Great article in today’s Wall Street Journal about the Catholic church vs. Catholic school unions. It’s especially intriguing because the Church-union relationship is slightly more complex than the typical pro- or anti-union situation. Catholics have, for generations, spoken in favor of and marched alongside unions in the United States and abroad. We know Catholic schools are in crisis, but how will the Church address its history of supporting other unions when the fight has now come to its own backyard?
The conversion of seven Catholic schools in Washington, D.C., to charter schools is off to a rough start, as the Washington Post reports today that the city’s budget failed to provide funding for these schools, and they won’t get their first payments in July.
Robert Crane, of Friends of Choice in Urban Schools, is quoted saying “I told [D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C.] Gray’s people repeatedly that the kids were going to show up in the public schools one way or the other,” and Public Charter School Board chair Tom Nida gets right to the point, that “this couldn’t have been to anyone’s surprise.”
No, anyone reading the Post, or better yet, Flypaper and Who Will Save America’s Urban Catholic Schools?would have seen this conversion coming from a mile away. Fortunately, the schools plan to open using loans and philanthropy. I just hope the District catches up soon.
Charles C. Haynes of the First Amendment Center turns in a strong counter-argument explaining why religious charter schools are a “Faustian bargain” that aren’t “worth the spiritual costs”:
A faith-based school without the faith does religion no favors. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims and others may be tempted to take the money and start the school. But substituting “culture” for “religion” is no way to advance the mission of faith.
Perhaps so. That’s why allowing truly religious charter schools would be even better, though Haynes calls that idea “a First Amendment oxymoron.” So we’re back to non-faith-based faith-based charter schools, such as the ones being born from Catholic schools in Washington, D.C. Yes, these schools must take their crosses off the walls, but they avoid being closed outright. As the Center for Education Reform’s Casey Carter says in this National Review Online article about the conversion,
After working with local authorities, the Church has created the legal and the financial mechanisms to serve the same children with twice the financial resources.
Maybe such a “bargain” is bad for the Catholic faith, but it’s a good deal for inner-city children, bless their little souls.
The long-anticipated conversion of seven inner-city District of Columbia Catholic schools to charter schools is finally official. No, it’s not a perfect solution to the schools’ financial ills, but kinda like democracy, it’s the least worst option available. Kudos to the D.C. Charter School Board for granting its unanimous approval. Now let this fascinating social experiment begin.
While Washington, D.C., works it way through a big debate about turning its inner-city Catholic schools into charters, a Catholic high school in Houston quietly made the conversion this month with very little fanfare. Three cheers for Houston’s school board for saving this valuable community institution. It was a particularly gutsy move considering that a majority of all Americans and almost two-thirds of all Catholic Americans oppose turning Catholic schools into charters (as reported by our recent Catholic schools study).
You won’t see metal detectors or security officers at either campus of the Washington Middle School for Girls. Instead, you’ll find parents clamoring to get their kids into the school.
The parents look beyond the physical setting to what happens in these classrooms, which is nothing less than the transformation of the same kind of children who drift through the city’s public schools and emerge, on average, less likely to succeed than when they entered.
Left unsaid is that this thriving Catholic school is part of the NativityMiguel Network, which is the KIPP of the Catholic school world. Its 64 middle schools nationwide are proving that the decline of Catholic schooling isn’t inevitable and that a traditional, faith-inspired education can still work miracles. Read our recent report on Catholic schools to learn more.
Enrollment in the Dorchester Catholic schools, which had been falling for years, is now rising as a result of a decision by affluent Catholic business leaders to invest tens of millions of dollars refurbishing the schools, the Archdiocese of Boston said yesterday.
A group of businesspeople, led by retired adman Jack Connors Jr., has raised $25 million toward the $67 million they are pledging to spend to consolidate, renovate, upgrade, and, in one instance, rebuild aging parish school buildings in Dorchester and Mattapan.
On the one hand, there’s a question of whether this is really a viable model for saving Catholic schools. Surely raising funds on this scale is not easy, especially in other cities with much smaller Catholic populations than Boston.
We appreciate Eduwonk Andy’s nice plug of our Catholic schools report, and agree with him that public funding should come in return for some “substantial reciprocal obligations on the part of parochial schools,” which he says “they have thus far resisted.” We suspect he means the release of test score data, which Scott Hamilton addresses in our report’s introduction:
In an increasingly competitive environment for schools, and with the imperfect but rich array of school information about public schools now available, the dearth of student achievement data and other information about Catholic schools represents either archaic (possibly even smug or defensive) secrecy or a grievous failure to observe how the education world has changed since the days when parishioners could simply be admonished to send their children to a Catholic school. In the era of No Child Left Behind, Catholic schools must make a commitment to measure their performance and make the results (and much more) available to one and all. Arguably, they should provide more such information than their public school counterparts.
I’m not so sure that parochial schools would resist this, however, if real money were on the table. At least when I played a bit part in implementing the District of Columbia’s federally-funded school voucher program, it became clear to me that the Catholic schools were desperate enough for the dollars that they would have done virtually anything, including making all of their test score data public. It was the secular independent schools (like Georgetown Day) that protested loudly about any “intrusion” into their affairs and which threatened not to participate if they had to take certain tests and come under the light of transparency.
So Congress and the U.S. Department of Education had a choice: force the “transparency” issue and create a program with nothing but Catholic schools, or repent on testing and create a program with a broad-based group of schools. We chose the latter; I suspect those on the left would make the same choice, too.
In the Wall Street Journal, William McGurn picks up where Kathryn Jean Lopez left off, arguing that McCain could win African American votes from Obama (or Clinton) if he would take “this (school choice) campaign into the heart of our cities—and gave a little straight talk about the scandal that their public-school systems represent in this great land of opportunity.”
He’s surely correct that McCain doesn’t share Obama’s problem, that he “cannot offend the teachers unions that are arguably the most powerful constituents” in the Democratic party. If he were to take this opening, the question is whether it would be seen as a sincere effort to help the inner cities and their children—as the efforts of mayors Cory Booker and Adrian Fenty are seen—or rather as an attack on public schools. Given that editorial boards are rarely this supportive of school choice, one wonders.
Big Shoulders has been doing the Lord’s work for over twenty years, raising upwards of $150 million to keep inner-city Catholic schools open (or at least stem the tide of closures). A few years ago its leaders wondered why more immigrant families from Mexico weren’t enrolling their children in Chicago’s Catholic schools. The answer? These families assumed that parochial schools in the U.S. were the bastions of the elite, since that is the case in Mexico, which (like most countries) doesn’t have a broad-based system of Catholic education. When Big Shoulders asked the immigrants how much they thought it cost to attend a Catholic school, they guessed way high.
To be sure, we need to find ways to make Catholic schools more affordable for working class and low-income families. But the Church could do a lot of good just by making families aware of how affordable the schools already are.
At The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez writes that we can help save our inner cities by saving faith-based schools. She rightly praises President Bush for using the “bully pulpit” at last week’s White House summit to call education “one of the greatest civil-rights challenges,” and to urge Congress to help inner-city Catholic schools.
Lopez then urges John McCain to follow the President’s lead and take this issue to the campaign trail, to offer “real solutions that could lift poor Americans out of a cycle of dependency.” I’d love to see the candidates wrestle over Who Will Save America’s Urban Catholic Schools, but I have a feeling there will be other issues on voters’ minds this November. Unless Ed in ‘08 pulls off a miracle, that is.
Left unspoken* at yesterday’s White House summit on faith-based schools was whether the idea of religious charter schools has any merit. Of course, this is no surprise. There are enough opponents of charter schools, of vouchers, and of any co-mingling of church and state, that direct funding for overtly religious schools would be a combustible mix. It’s controversial enough that D.C. is converting seven Catholic schools to charter status, stripping them of their “Catholicity,” and besides, yesterday’s conference had plenty else on the agenda. Yet given the success Catholic schools have shown in educating poor and minority students, and the likelihood that that’s because of their Catholicity, it’s an idea that warrants more of an airing. (Two prior Gadfly op-eds provide a bit, at least, here and here.)
I was reminded of this yesterday when I met Lawrence Weinberg, author of Religious Charter Schools: Legalities and Practicalities (2007), a book I’m now curious to read. Checker and Mike have argued that the Zelman decision paved the way for religious charters, at least insofar as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, but (at the risk of mischaracterizing his work) Weinberg replies that the legal landscape is a little more complicated than that (both because of state-level issues, like Blaine amendments prohibiting state funding of religious schools, and because Zelman is not the only relevant Supreme Court case). Of course, practically speaking, charter schools have to be approved by authorizers, most of which are districts or universities who would surely be unwilling to test these waters. Still, I can’t help but think that it’s a matter of when, not if, someone is bold enough to really advance this idea.
*Update: Sportswriters shouldn’t submit their articles before the final buzzer sounds, and apparently bloggers shouldn’t critique a summit without staying for the whole event. An astute reader immediately pointed out that I missed Lawrence Weinberg presenting on this very topic in the day’s final panel. So much for leaving this idea unspoken! Kudos to the summit and those who organized it for raising this interesting idea. I’m sorry for the error, but I’m especially sorry I missed the discussion. I’d be curious to hear from any attendees how the audience reacted.
The White House Summit on Inner-City Children and Faith-Based Schools, underway at this moment, has about 300 attendees, all of whom already agree with each other about nearly all the issues on the table. No bad thing to rally the troops or (changing metaphors) preach to the choir. But I didn’t spot anyone there whose mind needed to, or was likely to be, changed by the proceedings. Hence the main value of this event beyond the Ronald Reagan Building amphitheater (normally occupied by the satirical Capitol Steps) depends on whether word of it percolates out and anybody pays heed.
Four more takeaways, two of them admittedly churlish:
The President gave a good talk, peppered with positive examples from the world of Catholic schools (never mind the ecumenical audience and many flavors of faith-based schools) and from the recent Fordham Institute report on same. He called on states to repeal their Blaine Amendments. He was in excellent humor and form but also showed faint signs of final-year-in-office enervation.
Though the Fordham Report and its case studies permeate this event, it is never named, quoted from or referenced. Even session moderator Scott Hamilton, who edited it and has a Fordham tie, is identified on the program by another part of his work life. We don’t need to ask why the systematic shunning. It’s payback for Mike’s and my occasional truth-tellings about the Secretary of Education (here, for instance).
The social science evidence offered (mainly by Cal State’s Bill Jeynes) on behalf of achievement-gap closing by church-affiliated schools left something to be desired. No mention of selection effects and no true measure of school effects. And no mention of the reluctance of these—and just about all—private schools to have their performance assessed via instruments that lend themselves to valid comparisons with public schools.
Despite the Summit’s generous support from the wonderful Bradley and Friedman foundations, everyone attending the opening reception had to pay for his/her own drinks—starting at five bucks for a Pepsi! I hope some of that margin makes its way into inner-city faith-based schools or scholarships for kids, but I’m not counting on it.
But I’ve also learned a thing or two about “summits” over the years. When they accomplish anything (rare), it’s because tons of groundwork has been done in advance to forge near-agreement among key players on an action plan or program to be announced or inked at the summit itself. Also, they’re usually small events where a few really important decision-makers meet with each other “at the summit”—i.e., somewhere above the hillsides inhabited by bureaucrats and staffers and assistant secretaries and such.
What’s coming up this week is more like a conference than a summit. There will be a cast of thousands. Problems and ideas will surely be aired, perhaps brilliantly examined, but to the best of my knowledge, no action plan will be announced for none has been agreed to. I worry that the tone will be set by the President’s remarks at the prayer breakfast the other day that Catholic schools need to be “saved.” That’s oversimplified and naïve, at least for elected officials. (The pope and his bishops are another story.) However, helping more poor kids to attend such schools is a legitimate public policy objective toward which actual programs can be mounted. If Thursday’s event gets us any closer to such programs, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
The purpose of the summit is to highlight the lack of educational options facing low-income urban students. And we are going to bring together educators and clergy and philanthropists and business leaders, all aiming to urge there to be reasonable legislation out of Congress and practical solutions to save these schools—and more importantly, to save the children.
Hear hear, but the chances of said legislation passing in the 277 days until Bush leaves office are slim to none. But all is not lost; Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was at the breakfast too. Maybe he can help clear the way for Catholic charter schools.
Fox Business channel must have seen Mike discussing the Catholic schools crisis on the latest episodes of Fordham Factor (here and here), because they invited him on to butt heads with Dr. Karen Ristau, who disagrees with him, respectfully:
First, note that he described “contribut[ing] generously to the financial needs of our institutions” as “a highly commendable opportunity for the entire Catholic community.” Translation: Bishops should ask their parishioners to open their wallets and help support Catholic schools (as has happened in Wichita, where widespread tithing has allowed the diocese to make all Catholic schools free for Catholic families).
Second, he said that “everything possible must be done, in cooperation with the wider community, to ensure that [Catholic schools] are accessible to people of all social and economic strata.” Translation: it’s not just the Church’s responsibility to support Catholic education for poor children; the larger public should help, too—perhaps through school vouchers and the like.
Bottom line: if these words reach the ears of Catholics, and other Americans, too, they could do a world of good.
The Catholic community here has in fact made education one of its highest priorities. This undertaking has not come without great sacrifice. Towering figures, like Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton and other founders and foundresses, with great tenacity and foresight, laid the foundations of what is today a remarkable network of parochial schools contributing to the spiritual well-being of the Church and the nation. Some, like Saint Katharine Drexel, devoted their lives to educating those whom others had neglected—in her case, African Americans and Native Americans. Countless dedicated Religious Sisters, Brothers, and Priests together with selfless parents have, through Catholic schools, helped generations of immigrants to rise from poverty and take their place in mainstream society.
This sacrifice continues today. It is an outstanding apostolate of hope, seeking to address the material, intellectual and spiritual needs of over three million children and students. It also provides a highly commendable opportunity for the entire Catholic community to contribute generously to the financial needs of our institutions. Their long-term sustainability must be assured. Indeed, everything possible must be done, in cooperation with the wider community, to ensure that they are accessible to people of all social and economic strata. No child should be denied his or her right to an education in faith, which in turn nurtures the soul of a nation.
And:
Here I wish to make a special appeal to Religious Brothers, Sisters and Priests: do not abandon the school apostolate; indeed, renew your commitment to schools especially those in poorer areas. In places where there are many hollow promises which lure young people away from the path of truth and genuine freedom, the consecrated person’s witness to the evangelical counsels is an irreplaceable gift. I encourage the Religious present to bring renewed enthusiasm to the promotion of vocations. Know that your witness to the ideal of consecration and mission among the young is a source of great inspiration in faith for them and their families.
1) This week’s Education Gadfly. It’s chock full of good stuff, including a guest editorial from the Rodel Foundation about how to train the education spotlight on states, “which are these days the wallflower at the school-reform dance.” The article recommends spiking the school-reform punch.
An anonymous source tells Flypaper that Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and Senator Edward Kennedy were yacking it up at Nationals Field Park this morning while waiting for Pope Benedict XVI to arrive. We’re praying that they were discussing how to salvage the D.C. school voucher program, which helps 2,000 needy Washington children attend private schools, including Catholic schools, but which is expected to come under attack from Democrats in Congress. Hey, one can dream.
Every generation lives off the cultural inheritance of its predecessors. Among that inheritance for today’s American Catholics is a network of parochial schools built by their immigrant forebears, which served both to teach the faith and ground the community. But today, many of those Catholic schools in urban areas are facing a near-fatal financial crisis.
After providing an excellent overview of our findings and recommendations, the author, Mary Rose Rybak, questions our enthusiasm for Catholic schools educating non-Catholics—not to mention converting Catholic schools to charter schools as a means of keeping their doors open.
The reformers at the Fordham Foundation see Catholic schools as one answer to the problem of urban education because they are good schools. But it is worth asking a few questions: To what extent are these schools excellent because they are Catholic, in the sense that they express a commonly held worldview, center a religious community, and participate in a shared faith life? And what effect will it have on their excellence if they cease to be Catholic, in the sense of primarily educating Catholics as Catholics? Will these schools still retain their excellence?
It does appear that Catholic schools continue to provide an excellent education to non-Catholics; consider the school voucher studies that show that inner-city private schools (which means, mostly, Catholic schools) significantly outperform inner-city public schools, particularly when it comes to African-American achievement. As to whether they would retain their excellence were they to become charter schools—that’s an open question. It appears that Washington, D.C. might soon provide an answer.
It’s hard to compete when the other guy (read: state-run schools) spends about twice as much per pupil but gives his service away for “free.”
It’s hard but not impossible. Andrew should check out our chapter on Wichita, which explains how that diocese has made Catholic schools free, too, for all Catholics. They did it by asking all parishioners to tithe a significant portion of their salaries; the response has been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. You might say that Church members agreed to pay a voluntary tax. I wonder what the libertarians at CATO would think about that.
Subscribe to Flypaper via RSS