Reframing Conversations with the Miserable

As principals we all spend a part of each week listening to or hearing from unhappy parents. As long as our schools enroll students we will have the added pleasure of dealing with parents on a consistent basis. Sadly the top jobs at those few high schools meeting the needs of orphans have been filled for years.

To be fair most of us are a little jaded when it comes to interacting with parents. The five percent who are chronically miserable in all areas of their life usually fill up ninety five percent of the parent meetings on our schedule. The truth is that most of our parents are happy well-adjusted individuals with a firm grasp on reality. The Church rightfully declares parents as "the primary educator" and our roll of assisting in their child's development and growth is more often than not a shared blessing. But alas the buck stops with us and so too does the final stop for the unhappy parent.

I'm willing to argue that the large percentage of unhappy parents that make it to your door are usually upset over non-academic or core issues. More likely than not their concerns will have to do with some co-curricular aspect of the school. Little Johnny has been cut from the basketball team, played in the wrong position for the wrong amount of time, or has suffered some other life altering injustice that if uncorrected could ruin his life forever. Some parents just need to be heard and quickly ignored. Others take a little more work to appease.

I'm writing this post to share a concept gained from a recent professional development day that helps reframe these lovely conversations with an eternal lens that honors our rich Catholic heritage.

About a month ago I had the opportunity to sit through a presentation about "happiness" by the Spitzer Center. Our board chair and former fortune 500 exec had arranged for the group to visit our little corner of the midwest and provide a session for local business and civic leaders. I left for the meeting with the usual enthusiasm for a day away from the office during the middle of the school week. The Spitzer Center is the brain child of Father Robert Spitzer S.J. the president of Gonzaga University and mentor for the positive thinking guru Lou Tice.

The session focused on seeking happiness. What was interesting about the session was the retelling of truths that as Catholics we've known for a couple thousand years. Essentially in the end we all want to be happy. As Catholic educators we are drilling this drive for happiness into our children every day mindful of the fact that eternal happiness rests in union with God. There are four levels of happiness. Level one has to do with pleasure. A nice piece of prime rib and a beer on a Friday afternoon are all pleasure giving in their own right but these pleasures are fleeting. Building our life around the accumulation of level one items is doomed for failure if not addiction. Level two has to do with things that are good by comparison. A certain job over another, a house with large square footage, a new car are all good in their own right. But their worth is valued in a large way by being compared to something not as good. To focus on level two items like wealth, power, and position will eventually lead to spiritual emptiness and poverty of soul. Level three happiness has to do with altruism and leaving the world better than we find it and recognizing that our individual gifts are properly expressed in service to others. Level four happiness is the perfect happiness that we are created for which is found eternally with God.

None of the above is new to our faith. Apparently the business world doesn't often grasp the truth of the above statements. Imagine that. But what is potentially exciting and new is reframing parent conversations around these levels. The family concerned about "playing time" or Billy's role in the school play is not helping their child reach level three and level four happiness. They are overvaluing level two and teaching Billy to express his self-worth in ways that will not lead to lasting happiness. Of course getting the conversation to this point is always easier said than done. I like to drop somewhere in the conversation that if, "high school athletics are the highlight of life then life is pretty empty in the end". The timing has to be there of course but usually the sooner I can get it out the better.

I have to believe that the more our students and faculty grasp the meaning and value of the different levels of happiness the more these concerns over perceived injustices will go away. Perhaps a little suffering will lead to a little self growth.

Please share your thoughts below and your own tricks and methods for dealing with difficult conversations.

Off-Campus Jurisdiction and Sanity

Schools are messy places. Balancing the mission of Catholic education with the competing needs and wants of students, parents, and staff is certainly a daunting and heroic task. What makes it even more challenging and exciting is worrying about what happens off of school grounds. How do the off campus activities of our student body effect what we do within our halls? Is it our right and our place to discipline students for actions that take place at events that are not school sponsored?

We all have written drug and alcohol policies. Our past surveys indicate that primarily those policies limit the school's jurisdiction regarding alcohol consumption to school events, incidents that take place en route to school events, or incidents of a public nature in which a police report or ticket is issued. What about other incidents? What about the well intended but often neurotic parent who calls to anonymously report a drinking party over the weekend? Does the school have an obligation to act? What about cyber-bullying that takes place off of campus? Are these problems the domain of the school administrator? Does in loco parentis really apply twenty four hours a day? Do Catholic schools have greater or lesser responsibility than our public counterparts?

Most or our institutions contain clauses embedded in our handbooks that give us the right to discipline students for morally offensive behavior that occurs off campus. We operate on contract law and as such live and die by our handbook for defining the limits and reaches of school authority. In the public world the courts have been mixed in terms of limiting school jurisdiction to the school house gates and granting broad reaching power. In Kusnir vs. Leach 1982 the courts ruled in favor of a college taking disciplinary action against a student for morally inappropriate behavior at an off campus and non school sponsored social event. In terms of free speech courts have trended to allow school intervention only when the off campus event has a negative and substantial impact to the school day (Thomas vs. Board of Education Granville 1979). Events that take place off campus that do not disrupt the school's normal operation involving free speech are considered to be off limits for our public school counterparts. Dr. Scott McCleod of CASTLE provides an excellent summary via this podcast (link here).

I had the privilege a few weeks ago of receiving a lovely phone call on a Monday morning from a parent concerned that parents had allegedly hosted a party over the weekend and provided alcohol to the students. Our school has suffered from a similar incident four years ago in which the offending parent spent time in jail besides paying a hefty and substantial fine. I turned the case over to our school's drug and alcohol preventionist who coordinated the investigation and suspended ten students who the employee determined were involved with the event. We try to avoid anonymous complaints and concerns but given the gravity of the claim found it worth investigating. Our investigation concluded that the accusation of parents providing alcohol was unfounded yet drinking did take place in their home without their complicit knowledge. Our policy is based off a local city ordinance that deems minors who are "knowingly present and choose to remain" as guilty. A number of the students appealed their consequences to the disciplinary committee on the grounds that they were not "knowingly present". They argued in attending that they knew parents were to be present, that a small number of uninvited students brought the alcohol and where then asked to leave and that they did not personally violate the school's code. The majority of the appeals were successful. The students have a right to an appeal and I can live with the results of the process but what it brings to my attention is the question of boundaries?

Students who spend the night at a sleep over and engage in name calling or arguments that are unchristian do not find themselves facing school discipline the following Monday nor should they. The parents of the students are expected to deal with it. Why does bullying that takes place outside the school grounds via the net fit a different category? Why is the party the domain of the school? If parents are the primary educators of their children as CCC 2223 points out where is their obligation in policing and dealing with off campus issues? One can see where cyber-bullying could spill into the normal operation of the school and cause substantial issues with the smooth operation of the school. At the same time we have a moral obligation to keep our students safe and to encourage their moral development.

As a principal how do you decide when and when not to become involved with off campus issues? Do you have any memorable incidents to share? What is the proper balance? How aggressive need a school be regarding off campus issues to protect the moral development of students? What are the pros and cons of being overly aggressive?

Best Practice and School Schedules

What is the best system of scheduling for college prep high schools? It seems the popularity of the block, carnegie, or trimester are often found in clusters of use throughout the country. In my own personal experience I have only taught at or been enrolled in a high school setting utilizing the carnegie unit or eight fifty minute classes per day. My current employer utilizes the carnegie unit and in general the faculty support this scheduling system.

The pros and cons of each system are interesting to consider. A few google searches on the topic turn up some interesting finds. One of interest was a parent lead coalition and website dedicated to reversing the implementation of block scheduling (link here). Their arguments against the 4 X 4 block focused on the lack of continuity in the languages, lower scores on AP testing (certain classes available only in the fall while testing is in the spring), lack of instructional minutes with the block, and teachers continuing to use lecturing as their primary pedagogical tool. Those advocating for block scheduling stress its ability to force differentiated instruction, reduce disciplinary issues, increase lab and hands on learning, while also increasing teacher planning time. Certain types of block schedules utilize alternating A/B days to stretch classes over the entire academic year limiting the risk of spacing and AP examinations.

The typical carnegie unit structure features seven to eight individual units of equal length throughout the day. Some courses are two semesters in length while others are only one semester in duration. The advocates of this structure push time on task and its correlation to learning as well as its ability to better sequence foreign language courses. Critics argue the system reinforces lecture based instruction and forces students to often take seven non related courses at once. Other criticisms point out the amount of time spent in management as a higher percentage of classroom minutes. Taking role and opening closing duties in seven classes is more percentage time than a schedule of four classes.

A growing number of schools are implementing a trimester schedule which in general features a course length of sixty to seventy minutes with five classes in a given day. A traditional two semester class is covered by utilizing two of the three trimesters. Proponents argue the schedule allows a traditional core curriculum to be covered by freeing up time for an array of electives (link here). Problems still arise in this model with the sequencing of foreign languages and scheduling core courses in available slots can be tricky. (What system of scheduling isn't tricky?)

What in general are the common practices among Catholic college prep high schools? Below is a link to a survey about common practices regarding student schedules.

Link to survey here: Link

What are your general thoughts and experiences with these various schedules?

The Debate on Drug Testing

Most private high schools do not face the same level of severity of the problems that often plague our public counterparts. Unfortunately we often do face the problems of student drug use and what to do about it. How do we balance the public good versus the private good of offering the student a chance to make amends while helping to alter behavior, that if unchecked, can lead to the ruin of addiction and despair? There are no easy answers but their are a number of schools taking steps to address the problem of drug use. These steps range from frequent presentation on the dangers of drug use to mandatory drug testing programs for all students.

The Diocese of Peoria, effective nine years ago began a mandatory drug testing program for all students in the Diocese's six high schools. The tests are done at random or on suspicion and involve a hair test giving a 90 day history for a panel of five drugs. Students who test positive above the cut off thresholds face the consequences determined locally by each of the six high schools. Consequence at the six schools range from moderate for first time offenses to expected expulsion for repeated offenses. The possession of drugs on school grounds or the dealing of drugs often faces more immediate and severe consequences.

In my three year experience as an administrator in one of these schools the pros and cons of this program are often debated by students, parents, and staff alike. While students cringe at their inevitable invasion of their so-called privacy most indicate on surveys that the policy at least provides them with an easy out when offered illegal substances. The, "I can't... I attend such and such and we are tested..." has provided many a students with an easy out. The first year's implementation had a negative consequence of a marked number of students transferring out protesting their violation of privacy. Of course one could logically conclude there were other motives for their departure.

In general when a student tests positive the first time they are required to meet with the school administration and their parents and agree to a contract including a mandatory drug assessment, ten hours of additional service hours, and a 28 day social and athletic probation. Depending on the assessment and the level of use a family must agree to a medically recommended treatment plan. A second violation warrants another assessment and treatment plan followed with a 40 day social probation and 365 day athletic probation. A third offense barring some major exceptions brings automatic expulsion.

Faculty debate the consequences for their punitive rather than rehabilitative means. The question of what role athletics provide in encouraging a reform to positive behavior while honoring commitments to peers is often questioned? Is it wise to cut students off from such positive spheres of influence? Is the date consequence irrelevant. Many local schools have students who test positive for drugs sit a percentage of their season rather than a number of days. Each has its pros and cons.

One local principal comments that the drawback of a set day penalty is that it may or may not have any real impact on a student. A baseball player who tests positive for marijuana on the first of October essentially faces no athletic consequence whereas if the consequence was a percentage of the season the punishment would pack more punch?

Perhaps though this debate points towards the larger question of drug use? Should we impose consequences of a criminal nature or should we view drug use as a symptom of a larger moral or psychological problem. We can all argue that normal functioning adults do not need or use illegal drugs. They are often an escape or coping mechanism for a larger emotional problem that is going unaddressed. This approach may seem soft to some but is it more effective at addressing the real issues? The Church is clear on the moral issues involving drug use and the intrinsic moral evil surrounding their illegal distribution.

Our school enrolls roughly 850 students and the positive number of tests each year are often under a dozen. This means that the policy effects less than 1.5% of the population. But even with the small number there are always surprises. I've had students in my office claim the reason they do a certain drug is they knew the school would find out and their parents would finally have to notice them. Hard to believe but true. On the other end I've had parents call and ask if it would be okay for their son to experiment with drugs while in Europe over the summer. Unbelievable I know, but at least they asked.

We've all seen students fall into the trap of drug addiction. We've seen the drug habits of some parents spill upon their children. I find drug testing to be one tool in the battle but struggle with how to match the right consequences to the action. Any thoughts? And please click the survey link below to share your own school's stance on the issue.

Link to survey here: Drug Testing Link