The Future of our Schools
Must we not think again?
P. Mark O'Loughlin cfc
January 2006
I am enthusiastic that the name and spirit of Edmund Rice might continue within our schools after we Christian Brothers depart. But I am dismayed when confronted by the costly and potentially futile efforts by a committee to establish an Australia-wide school system to take responsibility for the ownership and governance of our schools.
During the last years of Michael Godfrey’s leadership, the advice of consultant John Little was sought for a way forward to deal with the pressing need to replace the school ownership and governance roles exercised by our province leadership. Our province adopted the steps and timelines of the Godfrey / Little process, key elements of which were the engagement and empowerment of school boards, the articulation and evaluation of all possible options, and a researching of canonical and civil legal issues.
When our province was a few years into a faithful implementation of this process, a national committee was established from other provinces to explore the same issue of future ownership and governance. The Godfrey / Little process was abandoned by default. From its inception the national committee described itself as a committee for “national governance”. Seemingly without articulation or evaluation of the many options, or appropriate informed consultation with the relevant parties, the committee decided that the way to proceed was to establish a national school system for ownership and governance of our schools. I have grave concerns about this decision.
My first concern is financial. I have seen no evidence that costs have been assessed. An Australia-wide school system would require national and state executive personnel, accounting and finance support personnel, insurance, secretariats, premises, and travel budgets. Costs would be at least hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, but I anticipate some millions of dollars per year. This would be a disproportionate and prohibitive cost burden on schools, on top of the considerable financial support demanded by local Catholic education offices.
My second worry is the absence of any evidence of anticipated episcopal acquiescence with the establishment of an Australia-wide system of Catholic schools that would presumably be independent of direct episcopal control. Currently our schools nestle as “Catholic schools” under the episcopal auspice of Catholic education offices, but free from direct episcopal control. In terms of religious education guidelines and texts, the Australian bishops do not have an Australia-wide approach to Catholic education. I see no framework for episcopal support of an independent Australia-wide Catholic school system.
A third concern is an absence of any discernment prior to the decision to choose the establishment of a national school system as the best approach for supporting the patrimonies of our schools into the future. There are many other options and combinations of approaches for future ownership and governance, including the obvious diocesan base or local independence possibilities. What makes a costly national system a compelling option? All options admit the possibility of invitatory associations that could provide effectual low cost networking for facilitating the pursuit of the best of Catholic values and our Edmund Rice tradition. What guarantee is there that an attempted national mandate would achieve these desirable goals better than voluntary associations?
This third concern raises unaddressed issues of trust and empowerment. I have long believed and said that each school will survive and nurture its patrimony into a future without Christian Brother auspice only if the school community recognises and owns its responsibilities to pursue an effective education within a well-ordered school that incarnates the best qualities of our human spirit. These latter are surely qualities of relationality and inclusivity and outreach to all who are needy, “Gospel” values if one likes. No centrally mandating system or banner can insure that these will happen in any school. After our long Christian Brother history of auspice of our schools, there is understandable dependence. I believe that trust and education and empowerment of local school communities must be an immediate goal.
Another serious concern is uncertainty about the future of “Catholic” schools in general. There are conflictual philosophical and theological issues facing “Catholic” schools. Catholic schools are enrolling a growing proportion of students from other denominations, and a growing proportion of those enrolled as “Catholic” are only nominally so. What, now, is to be the raison d’?tre for “Catholic” schools? Some years ago James Fowler described how religious traditions, and indeed all cultural groups, were moving out of the exclusive tribalism of a “stage three” of “faith”, within which one unquestioningly adopted the beliefs and practices and cultural identity of the group. Most people are now in a “stage four” of “faith”, where choice of one’s group is based on life experiences. How does a school proceed within the ambivalent demands of fidelity in respecting personal choice, and adherence to Catholic episcopal insistence on conformity? Our schools may be managing to do this, but the issues are certain to become contentious. The case for dedicated government funding for “Catholic” schools is growing weaker. We are now entering the reality of a “post-Catholic” world. How can one responsibly seek to establish a national “Catholic” school system in the face of these uncertainties?
A related issue facing “Catholic” education is the reality that Catholic thinking and writing and practice reflect a gulf separating those who subscribe to a “traditional” scholastic philosophy and theology, and those who have adopted an existential position. How does one educate coherently under the banner of “Catholic” when there are such divergent philosophical and theological positions? This issue is unresolved within our school communities. Our schools may be surviving this issue, but only by evasion and dilution of meaning and thus failure to deal with it. It appears to me that we are facing a “post-scholastic” theological world.
Another unresolved issue for our schools centres on Edmund Rice. Some recognise his core motivation as care for the marginalised. Others point to Edmund’s overriding commitment to establish Catholic schools to combat prosletysism. What has in fact been the “tradition” of Edmund Rice schools? My personal experience is that Christian Brothers have conducted highly ordered and educationally effective schools for Catholic youth. Most parents appear to choose our schools today for these reasons. Issues of Catholicity and philosophy and theology and Edmund’s intention have never been a distraction. And my understanding of “charism” is that it is always a cultural incarnation in place and time of one of our precious human values, again “Gospel” values if one likes. This was true of Jesus of Nazareth, and it was true of Edmund of Callan. Do we appropriately now look back to historical figures, or do we open ourselves to the charismatic impulses of the Spirit available for us today?
An incarnation of the deepest values of our human spirit must always be an imperative for our schools, but charism must be contemporaneous. And saying this is not to diminish the inspirational leadership of Jesus or Edmund. But in the times of Jesus and Edmund our precious global ecosystem was not being destroyed; our earth was not becoming populated beyond sustainable levels; institutional religions were not giving way to personal spiritualities; global communication and information systems were not available; powerful rogue nations were not launching obscenely devastating wars of greed against countries that have oil reserves; atomic weaponry was not available; the gulf between rich and poor was not becoming cataclysmically threatening. Our issue is not what Jesus and Edmund did then, but what the spirit would lead them to do today. Only we can answer that question.
Quite apart from the serious financial and episcopal issues, “The Charter” for Edmund Rice Education in Australia does not articulate for me a unique and coherent and agreed foundation for a first-ever Australia-wide “Catholic” school system. I am not confident that any charter could. The future direction of our schools must evolve, and the future of each school must be in its own hands. I believe that what I am saying captures the thinking of the many admirable persons in our schools today. I am most concerned about the momentum and vested interests and absence of concerned voices in the current pursuit of a national system for our schools. Surely we must urgently rethink our approach to bequeathing ownership and governance.
Related sections