Transcription

DOCUMENT RESUMEEA 029 827ED 430 303AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONISBNPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROMPUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSGuerra, Michael J.CHS 2000: A First Look.National Catholic Educational Association, Washington, DC.ISBN-1-55833-220-01998-00-0058p.National Catholic Educational Association, PublicationsDept., 1077 30th Street, NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC20007-3852; Web site: http://www.ncea.orgInformation Analyses (070)MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Catholic Educators; *Catholic Schools; EducationalAssessment; *High Schools; Lay People; Lay Teachers;National Surveys; Profiles; Program Descriptions; *SchoolPersonnel; Summative Evaluation; Trend AnalysisABSTRACTThis publication reports the findings of a 1997 survey ofCatholic high schools. It is the first of several reports to be issued aspart of a multiyear project. The findings are presented in five chapters:Institutional Characteristics, with emphasis on geography, governance, genderand grade levels, and selectivity; Staff and Student Profiles, which includesprincipals, presidents, teachers, and faculty; Governance; School Programs,both academic and religious education; and Patterns of Diversity. Findingsshow that Catholic high schools are becoming more private and thatcoeducation is on the rise. Staff composition figures, from 1983 to 1997,show that the percentage of Catholic high schools with sisters as principalsfell from 40 percent to 23 percent. Accordingly, this increased laicizationmeant that more laypersons had a greater say in policy development andimplementation. Furthermore, school programs remained primarilynon-selective, with a third of the schools offering accommodations fordisabled or challenged students. Results portray the typical Catholic highschool as having about 500 students, a student/teacher ratio of 13:1, highacceptance rates, a diverse student body, and advanced-placement courses.Overall, students are not tracked into college preparatory, although 97percent of all Catholic high-school graduates go on to postsecondaryeducation. ***********************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original ***************************************

L fi41.0.41N. ."AN. .,411D6 I-1ml00kIAAIIAIII I0,Y.-U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONPERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HASBEEN GRANTED BYOffice of Educational Research and ImprovementEDU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction qualityTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy0'1II5'2\'ABEST COPY A

Department of Secondary SchoolsNational Catholic Educational Association1998 Executive CommitteePresidentBr. Michael Collins, FSCPresidentDe La Salle High SchoolMinneapolis, MNVice President & RepresentativeMr. Daniel M. KernsHeadmasterGeorgetown Visitation Preparatory SchoolWashington, DCSecretary & RepresentativeSr. Rosemary Hocevar, OSU, PhDAssociate Professor of Educational AdministrationUrsuline CollegePepper Pike, OHRegional RepresentativesSr. Camille Anne Campbell, aCarm.President/PrincipalMount Carmel AcademyNew Orleans, LASr. Eileen Clifford, OPAssociate Vicar for EducationArchdiocese of New YorkNew York, NYSr. Jane Meyer, OPHead of SchoolSaint Agnes AcademyHouston, TXRev. Timothy MurphyPresidentCentral Catholic High SchoolPortland, ORBr. William Nick, CSCPresidentNotre Dame High SchoolSherman Oaks, CASr. Catherine Robinson, SSJPresidentArchbishop Prendergast High SchoolDrexel Hill, PAMrs. Vanesa V. ValdesDirectorAcademia San JorgeSan Juan, PRMr. James L. YerkovichAcademic Vice PrincipalJudge Memorial High SchoolSalt Lake City, UTDr. James M. GayPrincipalDe La Salle InstituteChicago, ILAt-Large MembersBr. Thomas Het land, FSCPresidentDr. Michael GriffinPrincipal/Chief AdministratorNorthwest Catholic High SchoolDriscoll Catholic High SchoolAddison, ILWest Hartford, CTMrs. Patricia TierneySuperintendent of SchoolsDiocese of St. AugustineJacksonville, FLMr. Kevin HackerPrincipalSt. Mary's High SchoolSt. Louis, MOEx OfficioMr. James HamburgePresidentBeni lde-St. Margaret's SchoolSt. Louis Park, MNDr. Leonard De FioreNCEA PresidentMr. Michael J. GuerraExecutive Director

.--,i 1 I-.--1ILiMICHAEL J. GUERRAEXECUTIVE DIRECTORSECONDARY SCHOOLS DEPARTMENT00

";:.jjCopyright 1998 by the National Catholic Educational Association,1077 30th Street, NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20007-3852.All rights reserved, including the right of reproducing in wholeor part in any form.Published in the United States of America by the NationalCatholic Educational Association.ISBN 1-55833-220-05

ACONOFAcknowledgementsPrologueAndrew M. GreeleyNTSviviiiChapter 1:Introduction1Chapter 2:Institutional Characteristics5GeographyGovernance67Gender and Grade LevelsChapter 3:8Selectivity10Staff and Students11Principak and Presidents11Teachers12Faculty CompensationStudents13Chapter 4:Governance15Chapter 5:School ProgramsAcademic ProgramsReligious Education and Formation21Patterns of Diversity25Governance25Regions29Special Schools31Conclusion33Endnotes35Chapter 6:Chapter 7:142124EpilogueBruce S. CooperMerritt HemenwayDiane RavitchAppendix373941436

LisOF 'I A It LESPageTable 2.1Regional distribution of Catholic high schools6Table 2.2Governance8Table 2.3Grade levels9Table 2.4Single gender and co-education9Table 2.5Changes completed or anticipated during five year periods9Table 2.6Selectivity10Table 3.1Percentages of schools with various titles for chief administrator11Table 3.2Percentages of schools with lay, religious and clerical chief administrators 12Table 3.3Percentages of lay, religious and clergy serving as full-time teachersin Catholic high schools12Table 3.4Percentages of schools reporting benefit programs for lay teachers13Table 3.5Percentages of schools reporting parity in salary between lay teachersand religious13Table 3.6Religion: Percentages of students14Table 3.7Race/Ethnicity: Percentages of students14Table 3.8Annual family income: Percentages of students14Table 4.1The board's role in determining school policies15Table 4.2Areas where the board assumes primary responsibility15Table 4.3Tuition, operating income and expenses167iv

Percentages of schools estimating the percentage of operating costscovered by tuition income17Percentages of students in grades 9 through 12 who currently receivetuition assistance17Percentage of current budget's operating income (FY97) derived fromannual giving program18Table 4.7Estimated alumni p.articipation in annual fund18Table 4.8Percentage of operating income derived from special events19Table 4.9Total amount of school's endowment fund as of January 199719Table 5.1Percentages of schools offering various academic programs22Table 5.2Graduation requirements for a typical Catholic high school22Table 5.3Percentages of schools exploring/implementing innovative teaching23Table 5.4Percentages of students who are actively involved in one or moresports or co-curricular activity/ies23Table 4.4Table 4.5Table 4.6Table 5.5Numbers and percentages of full-time religion teachers in Catholichigh schools24Table 6.1Institutional characteristics25Table 6.2Institutional finance & governance26Table 6.3Student characteristics27Table 6.4Socioeconomic characteristics (by governance type)28Table 6.5Governance by regions29Table 6.6Finances30Table 6.7Socioeconomic characteristics (by geographic region)30Table 6.8Characteristics of groups of schools serving substantial numbers ofminority students by region and governance31ay

ACKNOWL DGEMEN TSThis publication reports the findings of a survey ofCatholic high schools conducted during 1997. Itis the first of several reports to be issued as part of6.THIS IS NOTTHE END,NOR EVEN THEBEGINNING OFTHE END99.a multiyear project, CHS2000. Although much work remainsto be done, I want to acknowledge the important contributions of my colleagues, Sr. Mary Frances Taymans, SND, Ed.D.In addition to their advice andassistance with the initial survey, they are providing leadand Sr. Mary Tracy, SNJM.ership for the four focused surveys to be conducted over thenext two years. Ms. Eileen Emerson, my administrativeassistant, has provided an extraordinary array of contributions, ranging from preparation and design of the manuscript to research assistance. Herenthusiasm and unfailing good humor served to bridge the all too frequent gaps in my modestruns of creative dedication.The project has been blessed by the good counsel of a distinguished advisory panel.Dr. James Cibulka, Chair, Department of Education Policy/Planning/Administration, Universityof Maryland, College Park; Rev. Andrew Greeley, Professor of Social Science, National OpinionResearch Center, The University 'of Chicago; Dr. Jeanne Griffith, Director, Division of ScienceResources Studies, National Science Foundation; Dr. Bruno Manno, Senior Fellow at the AnnieE. Casey Foundation and Sr. Dominica Rocchio, SC, Ed.D., Secretary of Education & Superintendent of Catholic Schools, Archdiocese of Newark, offered wise advice about the development of the survey instrument and the collection and analyses of the data. If you findsections of the text useful, you may assume that I followed their advice. If there are elementsof the study that you find questionable, you may assume that I did not ask, or did not followtheir advice. In any case, I am quite sure that this project is stronger because they agreedto help and I am most grateful.I am also indebted to the members of my executive committee, a group of 17 Catholiceducators elected by Catholic high schools throughout the United States to serve as thedepartment's governing board. They supported the CHS2000 project with words of encouragement, augmented by a grant from the department's Special Projects fund. Most importantly, they gave the CHS2000 project priority in their strategic plan for the department'swork, endorsing the time commitments that will be made by the project staff. And, in actsof special merit, they took on the challenging task of contacting their colleagues and

constituents to urge them to complete our surveys, a noble effort that leaves the membersof the committee modestly indebted to large numbers of their peers.Mrs. Tracy Hartz ler-Toon, who has gone on to direct Capital Partners, a privately-fundedWashington scholarship program, made major contributions to the critically important firstmonths when the project moved from concept to reality.Ms. Linda McCullough also provided invaluable assistance in developing useful computerprograms, supervising data entries and generating reports. May she and her machines beforever blessed with immunity from the Y2K and other bugs.What then did the project director do? As Rodolfo sings to Mimi, "Chi so? Sono poeta.E come vivo? Vivo!"And so, to borrow from Sir Winston, this is not the end, nor even the beginning of theend, but it is the end of the beginning.Read on.Michael 3. GuerraWashington, DCFeast of the Immaculate Conception 1998vil

PROT 0 GUEHIS REPORT.FURNISHESAN INFORMATIVE BENCHMARK PICTURE OFCATHOLIC SECONDARYSCHOOLS AT THE END OFWHAT FOR ALL PRACTICALPURPOSES IS THEIR FIRSTCENTURY.The astonishing phenomenon is not thatCatholic schools are prospering at theend of the 20th century. Rather, theamazing fact is that they have survived at all.Catholic secondary schools emerged for themost part at the end of the last century andin the beginning of the years of the presentcentury to protect the faith of the children ofthe immigrants while preparing them forachievement of success in American society.There can be no reasonable question that theschools were remarkably successful in bothgoals.However, by the end of the secondphase of the Great War (1945), it was evidentthat a hostile Protestant host culture had littleappeal to second and third generation immigrants and that these young men and womenwere on the high road to prosperity, indeed along with other Americans but now ahead ofthem and at a faster rate.Therefore it was not surprising that the cry rose in the late 1950s in certain Catholiccircles that Catholic schools were no longer the "answer", though it was less clear what theanswer was. From having been indicted just a few years before by ivisgr. John Tracy Ellisand similar writers as being an obstacle to the development of a Catholic intellectual life,the schools were now told that they had served their purpose well enough and it was timefor something newwhat that something was supposed to be was rarely specified. Frombeing denounced as inferior to public schools, the schools were now blamed for standingin the way of an improvement of public schools.The hostility of the public school establishment and its allies in the media continuedunabated (as it does today). Now they found allies among some self-styled Catholic "liberals",who added the cliché "after the Council" to the claim that Catholic schools were not theanswer. Moreover, in a monumental loss of nerve, many bishops decided that they could nolonger afford Catholic schoolsa decision they made without bothering to consult the laity.Most of the parish clergy abandoned their annual late August sermon (most recently homily)on the advantages of Catholic schools. Many of the religious men and women who staffedBEST COPY AVAILABLEviii11

the Catholic schools began to wonder whether they ought to be doing "something else"instead of teaching.The research tradition on the excellence of Catholic schools, which Michael Guerra is goodenough to cite in this preliminary report, had little impact on these parties and, if truthbe told, little impact on Mr. Guerra's past colleagues and some of his present colleagues.The playing field was tilted against Catholic schools, right?Yet they have survived and flourished and attract many families who are not Catholicand many who are not white. Now enrollment is increasing and, as this report demonstrates,the schools are becoming increasingly professionaleven to the extent of actually respondingto questionnaires. Scholars like Anthony Bryk and the late James Coleman, men with noparticular vested interest in Catholic schools, hail them as the real "common" school ofAmerica, more racially and socially integrated than the public schbols and more likely tofacilitate the advancement of disadvantaged minority students.What happened?Actually the question is what did not happen. Despite the badly tilted playing field,the relevant players did not change their minds about Catholic schoolsthe consumers ofCatholic education. They thought that Catholic schools were a good educational investmentin 1930 and 1940 and 1950. They still think so today. All the research that was done onthe advantage of Catholic schools to minority families was in some sense irrelevant. Thecritics of such research were wasting their breath. The consumers, in this case, minorityparents, had made up their minds. Do Catholic schools help minority students? Ask not theresearch scholars, ask the parents of such students. They'll tell you and in no uncertain terms.This report, which will whet the appetite of many for more detailed presentations yetto come, furnishes an informative benchmark picture of Catholic secondary schools at theend of what for all practical purposes is their first century. It shouldthough it probablywon'tpersuade all the various doubters and complainers that Catholic schools will continueand continue to prosper.Problems remain, as in all human institutions. Faculty salaries are still a serious problemin commutative justice: upper middle class and middle class parents are, however unintentionally, conspiring in the exploitation of teachers. Endowments and fundraising have aconsiderable distance to go. Scholarship programs must expand. More efforts (like Chicago'sCristo Rey School) must be made to attract Latino students who have much to learn fromCatholic schools and also much to teach in the schools, especially about the festivity ofCatholicism'. Better public relations are necessary to deprive the murmurers of their nearmedia monopoly.Nonetheless this preliminary report is astonishing evidence of both the durability andthe flexibility oi Catholic schools in the United States.Andrew AI. GreeleyUniversity of ChicagoChicago, ILFeast of All the Saints 199812

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONThe recent history of Catholic schools in the UnitedCATHOLIC HIGHSCHOOLS.AREEXAMINING HOWTHEY WILL MEETNEW CHALLENGESWHILE MAINTAININGTHE INTEGRITY OFTHEIR MISSION,.States has been remarkably encouraging.Catholic schools stand out as beacons of hope inthe context of a national reform effort driven bywidespread concern for the quality of American schools.The current wave of American educational reform waslaunched in 1983 with the publication of A Nation atRisk: The Imperative for Educational Reform by theNational Commission on Excellence in Education. Thecommission's charter included ".assessing the quality of teaching and learning in our nation's public andprivate schools, colleges and universities.[paying]particular attention to teenage youth.by focusinglargely on high schools." 1 The commission foundeducational excellence elusive, mediocrity rampant,and a nation at risk if it did not replace complacency with commitment.A year earlier, James Coleman and his colleagues had published their first analysisof longitudinal data collected by a U.S. Department of Education study of American highschool students.' Coleman's report suggested that students in Catholic schools "showedhigher performance on standardized tests than students from comparable backgrounds inpublic schools. . . . For Catholic schools, but not in other private schools, this effectivenesswas especially pronounced for students from disadvantaged backgrounds: those with less welleducated parents, blacks and Hispanics." The power of Catholic schools to make a differencein the educational achievements of minority students was confirmed in an independentanalysis of the Nigh School and Beyond database by Andrew Greeley.4 Coleman's work waschallenged by some researchers, affirmed by others, and criticized by many public schoolsupporters as biased, although Coleman and his colleagues at the University of Chicago hadno personal or professional connection to Catholic education. In 1987 Coleman and Hofferpublished a second study, Public and Private High SchooLs: the Impact of Communities,' that11 3BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

CHS2000: A FIRST LOOKexamined new data from the longitudinal project which confirmed and extended the conclusions they had drawn in their earlier work. With the availability of new evidence fromsubsequent surveys of the original students, they found students in Catholic high schoolswere more likely to graduate, more likely to enroll in college, and more likely to completetheir college studies. But most importantly, by exploring significant differences in performance between students in Catholic and other private schools, these scholars were able todevelop a set of postulates about the unique power of the faith communities in which Catholicschools were rooted. Coleman's second study drew little criticism. The research communitymade subsequent contributions to the literature,6 and virtually all of the later researchreinforced the conclusion that Catholic high schools as a group represented an exceptionallysuccessful educational enterprise. In 1993, a major study by Anthony Bryk and his colleaguesconcluded that the American Catholic high school's religious vision for education was closerto the democratic ideal of the common good than a public educational system largely drivenby the values of radical individualism and the pursuit of economic rewards.'With ren