Let's Quit Saying Parents are "Sacrificing" to Send Their Kids to Our Schools!

Language matters, and over time, it shapes our thinking. That’s why I advocate that we ditch using “sacrifice” to describe what parents do when they send their children to Catholic schools. “Sacrifice,” in simplest terms, means “to sell at a loss” or to “give up something.” If we tell parents they are “sacrificing” to send their children to us, we are telling them, literally, that they are doing charitable work to send us their kids, when in fact, they are doing exactly the opposite: they are INVESTING in our schools for something of great value for their children. 

Do we praise parents for their “sacrifice” in purchasing a nice home for their families? Do we extol parents for “sacrificing” to buy their kids a car? Do we thank families for “sacrificing” to take their families on vacation? Of course not. These are value propositions. We judge homes, cars and vacations as worthy of our money.

By using the language of “sacrifice” we unwittingly devalue our schools, projecting ourselves as weak and puny, beggars for our parent's charity. Here, instead, is our value proposition:

Catholic schools provide a first-tier education for their children, within the context of a joyful, practicing community of faith.  

 

Catholic schools help students discern God’s will for their lives, which leads to their life-long happiness.

Catholic schools help kids get to heaven!

The truth is, paying to send their children to our schools is the best investment a parent can ever make! 

Let’s get our swagger back! 

Difficult Meetings with Parents, part II

(In my previous post, I suggested a process when we respond to parents if they contact us concerning grievances, or concerns about how a particular teacher has handled their child. In this post, I take up the situation when we as principals must contact parents to meet about a serious disciplinary incident, including the possibility of expulsion. )

What if WE must be the initiators of really bad news with parents? 

FIRST, long before involving the parents, we must establish the facts. I can’t emphasize how important this is, to keep the future meeting with parents from becoming an “us vs. them” match or a “he said —she said.”  If we walk into a meeting with a disputed set of facts, the meeting will go poorly. I guarantee it. 

If we receive information from another source, we should get as many facts as possible from that source. If that source is a secondary one, we should press that person for as many details as we can, then get to the primary source. When did this happen? Where? How many kids were there? Were there any adults around? Can they confirm?  Did a faculty member see something? Has it been discussed on social media? What are other kids saying? If it’s marijuana, where did her or she get it? From another student? Off-campus? How much did they obtain? We should press for every detail. 

We should also consider if it's a school matter, or if it's a matter properly handled by parents. If it's more a parent matter, then we can go lighter on the "hard press" for truth. I don't wash my hands of it, as I want to pass on to parents what I know for the sake of their child, but if I am leaving it in their hands, then I don't need to reconcile differences or inconsistencies--rather, my role is to point those out and then leave it with them. I believe it's our responsibility to alert parents of any matter involving the health and safety of their child. But if it's not a school matter--if it happened off campus and the school's name is not involved--we alert the parents and leave it for them to handle, offering our support to them if they ask for it. 

SECOND, assuming it's a school matter, I recommend we meet with the child, alone. We should tell him or her that “we’ve received some concerning information that we must act on, but before we do so, we need to treat them like adults, let them know what's going on,  and give them the opportunity to tell us the truth.”  If it’s not a question of expulsion, we should promise him or her that if he or she is honest, our discipline will be more lenient, though we’ll have to do something (and we must be true to our word!). In this meeting, before we begin to ask questions, we should tell assure him or her that we will not ask them for information about who else was involved,  but that we will ask them to be truthful about themselves. Teenagers appreciate not being forced to “rat out” their friends. And truth is, we should be able to figure out other folks involved without asking them to do so. The one exception: If the issue is drugs, I will insist the child tell me who the dealer is. That’s a question of the health and safety of the student body.  

If the child is evasive, we’ll need to be clever—perhaps even detective-like. We should drip out a single fact and ask the student to explain, never letting him or her know how many more facts we have or don't have.  In the case of a group incident, we can’t give the culprits a chance to “get their stories straight.” The thing about lying is it takes a lot of effort to keep stories consistent, and the orchestrator of the lie must predict the questions we might ask. So I ask unpredictable questions!  Two kids once came late to  school, claiming they had “gone to Hardees for breakfast together, but their car broke down. “ I suspected they were simply skipping morning classes. “What did each of you have for breakfast at Hardees?”  "How much did it cost?" "Who ate more?" I asked them a lot of questions like that, separately. They claimed they didn’t remember. “Of course you do—if you really just ate there.” I replied. So they guessed, but their partner in crime guessed differently. Turned out the “Hardees” cover wasn’t sustainable.

Once we’re begun an investigation, we must keep all parties separate, with no phone text access. 

The aim is to get the kid to admit to something, even if he or  deliberately downplays the extent his involvement. He only smoked one joint. She had just one beer. Once the foot is in the door, we can press for more.  If we can’t establish a reliable set of facts, then we should stop and pursue more leads. Otherwise, the most we are going to be say to the parent is that we have a  “troubling rumor that we cannot confirm, but that we cannot keep from you as parents.”  

THIRD, once the child admits his or her role, we should have the child call the parent over their cell phone while in our office,  to explain what he or she has done (parents almost always answer their kid’s cell call).  Let the parent interrogate the child to get the facts, or perhaps vent. We want to make sure the kid has told the parent everything. THEN, we get on the phone to schedule the meeting. 

FOURTH, for the meeting,  I suggest we meet only with the parents at first. The purpose is to seek out a kind of common ground so that when we bring the kid into the meeting, the school and parent can speak in “one voice.”  I find that when the student is there from the beginning, a parent sees himself or herself as the child’s “advocate” against the school. I am trying to establish the opposite relationship—that the parents and school are allied together and agree the child’s behavior is unacceptable. 

I usually ask the parent to repeat what the child told him or her about the incident, and then add any missing details thereafter.  It's important we're talking about the same thing! I ask him or her to tell me what the conversation was between the two of them at home about the incident.  I am trying to do several things with these questions: First, to empower the parent as an important person in this discussion. Second, I want to measure the level of “buy-in” the parent has with the school as to the seriousness of the event. Because I want us to speak in one voice, if I feel the parent is not quite with me, I may be willing to (privately) modify my final judgment—what I might have reasoned was a three day suspension, for example, I might modify to a two day if I think that can bring along the parent to the side of the school. I know many of my peers disagree with me on this, but I believe it’s crucial to try and establish a common ground. Otherwise, as soon as they get to the car, out of earshot, the parent will say (best case) “Yeah, they really went after you. but we’ll have to live with it.” Worst case? Well, let’s just say whatever chance this incident had to reset the trajectory of this kid’s life is zero.

FIFTH, particularly in really serious cases—long suspensions or expulsions—we should tell the parent what we’re “leaning toward, but haven’t made a final decision about, as we understand how important this is for your child, and I want some time to think and pray about it. “ I also invite the parent to react to where I am “leaning.” The fact that my decision isn’t “final” gives the parent a chance to absorb the information and include his perspective in my considerations. And most parents appreciate the fact we’re willing to think more and pray about it!

SIXTH, we should invite the student into the meeting.  I usually reposition myself to sit next to the parent, facing the kid, so that the symbolism suggests we are both addressing the kid as one voice. If it's a possible expulsion, I tell them what I am considering,  but that I am going to take a day to think and pray about it. And this isn’t merely “technique!”—I really do pray about it after we meet, giving me a chance to reflect on the meeting and the incident through that lens. It also gives us a chance to end the meeting more cordially! I ask the child if there is anything he or she wishes to say at that moment, giving him the chance to make a last minute appeal.  We stand up, shake hands and I promise to contact the parent the next day, or Monday if the meeting is Friday. 

SEVENTH, if it’s going to be an expulsion, I must talk through the matter with our superintendent, per policy. I find this step to be helpful. We care about kids, and expulsions are serious and difficult for us, a heavy weight to carry. I  appreciate being able to share that weight with someone else.

EIGHTH, I email the parent the final decision. I don’t “justify” it in writing; the written justification will sound too trite to bring any consolation, and could be used against us. We have already reviewed the issues face to face. We’ve given both the parent and the child a chance to make their argument, and we’ve all had time to reflect and pray. I will not engage in an email argument post hoc. Time to move on.  In the event of an expulsion, I sometimes give the parent the opportunity to withdraw the child for “personal” or “family” reasons so that “expulsion” is not on the child’s permanent record. This softens the sting some.They must write me a letter to this effect, which also has the effect of minimizing the chance of legal action. I would not make this offer, however, if I believe the child could be a threat to the health and safety of students in other schools.  

——————-

Why do all this?

It's tempting to look away, especially if the incident in question occurs outside the school "walls." But our mission is the moral and spiritual formation of our students, first and foremost, and these are important moments where if parents and school are in agreement,  we can affect really positive change in our kids' lives.  Even if the matter is purely a parent matter, if we come across information they should know, I think it's our responsibility is to give them the best information we can. 

There are times,  alas, when we simply can’t get to a place where the school and the parents agree. In these circumstances.  I am apt to say: “My wife and I raised four children, and we love them dearly. But there were times when WE didn’t agree about the best way to discipline them. But we never doubted that each of us wasn’t trying to do what’s best for them.  So it is, some times, between schools and parents. We both want what’s best for this child, but disagree, in this case, how best to handle the situation. In such cases, it's a question of whose decision it is, and supporting each other in our roles.  Despite our disagreement, I hope you know I am trying to do what is best for your child from the perspective of my role as principal, just as I am sure you're acting for your child's best interest as parent. “

Difficult Meetings With Parents, part I

Hiring a Coach: Five Questions

So here's an issue we often face as principals: We need to hire a coach. We also need him to teach in an academic discipline, such as Math, Science or English. Of course, we need him to be competitive, and to get the most out of our boys. And we need him to be fair, generous and forgiving of parents, who often lose perspective when their kids are involved. 

But there needs to be more scrutiny that that, right? I think so. Coaches have arguably the MOST influence in the school in shaping students’ attitudes about themselves, their school and their team-mates. If they’re good, they’ll be remembered with fondness twenty, thirty and forty years later, whereas the memory of even their best classroom teachers will fade into abstraction. 

If we want to create a Christian, optimistic culture in our schools, we better spend a lot of time hiring the right coaches.  I have five key things I want to find out through the interview and vetting process.

How do they measure success?

Many coaches judge success on the basis of wins and losses. In resumes, their overall coaching record is prominently displayed, or they are quick to point to the increasing # of wins they have each year in the same program. Look, I’m competitive! I like to win as much as the next person. But if we measure a boys’ basketball coach purely by wins vs. losses, we miss the far more important statistic: are his players better young men, having played for him? Do they have a better sense of self? Do they exhibit greater maturity? Have they grown in their faith? In the long run, these are the only things that matter. 

My son, who played football all throughout his life and is now 30, says he doesn’t remember the games or the scores. He remembers the bus rides, the bonding, the laughter in the locker room, the funny thing that a coach or player said. Will our student athletes look back with fondness and pride at being a teammate because of the culture this coach will create? 

When I was a younger man, I coached freshman basketball. One year, we were 16-0. I had a very athletic group of kids, and they were simply better than everyone else. The very next year, with a different group of kids, we were 0-16.  There wasn’t an athlete on that team! But I was much more “successful” with the winless team. Despite getting beat rather handily in many games, they dove for loose balls. They killed themselves to get back on defense. They ran suicides hard after practice. They worked on their foul shooting. They enjoyed each other’s company, without pretense.  On the flip side, my undefeated team realized half way through the season they were better than their opponents, and since we played each team twice, they quit working hard. Practices deteriorated. Attitudes worsened. I couldn’t wait for the season to end. I’d rate myself as a much more effective coach the season we were winless. 

We were blessed to hire Philip Rivers as our head football coach. Though he came to us after a long and exceptional career as QB in the NFL. he understands that high school coaching, to use his words,, “is much more important than football.” Where did he learn that? Not from the NFL, where the mantra is "Winning is everything!" It was his father Steve, who coached Philip in high school and is now in the Alabama High School Hall of Fame, despite never winning a state championship. “All of my trophies are in my desk drawers,” quips Steve, “in the letters I get from former players, who are now fathers, husbands, providers for their family, writing to tell me how grateful they are, how playing high school ball was so formative to their character.”

Exactly the point.

Second, how do they treat the kids? 

It isn’t about the coach!  Some guys, with egos the size of the Grand Canyon, forget this basic fact! Every action of a true coach is aimed at helping a kid grow up and helping the team win, so that they may celebrate together. They care more about kids as kids, and not just as players. 

I have no problem with coaching “hard.” I don’t agree with those who say a coach should never yell at a player—in cases where a kid is lazy, or selfish, or unsupportive of team-mates, it may well be appropriate to get his attention. But coaches inclined to coach hard must be even more magnanimous in their praise, looking for opportunities to build their kids up and help them stretch to become better people. 

I once hired such a fellow to coach middle school football. In his first game with us, one of his players got called for “unnecessary roughness” and a 15 yard penalty.  The coach called him to the sidelines, leaned down eye to eye, held his face-mask, and proceeded to give him a tough tongue-lashing, then walked away.  One of the mothers in the stands came up to me, upset. “I don’t think an adult should talk to our kids this way.”  My son had played for this coach, and I suspected what would happen next, so I said,  “Keep watching.” After a few moments of letting the kid “stew” in it, the coach walked back to the player, knelt down, put his arm around him, and had a silent conversation. You could see the boy nodding his head. Then, with a slap on the backside, the coach sent the boy back in the game. When the boy made a tackle a few players later, his coach was the first to high five him as he came to the sidelines. 

Third, are they good classroom teachers?

Because most coaches’ real passion is the sport they coach, most coaches aren’t good classroom teachers. If that sounds like a harsh generalization, so be it—that’s my experience in three decades of leading schools.  For too many, the teaching assignment  is a necessary “means to the end.”  There are exceptions to this generalization—pay them generously!  Do the coaches really see themselves as classroom teachers? It isn’t hard to tell. I once chided our head coach/math teacher because his voice mail said: “Hello, you’ve reached ___, the head football coach.” I asked him, to make the point,“What did he do the majority of the day with us?” “I teach Math,” he said, confused. “So you’re the math teacher AND the football coach here?” I said. “Just checking. You wouldn’t know it from your voice mail greeting.” 

Good teaching takes work. It takes good prep for classes, and frequent and timely feedback to students and their parents. When they come home from practice after a full day, they have every right to be tired. Yet there’s still work to do. They must be ready to go for tomorrow’s full slate of classes, and they must keep up with their grading. There’s no cutting corners. 

For this reason, where I can, I try to give head coaches one extra planning period during their season. I despise the notion that head coaches have no other classroom duties! I am not hiring monarchs! But, if I find a person I really want to hire for the sport but don’t believe he or she will be a good  teacher in an academic discipline, I will make them P.E. teachers. In one school I led,  I doubled the size of our P.E. program, prompting a department chair to complain: “He’s doubled the size of PE  but hasn’t added any academic teachers. He must care more about sports  than academics.” Actually, it’s the opposite. I refuse to prioritize the needs of our athletic program by filling important teaching positions with coaches who are only interested in their sport. 

I strongly disagree with scheduling coaches to teach the “lower” academic tracks, knowing that these students and their parents are less likely to complain about sub-par teaching. This is a pernicious practice,  but it is common. If anything, these students need our BEST, most committed, teachers! 

Fourth, how hard do they work?

I’ve learned you can’t “train” adults to have work ethic. If they cut corners, if they take days off, if they aren’t inclined to be looking at new ways to run the offense, or a new way to press, then it’s not likely they’re going to be successful as a coach. Competitiveness—the desire to get better and beat the other guy—is a great trait. It’s at the heart of sport. And usually, it drives people to work hard. 

I have little patience for coaches who imagine they can run the same offenses, year after year, regardless of their personnel. That simply smacks of laziness, just like the teacher who never rethinks or re-works his or her courses. When I talk to a prospect's references, I want to know their opinion of his or her work ethic, and I ask for specific examples as evidence.

Fifth, do they really believe in the mission of the school?

... or do they try to work around it?  I once hired a fella—a good guy—but he never really understood or bought into the academic mission of the school. He was raised in a different school system, and whether a student made a C, B or A was really inconsequential to him as long as he maintained eligibility. But as a result, he was consistently annoyed with teachers who gave make up tests after school, or offered to give students extra help after school. So his not so subtle message to his players: “You better not ever put yourself in the position where you must stay after school for extra help. If you come late, you’ll pay for it.” So his players—even those who truly needed the extra attention of a teacher—never dared to seek it out. Or they deliberately created an easy schedule so they’d never be challenged, so as to avoid the need for extra help. This coach didn’t last long—he was a clear misfit in our school. 

The next guy we hired saw the mission of the school as an asset. He believed that a school which demanded discipline and hard work helped shape kids with admirable work habits that transferred  into the weight room and onto the field.  Instead of swimming against the current by resisting the school’s mission, he swam with it, giving his program momentum and energy.  He’s still there, ten years later, successful and well respected.

I am sympathetic to the fact that coaches need their players at practice on time. For this reason, we start practices at 4 p.m., even though school lets out at 3:10, so as to avoid having athletes make “either-or” choices between tutoring and beginning practice on time. But I expect a lot of give and take between coaches and teachers for the sake of their kids—they need to talk with each other and not make the student the “rope” in the tug of war between them. 

Are they people of faith? The players will know instantly by their comportment, what they emphasize, their language and what they allow others to say, the kind of culture they create.  Given the enormous influence coaches have over their players, authenticity of faith is a non-negotiable. 

Must they be Catholic? I believe the “critical mass” of the faculty must be Catholic to form a Catholic culture in the school. So yes, I love to hire Catholic coaches, but there is room to hire good Christian men and women outside the faith whom we believe are excellent teachers or coaches. But I’ll be direct: in the life and culture of southern high schools, the head football coach has such an out-sized influence (remember, I’ve worked in Alabama, Tennessee and Texas), I look for dynamic, practicing Catholics. And where other sports are pre-eminent in the life of other schools, I would look for Catholics heading those sports, too. The momentum and energy such a coach brings to our school’s mission and culture are inestimable. 

Ten Assumptions about Catholic Schools to Re-think Post Covid, part II

(This is a continuation of the article from last week, discussing the need to rethink some of our assumptions about schools post-Covid). 

Assumption #6: A full-time admissions/advancement person is a luxury we cannot afford. 

An interested parent calls the school to inquire about enrolling. To whom do we transfer that call? Does the secretary, with two kids and a parent waiting at the counter, answer questions herself? Does she send it to the principal, who’s scrambling to cover for a teacher who called in sick or a disciplinary situation in 7th grade? Do we kick it over to voicemail?  Parents often judge us on first impressions. How do we handle these first inquiries? Who shows a parent around when he or she just ‘pops in’ to see us? 

We tend to regard admissions/advancement persons as an extravagance that only high schools can afford. Yet on our staff we have  teaching aides, music and P.E. teachers and guidance counselors. It’s good to have those positions, but if it’s an either-or, it’s a slam dunk choice:  full time admissions/advancement persons work on the two things our schools need most to operate: student enrollment and philanthropy. A good hire will pay for his or her position many times over through the years. 

Assumption #7: The principal must be the “trigger” for everything. 

I know principals who believe it’s their responsibility to open the school in the morning and lock it up at night, who must be at every sporting event, who must greet parents in pickup and drop-off lines, be present in the classrooms and hallways throughout the day, act as the school’s chief disciplinarian, answer phone calls and emails from parents almost immediately, hire, supervise and hire teachers, and also engage as the school’s chief fund-raiser and communicator—just to name some of their  responsibilities! 

This “superman” or “superwoman” model of principal is unsustainable—something’s gotta give, and it’s usually the principal’s mental and physical health first, and various elements of the school next. In contrast, I once listened to podcast featuring the CEO of Southwest Airlines, whose advice to leaders was “Do the things only you can do as the leader, and delegate everything else.” When I first heard that I thought, “Yes, it would be nice to have the staff that Southwest Airlines does!” But if the principal sets up recurring processes, the more automatic the better, such that subordinates can administer these processes, he or she has more time to focus on a more specific set of responsibilities. A teacher who likes coming to school very early to get work done can open the school. A coach with a late practice can lock it down. Teachers can rotate the meet and greet in the parking lot each day.  If we can’t afford an assistant principal to handle routine discipline, we can create “team leaders” at the K-2, 3-5, 6-8 level and stipend them a little bit, and ask them to be the “first responder” to situations of discipline at their level, leaving principals the less frequent task of dealing with the most serious issues where suspensions and expulsions are at question.

What are those things that “only principals can do?”: I think there are five broad areas that should occupy most of our time: 

• Architect and caretaker of the school’s culture
• Chief communicator/story-teller
• Hiring, supervision and removing teachers and staff
• Creation (with Board) and oversight of the school budget
• Philanthropic outreach, especially with major donors

If we delegate well, we will have time for these things. But we're not very good at delegating! 

Assumption #8:  Fund-raising = Philanthropy

No. Fund-raising activities are the magazine sales, bake sales, car washes, aimed at a specific purpose or club. Philanthropy refers to donations given to the school to support the school’s mission, usually for a broad purpose like financial aid. Whereas in fund-raising a customer buys something, in philanthropy, the donor becomes a kind of investor in our mission--a partner, almost. A philanthropist may give to the annual fund, or even better, make a gift in his or her will. As a general observation,  we spend too much time in Catholic schools on fund-raising and not enough on philanthropy. No doubt we need fund-raisers, but the principal’s time is too precious to be planning or executing $200 OR $300 fund-raisers. Instead, he or she should aim at building a culture of philanthropy. I explain my thoughts on this here. 

Assumption #9: The hiring process we’ve been using for years to hire faculty and principals is still the most effective way to do so. 

The traditional way of hiring is essentially this: We post a functional job description with general requirements, invite people to apply by sending in all the paperwork (including resume, cover letter, 2-3 letters of reference, consent form for background search, verification of experience form, consent to a diocesan “life-style” form, and verification of finger printing)—all before we decide to interview them.  

The presumption of this process is that the candidate REALLY wants a job with us! Why else would he or she spend hours filling out the paperwork, even if he or she is unsure we are interested? But I think this presumption is wrong, especially with a really talented candidate. Such a candidate has “options,” and if we bury him/her in paperwork on the front end, he or she may choose not to apply, and we’d never even know it. We are competing for that person against other schools! I advocate, as a first step, that we should spend some time crafting an optimistic, enthusiastic presentation of what we expect of all teachers on an "employment link" on our web page (see ours here), and then underneath that, the specifics of the particular job that's open. Ask only for a resume and cover letter at first.  Then, if we like what we see, we can invite the candidate for an interview. And if he or she is a finalist, then we can ask them to complete the necessary paperwork.  I outline the steps of advertising for a job, interviewing the candidate and closing the deal in three short blog articles, here, here and here. 

Assumption #10: Catholic schools should accept every student, as a function of our mission. 

Though we are not a private school with exclusive admissions, I believe it’s a mistake to believe that we are the opposite and should take everyone! Can a student thrive in our environment? If not, we must be bold enough, and I’d argue kind enough, to say so. Far worse to take him, let him develop friendships in our schools, and then rip him away from his “home” with us by having him flunk out.  When evaluating an applicant with a very weak academic background, I believe we should ask three important questions: First, are the parents going to be “value-adds” or “value-negatives?” I have worked with heroic parents who sit down with their child every night for homework and through sheer force of will, persistence and grace, helped their child work his way through school, never blaming the teacher, never regarding the school as the enemy. And I have seen only slightly impaired students with parents who understand themselves as advocates for their child against the school and teachers, whose children never make it. In the admissions interview with the weak candidate, I ask our admissions director to do her best to discern whether the parents will be +/- in the equation. If negative, it’s a simple “We’re sorry. We don’t believe we can meet your child’s needs”. Second, are the applicant and family practicing Catholics? If so, we will be more generous in our assessment, as our primary mission is to serve the parish families. Third, will the child require special services? If so, do we offer that in our school, or can we afford to create that? Special services are costly, and if creating a program drives the tuition higher than our average family can afford, we probably cannot serve that child. It breaks our heart, but we are being truth-tellers, even if we don’t like the truth we are telling. 

-----

No doubt, it’s hard to break away from our presuppositions. Most of us who lead Catholic schools were successful in them as children, and we have a tendency to default to the way we were raised and replicate the schools we know. But just as Covid has forced us to do things differently—and we have succeeded in doing so in a way that is truly praiseworthy!—so must we be willing to rethink, re-energize and re-create our schools with new ways of operating.  

May God give us the wisdom and fortitude to do so.

Ten Assumptions about Catholic Schools to Re-Think, Post-Covid, part I

We closed over 200 Catholic schools since the beginning of the pandemic. No doubt Covid played a large role,  the proverbial “nail in the coffin.” But as has been noted elsewhere,  for many of our schools, Covid was the accelerant to closing, but not the primary cause. Most were fragile long prior to Covid for reasons that are familiar to all of us. We’ve been watching this for 50 years--Covid merely sped up the time table. 

For the schools that remain, post-Covid, there will be a huge temptation to breathe a sigh of relief and then default back to how we operated pre-Covid. In fact, our parents, students and teachers will want that initially—to return to the familiar, thank God! But the issues that led to a 50-year decline are still with us, and if we merely return to our past without re-thinking our assumptions, we risk becoming another casualty further down the road. 

So what are those assumptions? As principal of three Catholic high schools, president of a K-12 school and a consultant for schools in several dioceses, I find these assumptions to be remarkably consistent, with rare exceptions.  Let me list ten of them, with a brief explanation why I believe it would profit us to rethink them. 

Assumption #1: A “diocesan school,” as part of the same “system," should require the same curriculum, yearly calendar, teacher credentials, professional development, etc. 

But this kind of “template” thinking hurts our most vulnerable schools. If the struggling mid-town or urban school is trying to replicate what the more established, wealthier school in the suburbs is doing, most parents will drive the extra 15, 20 or 30 minutes to take their kids to the wealthier school, which has more resources, and can do the “diocesan program” more effectively.  Let’s give our urban and mid-town schools a fighting chance, by allowing them to be unique: How about a Montessori diocesan school? A dual language school? A classical school? Year-round? 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for working families? 

Assumption #2:  Our tuitions must remain low for the sake of our most vulnerable families. 

The problem is, in a free-market economy, consumers equate price with quality. By positioning ourselves as the “K-Mart” of educational options, we undercut our reputation.  Would we feel more secure with our choice of a heart surgeon if hours before surgery we found out his rates were just 25%  of what the area heart surgeons typically charged?  Wouldn't we worry about what’s wrong with him, that he can’t charge what his peers charge? So I believe we should aim our tuitions at the middle of the market, and increase financial aid aggressively to protect our more vulnerable families. We can use the extra money, collected from families who can afford full freight, to help families who cannot, and then offer something of value (“a scholarship”) that entices families to join us. 

Assumption #3: We don’t have enough money to be truly generous with financial aid. 

If we have empty seats in our school, a generous financial aid program gives us revenue we otherwise wouldn’t have. The reason is simple: Better to get 1/3, 1/2 or 3/4 of tuition for an empty seat than to have the seat remain empty the whole year. In other words, a generous financial aid program gets us more tuition. I think most of us understand this but we’re reluctant to embrace this whole hog. It’s the same reason that airlines and hotels discount tickets for certain flights or certain days of the week. 

I recommend a robust financial aid program tied to an objective assessment of need. Companies like FACTS can assess need for us.  We use a small group called “Covenant Tuition Services” that asks families to answer a series of financial questions and to attach a copy of their most recent 1040 tax form. The company sends us their estimate of need, we decide how much to give them (usually not the whole amount they qualify for), then send the family a congratulatory letter telling them how much we are giving them. And if it’s not enough, I tell them to write us back and ask for more, with a simple explanation as to their additional need. 

Assumption #4: We can’t afford to offer our teachers salaries that match market rates.

We are fond of saying our Catholic school teachers “work for mission, not money."  That’s undoubtedly true, but underpaying teachers is not a long term strategy for excellence. Our teachers are heads of households, and if the competition is paying 10K more each year, there are bills to pay and mouths to feed. I have several suggestions for improving our teachers’ bottom line that don’t break our school budgets, including joint housing agreements, merit raises and signing bonuses- all explained here. But we should also consider  “banding” our salary scales: for each number on our scale, consider +/- 2,500, for example, which would allow us to pay some teachers a bit more and others a bit less, depending on their value to the school and what the market demands. And we should also look at our pay scales from a macro-perspective: Many of our schools have a very narrow salary range between beginning teachers and 20 year+ teachers. We’d do better if we widened that range, paying beginning teachers (typically young college graduates) less, and veteran teachers more, which would allow for larger “step increases” over the course of their careers. I have shown here, that in a typical Catholic school, the wider range of pay scales often costs a school less. Some schools have done away with pay scales all together, as was the case in my previous school.

Assumption #5:  Our principals should receive a modest salary. 

Let me make an over-generalization: Particularly in our elementary schools, our principals are paid 20K, 30K or 40K less than they should be. We need to rethink that. The principal is the single greatest variable for the effectiveness, growth and reputation of the school—an ineffective principal could cause 5-10 families to leave in a given year, and a good principal could cause 5-10 new families to join up—a delta of 10-20 total students in one year (which would be roughly 40K to 80K total tuition if tuition were 4K). We act as if 30K is a king’s ransom, but by withholding it, we narrow the pool of principal candidates to the local market, often forcing us to elevate a teacher to the principalship, as we are unable to entice candidates from outside the region to reasonably consider moving in for the job. My rule of thumb would be what ever the average teacher salary of the school (let’s call that “X”), the principal should make a minimum of “2X.” See my more detailed argument for this here.     

We will look at the next five assumptions next week in Part II. 

Top Ten Suggestions to Avoid Principal Burnout

I’ve read a number of articles recently about principals resigning from their position mid-year, mostly due to burnout and anxiety.  As I type this, Carney-Sandoe, a national search firm for private and Catholic schools, has well over 130 administrative job listings, most I've ever seen. Indeed, the last couple of years, exacerbated by the stress over Covid protocols and our increasingly polarized society, have been the most difficult in my 34 years as a leader in our schools.

What, then, can we do to make our jobs less stressful,  and less “crushing” in our many tasks and duties? Here’s my top ten list.

10. Tackle the paperwork once/week with a standing appointment off campus.

Put all the paperwork we must do in a stack on our desk. Once a week, during a standing appointment time, take that stack, leave campus, and knock it out. I used to go to the public library a few miles from school and cloister myself in the "stacks." Tell our secretary to tell others we have an “off campus appointment” if someone asks. She can contact us for an emergency. Paperwork comes at us constantly, and it nags at our psyche, sitting there, staring back at us!  It's enormously satisfying to “catch up” once/week, and it gives me peace to put incoming paperwork aside until my next  "appointment."

9. Develop first and second level responders. 

First level is the teacher or a team of teachers. Second level, if a school can afford it, is an assistant principal or someone similar. The third level is the principal.  As a general rule, consistent with the long held Catholic social teaching principle of subsidiarity, things are best handled at the most local level possible, meaning as principals we should develop procedures that direct issues to the teacher or a team of teachers as the first step in handling things, then the assistant principal, then us. 

But it isn’t quite that easy, because parents are also more stressed, meaning they are inclined to meet more often with our teachers, upset about something, and our teachers are weary from the many contentious meetings. This is why I think it’s important to emphasize a team of teachers. 

Here’s what that could mean: Instead of thinking about a “kindergarten teacher, a “first grade teacher”, or a “second grade teacher,” think instead of a K-2, 3-5, or 6-8, or 9-12 teacher “units” of  three teachers per unit. (Larger schools could create multiple 3 person unit teams). That unit could agree on a common one hour meeting time each week if a parent wanted to address a concern at any one of those levels, and the three teachers would meet together with that parent at that designated time for 15 minutes—no more than four of these meetings per week, but all within that hour. If there were more meetings necessary, it would need to be pushed to the following week. I believe from the viewpoint of our teachers, this would be a greatly preferred “structure” that allowed them to mutually support each other and “protect” their time, and I believe from the viewpoint of parents, it would seem like a fuller “hearing,” which has a better chance of not being shuttled up to the next level. 

The other advantage is there would likely be one teacher among the three teachers who is more experienced and could be designated a “lead teacher,” perhaps with a small stipend to recognize him or her as such, who could help the meeting become more productive and helpful than it otherwise might. 

I once heard a successful C.E.O. of a Fortune 500 company say that he tries to "focus on the things that only he can do," and then he tries to delegate the rest. The more substructures,  the healthier our schools and the healthier we are as their leaders! 

8. Create as many recurring processes as possible

...with others as the "trigger" to make something happen. The principal takes on the role where-ever possible as the musical “conductor,” but someone else is playing the instrument! 

Here’s what I mean:  When I was a young principal, every time we had a special schedule, our office had to ring the bells for changing classes manually.  Inevitably, either I or my secretary would become engaged with a student and didn't ring the bell on time, which greatly upset a math teacher on staff. He’d walk across the hall into the office, flustered, pointing at his watch. After three years of this, I finally asked him if he’d like to ring the bells for special days.  He was delighted to do so,  and I never had a problem with him thereafter. One less thing! 

Who opens and locks up the school? Is that our job? Is there a faculty member who likes getting to school early and will open up each day for us? Is there a coach who finishes out practice at 5 p.m. and will lock up? 

Is there a person we can designate as the one to call if a teacher is sick, absent or late to work?  If we can give that person a stipend that acknowledges his or her role, it’s money well spent! Nothing worse for  us than to get a call that a teacher is absent at 6 a.m. ! Is there an administrative assistant role that is not time sensitive, like a service coordinator, or a registrar, who can be paid to also be the “first sub” for teachers who are suddenly absent? 

If we as principals are the “trigger” that fires every gun, we have no time to attend to the unscheduled things—a student in despair,  a disciplinary situation, a parent in need of our attention—that are sure to occur in our schools. It’s in being responsive in these situations, where we can be true ministers to someone, that we derive satisfaction. Otherwise, we run around with our hair on fire, which wears us down. 

7. Get everyone in the habit of sending you emails

...instead of phone calls or asking you to do things during “drive-by’s.” First, an email can be responded to according to our schedule, not that of the caller or a person who "pops in" for a meeting. Second, we’ve got a written reminder of what someone has asked us to do. Third, we have a historical record if we forget something, or forget what we said we would do in response. I hate phone calls, and avoid them whenever I can. I also ask the school secretary to try and schedule a meeting with a person who "pops in," but leave it to her discretion if the parent seems to truly NEED to meet with me at that moment. 

I don’t mean emails should be used to resolve problems. Face to face works best for that. But if I can get parents to preview their concerns in an initial email, it gives me time to prepare for our meeting.  In those meetings we try and develop an action plan—what the school will do, what the parents will do, and what the student will do. It’s best if everyone has skin in the game! I usually follow these meetings up with an email that summarizes what we agreed upon and who’s doing what, so there is no misunderstanding, and I have a written record I can refer back to if issues persist and need to remind myself what we did earlier.

6. Leave campus once/day.

Go home, or go to lunch with someone, or go for a walk. But go!

People don’t fully understand how taxing it is to be ultimately responsible for everything that happens in a school during the school day. If we eat in the faculty room with faculty, we are still very much “on duty.”  If we eat in our office, we’re likely reading emails. Getting away for just an hour is huge for our inner sense of peace. Most of us work from 7’ish until 5, which is a ten hour day, not counting night time engagements! Taking back one hour each day is OK! 

5. Schedule all needed meetings early in the week. Leave Thursday and Friday as free as possible.

I meet once/week with the administrative team for 30 minutes, with each administrator individually for 30 minutes, and with our new teachers once/week for 15-20 minutes. Every two weeks I meet with our campus minister and faculty leadership team. All of these meetings occur on Monday or Tuesday, and if parents need to meet, I generally try and do these meetings on Monday or Tuesday also, unless we can’t work out a time, in which case my fall-back day is Wednesday.  This gives me freedom on Thursday and Friday, days I look forward to for longer term projects, or off campus visits with donors, or thinking through new structures or new ways to do things.  

4. "Re-baptize” or re-purpose existing events for dual purposes 

...Instead of adding new events to the calendar. Rather than a banquet to honor volunteers, for example,  use half times at football games or basketball games to honor them with a few words and a plaque, inviting others to share their appreciation. Instead of inventing new “celebrations” for Catholic schools week, use existing school events, like the weekly school mass, to invite people to celebrate with you, perhaps with some cookies in the gym after, or a few words at the end of mass to celebrate the event. Instead of large "open houses" for high schools,  use the Saturday morning entrance test to give parents tours of the school while they wait for their kids to finish. A good rule of thumb for us: every NEW event added to our calendars must have an existing event taken OFF our calendar! 

3. Get a “‘google voice” telephone number

....so that when you call people back on your cell phone, they won’t have your actual number. A few years back, I called a mother back on my cell phone, and within a week, she was calling me at 6 a.m. to ask me questions about her son. No joke.  And too often, we get phone calls later in the evening that begin “Sorry to bother you, but…” 

Too much access is a curse. Be careful with your phone number! Google will let you create a new telephone number which you can use on your cell phone to dial out instead of your real number. If someone calls you on that number, you can allow it to go directly to voice mail, and google will transcribe the message and send you a text of it.  You can decide if it needs to be responded to at that moment. 

2. Use Fridays for the bad news.

Often, we have to respond to angry parents when they haven’t had a chance to process what's happened, get a hold of themselves and regain their sense of balance. Meetings too close to the event are  full of stress on both principal and parent alike. That’s why I insist that cheerleading try-out results, for example, are posted on Friday afternoon, after school is closed for the weekend. By Monday, the angry mother of the cheerleader who didn’t make it is usually in a better place!  All team cuts, in fact, are posted on Fridays. If I am telling a faculty something I know will upset him or her—a reprimand or a non-renewal, for example—I will schedule the meeting for Friday afternoon, so that he or she is composed for teaching by Monday morning. 

1. Take care of yourself! 

Most of us are oriented to serving others, but not ourselves. We don’t sleep enough, don’t exercise enough, carry around a lot of stress, and gain weight over time. That’s not the formula for a long career! Though as a younger man I was embarrassed to do so, I walk now, every morning, from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m., three miles each day. I am more energetic and less stressed. During that walk, I pray, which centers me and gives me some peace. “Lord, your will be done today” is my consistent theme, and that allows me to let go of some of the worries I carry. I’m still a little too heavy, but I am much healthier!