In today's Democrat and Chronicle, columnist Mark Hare (pictured) writes a thoughtful column on reinventing Catholic schools, and points out that the Diocese still has the opportunity to engage teachers, administrators and parents to help look at the future.The Save St. John of Rochester blog has sounded off on the column, as have readers below (click the "comments" link).
5 comments:
I thought Mark Hare's article was good, but I don't have confidence that the numbers cited by the Diocese are accurate. The Task Force findings have not been released. How can we be sure that the often quoted $5,000,000 deficit number is true?
When I hear people say, "There are 2000 parishioners and only 200 students, how do we balance both of there needs", I think about how the state charges everyone (parent or not) for their system that costs $15,000 per student vs the Catholic system where parents personally pay 75% of the cost per student (one example $5,500 per student cost, last years tuition $4,050 per student) and the parent also pays for the local public school. Tax Credits are need.
The subsidy that the parish provide to Catholic schools are an investment in the church. Our parishes are full on Sunday with parishioners that for the most part went to Catholic Schools. They are increasingly the older generations. If we want our parishes to be filled in future generations, we need to support the schools.
I'm not sure how 'thoughful' I found this column. It seems Mark just reiterated much of the same nonesense the DOR has maintained on the cause of the closings. Much of which we know to be inaccurate, incomplete, and generally misleading. His 'perhaps' comment regarding the process itself was not much of a stand. Gee, don't go out on a limb or anything with a real opinion. As for the church reinventing itself, well, isn't that a part of what many of the closing schools plans addressed? We were shot down.
When they quote the number of parishioners who use a school, they forget that these schools are already absorbing students from other parishes that had their schools closed or never had a school to begin with.
I agree that we need to reinvent the system, but closing schools should have been the last option considered, not the first. There is no creativity in this plan.
Regional schools is just a return to the failed quadrant system. The system that worked for 100 years before they started meddling was the parish-based system. Those schools survived much worse economic times than we are in now.
Absent the commitment for parish based schools, the schools should operate independently with the Diocese overseeing the administrative needs (payroll, benefits, bulk buying, etc..)and financial aid program so that we don't abandon the WIN students. The schools could pay the Diocese for those services, and the parishes could pay a smaller tax to be used for financial aid purposes. It would be up to the parish to decide if they would support maintenance costs or charge rent on the buildings.
The part about Noelle D'Amico contacting the Diocese two years ago shows that they had no intention of engaging the people who are most committed to the survival of Catholic Schools in our area; as does their turning their backs on plans put forth that would save schools without adding costs.
of those 2000 families, 700 are regular church goers and contributers, more than half of those have had a child or grandchild go thru the school.
800 parish people signed a petition to save the school. most of the active leaders in the parish
have had children in the school at some point
of those 2000 families, 700 are regular church goers and contributers, more than half of those have had a child or grandchild go thru the school.
800 parish people signed a petition to save the school. most of the active leaders in the parish
have had children in the school at some point
Post a Comment