How the Job Has Changed: Thirty Years a Principal

Kids are kids, and they’re the great constant in my profession. They're honest, quirky, hard-working, and lazy-- rascally at times, but then again,  sometimes charming. They appreciate attention, like to be teased, but want to be taken seriously. They're the reason I've been a principal for so long.  

Even so, the job has changed since I first started as principal in 1989. For one, families have undergone significant changes: no longer is there an army of mothers who can volunteer at the school as in years past. Schools must fill in by increasing the size of administrative staffs to compensate. 

I was speaking recently to a relative of mine from a different city,  and she was unhappy with her daughter's principal. The principal “doesn’t know the children” and “doesn’t communicate well.” I asked her how big the school was, and she said about 600 kids. Guessing, I asked her if the "administrative staff" was part of the problem--the "assistant principals, finance director, advancement director, receptionist or office manager.” She looked at me blankly, and said “What do you mean? It’s the principal and her secretary.” I had guessed correctly. “Not possible anymore," I said.  "They could be amazing, but it's too much for two people. That’s the problem.” 

I don’t think people fully appreciate this fact.  A friend of mine, a well-regarded principal of a large elementary school, told me that recently she was helping in the school parking lot at dismissal time and was approached by a mother.  She asked the principal if her daughter seemed to be responding well to the recent change in medication dosages.   Wisely, the principal said "I only see your daughter briefly each day. Send me an email, " she said, "to remind me to check with her teachers who are with her each day."  The principal later admitted to me , smiling, that she had no idea who the mother was, much less the child she was talking about, and looked forward to getting the email to find out!

Parents love that principals are in classrooms, walk the hallways,  and are seen frequently in the school parking lots or playgrounds.  They want the principal to know their child personally! But they also want the principal to have relationships with donors and members of the community,  so as to raise money effectively.  They may grumble if they don’t see the principal at enough athletic events.  This "inside-outside" tug of war is felt by every principal I know. 

Parents, of course, have always had high expectations. But the difference is that since both parents are now working, the team of magnificent mothers who used to volunteer—women who would plan and execute events, cover classes, give sage counsel, help with mailings, know when to intervene and when to stand back— are not able to help us as much anymore, and these functions must be now be absorbed by the school. Too often, we’ve not added to our staffs proportionately, leading to stressed out secretaries, administrators and unhappy parents. There's not enough of us, in many cases, to go around. 

Parents, too, have changed. Perhaps less certain of their relationships with their children, they feel a more urgent need to “defend” their child against a teacher who grades in a challenging way, or who may tell their child a blunt truth. When I first began as principal my  “go to” talk with teenagers for minor transgressions was “Can I expect that we will settle this matter now, between us, or do we need to involve your parents, too?” “No, please don’t involve my parents, “ the teen would plead. “I’ll do better.” But for many teens today, that is no longer a threat. One teen girl brazenly said to me not so long ago: “Please call them. They will take my side.” She was right! I find myself in meetings with parents today that I rarely had twenty years ago. In a previous school, I asked a long time Dean of Students how his job had changed over the years. He was quick to answer: a big portion of his day is now talking with parents, helping them accept or support the school’s discipline for their child, and counseling them how to handle their child at home. 

Another big difference: Schools must be much more intentional about communications, even while navigating the various platforms that parents use.  Would that all used the same social media platforms, but we don’t!  And because there is SO much competition for our attention, it’s hard for schools to “box out under the basket” to grab hold of parents’ attention. 

It’s a sign of the times: we email out a weekly newsletter, keep 2 updated school calendars (for athletics and other events), have 3 active social media sites,  stock full of pictures and events, keep current a beautiful, information-laden web page, and make grades available to both parents and students on line, “24/7.”  But on every survey I’ve ever conducted in the last 15 years, parents inevitably say “The school needs to improve its communications.” 

It was somewhere in the late 1990’s when email became the common means of communicating. I remember it was hailed as a huge time saver, and indeed it was: Instead of hand writing a letter, giving it to my secretary to type, letting me check the typed letter for mistakes, and then making “white out” corrections—a process that could take two people a combined 60 minutes of work—I could rip off an email in 5 minutes and never involve anyone else. 

But we all know what happened next, right? We bury each other with emails, and expect the recipient to respond quickly!  I now spend nearly two hours a day simply responding to 50-100 emails I get (and I never spent that much time writing letters)! 

In fact, I find myself spending much more time behind the desk, which sounds, intuitively, to be a bad thing, but I’m convinced it’s probably wise.  Part of it is email,  but part of it is generating content for social media sites, or school publications, or how we describe ourselves on web pages or school brochures. It’s telling many stories! Language matters, and often, we in Catholic schools don’t spend enough time crafting our words or our written speech to communicate the fantastic things our schools can do in our kids’ lives. And if we don’t fill the spaces with good news—nature does indeed abhor a vacuum; people will fill the silence with gossip and negativity. 

One thing hasn't changed:  In the end, it’s still about relationships! The most effective way to address an unpleasant email is not to send back a witty refutation, but to invite that person to meet with you. It’s always been that way. But in an odd sort of way, these meetings may prove more effective than they’ve ever been before: I’ve found people are TRULY grateful that we’re taking the time to meet with them, given how rare face to face meetings have become. That gives us some momentum for a meeting of the minds, or at least, a detente! 

The Indianapolis Controversy

As a Catholic high school principal, I have read with a great deal of interest the recent happenings in Indianapolis regarding Brebeuf Catholic High School, Cathedral High School and Archbishop Charles Thompson.  Both schools have an employee in a same sex civil marriage. The Archbishop has asked both schools to not renew their contracts. 

Cathedral, run by a private corporation of parents, has complied with the bishop, but with public reluctance, citing the potential loss of their 501 (c) (3) non-profit status and the fact they’d no longer be able celebrate the sacraments because of their dependence on archdiocesan priests.  Brebeuf, a Jesuit high school,  has decided to renew the contract of its employee against the Archbishop's wishes, citing their autonomy as a religious order to govern their own schools. 

Because of this refusal,  Archbishop Thompson has formally declared that Brebeuf is no longer a “Catholic” high school.

When I read about the story, I had two overarching questions:

Does the Archbishop have the  authority to tell these schools to non-renew contracts, given that both are “private” Catholic schools, not owned by the archdiocese? 

There are two canon laws that directly address this question:

Regarding the bishop’s general authority over Catholic schools, canon law 803 says:

§2 “Formation and education in a catholic school must be based on the principles of catholic doctrine, and the teachers must be outstanding in true doctrine and uprightness of life.

§3  “No school, even if it is in fact catholic, may bear the title 'catholic school' except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority. “ 

Regarding schools run specifically by religious orders, canon 806 says: 

§1 “The diocesan Bishop has the right to watch over and inspect the catholic schools situated in his territory, even those established or directed by members of religious institutes. He has also the right to issue directives concerning the general regulation of catholic schools; these directives apply also to schools conducted by members of a religious institute, although they retain their autonomy in the internal management of their schools.”

Given Canon 803, the Archbishop has clear jurisdiction in the case of Cathedral High School. Because Cathedral is not associated with a religious order—run instead by a Board of Trustees— there is not a Catholic founding to “stand” on, absent the bishop’s consent. Canon 803 says the bishop has full authority to insist teachers in a Catholic schools must be “outstanding in true doctrine and uprightness of life.”  I understand there are many people of good will who dispute the idea that those involved in monogamous homosexual relationships are not living an “upright” life. But their argument, then, is not so much with the Archbishop as it is Catholic doctrine, which is clear on the issue. 

Regarding Brebeuf, it’s a little murkier, because the school is owned by and operated by a religious order.  The Jesuits, through their midwest provincial, V. Rev. Brian G. Paulson, state their position directly,  implicitly referencing canon law: 

“I recognize this request by Archbishop Charles Thompson to be his prudential judgment of the application of canon law recognizing his responsibility for oversight of faith and morals as well as Catholic education in his archdiocese.”

In other words, Paulson recognizes canon 803 and the first half of 806, giving the bishop the authority to watch over, inspect and issue general directives concerning religious schools within his diocese, especially on matters of faith and morals.  However, Paulson relies on the second half of the 806, concerning a religious order’s “right to attain autonomy in the internal management of their schools,” as the basis for not complying: 

“Our disagreement is over what we believe is the proper governance autonomy regarding employment decisions which should be afforded a school sponsored by a religious order.” 

Paulson points out that the teacher in question is not a religion teacher, and that such an intervention is historically unprecedented among the 84 Jesuit schools serving in North America. 

How should these two phrases from 806 be interpreted, then, given an apparent tension between the bishop’s right to "issue directives” and the religious order’s “autonomy in the internal management of their schools?”

Archbishop Thompson is careful in his words: 

“Every archdiocesan Catholic school and private Catholic school has been instructed to clearly state in its contracts and ministerial job descriptions that all ministers must convey and be supportive of all teachings of the Catholic Church.” 

In other words, following 806, the archbishop has given this “directive concerning the general regulation of Catholic schools” to all schools—not just Brebeuf—that employees are “ministers” of the Church, and therefore must follow Church teaching within his diocese.  Typically, this language is included within the contracts, or as part of a “lifestyle policy” employees must sign. But the Jesuits deny this as a licit directive and have not required it for its employees. 

My question is, given that the Jesuits acknowledge that the Archbishop has “responsibility for the oversight of faith and morals,” what WOULD the Jesuits consider a LICIT directive from the archbishop? This isn't the case of the Archbishop telling Brebeuf what its bell schedule should be, what athletic teams it should sponsor, how it should handle student discipline, or what it should pay its teachers. Rather, it’s a directive concerning the conduct of its teachers regarding faith and morals, over which canon 803 gives the archbishop explicit authority.  Furthermore, because the lifestyle policy is a general directive applying to all schools, I believe it’s inaccurate to suggest that the Archbishop is trying to interfere in the specific, day to day, internal management of Brebeuf. 

My conclusion : I believe canon law gives the Archbishop authority to do what he did in both schools.

Second, should the Archbishop have exercised this authority, at this moment in time?  

This is obviously a different question—not one of authority, but of prudential judgment. I also believe the answer is less clear. 

Let me outline three arguments I’ve heard put forward that says the archbishop should not have acted as he did: 

First, it’s hard to imagine a worse time for the Church to act in a strong, authoritative way.  Opinion of ecclesial authority is at a very low point, even among faithful Catholics, given the widespread scandal of priestly sexual abuse, and perhaps even worse, the instinct of too many bishops to cover up the scandal for reasons of institutional self-interest. Many people have left the Church because of this scandal, while many hold on, though their allegiance is more fragile. In such an environment, the argument goes, exercising strong authority simply deepens disdain for the faith and hastens those inclined to leave. 

Second, there is no brighter line of difference between Church teaching and culture than the issue of homosexuality. Our culture sees sexual preference as a civil right, and those who argue otherwise are bigots. The Church teaches that homosexuality is an “intrinsic disorder” from natural law and that the practice of homosexuality is gravely sinful.  Taking such a strong, controversial stand on this particular issue, in light of the Church’s public failure to live as it teaches, strikes many as highly hypocritical.

Third, this issue is already being used against Catholic schools in the very important public debate over “school choice” or “voucher” initiatives that have been gaining momentum in state legislatures across the country. Anti-voucher folks are saying that Catholic schools are clearly discriminatory in their employment policies, and arguing that “public monies” should not be used to support discriminatory institutions. I read two  opinion pieces earlier this week that referenced the Indianapolis situation and made that exact argument. 

There are hundreds of Catholic schools, most of them serving the poor, whose future hangs in the balance over the next 3-5 years, dependent on these public monies for their survival. Making the public argument easier for our opponents, some might say, is a kind of self-inflicted wound. 

On the other hand:

Whereas strong authority may have a corrosive effect in the public opinion of the faith when exercised, weak authority and lack of clarity have a similarly corrosive  and arguably longer lasting effect over time. For 22 months, the Archbishop and these two schools have been in a conversation behind the scenes. The fact the employees remained employed as the discussions played out indicates the archbishop was acting temperately, trying to give the schools “space” to handle the issue in a private matter.  I am guessing the precipitating event which caused the issue to become “public” in June is that both employees were offered new contracts for the 2019-2020 school year, in defiance of the archbishop.

Getting married is a public act.  Because the primary mission of Catholic schools is to raise children in the faith, as articulated by the Church’s doctrine and moral teachings, the fact both schools have employees living in open defiance of Church teaching is deeply problematic, creating scandal. High school religion teachers will attest that teenagers are more swayed by the example of their teacher’s lives than by what teach, and teens are quick to call out “hypocrisy” when there’s contradiction.  Can Brebeuf credibly teach students the Church’s doctrine on marriage and sexuality when members of its own staff live in defiance of those teachings? 

In trying to reconcile the Church's moral teachings with their actions, Rev. Paulson says:

Consistent with long tradition in our church, Brebeuf Jesuit, with my support as provincial, respects the primacy of an informed conscience of members of its community when making moral decisions. We recognize that at times some people who are associated with our mission make personal moral decisions at variance with Church doctrine; we do our best to help them grow in holiness, all of us being loved sinners who desire to follow Jesus.

Yes, the Church teaches the primacy of conscience, but that’s beside the point here. This issue is not a matter of someone struggling with a Church teaching as a private individual. It’s whether one can live publicly in opposition to Church teaching, while working for an institution whose primary mission is to teach the faith to young people.  These are quite different things. 

Even so, when I first heard what the Archbishop had done, my instinctive reaction was negative.  Surely, I thought, he could have done something less dramatic, something that would be less confrontational, in light of the present state of our Church? But as I began to think about it, what would that have been? I mean this quite sincerely: If you disagree with what the Archbishop did, what would you have advised him to do instead? 

I do worry about the fallout from the Archbishop’s action. But it is probably good to remind ourselves that the Church is not a political party, trying to create a platform with positions that will earn it the most votes. In fact, the Church makes a more radical claim: that when it comes to morality, it isn’t “creating” positions at all, but simply articulating what “is” as God designed it. Though we must always speak this Truth with charity--and ask God’s forgiveness when we or others fail to live by it--we do not have the “authority” to redefine or ignore this Truth, even if deeply unpopular. 

—

In conclusion, I confess a deep sadness about the whole controversy, especially regarding its effect on young people. Do a quick youtube.com  search and listen to interviews of students at Brebeuf, who speak proudly of their school taking a “stand” against the Archbishop and the Church. This is, of course, the opposite effect a Catholic school should be having on its young people! Even in the case of Cathedral, which acquiesced to the archbishop’s directives, it presented itself as a victim of a power play, stating it could not afford to lose its tax exempt standing, nor access to the sacraments—not, notably, because it agreed with the bishop or Church teaching.  So if I were a student at Cathedral, I'd likely feel the same way about the Archbishop as if I were a student from Brebeuf. And who knows how many other teenagers around the Indianapolis archdiocese, and even around the nation, have been provoked to feel similarly. 

My prayer is the schools and the archdiocese will find a way to reconcile and keep from a permanent divorce. But as our culture runs quickly away from what was once a “Judeo-Christian” consensus, my guess is this kind of controversy will become more common, to the harm of many. 

'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!