may have insights that would add to the panoramic view the superintendent/pastor is seeking to establish, others simply don't have the perspective that would add helpfully to the process, and treating them as "equivalent voices" would skew things.  I worry, frankly, about situations when principals must make difficult decisions that impact a teacher negatively, and this teacher now has a "voice" in the evaluation.  My preference would be for a pastor or superintendent to always be open to comments from teachers, if they take this step of their own volition, but not to seek out their comments in a formal, procedural way. 

Finally, there should be a confidential, face to face “presentation” of the annual evaluation of the pastor/superintendent with the principal. This will include both a summary of the Board’s thoughts, but ultimately, the evaluation must reflect the judgment of the superintendent/pastor. It should include, I believe, both commendations and recommendations. In the following year evaluation, part of it will include a discussion of progress to the recommendations discussed from the previous year. 

If this process is followed, I believe if it becomes clear that it's time for a “changing of the guard,” then the transition will be MUCH smoother. First, it will be cleaner and clearer to everyone that the ultimate decision-maker is the bishop (superintendent) or pastor, not the Board, not the parents through a write-in campaign, etc.  Second, the pastor or superintendent will be much more aware—on the front end— of the “descent” of opinion of the principal—too often, he or she finds these things out too late, and is then asked to “ratify” a request or decision that others have made, putting him or her in a difficult “either-or” position. Third, presumably if things are going south, elements of the issues have been diagnosed in previous year evaluations and the principal has been given a chance to improve in those areas, so that the process is fairer, allowing the superintendent/pastor to act in a just, timely manner. Fourth, it may even be the case the superintendent/pastor can say:  “These areas are of such concern, that unless you address these immediately, I will not be able to offer you a contract beyond this coming year,” so the principal himself or herself can “see it coming" the following year. 

So let’s suppose all of that is done well, and the superintendent/pastor believes it’s in the best interest of the school to make a change. I’d recommend the following:

• A private conversation, no later than January but perhaps earlier, between the superintendent/pastor and principal, informing the principal it is “not his or her intent to renew the contract for next year.”  The school needs time to publicize the opening, and beginning that process in March or April is simply too late. 

• The superintendent/pastor should ask the principal to abide by this decision gracefully, in such a way that the school will not be harmed or factions develop. 

• To that end, the superintendent/pastor should offer the principal the opportunity to send a letter of resignation to him or her, spelling out his or her “reasons for leaving” on his or her own terms, rather than the public narrative becoming “the principal was fired.”  This is important on two levels: First, for those who support the principal, the principal’s resignation helps those people accept the decision and keeps the school away from a civil war.  Second, for the principal himself or herself, it’s much better for future job prospects to resign for the reasons he or she gives in the letter, than to explain to future employers why he or she was fired. Giving the principal “control” over the narrative, as long as that narrative doesn’t harm the school, is a graceful way to navigate the tensions. 

• To the extent that both the principal and pastor/super are working together in the best interest of the school, the pastor or superintendent should allow the resignation letter and reasons for leaving to in fact, be the public narrative, without any winks or nods to the contrary.  However, if the principal “resigns” but then tells others he was “fired” or “let go,” then he or she must understand the pastor or superintendent may be compelled to act in the best interest of the school, not the principal, and could be forced to defend the “why” of the decision publicly. This is almost ALWAYS bad for the principal! If the principal seeks sympathy because he or she is “hurting,” it’s almost certain to reflect poorly on his professionalism, thereby implicitly making the argument his removal was correctly decided. 

• The pastor/superintendent should find some way of publicly thanking/praising the principal for the contributions in specific areas that principal has made to the life of the school. There are always things worthy of legitimate praise and gratitude, even in these hard situations. 

Even if all these things are done well, I still expect there will be some hard feelings. We principals pour our lives into our schools, and to be told we’re not wanted back is hard to swallow. I wish we could say we handle that disappointment with perfect professionalism, but that’s not the case. But I have also come to understand that there are times and seasons for everything, and changing schools is an opportunity for growth and development, both for the principal himself or herself, and for the school. God closes doors, but opens new doors, and life rolls on. 

May God’s grace prevail in these difficult moments!

Closing the Deal with Catholic Teacher Candidates

So you’ve now vetted the resumes, met and interviewed the candidate, perhaps invited that candidate back for a second interview,  watched him or her teach a class, and  now you’ve decided to make an offer. This is a crucial step in the process! For one, we have the person we want!  But also, we’ve invested a huge amount of time in this candidate, and it would be devastating to start over! 

So I believe—because I was this principal for years myself—that we don’t realize the flexibility and authority we have at this step in the equation. What I used to do was simply consult the salary chart, factor in years of experience and the degree, find the number, offer it, and then HOPE and PRAY.  

Hoping and praying is good, but we can do a lot more than that. Here are my suggestions:

First, wait for the paperwork to clear. Our archdiocese does background checks for any criminal history, and it takes 3-5 days once the forms are sent to process. 

Before you make an offer, ask the candidate directly: “If we are going to make you an offer, it would have to be something that makes sense for you to consider it.  Could you please tell me confidentially what you are making at your job right now?”  I have never met a candidate who didn’t appreciate that question, as it will only benefit him or her to be candid. 

Notice, I didn’t say, “What are your salary expectations?” We ask that question frequently, but I believe it’s the wrong question. Such a question introduces a subjective element to the equation, based (often) on what the candidate perceives him or her to be worth.  But chances are, ALL of us are working at the school for less than our “worth”—Catholic schools can’t pay people on that standard. (In fact, I will never entertain a current employee’s request for a raise on the basis of “worth,” but will be as generous as I can for a strong employee who has an additional “need.”)

Once I know the candidate is making X amount at their current job, I would like, if possible, to offer at least as much as he or she is making now, if not a few thousand dollars more. In some rare cases, often if they've taught in other schools, I can offer even more than that.  

But what if my “salary scale” cannot meet that amount? 

First, as I have argued here, I would not operate off a hard and fast salary scale unless compelled to do so. Pay scales are not market sensitive. They don’t account for the fact that some positions are harder to find than others. Further, they virtually guarantee that I will overpay employees and underpay others, at least as compared to their work ethic and value to the school. And they don’t give me the flexibility I need to land a particularly strong candidate. So for this reason, I recommend either no salary scales at all, or  "flex scales," which specify a certain number based on years of experience and degree, but then allows you to offer +/- up to $3,000 from that number to make an offer. 

But whether you have a hard and fast salary scale or a "flex" scale, you may not have the ability to match or exceed the candidate's current salary. Even so, there are options at your disposal. First, most of the schools I know which have salary scales don’t have externally fixed stipend rates. As principal, you can decide to stipend a person for various extra-curricular duties, scaffolding his or salary to a level that approximates your target goal. Second, if the candidate is from out of town, you offer to help assist with moving expenses. Or you could simply offer a signing bonus. The advantage of a moving stipend or a signing bonus is they are one time payments, and don’t obligate the school in the future.  And I’ve found a couple of thousand dollar signing bonus, payable after the contract is signed, is a particularly powerful way of landing promising young teachers, just graduating from college. They don’t have any income to make it to the first pay check in August, and the bonus helps get them through.  

Once you’ve crafted a number you’re able to give, always make the offer in writing. I send it through email. It gives you a chance to put your thoughts together—never get into a verbal negotiation and make an instant decision about salaries, as you really want time to consider all the implications, such as what you’re paying comparable teachers on your staff. Also, writing it down prevents both of you from remembering differently. I’ve had to eat crow before, accidentally creating a contract that was less than I had offered, and although I corrected it, I didn’t make a good first impression. 

I also use this written offer as a last chance to “sell” the candidate on the school. Why will they enjoy teaching here? How will they advance the mission of the school? What kind of activities might they get involved in? How do you see them as a colleague on the faculty? These are things that worry new or transferring teachers, and I think assuring them they have a lot to offer and that they’ll fit right in is helpful. 

I also include a copy of all the benefits they’ll receive in this same written offer. I’ve found it helpful to create a one page benefit overview sheet, which I update each year. It includes the benefits available, the premium costs for health care, etc. We need to recognize these are practical concerns of prudent candidates, and the more transparent we can be on the front end, the better they will feel about their choice. 

And after I do all that, yes, I hope and pray! God’s blessings in your searches!