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!

How the Job Has Changed: Thirty Years a Principal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Indianapolis Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

There are two canon laws that directly address this question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archbishop Thompson is careful in his words: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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