Discussions at the recent World Congress for Catholic Education confirm what has been the context within the United States of America for the past twenty years, that is that the recruitment, formation and retention of Catholic educators is a priority (Canavan, 2001; Manno, 1985; Schuttloffel, 2014). Additionally, the requisite qualities for the Catholic educator to carry out their mandate have been addressed by educational scholars (Ozar, L. & Weitzel-O’Neill, P., 2012; Miller, 2005; Jacobs, 1996; Ciriello, 1996). The core issue that remains is the ability to take one’s Catholicity as a person of faith, and integrate that faith into professional teaching practice. This personal witness to the faith is a key to institutional Catholic identity and is the goal of numerous teacher preparation programs within various colleges and universities. First it is important to clarify a main point about American schooling. Schools are considered local entities. Government schools are subject to districts and districts are subject to their individual state. There is not a federal system of education in the United States. Catholic schools are traditionally organized by the local parish, or the diocese or a religious congregation. Our Catholic schools receive not government funding, but are subject to the government’s regulations regarding educator preparation and licensure. Because Catholic schools have been considered academically superior in most states, and since there is no financial supprt, Catholic schools have a considerable degree of freedom.
The ability to integrate personal faith into professional practice is one of the main challenges for Catholic educators and an implicit requirement for teachers who meet the National Standards and Benchmarks for Effective Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools (2012). “This landmark document is the result of two years of broad collaboration among Catholic educators across the nation [USA]. Leaders and scholars in Catholic institutions of higher education, superintendents, principals, bishops, congregational sponsors, pastors, National Catholic Educational Association directors and executive committee members, and Catholic school supporters, have all contributed, sharing their collective wisdom, expertise, experience, and passion” (http://www.catholicschoolstandards.org). This document and its resource materials, also located on their website, provide the support practitioners require to carry out their academic and faith formation mission.
At our own university, The Catholic University of America, our educator preparation programs are grounded in a conceptual framework entitled the reflective practitioner model. This model is based in cognitive theory and pedagogical research. But for the purpose of those entering the Catholic school context, the model must be transformed. To engage the Catholic school context I have developed the contemplative practitioner model (1999, 2008). Contemplative practice takes those elements of reflective practice, professional knowledge and skills, and infuses them with Gospel Values and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. Students are exposed to this Catholic educator worldview through coursework, practica, and close association with Catholic educators. While we do not offer a course on teaching in a Catholic schooling per se, a number of the faculty draw contrasts between Catholic schooling and government schools where apprpriate. Examples would be on topics such as governance, finance, mission, philosophy, and values/character formation. In terms of curriculam, students would be reminded that in Catholic schools two major differences need consideration: teaching the subject of religion (especially at the elementary level) and integrating Catholic teaching into the secular subjects where appropriate. Students do take a theology course that focuses specifically on the vocation of teacher and how to approach teaching religion.
Additionally, the theological and philosophical requirements of the university contribute to the future teacher’s foundational knowledge base. Campus Ministry and its various spiritual and service programs also influence the formation of the future Catholic educator. We in the department attempt to integrate all of this knowledge and experience into a way of thinking that influences how we teach for children to learn in all schools.
Another educator preparation model offered by numerous Catholic colleges and universities provides educator candidates with an integrated professional and spiritual formation experience. For example, the Alliance of Catholic Educators (ACE), the largest producer of Catholic school teachers in the USA, provides students with an emersion experience as an educator as well as a faith formation experience. “The three pillars of ACE – teacher formation, community, and spiritual growth – inform, inspire, and mobilize ACE teachers throughout their time in the program and beyond” (https://ace.nd.edu/). ACE accepts students who have completed their undergraduate education and will pursue an MA in teaching. These students are placed in high need schools, live in community and take graduate courses. I have several former ACE teachers within my doctoral program in Catholic Educational Leadesrhip and Policy Studies. An obvious theme is their passion to serve the poor and their increased spiritual formation through the program. There are numerous variations of the ACE program at other Catholic colleges and universities. The goal of each of these programs is to provide a strong body of faith knowledge, a commitment to their faith’s beliefs, and, most importantly, a commitment to living the faith within their professional practice.
All American educator preparation programs have some obvious challenges due to the governance structures. The accreditation of educator preparation units is a highly regulated process by state, national and specialty program agencies. Most diocesan schools currently require teacher licensure. Adding additional coursework beyond licensure, devoted to the Catholic formation might extend the timeline for studies and increase costs. Secondly, many Catholic colleges and universities acknowledge that the vast majority of their students will teach in government sponsored schools. This means that the rationalization for including distinctive Catholic educator preparation may seem unnecessary for student career goals. Finally, related to this reality is the diminishing number of Catholic schools, and thus, teaching positions. Students plan for opoprtunities where they exist.
As a brief rebuttal to these challenges, I would like to make some recommedations. First, formative experiences that would prepare Catholic educators are best done when integrated into their current pedagogical experiences. Catholicity is not an add-on to one’s identity as a teacher. It is my opinion that what we would expect of students as part of their Catholic educator formation would serve them as future teachers and their students wherever they would ultimately teach. The vocation of teacher is broader than Catholic schooling and should inform thinking about teaching and learning in any school. Second, young Catholic college students need to have experiences where they see their faith in action. Considerable research exists that focus on the tenuous relationship many young adults have with the Catholic Church. Young adults seek relationships; they seek connections. Much of this angst could be filled through the community of a Catholic school. Often our students desire to make a difference in the world and a Catholic school can be that place. I believe it is the responsibility of Catholic colleges and universities to do a better job of providing a motivation for our students to want to serve the Church and society through Catholic education. And for those who choose to teach in government or private schools, to recognize that teaching in those contexts also provides a means to serve the common good.
References
Canavan, K. (2001). Leadership succession in Catholic schools: planned or unplanned? Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and practice 5(1), 72-84.
Ciriello, M. J. (1996). Formation and development for Catholic school leaders: The principal as spiritual leader. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.
Jacobs, R. M. (1996). The vocation of the Catholic educator. Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association.
Manno, B. (1985). Those who would be Catholic school principal: their recruitment, preparation, and evaluation National Catholic Educational Association, Washington D.C.
Miller, M. J. Archbishop. (2006). The Holy See’s Teaching on Catholic Schools. Strathfield, NSW: Saint Paul’s Publications.
Ozar, L. & Weitzel-O’Neil, P. (2012). National Standards and Benchmarks for Effective Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools
Schuttloffel, M. J. (2014). Report on the future of Catholic school leadership---Ten Years Later—2003-2013. Arlington, VA: National Catholic Educational Association.
Schuttloffel, M. J. (2008). Contemplative leadership: Creating a culture for continuous improvement. Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association.
Schuttloffel, M. J. (1999). Character and the contemplative principal. Washington, DC: National Catholic EducationalAssociation.
Prof. Merylann J. Schuttloffel, Ph.D.
Department of Education Director,
Catholic Educational Leadership & Policy Studies Doctoral Program
The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC