A modest discussion

Not really sure about the Syrian action; ok, I mean, I do support it, but what was done was not enough.  To be sure, this is one thing Obama did fuck up, and left the new guy with shit...getting rid of Assad, of course, should be the goal.  In the meantime, the articles about how Russia is pissed off about Trump...well, consider it a variation on my favorite theme.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-06/catholic-schools-need-a-business-model

A couple of people sent me this (I saw it, too) and I sent it on to some...so some comments.

First -- and this was nearly universal -- while the guy may be a good coach, as an administrator, he is horsebleep, especially if he couldn't get his rich and successful alums to kick in (or, more wisely, ask their lawyers/agents/accountants to make a tax-free donation).

Second -- as noted in the article and comments -- the business model really wasn't one; relying on lots of free/cheap help (not only the nuns; I am always surprised by the amount of janitorial/custodial work students did in those days), having lots of kids due to large Catholic families, and, let's face it...Other People's Money (in the form of parish subsidies)...well, it really wasn't sustainable, and like the HRC campaign, someone should have seen it coming.  (It says much about Catholic schools if their graduates didn't, snark.)  Now, of course, they have to pay teachers (less than public schools, and in some dioceses, LESS than living wages), the student pool is smaller, and, well, in many cases, parishes simply cannot fund these schools.  And, around here, there are fewer students to begin with; public school districts are also "consolidating," with equal angst (see Parma, which, if you think of it, also reeks of...poor vision, if you get my drift.)

There is another problem here; while the article asserts that Catholic schools did serve minority students well in the past -- when I think there WAS a clear superiority of parochial schools compared to public schools -- nowadays, I am not so sure:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/03/do_vouchers_give_kids_better_e.html

I don't know; I would think that if the Catholic schools were so much better than public schools, they would have higher scores (most of my friends who saw this thought that MY percentage of "higher" was lower than it should have been, oddly) but...that's not really the case.  And, if you looked at the per-school data...well, the ones that were the higher performers were...let's just say that they served...communities that were whiter and wealthier; if you adjusted for that, I think the advantage would be nil.  Actually, this leads me to wonder if the "Greeley thesis" mentioned in the link is of the same vintage; put a bunch of challenged kids in an environment with stable, two-parent families and see if they can hold serve (sort of like, say, most of my high school friends had to hustle to match the Asian kids).

If anything, I think we should be looking at how charters and public schools have achieved "parity" with Catholic schools.  My own not-so-sneaking suspicion is that public schools had to evolve in the face of threats, and while it is uneven, it's tangible in some places; as with everywhere else, kids who want to learn will do so.  Similarly, some of the worst teachers and administrators were made redundant, one way or the other, and were replaced.  I'd like to think that we  know more about training and making good teachers, too.

This leads me to the next point, which is...if Catholic schools don't do a better job of educating students (yeah, yeah, there are all sorts of other criteria, but if math and reading aren't at the top of the list, someone needs to be fired and flogged), why do we have them?  Back in the day we used to joke about finding dates for the priests, and while I suspect that danger has largely passed...well, I think part of the enrollment problem is that a lot of Catholic parents now simply won't subject their kids to the chance.  (Again, I am surprised by the reports of shenanigans back then, and how people reacted to it...)  Right now, it appears the rationale is to educate kids in a Catholic way, which is fine, but...we're not seeing results there, either; I mean, I don't exactly see the seminaries busting at the seams, not do I see parents and kids of the non-Catholic persuasion running to join the local RCIA program.  An important consideration up and down the board is of course revenue enhancement, but it would seem to be sinful, if you wish, to operate a school under false premises simply to boost the bottom line (and, it would seem that, given the rash of closures and consolidations lately, it's not doing that either)...