Parochial school philosophies

could well serve public schools

by Casey Hurley

Asheville Citizen-Times

Published January 1, 2006

I have worked with public school educators for the last 24 years. Before that I was a student and teacher in Catholic schools. Examining the differences between these school systems may suggest ways to improve public schools.

A long time ago our country decided to provide free, tax-payer funded education to all American children. This was the first step toward providing citizens with equal educational opportunities, and this is what makes public schools public. America has vigorously pursued this ideal through legislation, the courts, and the benevolence of its citizens.

Parochial schools do not pursue this ideal. Instead, they enroll only the children of families that are willing and able to pay tuition.

This difference has enormous implications for parochial schools. It means their families are so committed to parochial education that their taxes pay for the education of other children (often in public schools that are better funded than parochial schools) and then they pay tuition for their own children’s education.

Why do families do this? The first reason is that parochial school parents believe their children should be educated within community. If a parochial school is not a community, it has no reason to exist. On the other hand, public schools are structured bureaucracies.

These different organizational structures lead to different educational goals. Parochial school communities depend on shared responsibility.

Therefore, they require students to become responsible for themselves, their neighbors, and their community. They achieve this goal through continual debate and negotiation among the governing elite, faculty, and families.

On the other hand, public school goals are established by the governing elite. Today’s high ranking public education officials claim that we need to focus on improving student scores on standardized achievement tests. This narrower goal is rarely debated among teachers, administrators and families.

A second fundamental difference concerns the attitudes of the ruling elites toward those who have the least in our society.

The most enduring lesson of my parochial school education was the concept of noblesse oblige -- to whom much is given, much is expected. As a young person, and later as a teacher and development director in parochial high schools, I saw the ruling elite demonstrate noblesse oblige, which was a source of inspiration to all community members.

But the opposite idea has been part of my public school experiences. Everywhere I look in public schools, I see the wealthiest citizens getting the most resources.

The unequal funding of North Carolina public schools demonstrates that our educational policies accommodate the wealthy, not the poor.

One exception to this was the work of former Buncombe County Superintendent Frank Yeager. He insisted on upgrading school facilities in what had been the most neglected parts of our county. His efforts on behalf of poor citizens deviated from the norm so much that I still remember it, years after it has been accomplished.

Why is noblesse oblige a powerful force in parochial schools, and almost non-existent in public schools? The opposite should be the case. Public school educators are committed to the ideal of equal educational opportunity, so they naturally help those students who have the greatest needs – both academically and socio-economically. Their example should promote noblesse oblige.

But this does not happen because teachers and administrators are of the middle class. Noblesse oblige requires that the upper class recognizes that “to whom much is given, much is expected.”

Is it naïve to believe that those who have the most advantages should share with others? Was this idea part of your parochial or public school experience?

Which direction have we gone over the last twenty years – toward a greater expectation of noblesse oblige, or a lesser one?

This is important because the future of our civilization may be at stake. Arch Montgomery (AC-T, October 10) pointed out that historians believe one of the reasons for the fall of the Western Roman Empire was that, “The people who benefited most from the privileges of citizenship were least willing to contribute.”

Many of us want to improve public education. Public school governing elites have recently begun to argue that a public school monopoly (their words, not mine) has created a system of complacent educators. Therefore, they propose a market place of public schools competing for students and recognition.

A comparison with parochial schools suggests that this moves us in the wrong direction. Instead of competition, we ought to try community. I know of no schools that improved simply because they had to compete with other schools. I know of many that improved, however, because they became more communitarian.

Comparing public and parochial schooling enables us to see that the reforms needed to improve public schools concern organizational structure and the attitudes of the ruling elites. Parochial schools are communities, and their demonstrate noblesse oblige. Public schools are bureaucracies, and their elites sustain a system that serves the upper classes.

Those who have the least are disadvantaged in the market place. Applying this to education will mean less educational opportunity for the poor. Although we may never reach this ideal, what will it say about us, when we stop trying?