Schools

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eleven Catholic School Principals Selected for National Mentor Program

Year-long Pilot Program to Provide Ongoing Coaching and Mentoring

Washington, D.C. (October 31, 2019) Catholic elementary school principals who demonstrate strong, transformational leadership were nominated by superintendents from all regions of the country to participate in a new National Catholic School Mentor Program. The program kicked off in August with a three-day Leadership Institute where the principals analyzed their current strategies for curriculum development, funding models, and enrollment management to identify areas of improvement.

The National Catholic School Mentor Program was developed in correlation with the 2016 research on parental perceptions of Catholic schools, The Catholic School Choice: Understanding the Perspectives of Parents and Opportunities for More Engagement. The program intends to equip principals with the skills and resources needed to apply the research and positively impact enrollment and retention in their respective schools.

The program’s sponsors, FADICA, (Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities) and the National Catholic Educational Association selected the professional consultants at Meitler to lead the initiative. As experts in Catholic school planning and operational strategy, Meitler coordinated the Leadership Institute and will continue to provide ongoing mentoring and coaching to the principals throughout the 2019-2020 school year. All of these benefits are provided at no cost to the participant or the diocese, due to the generous support of project donors.

Although the program is national in scale, it is designed to impact real change at the local level in each principal’s community and school. To alleviate the isolation that principals often experience, the program utilizes a cohort model offering regular opportunities throughout the school year for principals to engage and support each other. 

The benefit from peer support was immediately observed by the eleven principals who gathered at the Carmelite Spiritual Center in Darien, Illinois for the Leadership Institute in August. [As one participant shared, the workshop provided “ample opportunity to collaborate with others. Because we were from such varied parts of the country, I felt comfortable being frank about the challenges my school faces.”] [NOTE TO DIOCESES: Quote in brackets may be replaced with a quote from your respective principal.]

The eleven principals who are participating in the National Catholic School Mentor Program include:  

• Sister Marie Isaac Staub, O.P., St. Dominic Catholic School, Diocese of Joliet, IL;
• Ms. Teresa Matetich, St. Joseph’s School, Diocese of Duluth, MN;
• Ms. Jennifer Crombie, St. Katherine Drexel School, Diocese of Milwaukee, WI;
• Mr. Michael Kosar, Holy Spirit School, Diocese of Albany, NY;
• Ms. Jessica Walters, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel School, Diocese of Providence, RI;
• Ms. Sandy Pizzolato, Ascension Catholic Diocesan Regional School, Diocese of Baton Rouge, LA;
• Mr. Lee Sayago, St. John Paul II, Diocese of St. Petersburg, FL;
• Dr. Mazi McCoy, Corpus Christi School, Diocese of Galveston/Houston, TX;
• Ms. Lilly Samaniego, Ss. Cyril and Methodius School, Diocese of Corpus Christi, TX;
• Mr. Paul Richardson, Butte Central Schools, Diocese of Great Falls/Helena, MT; and
• Ms. Patricia Provo, St. Kieran Catholic School, Diocese of San Diego, CA.

About FADICA

Since its establishment in 1976, FADICA (Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities) has become the leading philanthropic peer network which serves as a catalyst for a vital Catholic Church, Catholic ministries, and the common good. The organization promotes the growth and effectiveness of Catholic philanthropy inspired by the joy of the Gospel and the Catholic social tradition.

About NCEA

The National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) is the largest, private professional education association in the world. NCEA works with Catholic educators to support ongoing faith formation and the teaching mission of the Catholic Church. Their membership includes more than 150,000 educators serving 1.8 million students in Catholic education.

About Meitler

Meitler was founded in 1971 to respond to the needs of faith-based institutions for professional planning. Nearly 50 years later, Meitler has consulted with more than 2,000 Catholic schools, parishes, dioceses, and religious congregations across the United States to create transformational strategies driven by data and fueled by faith.

Learn more about the Program

October 31, 2019 Press Release (PDF)

When performing market research for a school, it is very common to interview older alumni and hear how the school should be more like when the alum was attending.  Questions like: Why isn’t the school enrollment as large as when I went here?  Why don’t you get more nuns/priests/brothers? Why does it cost so much more than when I went here?  The school administration sighs and wishes the alums would face the realities of today.

The other thing that often happens when I am interviewing constituencies, especially parents, is they complain about directions the school is taking: Why did they change the math textbook?  What’s with this silly new furniture?  Why is my child watching videos instead of doing homework?

What has occurred to me is the school administrators will object about alumni living in the past, and then they themselves will continue to operate the school as in the old days – when parents assumed what the school did was appropriate and never thought to challenge curricular issues.  Well, it’s a new day all around.  Parents are much more savvy consumers and much more interested in even minute details about their child’s life – especially as regards education.

In focus groups I lead where these type of questions occur, and if appropriate, I explain why bouncy chairs help concentration or briefly explain the philosophy behind a flipped classroom.  Almost universally, the parents ask: Why didn’t they tell us that?  Or even better, say: Well, that makes sense.  We can’t make changes, even seemingly simple ones, without letting the appropriate constituency (this often applies to the faculty and staff as well) know what is happening, when and why.  It takes extra work and might seem “unnecessary” because certainly the administrator knows what she/he is doing, but to operate without detailed and timely communication is not facing the realities of today.

Rick Pendergast

In today’s digital age, there is in my opinion, an appropriate amount of emphasis placed on increasing student engagement. Wonderful tools, such as the eleot, exist to accurately measure student engagement in the learning process. As an educational consultant, my research in schools typically uncovers a common reality: many teachers utilize web 1.0 tools and dip their toes into the water of web 2.0 tools while students are masters of web 2.0 tools and are dipping their toes into the water of web 3.0. 

Peppered within school are teachers who have taken a deep dive into the digital water and are using web 2.0 tools to  impact  learning in the classroom.  However, in some cases teachers may find a web 2.0 tool and then use it unceasingly. The overuse makes it less effective in increasing student engagement. This was often the case when Prezi replaced Power Point in classrooms across the country.  Even more common is the practice of having students put away their devices so they can better pay attention to the teacher.  Certainly, access to a device alone doesn’t increase student engagement. Key to effective use of web 2.0 tools is teachers and students being co-creators of content and partners in the learning process.

Whenever I observe, reflect on, or provide feedback to a school on their use of technology to increase student engagement and enhance learning, I often reference the work of Eric Sheninger. His book, Digital Leadership: Changing Paradigms for Changing Times, provides wonderful examples of the technological trends and how the use of technology can impact the learning taking place in classrooms today.  Even the often-confused understanding of the difference between web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 is broken down simply as: web 1.0 is informational, 2.0 is relational and 3.0 is anticipatory (preface, xxi).

Perhaps this is our starting point within a school. Schools leaders that have been successful in this area utilize a common metric to provide teachers with feedback such as the RAT framework used in conjunction with a tool such as the eleot to support teachers in achieving a baseline of information to assess their own use of web 2.0 tools. From there they empower them to seek out best practices and give them the time necessary to learn how to integrate the digital tools into their classroom instruction. 

As much as we may want to resist it and ask the students to put away their devices, we need to better prepare students to work in a technology rich and technology driven world. What resources are you finding helpful in this area of challenge and promise?

Dr. Jackie Lichter

I am currently reading for a second time, The Power of Moments: Why Certain Experiences Have Extraordinary Impact, by Heath & Heath. It explores the examples and research on how some brief encounters or experiences can strike us, impress, affect, and change us. The first time I read it through the lens of my own personal experiences and walked away with a renewed sense of the importance of the weekly family dinner ritual in our home. This time, the connections I am making to this topic are exploring ways to help those I serve in my work as a consultant to assist them in creating defining moments in the constituencies they serve. Heath & Heath’s research suggests there are specific defining moments in our lives that create meaningful experiences that ultimately stand out in our memories (p. 4). And, that people’s defining moments share common elements. More specifically, moments of elevation, insight, pride and connection.

Recently, I sat down with a person serving as the Director of Admissions. She shared with me that 65 students applied to the school, 43 were accepted and 25 enrolled. I asked what the current practice was in alerting a student that his/her application was accepted. She said the parents receive an email.  If we apply the research of the power of moments to this process, could the school  be missing an opportunity to create a defining moment that might possibly increase the likelihood the child enrolls? Why not capitalize on the element of pride, elevation or even connection?

Here are some examples of ways a school could create a defining moment for parents and their children:

•  How about sending a personalized video to the child and his/her parents announcing the good news?
• Or perhaps create a frame with the school’s name and mascot on it for the family to post on social media with a hashtag such as #futurestudent.
• Add in to the announcement, as Heath & Heath suggest, some school swag to further help the child feel part of the family.

Soon you elevate the moment. In reality, the moments of elevation are applicable to all aspects of the admissions process.

• Applications can go live at an announced day and time creating an increased level of anticipation.
• A photo board could list the accepted students as “members of the class of …,” as if one were listing members of the cast for the upcoming musical. Current students could be listed as back again for the second season cast members. 

Regardless of what you language you use, the goal is to create the sense of pride, insight, elevation and connection that ultimately stands out as a defining moment in the life of the student. What a world it would be if we all were centered on creating powerful moments for one another.

Dr. Jackie Lichter

Let me tell you about a boy named Caleb. Caleb was a 7^th grader who could be defined as “a class clown.” He had remarks for everyone and always had to get in the final word. He struggled academically and sat quietly in the classroom during discussions or lectures. He rarely completed his homework, would not ask for help, and routinely failed quizzes and tests. Teachers, including me, struggled with Caleb because he just didn’t care. There was a lot of concern for Caleb looking into his future and wondering how he would get through 7^th and 8^th grade and what high school was going to look like for him.

In November of Caleb’s 7^th grade year, as a school, we decided to implement personalized learning in a blended learning environment. This meant that Caleb was in a classroom of 6^th, 7^th and 8^th graders. Classes were split amongst two teachers. One teacher taught Humanities (me) while the other teacher taught STEM. It took a lot to figure out how to best meet the needs of the students; but, it was definitely what was needed.

The first thing I needed to do was to pretest the students and find out where each one of them was academically. I made binders for each grade and subject that included the standards needing to be mastered. If a student showed mastery in a standard, I marked it in the binder. While that did not mean the student did not have to practice that standard, I knew it was one I didn’t have to “teach.” I then grouped the students according to subject and standards not yet mastered. This is how I developed my weekly lesson plans along with each student’s weekly work plan. Students were provided tasks to either practice skills taught but not yet mastered or review standards previously mastered.

Students worked through three rotations. One station was with me. This is where I taught the standards the students needed to learn. This was done in their small group. After students met with me, they were given an assignment or project to practice the standard. Students could work independently or in their small group. They knew they could ask each other for help because if I wasn’t working with their group, I was working with another group. The third station was independent work time. This is where students followed their personalized work plan and self-selected which standards they wanted to work on. Students had a list of “Must Do’s” and “May Do’s”. Students had to complete 15 minutes of work on each “Must Do” before they could work on a “May Do.”

There were many benefits to implementing a personalized learning environment. First, students like Caleb were not left behind. I knew through data collection; exactly what Caleb knew and exactly what he needed to work on. Because I was working with him at his level, there were minimal frustrations and Caleb started to become more excited to learn. Second, students got to self-select what they wanted to work on. Caleb did not like being “told” what to do. He liked having power in the classroom. By self-selecting what he wanted to work on, this gave him that power. He was focused on the work in front of him and took pride in showing me all that he accomplished in a class period. He started to think the work was “easy” and therefore also saw growth in the speed at which he was producing work.

And finally, there were no more traditional “quizzes” and “tests.” Most of seeing mastery through the standards was through observation, small group time, and projects. Because there were multiple grade levels in the classroom and students working on multiple standards, students were given choice in their final project as well. One thing I learned about Caleb that I didn’t before was how creative he was. Whenever he had the choice in a final project, he also selected one that he could “create.” I had never seen him work so intently on a “test” before. Caleb struggled with writing, so to be able to create something and talk about it not only boosted his self-esteem, but it also boosted his knowledge and understanding of the standards he had been working on.

During parent teacher conferences that spring, Caleb shared with his parents and me how much he enjoyed the personalized learning environment. He liked that he got to choose what he worked on without the teacher telling him. He also liked that the teacher spoke to him independently instead of in front of the whole class. He wasn’t embarrassed anymore to get an answer wrong because he wasn’t being publicly humiliated. And the greatest part for him was being able to choose his final project. He could clearly see how much he was learning and was excited to share his knowledge with others. While Caleb always continued to be “the funny guy” in class, he was no longer bursting out and disrupting others. He was focusing his attention on the task at hand and absorbing as much as he possibly could during class. Because of my experiences with personalized learning as a teacher, I fully implemented it when I became a principal. Why personalized learning, you ask? Because it works!

Angela Gunderson