Something New?

“SEE, I am doing something new! Now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? In the wilderness I make a way, in the wasteland, rivers. “  (Isaiah 43: 19)

At the time of his writing, Isaiah was speaking to a Hebrew people that had been utterly destroyed by the Babylonian empire. Their families were split apart, exiled to foreign lands. Jerusalem, their holy city, decimated. Their Temple, reduced to rubble. Yahweh, the “warrior” who had once “triumphed gloriously,”  who had “cast a horse and chariot into the sea” (Exodus 15), thoroughly defeated.  And yet remarkably, Isaiah challenges them to see that God is doing something new through all of this, and encourages them to see in their suffering, a chance for their purification and redemption, promising not just a king who shall rise against Babylon (Cyrus, king of Persia), but also a servant, who shall, one day, “justify many,” and by “whose stripes (they) will be healed” (Isaiah 53). 

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the impact of Covid-19 on our Catholic schools. Many of our more vulnerable schools could end up closing, the virus in effect “fast forwarding” their eventual demise. What does this mean for us? How might this impact the future of our Church? What might we consider doing differently? 

It is difficult to be in the middle of a crisis, crushed by the emergencies of the moment, and step back enough to discern, perhaps, good that may come from it. But as people of hope and faith, who believe in the mercy and providence of God, I think that’s what we are being called to do. In times of prosperity, we often slip into patterns that cramp us, locking us into practices that may have once been effective, but now no longer help us flourish. A crisis forces us to rethink everything. How can we, as one pundit phrased it, “not waste a good crisis” to do what needs doing?   

I have a few tentative thoughts, both at the school level and more broadly. 

One of the more detrimental trends over the last 25 years  is decreasing parental involvement in our schools.  If we host a PTO meeting, we’ll have very few parents attend. If we invite an expert to talk to our parents about health and wellness of teenagers so as to help those struggling with their teens, typically the most committed parents—the ones who are good at it!—are the only ones to show up. I’ve caught myself moaning about this, decrying the insane “busy-ness” of our parents, who at the end of a work day are stressed and exhausted, unwilling to leave their house once home. 

But if truth be told, despite raising four kids and understanding this parental exhaustion first hand, as principal, I’ve never really done anything differently to help accommodate our parents at night.   In early May, however, having read articles on the importance of “connection” during the shut-down,  I decided to host five “zoom” sessions with parents, beginning with senior parents, then junior parents, sophomores, freshmen. and finally, incoming families. I scheduled them for one hour, at 7 p.m., on successive nights. Turnout was huge—close to 70%. No doubt some of the interest was fueled by anxiety over the virus. But I think part of it, too, was how much more convenient it was for them. They didn’t have to arrange child care, spend time getting dressed up, or waste time getting back and forth. Might we be able to do more of this post-vaccine? Could we not schedule parent-teacher conferences this way? Have “coffee with the principal” via zoom to talk about issues of mutual concern? Host virtual “open houses?” Could coaches host meetings with team parents from time to time? 

We were forced to learn how to use “Facebook live,” so as to broadcast our  press conference announcing Philip Rivers as our future football coach, and later, to present our end of year Awards assembly. While broadcasting live video, Facebook simultaneously records the event, allowing people who missed it to review the video.  This provides excellent, meaningful content to our social media pages, which can then be shared by viewers to other social media, expanding our reach. Could we do more of this, for music concerts, ball games, other school events, or even a “state of the school address” by the principal and advisory council chair?

In the past, teachers who are sick or out for professional development have been asked to create “assignments” for substitutes to give to our students—kids are inclined to view this as “busy work” (and they’re often right).  But with a full 8 weeks of synchronous and a-synchronous learning under our belt, might we be able to create more meaningful class work and videos for our students, perhaps even “zooming” in live? Could we host summer “faculty meetings” if something arises, which we need to discuss as a school?  These are possibilities we’ve never really considered. 

And what about the diocesan level? 

Though huge western dioceses have been doing so this for years, why not conduct more diocesan principal meetings virtually? The cumulative time lost for everyone getting to a physical site and back could be saved, even while allowing principals to maintain a physical presence in their schools. Perhaps virtual meetings could be shorter, but more frequent, improving their effectiveness.  

And could not dioceses arrange “cohorts” of principals, some with more experience, to virtually mentor younger principals? Assistant principals? Or advancement folks? Could not superintendents check-in more frequently with school leaders, if through video-conference?  Could not new diocesan policies, or changes to employee benefits, be promulgated via zoom, with a chance for Q/A at the end? 

And as schools close, making our “system” of schools ever smaller, is it time to rethink the very idea of a “system” of schools? One of the inevitable results of a thinking of ourselves as a “system” is template thinking: each school is governed by a set of diocesan policies, each follows the same calendar with an 8-3 school day (or thereabouts), each implements the diocesan curriculum, using diocesan-approved textbooks, and taught by teachers who meet the same certification requirements. Even tuitions are similar.  Being part of that system may seem like a great benefit to our smaller, more vulnerable schools, but I believe the lack of differentiation actually hurts them, because it makes them less competitive vs. Catholic schools with more resources and better economies of scale. If a smaller school tries to run the same program as a larger, wealthier school with newer buildings, better manicured lawns, better paid teachers, and with more bells and whistles, why would parents send their children there? Why wouldn’t parents drive an extra ten minutes or so to put their kids in the “better” school?

What if, by contrast, we had a Montessori option within a diocese? A dual-language school? A “classical school” option? Perhaps a “year-round” school? In light of the school closings that Covid19 is causing, I believe we’re going to need to provide parents with real options that may cause them to reconsider us anew. Otherwise, we may face an accelerated “Darwinian evolution,” whereby only the strongest, wealthiest schools survive. I write more about this idea here. 

And if we moved in that direction—less a “system” of similar schools and more of a “consortium” of a wider variety of distinctive schools—might we need to rethink the role of the superintendent’s office? One of our current problems is that canon law is very clear that pastors of parishes have authority over their schools, but too often, they abdicate their authority—or more charitably, delegate their authority—to the superintendent, which has the unfortunate effect of undercutting local initiative and entrepreneurialism. If a local school is looking upward and not inward for its “renaissance,” it need not expect to escape the “dark ages” very soon. 

Pastors and principals should be the two lungs that help parishes breathe, solving problems and planning together, but the average principal spends much more time with central office personnel, at meetings, responding to diocesan directives and emails, following diocesan protocols. In fact, it’s relatively rare that principals and pastors even have a set weekly meeting time together. Our relationships are upside down!

What, then, of the central school office? Could the central office become less regulatory in nature, and more of a catalyst for innovation and experimentation? What if, for example, it hosted a zoom conference with a principal of a well regarded Montessori school from some other diocese, together with 2-3 diocesan principals as a possibility for their consideration?  Or the same idea, but with a dual language school, or a classical Christian school principal? Could the diocese survey families about their interest in a year round school option? Might there be interest in a kind of “hybrid” school that made a special appeal to home-schooling families, allowing parents to teach the humanities one part of the day, but providing them the option of taking math and science classes at a particular school, or being part of its athletic program? 

Could one school pool the best teachers in the diocese for a truly excellent summer learning experience? Could the diocese host monthly sessions (via zoom), whereby it invited principals who were particularly good at some area of administration (finances, hiring practices, discipline, curriculum, etc. ) to lead discussions with the other principals on that topic? Could diocesan high schools share their best teachers in hard to hire positions by “live streaming” to the other high schools? Could we invite interested teachers to attend principal training seminars once or twice a month via zoom, preparing them, but also getting to know them well enough to discern talent, and giving the diocese a “bench” for the future? 

I believe Covid19 puts all of this on the table for serious discussion and consideration. May God give us the wisdom, courage and grace to embrace new ideas and new forms, so that He may create a “way through the wilderness,”  and “rivers,  from wastelands.”

Strategic Planning for 2020-21 in Light of Covid19

Let us be bold and daring!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’d like to reflect on each of these. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

And these questions are just the beginning. 

——

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carpe Diem! 

St. Michael, Coronavirus and Distance Learning

Here's what we're trying to do with students during the coronavirus shut-down. Paradigm shifts usually take years or decades, and we're trying to do this in a few days! As I said to our students and teachers, we'll both make a lot of mistakes as we bumble our way through the first few weeks. I'm sure we'll be making many adjustments on the fly!

Hiring a Principal

A school is only as good as its principal, at least over the long term. When we're looking for a principal, it is helpful to remember that we are "competing" against other schools to find the best possible candidate for our school. But too often, our application procedures are purely functional--what forms a candidate must send us before we might regard that person as a viable candidate.  

In contrast, I think we have a real opportunity to shape the kind of candidates we might get by the quality of our application process. 

I believe it's a mistake to begin the process asking for too much.  If our first "date" is loading someone down with paperwork--and the applicant isn't even sure if the employer might be interested in him or her--it's highly possible that he or she may choose some other suitor.  Better to ask only for a resume and cover letter on the front end. After we receive the resume, then WE can decide whether or not to pursue that person, and after an initial interview, make it clear that we're interested, and then ask the candidate to finish out the paperwork as a necessary prerequisite for a formal offer.  The key is this: we don't want to chase away talent before we've met them! 

I also believe it's worth taking time to create a distinctive job description for principal, so as to pique initial interest in the position. Bear in mind that a candidate is likely scrolling through multiple job offerings. Does our school stand out? Might we prompt an inquiry? Here's my attempt at that: 

Job Description for Catholic School Principal

The pay isn’t very good. Sometimes you’ll be gossiped about, and blamed for things that aren’t your fault. Occasionally, you’ll be mischaracterized publicly, or second-guessed for decisions you’ve made. You’ll be expected to be at a lot of night-time events, even though your work day begins at 7:30 a.m. or earlier. You’ll feel constantly behind on paperwork, late in responding to emails, never quite able to finish out your “to do list.”

You must broker peace between students, between parents and teachers, sometimes between employees. You are responsible for the safety of hundreds of children. You must minister to students who are wounded by dysfunctional families, divorce or separation. You’ll weep sometimes when you’re alone, overwhelmed by the crosses that some of your students carry. On particularly sad days, you may have to fire an employee, or meet with parents to tell them they must remove their child from your school.

On the other hand:

You are the architect in building a culture that can have a transformative effect on children—their relationship with God, how they regard themselves, and how they face their future. By the people you hire, by the policies and procedures you create, by the relationships you form, you will have a decisive impact on a community, and all those within it. You will exult in your students' success, celebrate their triumphs, beam with a parent’s pride as you watch them graduate—to high school, to college, to life.

“Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things,” Paul exhorts us (Philipians 4:8). The next principal of this school has the unparalleled opportunity to build upon what is noble, pure, and lovely in our students, enlivened by the grace of Christ within them.

And through weal and woe, good days and bad, like gold tested in a furnace, by refracting God’s light and mercy to those you serve each day, you will be reshaped, re-formed, and renewed-- becoming, however imperfectly, a new creation in Christ.

If interested, send us your resume and an introductory cover letter. 

The Spice of Life

I have a niece and nephew whom I would describe as "millennial Catholic yuppies." When my niece was pregnant with their first child, they began researching for the best Catholic elementary school in town, and once determined, began attending mass and tithing at that parish. Though it was on the other side of town, they’d heard only parishioners could get their children enrolled due to demand. Three years later, they moved to a neighborhood two blocks from the school. Now on the cusp of their daughter attending kindergarten in the fall, their plan is about to come to fruition. All is set. 

Except-- 

Last year, when their daughter was 4, my niece found out about a small Catholic elementary school with a three-day a week, half day program. Their daughter was anxious with other children, and the school sounded like a good intermediate step to get her ready for kindergarten (I repeat, my niece is a yuppie!). The problem was the school was a good 30 minute drive each way through traffic from their new home—ironically, much closer to their previous home. Well, my niece reasoned, they would try it, and if it didn’t pan out, no harm, no foul. 

But from the first day, my grand-niece has loved this little school. She looks forward to going each morning, dressing up in uniform like a “big girl,” and she babbles excitedly about what she did that day with my niece on their drive home. Suddenly, unexpectedly, the choice for kindergarten next year has become unclear. Will my niece enroll her in the “best” Catholic elementary school just around the corner? Or will she keep trekking through traffic to take her to this small, much less affluent, school each day? 

How can this even be a question? What is it about this little school that has so captured my grand-niece's imagination, and made her parents' decision so difficult? 

It’s a Catholic Montessori school--a really good one, in my niece’s estimation. It isn't much to look at--just an abandoned retail building, retrofitted into a small school. But the structured play, the joyful optimism, the exceptional catechetical program (“Cathechesis of the Good Shepherd”) and the generous, talented teachers all combine to create a school where my grand-niece and the other children are thriving. A small group of parents began it because they believed the Montessori model would be best for their young children. My niece told me recently, only half-jokingly, that she’s been looking for property closer to home so she can begin a Catholic Montessori school herself. 

Though this school is not a diocesan one, it's been on my mind as I think about our Church's schools, and especially our  preK-8 elementary schools. There’s no need here to get into a long-winded discussion of all the demographic, economic and social reasons they’ve struggled these last fifty years--that history has been well documented. I am only really interested in ideas that may help them, that may cause parents to reconsider our schools anew. And offering a “Montessori option,” I believe, is one of many ways, perhaps, to do just that. 

Here’s (part of) the problem. When we say a “diocesan Catholic elementary school,” we have in mind a template of what that means. The structure of the school is essentially the same, the curriculum conforms to “diocesan standards,” the qualifications for teachers are diocesan-wide,  the professional development of teachers and principals is mostly led by the central office, the schools follow the same calendar throughout the year, and the basic school hours, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., 5 days a week, apply to all. Even tuitions are roughly the same!   

For larger, more affluent schools in thriving neighborhoods, the diocesan model works well; they can supplement the diocesan template with bells and whistles, and house their programs in newer, nicer buildings.  But for schools in declining areas with declining enrollments, why would parents send their children there, if they can drive an extra 15 or 30 minutes and get the same program at the affluent school, with all the bells and whistles, at nearly the same cost?

They won’t-- at least not in enough numbers for our struggling schools to turn things around. We’re frittering away too much time and money, stressing on how to “market” better, as if polishing up our veneer is the missing ingredient that will help parents see the light-- but the truth of it is, there is not enough that is compelling to persuade families to rejoin us. And if our schools are essentially the same, we’re just dividing up the (diminishing) pie into (smaller) pieces, without ever making the pie bigger. 

“Variety is the spice of life.” 

If we’re going to keep our diocesan schools open, we’re going to have to start giving parents true choices about where they send their children. Why NOT a diocesan Montessori school? Why not a “Classical Christian” diocesan school? What about a “diocesan Dual Language school,” with the boldly stated goal that “all students who attend our school from K-8 will be bilingual upon leaving 8th grade?” Why not experiment with calendars--if a year round school is appealing to enough families to make it viable, why not? What if a school decided it wanted to be open from 8-6 each day, so as to help working parents, and to do so, gave longer recesses and breaks to its students? What if a school decided to go longer hours Monday through Thursday but close at noon on Friday?

We must start thinking this way. Tim Uhl, the superintendent of Montana Catholic Schools who hosts a national podcast, once asked a question that haunts me: “Here’s a thought question, “ he said. “If our schools were free, would we fill them? And if not, why not?” While there’s no doubt that cost is a factor for some, my suspicion is that it’s really a value--proposition for most: not enough “red meat” for the money. We won't draw families back into our demographically-challenged schools unless we give parents a compelling reason to go.

We’re going to need to get creative to meet people where they are. And quickly! We are losing something precious.  

Raising Money for Catholic Schools--Some Practical Tips

I read a helpful book this week, entitled  If Only You’d Known, You Would Have Raised So Much More, by Tom Ahern (Emerson & Church Publishers, 2019). Ahern is a professional fund-raiser who shares evidence-based, practical tips on what works and doesn’t work in raising monies. Let me share some of his advice, and how I think it may apply to us in the world of Catholic education, with my own experiences included.

Younger people can’t give you much money. They don’t have it. It’s only from the age of 55 up that donors begin to have the disposable income to make sizable gifts.  In addition, older persons are much more self-reflective, reviewing their life, interested in their legacy. 

It is critical to stay connected with older alumni, past parents and current grandparents. Grandparents’ breakfasts or lunches are worth hosting, though I believe it’s a mistake to do a direct solicitation at the event. At our breakfast, we include a talk from a student about his or her grandparent, and a talk from a grandparent about his or her grandchild, along with some music and a few introductory remarks from me. 

At the end, we take “prom” pictures with grandparents and their grandchildren, which we then mail them a few weeks later, with the grandchild writing “I love you” or something similar on back of the picture.  In a letter from me that accompanies that picture, I ask them to consider supporting our annual fund, with a return envelop included. 

Perhaps more promising, we began what we call a “Guardian Angel” program in the Catholic parishes, supported by area pastors. Once/year, our students speak at the end of Mass, asking older parishioners to become  anonymous “Guardian Angels” for students who need financial aid to attend St. Michael. They donate to a fund, which is then used to augment financial aid awards from the school. Recipients are asked to write thank you letters to their donor, though they don’t know who the donor is. This has been a fantastically successful appeal, with gifts totaling over 100K in each of our first three years. And it has “connected” us to older Catholic parishioners, two of whom have made legacy gifts as a result. 

If we communicate with older donors, use 14 pt type. 

I’ve been thanking (older) folks for thirty years, but I never thought about this! We don’t want our thank you letters to be a source of frustration! 

We can’t thank people too many times! Thank people within 48 hours is key, and the more personal, the better. 

Perhaps this is intuitive, but my sense is due to staffing issues, we don’t thank people enough in Catholic schools, or that we do so too bureaucratically, through form letters.  Our advancement office at St. Michael writes hand written thank you’s for every gift received. Sometimes, we ask volunteers to come in and help us write them. In the case of a larger gift, I call the donors personally and thank them. For donors I don’t know personally, I invite them to let me give them a tour of the school, which helps me build a relationship with them beyond that one time gift. 

But be careful,  Ahern warns. At Harvard University, they received 254 gifts of a million dollars or more in 2017 (wow!).  Of those, 67% made their first gift to Harvard with a gift of less than $100. How the institution treated them for that gift determined if they gave more. We should always thank people with a true spirit of gratitude, regardless of amount— not just because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it may lead to much larger gifts down the road. Have we done enough to “earn” a second, possibly larger gift? 

Never ask people for more money in a thank you letter! 

It’s a turn off.  However, Ahern believes it’s OK to include a return envelop, without any mention of an ask,  and has found that gifts increase when we do so.  

“Ask” letters must be constructed carefully. Many recipients never even open the envelope. If they do, they “scan” the letter before they read it (if they read it at all).

So Ahern says the envelop should include some sort of “tease” or “intrigue” that causes persons to be curious enough to open it, especially if that person doesn’t have a previous relationship with us. When readers “scan” the letter, they’re drawn to bulleted points (so avoid long paragraphs), or highlighted words, or one word sentences, or margin notes. And the letter should make the “ask” 4-5 times through out the letter, not just at the end.  Ahern does not believe the “one page” letter is sacrosanct—he believes it’s possible to have 2, 3 and 4 page letters if well crafted, if they tell a story, and if they stir an emotional response in the reader. 

Our “ask” letters and newsletters should tell a vivid story, with an emphasis on what the DONOR has made possible, not the institution’s success. Use “you” more than “we.” 

So rather than focus on what great things our schools are doing, we should focus on what great things the donor’s gift has made possible at our school, with the donor as “hero” of that story. 

Emotion trumps statistics in an appeals letter. 

Though it’s good to include some high level stats,  the emotional response is what we’re after, because emotion stirs people to action.  A corollary is that focusing the effect of a donor’s giving on one student, or one family,  is more powerful than a generalized, abstract set of numbers. Generalities numb the senses.  Let the donor extrapolate the net effect by focusing on one kid or one family who’s been helped by his or her giving. 

Experts recommend you ask someone 8 times a year for a cause. 

This is rather shocking to me. We send out one annual fund solicitation letter at the beginning of the year, and one to wrap up at the end. Ahern says it’s not close to enough! Though people might complain about being “over-solicited,” Ahern says they’ll give more despite that sentiment, as indicated in all of the data he’s collected. 

Donors want to know their gift CHANGED something, or made a difference (especially if it were a large gift). 

What did we do with the donors’ money? How did it impact a family? A teacher? The school more generally? If donors become convinced their gift is just used to fund the 'black hole" of administration that sucks out all light, they won’t keep giving. If it’s “seed” money for an exciting new venture they’ll be inclined to continue being generous. 

Non-profits should focus on legacy giving. 

If you’ve been a Catholic school leader for a while, it’s easy to grow weary of raising money for the annual fund, year after year. We know we need to do it, but it always feels like we’re pushing a rock uphill. One week, at a school I once led, I visited three donors and asked for gifts to the annual fund. They each responded generously, giving us between one and five thousand dollars—a good week, by any standard.  

Friday of that same week, I called an older fella who had once given substantially to our annual fund prior to my time as principal, but no longer did so. I invited him to lunch in hopes of repairing the breach. We had a good meal together, and at the end, I asked him if something had happened to hurt our relationship. He seemed reluctant to tell me, but I persisted. “Well,” he said haltingly, “I gave your school $50,000 one year, but all I got back was a tax letter with a generic thank you.”  What? I apologized profusely, and asked how we could make that up to him. He said that wouldn’t be necessary—my invitation to lunch and apology were enough. I could tell he was relieved, and I felt good that we had patched things up.  As we drove back to the school, he surprised me with this: “I have a million dollar IRA and I’ve committed half of it to my church when I die, but I haven’t known what to do with the other half. I think I’m going to give it to you guys.”  Within two weeks, he sent us all the paperwork and a copy of his revised will, naming us as beneficiary. 

As a result of a single lunch, he had given us a legacy gift equalling twice our annual fund goal for that year! 

Ahern says most appeals would do well to return two times the “ROI” (the “return on investment—total of donations vs. costs). Legacy appeals, in contrast, have the potential to return 10,000 to one. I believe this is THE space all of us in Catholic schools should be working on diligently—particularly heads of school. Let the advancement director run the annual campaigns. We need to be working on legacy giving.  Older Catholics,  who went to schools run by the sisters are predisposed to “pay it forward.”  An 81 year old man who gave us his estate upon his death explained why:  “I went to St. Joseph Catholic Elementary School for $5/month. I went to McGill Catholic Institute for $100/year. It’s payback time!”

Ahern gives some practical tips as to how to make legacy appeals.  First, he says we should not aim our legacy appeal at the just the wealthiest donors.  Rather, we should aim them at those who have been consistent supporters over a consecutive number of years—as in 5 or more.  These are the folks that clearly support our mission!  And even if not “wealthy,” middle class folks do accrue significant wealth over the course of their life—and may be willing, for example, to give you half the proceeds of the sale of their home, or re-apportion their estate with their now grown and possibly successful children. The #1 reason that most donors don’t put us in their wills? According to Ahern, they were never asked! 

Second, he says we should not talk about “planned giving”,” because that implies sophisticated instruments (charitable gift annuities, trusts, etc) which most people don’t understand, and thereby dismiss our initial inquiries. Rather, a “legacy gift” can be a simple matter of changing a will.  It’s also important for us to keep track of years of  consecutive giving, as as to identify potential legacy givers, which is why it’s also good to notate these people as such in our annual reports. Keep it simple. 

We have a parent in our community who is a professional in estate planning. I asked her if someone expressed interest in making a “planned gift,” would she be willing to advise them, gratis, as a service to our school? She was more than happy to do so. So now I add, at the bottom of all legacy appeals, that we have a professional estate planner who would be happy to work with them at no cost if a person needed advice. 

Concluding Remarks: I confess that early in my career, I would not have likely read a book like this one.  Getting into the "science"of fund-raising feels a little sleazy, like we’re trying to “milk” a few more dollars from people!  "After all," I might have said, "I'm an educator!"  But as I’ve grown older, I’ve come to realize if we do fund-raising well, I can pay teachers better and help families attend our school who otherwise could not afford it. “Without margin,” the saying goes,” there is no mission."  The person who coined that phrase, by the way, was Sr. Irene Kraus, the first president of the Daughters of Charity National Health System. 

The key, for me, is to be  genuinely grateful—not as a strategy to get more gifts, but because our donors are decent, good people who care about kids! If I listen well, if I let our donors do most of the talking, I can elevate them with my attention and interest in their life, even while earning monies to support our mission--a true "win-win." 

First and Most Important!

“Parents are the primary educators.”

This has been a guiding principle for Catholic schools since their inception. The job of Catholic schools is to support the parents’ primary role as lead educators in their homes—“to extend the franchise of families” I once heard it described.

But there’s a hitch: our families are under increasing duress. A typical middle class family is likely to have two parents working, with two or three children, one or two of whom plays a sport that requires year-round practices, games and weekend tournaments in the “off-season.” They are likely to live above their means, creating financial pressures in their home (the average credit card debt for an American family is $8,402 as of May, 2019). From middle school on up, each member of this family devotes an astonishing 10 hours and thirty-nine minutes a day to “screen time” (smartphones, computers, video games, radios, tablets and TVs.) In all their busy-ness, they have less time for shopping and cooking, which explains why they now spend more money each month on restaurants than traditional grocery stores (CRBE, 2016). Sadly, there’s nearly a 40% chance their marriage will end in divorce. If Catholic, there's a 61% chance they DON'T go to Sunday Mass (Gallup, 2018), compared to 25% in 1955. There’s very little “family time," or “Sabbath rest” occurring.

It isn’t that our culture has "lost our way."   G.K. Chesterton once quipped, prophetically: “Man has always lost his way; but now, he has lost his address.“ (What’s Wrong with the World, 1910). Without strong  families to nurture and sustain us, it makes sense why all the metrics about mental health in adolescents and adults are trending downward, including rates of depression, anxiety and suicide.

What then, does this mean for us as Catholic educators? How can we build on parents as our “primary “ educators if these same parents are under so much pressure? I have a few thoughts.

First, and most importantly, we cannot despair of our parents. That parents are “primary” isn’t just a philosophical premise, it’s a statement of fact, whether they’re good at parenting or not. I emphasize this point because it’s very easy for us as educators to slip into a kind of paternalism—that WE know best what’s good for their children, and well, sometimes, we have to “work-around” parents when dealing with their kids. But if we take this attitude, it’s almost certainly the demise of our schools—one, because the parents, if excluded from our decision making, will undercut us with their children back at home, rendering us ineffective, and two, if it’s clear that we’re not working with parents, they will gradually leave us, taking their tuition dollars elsewhere.

Second, we must build a culture of “us” when talking about teachers and parents, in contradistinction to “them,” the students we’re raising. I believe, as principal, I must talk about this directly with parents and teachers, reminding them that the adult relationships in a school take precedence, even over teacher-student relationships. We form a team of "masters" that together raise the "apprentices." My former principal used to say to parents: “You wouldn’t believe what teenagers tell us about you! I can only imagine what they say about us! Let us agree, then, that we'll only believe 50% of what they say about you is true, if you agree to only believe 50% of what they say about us.” His levity had a point—parents and teachers are in this together, and we need to remind each other of that.

Third, we should use the school as a means to strengthen our parents. Rather than “working around” parents, how can we make our parents more powerful? That’s a critical mind-set, I believe, for Catholic school leaders. I’ll give you a brief example: If a student has done something seriously wrong, meriting a conference with parents and a suspension, I can handle that in two different ways as a principal. I can call in both the parents and child in to the office to pronounce judgment, or I can meet with the parents first, and then invite the kid in next. If I do it the first way, more often than not the parents will view their role to be an “advocate” of their child AGAINST US. “We’re just sticking up for our child,” they'd be apt to say. But if I meet with the parents first, without the child present, we can talk for a bit about their kid. What does their child say about the incident? What do they think may have tempted him to do this? Has he had any issues like this before? What do they think is going on? Parents appreciate these questions, as it suggests we’re trying to look at the whole child with them, good and bad, before deciding what to do. And it gives me the opportunity to help the parent understand that the school's discipline isn’t for the purpose to mete out “punishment;” rather, it is aimed help the child grow into the kind of person God wants him or her to become. I then invite the parent to “speak in one voice" with me when we finally bring in the child to talk about the consequence. By doing so, I am empowering the parent to take a parental view of the matter, and yes, dramatically improving the chances that the consequence will be supported and will positively impact the child.


Fourth, I am not a big fan of using the school as a forum to invite guest speakers to talk to parents about how to become better parents. Over the years I’ve hosted child psychologists, special learning needs experts, police officers, national lecturers—but what always happens is our very best parents come to these events, and the vast majority of our parents, especially those who could most benefit, don’t. Instead, I believe we should use other standing events in the life of the school to offer parents small snippets of wisdom and perspective that help empower them—perhaps no more than 5-10 minutes— and do this as often as possible. I offer a 10 minute “advice to new parents” talk as a closing to our new parent orientation breakfast. I’ll tell a brief story at the “Meet the Teacher” PTO night. I’ll frequently include a few brief thoughts in our weekly newsletter, especially around Homecoming and Prom, sharing with them how wise parents handle their kids for such occasions. Parents generally appreciate this. I’ll make a parallel: I am not in favor of “study skills” courses, because those skills are an abstraction. Better for teachers to discuss “study skills” within the context of a course, presenting them as “practical ways to do well in this class, or the test tomorrow, etc.” I believe parents respond better to 5 minute talks or brief stories that are proximate to some event in the life of their child, than PTO meetings featuring a guest lecturer.

Finally, schools must be open to parent’s ideas, even if “we’ve tried that before.” Nothing is more oft-putting to a parent than for an administrator to say “Been there, done that.” Saying so is a not-too-subtle way of saying, “You’re naive.” I’m not suggesting that every idea is a good one, but we’d be wise not to be the sole arbiter of whether an idea is worth seriously considering. Use our boards or advisory councils to “test” ideas and offer feedback to parents who are proposing those ideas. Create structured “parent forums” as input data for strategic planning. Such "peer review" often broadens people’s thinking. I once had a parent who was VERY insistent we should start school after Labor Day and end school in mid-June, as they do in other parts of the country. I told the parent I would include that question in an upcoming parent survey I was designing, did so, and showed the parent that 85% of our families disagreed with her proposal. I knew that our parents wouldn’t like it and was tempted to kill it before even asking, but by proposing it as a survey question, she knew I had taken her idea seriously. We must take parents seriously!