Page 62 – Cardinal Newman Society

Catholic Schools, Firing Policies and Teacher Misconduct

This publication is the first in a collaborative series between The Cardinal Newman Society and the Culture of Life Foundation on complex moral issues in Catholic education policy. These papers are intended to inform discussion and should not be regarded as definitive statements of policy or practice. The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Cardinal Newman Society or the Culture of Life Foundation.

The question which has been in the news recently is as follows: Should teachers, faculty members or school administrators be terminated if they are found to be guilty of grave moral misconduct in their private lives?

Because each Catholic school has elements unique to itself—mission statements, constituencies, financial needs—and each employment situation is unique, and the circumstances surrounding each instance of misconduct is unique, there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer to this question. But certain consistent principles can be considered and practical measures taken to assist schools in responding well to the problem of employee misconduct. This essay discusses both.

What’s the Fuss?

Why is this even a difficult question? Why not just sack any employee guilty of misconduct, clean the slate and move on? Or why not be merciful and always offer employees a second chance? Both options could be licit; at the very least, neither is intrinsically evil.

It’s a difficult question because school officials, in seeking to do what is right, are aware that both alternatives—firing and not firing—risk causing unintentional harms that they are not interested in bringing about, and that could be very impacting on the welfare of the school and the Church.

Making a good decision means not only being realistic about unintentional harms, but assessing whether or not tolerating (but not intending) one or more of them might either violate some moral duty or be an obligation in virtue of some other duty. Public relations (PR) concerns are often foremost on the minds of school authorities, and they are certainly not irrelevant. But they are by no means the only—and usually not the most important—concerns, the foremost of which are a true concern to avoid scandal and to maintain the integrity of a school’s Christian witness.

The Fuss Is about Souls!

What’s at stake is ultimately the good of souls, especially the souls of students, and the integrity of the Catholic Church’s apostolic mission. The first duty of a Catholic school is to bear witness through educational means to the splendor of truth, especially the truths of the Christian faith. Fund raising, prestige, academic ranking and successful sports programs are important, but if school authorities forfeit their school’s true Catholic identity in their effort to achieve them, they fail in their first duty to their constituencies and to the Church, and worse, they betray Christ.

When it comes to considering termination, making a good decision can be difficult and laborious. But as I tell my seminarians, moral decision-making is about loving. And for those who exercise authority, loving means seeing and assessing all the relevant harms caused by one’s action or inaction. Why? Because every relevant harm is ultimately a harm to some human being. And it is human beings who constitute “the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution” (John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, no. 219). Although some or even many of the foreseeable harms may not be decisive for settling questions concerning misconduct, no harm is irrelevant to these questions’ assessment.

With Whom Does Responsibility for this Decision Rest?

The development and execution of school policy fall to whoever has authority over the school’s employees, and over the school itself: e.g., members of the school’s senior administration, members of the board of directors; the superintendents of Catholic schools; and, ultimately, the diocesan bishop. There will obviously be differences in the authority structure with non-diocesan Catholic schools, but the point here is clear: those who exercise authority bear responsibility. At universities, senior faculty are sometimes also consulted, or committees set up to deal with grievances brought against faculty members.

Critical Importance of Hiring Procedures and Conduct Policies

While no set of procedures and no policy can anticipate every possible situation, schools can and should develop hiring procedures and conduct policies that establish a base-line for acceptable conduct for all employees, especially teachers, and specify clearly the results of violating the policies. In dealing with the problem of employee misconduct, this is arguably the most important practical measure a Catholic apostolate can take to guard its religious identity.

Catholic Apostolates and Mission-Centered Hiring Policies

An “apostolate” is a community of Christian witnesses. A “mission” is the community’s work. Catholic schools and universities are—or ought to be—apostolates of the Church.

Hiring procedures should be in place to ensure that all employees support the apostolic identity and mission of the institution. This is what the term “hiring for mission” means. Although some jobs are more closely associated with the oral and public communication of the school’s mission, all employees share responsibility for protecting and promoting it.

This does not mean that all employees must be practicing Catholics. However, it does mean, ordinarily, that a majority of employees should be practicing Catholics. Otherwise, it will be difficult to ensure a consistent expression of the school’s mission and guarantee continuity of Catholic identity over time. All other employees should understand, believe in, and be willing to support, the school’s mission.

It follows that:

School authorities ought to hire only people capable of cooperating in carrying out the school’s mission, and that means that they cannot be known to be persisting in any behavior or commitment objectively incompatible with Catholic moral teaching.

This is especially important for the hiring of faculty, as well as administrators who work closely with students (e.g., counselors).

Conduct Policies

This requirement should be supported by a clearly defined, written moral conduct policy. It should be built into the job description and be an essential and legally binding part of any and every employment agreement.

If the school’s policy is:

clearly published and consistent with Catholic Church teaching;
closely keyed to the institutional mission statement; and
consistently and non-arbitrarily applied,

then there will be structures in place to guide decision making in circumstances where polices are violated. Absent such a policy, each case will likely be treated differently, depending on the matter at issue and what sort of employment agreement and undertaking exists. This leaves the institution much more vulnerable to running afoul of the law or being open to a civil suit.

Private vs. Professional Misconduct

My analysis is principally concerned with what school authorities should do in cases of grave misconduct in the private lives of employees. By “private” I mean life outside of professional employment. There will be different degrees of private misconduct (e.g., acts one doesn’t want known vs. ones that are flaunted even though they are not on “company time”); this essay concerns all degrees of “private” misconduct. Once questionable behavior comes to the attention of someone who has authority over the individual, at that point the private becomes public for our purposes.

This essay does not consider misconduct in one’s professional life (e.g., sexual harassment on the job), though that also needs to be handled with consistency and good judgment. Nor does it address the duties of school authorities to comply with law enforcement in cases where employees are undergoing criminal investigation.

“Grave” Misconduct: Serious Sin, Intransigence, Scandal

In moral theology, referring to a sin as “grave” implies it is a mortal sin. I am using the term grave here more restrictively. By “grave misconduct” I am referring to deliberate behavior that meets the following three conditions: first, it is gravely wrong (serious or mortally sinful in type); second, the employee is intransigent in doing it; and third, the situation is potentially an occasion of scandal.

In general, I think that actionable instances of private misconduct should meet all three conditions.

The first condition needs no explanation. But the next two deserve comment.

Intransigence means that some misconduct is unapologetically habitual. Some examples of behavior meeting the condition of intransigence could include:

Single employees who get pregnant or get someone pregnant and defend their behavior; cohabitating in sexually-active, non-marital relationships;
Employees engaged in promiscuous activities with same sex partners or with partners of the opposite sex;
Employees engaged in an adulterous relationship;
Employees who advocate for public policies explicitly aimed at advancing or defending abortion rights, same sex marriage, polygamy, euthanasia, experimenting on, freezing or destroying human embryos, cloning, or other gravely immoral acts.

Intransigence is not met if an employee engages in some misconduct, but expresses a sincere desire and resolve to change. For example, if a female employee gets pregnant out of wedlock, or a single male gets a woman pregnant, but she or he sincerely repents, resolves to keep and raise or support the child according to Christian principles, or place the child for adoption, and is willing publicly to support the Church’s moral teaching on marriage and sexual morality, intransigence is not a factor.

Scandal means that the private behavior, if known, could destroy people’s faith, undermine the school’s Catholic identity and be an inducement to sin, especially to the students. Some sins today are particularly dangerous to the welfare of souls. Abortion and promiscuity—especially homosexual behavior—because they represent evils that many say are goods, can easily be occasions for scandal. Since the indissolubility of marriage is also widely rejected, and even doubted by some Catholics, another act especially apt to give scandal could be actively dating when divorced without an annulment or dating an un-annulled divorced person. If school authorities appear to be indifferent to these behaviors, the consequences can be unacceptable.

Intransigence is not absolutely necessary

As I said, I think that the three conditions ordinarily should be met before instances of misconduct become subject matter for dismissal.

Is this to say that grave misconduct by employees who do not express intransigence is not subject matter for dismissal? No. If school authorities have good reason to believe that an immoral act committed by an employee will cause scandal, then even if the employee is repentant, the welfare of the school may require dismissal. Obviously, the greater the risk of scandal, the more seriously dismissal must be considered.

However, just as it is true that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance (Lk. 15:7), so it is true that Christians rejoice when their brothers and sisters repent. It seems to me that evil-doing that is frankly, publicly and sincerely rejected through true repentance is rarely an occasion for another’s sin; and very often it is an occasion of moral growth for wrongdoers and those around them.

It follows that:

If school authorities think that scandal in the case of a repentant employee can be reasonably obviated by measures short of dismissal, they should adopt those measures. If they do not think scandal can be avoided, then they may be obligated to terminate the employee’s employment.

Two Moral Requirements: Due Diligence and Moral Certitude

School authorities can come to suspect an employee of grave misconduct in several ways. Employees might publicize their behaviors (including their views) on social media, by email or in scholarly publications. Or, a member of the school community or somebody outside of it might accuse them of misconduct.

In either case, school authorities ought to carry out due diligence and only act when reasonable doubt has been removed.

Due diligence

The first priority should be to establish beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the suspicion is true. Christian charity requires that school authorities should assume the best of their employees until evidence proves otherwise.

The practice of anonymous accusation, not uncommon in Catholic institutions, should be rejected in all but the most extraordinary circumstances (e.g., in cases of danger to the informer). Although it may be fair to ask authorities to maintain confidentiality when one is revealing sensitive information about oneself, if one accuses another of grave misconduct, one should, in justice, be willing to be made known to the accused. And the accused, also as a matter of justice, should be given the opportunity to face his or her accuser. It is not only gravely unjust—evil—to falsely accuse another; it is also unjust for authorities to accept and act on an accusation of grave misconduct without undertaking due diligence to establish its verity.

Upon a revelation of misconduct, school authorities ordinarily should first approach the employee and ask him or her charitably and without dissembling: “Did you do X?” or “Are you doing Y?” If rumors are flying about, but no solid evidence has been presented, it would still be acceptable to ask the employee directly whether there is anything to the rumors.

Unless school authorities have reasons to suspect an employee’s honesty, a denial of guilt should be taken as sufficiently establishing the truth.

Moral certitude

Only after guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt—that is, when authorities have moral certitude of their employee’s guilt—should disciplinary measures be initiated.

And I do mean should be initiated.

Schools must not close their eyes to the grave immorality of their employees hoping it will go away. It is not uncommon for schools to ignore the private but scandalous behavior of their employees, not acting upon it until the situation grows into an ugly PR problem, at which point, scandal has probably already occurred.

Although they should not take action in the absence of due diligence and moral certitude, as soon as these are fulfilled, they should not delay action because of a fear of unpleasant results.

Confidentiality vs. Secrecy

A common cause of disunity in Catholic educational institutions is inadequate communication between administration and other employees, especially faculty. Although every person has a right to a good name, and idle curiosity should not be fed, confidentiality should not be taken to the extreme of secrecy.

All school employees share responsibility for contributing to, and maintaining, the conditions of the common good of the institution. Consequently, they have a right to know at least the minimal facts of serious situations that bear upon that common good.

If a teacher or administrator is convicted of, and dismissed for, misconduct, I believe it is best for school authorities to give other school employees at least minimal information about the event (e.g., “so and so has been dismissed for misconduct”). Details ordinarily need not be divulged. Employees should be admonished not to give over to gossip or listening to gossip, or calumny or reviling. They should be told that if they feel the need to discuss the situation further, they are free to contact proper channels within or outside the institution.

Harmful Effects of Terminating or Not-Terminating an Employee

I said above that making a good moral decision means assessing the potential consequences of adopting, or not adopting, alternatives under consideration. In this final section, I elaborate on the kinds of unintentional harms that may follow upon the decisions to dismiss or not dismiss an employee for misconduct.

If there is a clear school policy, as I recommend above, some of the harms (especially in clear-cut cases of misconduct) may be less material to the analysis, but no reasonably-foreseeable harm of our actions is irrelevant to conscientious moral analysis.

Therefore, this final section is included to educate readers, especially those who hold positions of authority in Catholic education, of the types of issues that should be considered when undertaking a moral assessment of complex issues such as the one we are considering here.

Not Consequentialist or Proportionalist Reasoning

It bears noting that considering the harmful consequences attendant to a decision to terminate or not terminate is not consequentialist reasoning, the aim of which is to determine by appeal to consequences whether or not intending evil (as an end or means) is licit ‘under the circumstances.’ Evil alternatives should never be chosen and consequently should not be the subject matter of moral deliberation. As soon as we conclude that some type of behavior would be intrinsically wrongful to choose, we should exclude it from our range of potentially-acceptable choices.

But once we have done this, we must have a reasonable concern for consequences.

Effects of terminating employment

What harmful (unintended) side effects are likely to be caused by terminating an employee for misconduct?

Effects on school pedagogy: perhaps lose a good teacher;
Effects upon students: alienate students who feel sympathy for the teacher;
Effects upon faculty/administrators/other employees: generate or strengthen unhealthy factions within the institution;
Effects on institution/diocese/Church: employee becomes a cause célèbre:

Provides an opportunity for those outside the institution who oppose the Church’s teaching to accuse the institution of intolerance, mean-spiritedness, unmercifulness, hypocrisy, etc.
Provokes lawsuits with financial implications for the institution.

Effects upon the teacher: stigmatizes him/her which may make it hard to find a new job; perhaps precipitates financial difficulties, relational difficulties, etc.;
Effects upon the innocent:

If a teacher gets pregnant, termination may cause harm to the unborn child; if he/she has other children, hardship may come to them.
If termination is carried out in a heavy-handed way, those in the community who are weak or ignorant, but good-willed, may be alienated from the Church.

If one or another of these harms can be avoided by undertaking remedial interventions that are not gravely burdensome to the institution, then, when a decision is made to terminate an employee for misconduct, school authorities should consider ways to make those interventions.

Effects of not terminating employment

What are some foreseeable unintentional harms of not terminating employment?

Possibility of scandal: continuing employment may tempt others to sin:

Effects upon students: Students who see the school apparently tolerating the behavior may conclude that the behavior is legitimate; may even imitate it.
Effects on others outside the school: not taking decisive action can make the wrongdoing seem more acceptable, provide material for rationalization and self-deception, tempt the weak, and confuse the doubtful or ignorant.

Moral principle: if school authorities have good reasons to conclude that not taking decisive action, including termination, will cause scandal, then ordinarily they have an obligation to take appropriate action. If the risk of scandal can be obviated by measures short of termination, then fear of scandal need not be decisive.

Effects upon the school’s mission: by not taking decisive action, the school may fail in its duty to bear perspicuous witness to gospel values. Catholic schools, as a matter of basic identity, have an obligation to offer credible and charitable witness against these types of wrongdoing and for the goods violated by the misconduct.

Moral principle: if school authorities have good reasons to believe that their school’s apostolic integrity (i.e., its ability to carry out its mission) will be compromised by not taking decisive action, then ordinarily they are obliged to take that action.

Effects upon the school’s Catholic reputation: by not taking decisive action the school may appear to be indifferent towards certain kinds of evildoing and hence lose the respect (as a Catholic institution) that all true apostolates deserve. For schools that have already lost this respect, school leaders should consider their response to employee misconduct in light of the need to restore their good (Catholic) name.
Effects upon school authorities themselves: those in authority should ask whether tolerating grave misconduct in their employees would cause themselves (or other employees) to grow psychologically coarsened in relation to the goods/persons adversely affected by the wrongdoing, or cynical towards the duty to “fight the good fight” against certain widespread kinds of evil. They should take appropriate action against such coarsening and cynicism in themselves (and in their employees, especially faculty members).
Effects upon school policy: not taking decisive action may establish a dubious precedent for resolving future cases; this should be avoided.
Effects upon other schools: other schools may follow the example, when in fact their situations are quite different and demand a different response.
Effects upon the wrongdoer: if wrongdoers are not disciplined, they may be strengthened in their wrongdoing and carry out further wrongful acts.
Effects upon community harmony:

Members of the wider Catholic or Christian community, who hear about wrongdoing at a Catholic school and conclude that the school is indifferent to it, may grow alienated from the school and from relevant Church authorities.
Disharmony may also be caused between school authorities and possible victims of the wrongdoing, e.g., a spouse who was dumped by a school employee may perceive the school’s failure to terminate the spouse as the school’s indifference towards, or support for, the wrongdoing.

Other Morally Relevant Questions

A few other questions should also be asked:

Are there special circumstances that strengthen the school’s reasons to terminate or not to terminate an employee? For example:

Is the employee especially vulnerable at this time for reasons unrelated to the misconduct?
Or is the misconduct so grave and the potential harms so widespread that attending to “special circumstances” might be unfair to others?
Is the employee recidivist in wrongdoing or is this a first offense?
Does he or she as a rule publicly support Catholic teaching or criticize it?

Is the employee close to retirement?

If so, could the retirement be moved forward in such a way as to render unnecessary a precipitous termination?
In some instances, however, the institution may be obliged to say something publicly about the retirement, so that others do not come away with the mistaken belief—if it is indeed mistaken—that the authorities have done nothing about the misconduct.

Can termination be carried out more discreetly? Could the employee be let go at the end of the contract year, rather than immediately, without undue harmful effects being caused?
Do school authorities have good reasons to believe that terminating employment may prevent or mitigate future wrongdoing by the employee?

Certain kinds of decisive action may be advisable, and even obligatory, if doing so is likely to prevent future evildoing.
If, however, the intervention is unlikely to have any positive effect on the employee, this may not be a consideration.

Conclusion

This is an analysis of Christian principles important for properly understanding issues surrounding the termination of teachers/faculty, school administrators and other employees who have been found guilty of grave moral misconduct in their private lives.

The principles are offered to assist school authorities to establish clear and consistent policies regarding moral behavior for employment contracts, faculty handbooks, or other documents, which govern the conduct of school employees. They also may be useful as a basis for the establishment of employment law respecting both the religious freedom of Catholic educational institutions and the rights of employees.

Common Core Assessments May Be Cost-Prohibitive for Catholic Schools

January 16, 2014/in Academics Common Core, Research and Analysis/by Dr. Denise Donohue Ed.D.

Click here for PDF

This is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initiative and its potential impact on Catholic education.

Of key importance to parochial, private, and public school administrators and superintendents is the question of how to address the costs associated with the technological requirements for assessing students under the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Looking into what is being asked of schools by the two companies producing the CCSS assessments, one quickly sees that the expense associated with implementation of the new evaluation instruments is in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition to the cost of training teachers and purchasing the testing materials, school districts and private schools that choose to use Common Core Standards will find hardware costs taking a significant chunk out of their operating budgets.

Cost Drivers

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smart- er Balanced Assessment Consortium are both designing assessments for use with computers that have at least one gigabyte of memory and a screen display of 9.5 inches (10-inch class) at a resolution of 1,024 X 768 or greater (Norris & Soloway, 2013). For optimal use, Smarter Balanced recommends at least an 80-GB hard drive or at least one GB of hard drive space be made available (Smarter Balanced, 2013a). These requirements eliminate popular Netbooks and iPad minis or any of the new versions that have display sizes smaller than the required 9.5 inches. Smarter Balanced recommends the iPad 3+ running iOS6 (Smarter Balanced, 2013a).

Additionally, many of the school systems and private schools are falling short of the recom- mended hardware-to-student ratio of 1:6-7 (Kantrowitz, 2013; Davis, 2012). While there may be adequate technology available for Internet access, the support systems may be outdated or not compatible with the new assessment software. For example, the testing software is not able to run on Microsoft XP systems. Thus these popular, well-functioning computers are not eligible for use with tests for this particular assessment. Some states may initially choose to continue to use paper and pencil for their annual high-stakes tests, but this will not be an op- tion for schools that choose advanced techniques to master the Common Core assessments.

Inadequate bandwidth can also rule out some eligible computers and schools. At a minimum, additional bandwidth will be required along with the associated costs to enable simultaneous testing of multiple grades and sections. What happens when not enough money is available? Will there be a divide between the “haves” and the “have nots?” Who gets the new tests and other tools necessary to properly prepare students for these assessments? How will these af- fect issues of adequacy and equity? Will the lack of technology create a bigger achievement gap?

Of concern to administrators is the degree of technology dependence that has occurred throughout most programs associated with all schools. This reliance is evident and necessary, as there can be as many as five different tests administered within the year. PARCC is developing three separate diagnostic tests (reading, writing, and mathematics) and both a mid-year and end-of-year assessment. In addition, two other performance tests associated with speech and listening are in the development stages (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers, 2013). Smarter Balanced has similar requirements with both an interim and end of year assessment. Needs are enhanced when there is a quick turnaround time for school administrators and teachers to receive results, analyze them, and implement necessary instructional changes and interventions. In addition to student assessment, assessments will also be attached to some teacher evaluations whose deadlines vary throughout the year.

Teachers, as well as students, will need to become proficient on the use of testing software so that these variables are minimized when students are testing. Nuances include kindergarten students being required to respond through a keyboard and students in grades four to five asked to type their responses in a minimum one-to two-page document (Carr & Dreilinger, 2013). Time and money will need to be allocated toward teacher and student proficiency in online test-taking skills prior to any testing.

The per-pupil cost for PARCC assessments is quoted to be between $22.50 to $29.50, which is one reason why Florida opted out of these assessments (Chieppo & Gass, Aug. 15, 2013; Kantrowitz, October 15, 1013). Georgia withdrew from PARCC, citing skyrocketing cost and loss of local control. The GADOE intends to develop its own in-state tests aligned to Com- mon Core standards and is looking to other states to form possible partnerships in this development (Shearer, July 22, 2013). Smarter Balanced tests are estimated to run from $22.50 to

$27.30, including scoring services (Smarter Balanced, 2013b). According to Jacqueline King, Ph.D., (email communication, November 2013) private schools interested in participating in the Smarter Balanced testing option must be located in a state that is working with Smarter Balanced. Each state Department of Education has the option as to whether this arrangement exists.

Alternate Testing Possibilities

Options to the PARCC assessments include the new Aspire test being field tested by ACT. Scheduled for release in April 2014, Aspire was recently adopted by the state of Alabama (Stacey, 2013; ACT, personal communication, October 17, 2013). This test will eliminate concerns about having to purchase computer software and hardware, as it offers an option of pencil and paper administration. For scoring, schools can either mail in assessments with a turnaround time of 4-6 weeks or submit immediately through online access. Aspire is being developed only for grades 3-8 and early high school (9th/10th grade). It is aligned to the Common Core Standards, and the reports will be coded to the pre-existing 1-36 scale of college readiness already used for the ACT exam. Per-pupil cost has yet to be released, but one can sign up on the ACT Website to receive immediate updates about the test’s release. Subject area exemplars are given on the website, and Common Core skills are evident, especially in the math exemplars where questions are asked as to how the student arrived at his or her answer. At this time, ACT has not released how or who will grade these student self-response items, or if there is a local grading option. This test is available on the open market and not restricted to states that have signed on to one of the national testing consortia.

Private-school administrators who currently use the Iowa Test of Basic Skills may consider upgrading to Iowa Form E. Form E is the newest edition to the assessment suite of Iowa tests and was developed in 2010, before the Common Core Math and Language Arts Standards were finalized (Michele Baker, personal communication, Sept. 17, 2013). Norming for the 2010 Form E was performed in 2011, before most schools fully implemented CCSS. New norms for Form E can be expected every five years and according to Michele Baker, Senior Assessment Consultant for Riverside Publishing, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Form E will probably be available for 10 years or longer, at which time a newer edition will be released along with a new set of norms. By purchasing the Form E or Form F version (a parallel version in development) of the Iowa assessments, administrators would have the newest test based on pre-CCSS norms and full implementation.

Currently, Iowa Assessments have a turnaround time of about two weeks. When tests are given in the fall (generally late September or early October) using a prescriptive approach for learning, it is not until November, after the administration reviews test results, that teachers are able to make classroom instructional changes. By this time, 40 percent of the school year has passed. With the new Iowa Form E assessment, a quick turnaround is now a possibility with the use of DataManager. This program is a robust online reporting system that provides administrators and teachers with almost immediate online reports. While learning the system and how to request the reports might be a little time-consuming, anyone who has been granted access can generate a student report. The Iowa Form E has also been aligned to the Common Core with a report option to print out a typical or traditional report, instead of the CCSS report. This is beneficial for schools that may be in transition to new standards or that are waiting until the “dust has settled” before deciding to implement the CCSS. Students can test in the traditional pencil and paper format, or the school can use an online computer testing option. The per-pupil cost ranges from $7.43 to $10.08 for full DataManager reporting services, with an additional $3.00 for the Cognitive Abilities Test (Michele Baker, personal communication, September 17, 2013). An additional benefit of using the Iowa tests is the use of standard scores students receive on Iowa tests, which have been validated and found to have a strong relationship with ACT college benchmark scores for college readiness (University of Iowa, n.d).

Private schools can also continue using the reasonably priced Stanford 10 for annual assessments. These assessments were developed from a variety of professional organizations (International Reading Association, National Council of Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) and were normed in 2007, prior to CCSS. The Stanford 10, Form A has been aligned to the CCSS. The cost is between $7.78 and $9.28 per student test with answer sheets costing $2.00 each.

It seems that for parochial, private, and public schools that are committed to any of the testing consortia, little can be done to escape the costs and time necessary for technology upgrades and teacher and student training. For schools that are considering the CCSS assessment options and are in states governed by one of the consortia, considerations including computer upgrades, additional per-pupil testing costs, and possible additional testing time need to be budgeted and allotted. Additional time is also required to train the students and teachers on the test-taking. Until the impact of the CCSS initiative along with the newly designed testing instruments is realized, and in consideration of the research reported on this topic, schools can find a safe haven, at least for the time being, in the Iowa Forms E & F and Stanford 10 traditional assessments.

References

Carr, S. & Dreilinger, D. (September 29, 2013). “A Core dilemma: Will the littlest learners be able to type?”, The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/content/a- core-dilemma-will-the-littlest-learners-be-able-to-type_13198.

Chieppo, C. & Gass, J. (August 15, 2013). “Why states are backing out on common core standards and tests,” The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/content/ why-states-are-backing-out-on-common-standards-and-tests_12895.

Davis, M. (2012). “Are You Tech-Ready for the Common Core?”, Education Week. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2012/10/17/01readiness.h06.html?tkn=NVZFOAfSykw%2BRxSo395jo6lu%2FANympkgfH41&print=1.

Kantrowitz, B. (October 15, 2013). “Testing the Common Core in Tennessee,”The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/content/testing-the-common-core-in-ten- nessee_13468.

Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2013). “Common Core Technological Standards: They Are the Tail, Not the Dog,” The Journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2013/01/14/ Common-Core-Technological-Standards.aspx?p=1.

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (2013). PARCC Test Administration Policies. Retrieved from www.PARCConline.org.

Shearer, L. (July 22, 2013). “Georgia will drop out of Common Core-aligned testing consor- tium.” Retrieved from http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2013-07-22/georgia-will-drop- out-common-core-aligned-testing-consortium.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (February, 2013a). “Hardware and Software Requirements Overview.” Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Executive_Summary_Tech_Framework.pdf.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (2013b). “Frequently Asked Questions.” Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/resources-events/faqs/.

Stacey, E. (February 13, 2013). “Alabama Exits National Common Core Tests.” Retrieved from http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/02/13/Alabama-exits-national-common-core-tests.

University of Iowa (n.d.). “Tracking Growth towards Readiness with the Iowa Tests.” Retrieved from https://itp.education.uiowa.edu/ia/documents/Assessment-Brief-Readiness- Final.pdf.

Catholic Identity Should Be at Heart of Common Core Decisions

January 14, 2014/in Academics Common Core, Research and Analysis/by Dr. Jamie Arthur

Click here for PDF

This is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initative and its potential impact on Catholic education.

As a former Catholic school administrator, of interest to me are the countless articles detailing the controversy surrounding the Common Core which are dominating educational news stories throughout the United States. While passionate authors express their concerns regarding everything from the federalization of education to compromised standards, of most concern to those who share a passion for the mission of Catholic education are suggestions that adoption of the Common Core could compromise the mission of the Catholic education and ultimately secularize its schools.

Detailed throughout the magisterial teachings of the Church, the mission of Catholic education is described in the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education’s document, Lay Catholics, Witnesses to Faith (1982):

The integral formation of the human person, which is the purpose of education, includes the development of all the human faculties of the students, together with preparation for professional life, formation of ethical and social awareness, becoming aware of the transcendental, and religious education. Every school, and every educator in the school, ought to be striving “to form strong and responsible individuals, who are capable of making free and correct choices,” thus preparing young people “to open themselves more and more to reality, and to form in themselves a clear idea of the meaning of life” (#17).

How the Catholic Church fulfills its role in Catholic education is outlined in the Code of Canon Law. The Church has a duty and right in education in fulfilling its mission (Canon 794) and considers schools to be of great importance in assisting parents to fulfill the responsibility associated with the education of their children (Canon 796). Acknowledging parents have freedom in their choice of schools (Canon 797), the Church has the right to direct schools (Canon 800), “secure that in civil society the laws which regulate the formation of the young,” (Canon 799), and strive to keep alive the mission of Catholic education (Canon 801).

In regard to the Common Core, how do these standards impact the mission and Catholic identity of schools? As a former accreditation chair for the Southern Association of Independent Schools (offering a dual accreditation from AdvancEd & SAIS), I found that those not entrenched in educationaleze often used terms such as standards and curriculum synonymously. The Foundation for Educational Excellence defines standards as expectations as to what is to be learned at each grade level and discipline. A curriculum is the actual program, textbooks, materials, assessments and resources selected by the school to teach and ensure standards are achieved or “a means to the end”. Standards do not dictate how or by what means a concept is taught but present, at a minimum, concepts to be mastered.

Historically, schools have been evaluated for quality since 1895 (AdvancEd website). More than one-hundred years later, regardless of the accreditation agency (secular, independent, Catholic), guidelines for accreditation include purpose or mission, leadership, teaching and learning, resources, and opportunities available for continuous improvement. Under teaching and learning, schools must adopt academic standards that set expectations for learning, provide for continuity of instruction across subject areas and grade levels, benchmark progress, and create a foundation for standardized testing. In our data-driven world, standards actually provide the measurable outcomes many parents equate with academic excellence. Standards do not provide a ceiling on what a student can learn; they provide a framework for the minimum of what must be achieved during a given year. It is important to note, accreditation guidelines do not dictate curriculum or pedagogy but look to see if the curriculum guides chosen (along with materials and resources) support the purpose or mission of the school.

What is clear about non-public schools, is the flexibility to choose a curriculum with goals in line with the mission of the school and that of Catholic education. How a curriculum is chosen in a Catholic school is primarily determined by how it is governed (archdiocesan, independent, regional, parochial, etc…). Most importantly, Catholic schools are under the authority of an ecclesiastical authority (Canon 803) with instruction and education required to be grounded in Catholic doctrine (Canon 803 § 2). Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Principal/ Head of School to closely oversee and monitor the implementation of the academic program to ensure that the mission of the school is supported and Catholic identity is not compromised.

From a Catholic identity perspective, a debate could be suggested as to whether the mission of Catholic education is truly at the center of the controversy surrounding the Common Core. If we take to heart the integral formation of each child and consider the goals set forth by the USCCB in Renewing our Commitment to Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools in the Third Millennium (2005), efforts surrounding the nuances of the Common Core need to be directed to ensuring that Catholic school leadership understands and supports the mission of Catholic education, that parents are considered partners in the education of their children, and ecclesiastical authorities (or their delegates) ensure that the standards and curriculum used in ev- ery school support and strengthen Catholic identity. A discussion as to how Catholic school leaders assess excellence in education should be at the forefront of conversations surrounding Catholic education. Are academic outcomes (SAT, PSAT, ACT, college acceptance) how we measure the success of Catholic education? How do Catholic school leaders gauge whether the integral formation of each child has been achieved?

The Common Core has brought to the attention of countless individuals, many the product of a Catholic education, the need to refocus efforts to ensure that Catholic identity is at the fore- front of discussions related to adoption of the curriculum in Catholic schools. Ecclesiastical leaders must give consideration to educational mandates not created by the Catholic Church. Governing boards, clergy, and superintendents need to carefully weigh who is placed in the position of Principal/Head of School and entrusted with the academic, managerial, and spiri- tual leadership of the school. Catholic parents have both the obligation and the right to edu- cate their children in the Catholic faith (Canon 793) and must act as an advocate for their child by working in partnership with the school. It is the obligation of all constituencies to protect and defend Catholic education, as it is one of the primary evangelization arms of the Church with a legacy that spans over a century.

Catholic Education in America: Accountable to the Church or the Feds?

January 13, 2014/in Academics Common Core, Research and Analysis/by Brittany Corona

Click here for PDF

This is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initative and its potential impact on Catholic education.

Catholic schools in America have flourished in large part because of their relative independence from outside influences. But the recent adoption by many Catholic schools of the Common Core standards and tests threatens their ability to fulfill their mission and be faithful to a Catholic vision of education.

The Common Core is a bureaucratic effort to further centralize control over education in America. Seduced by federal incentives, 45 states agreed to adopt the Common Core in 2009. As schools implement the standards one thing grows clear: the Common Core weakens their ability to direct what they teach the children in their care. This is particularly problematic for Catholic education.

Heather Crossin’s third-grade daughter goes to a Catholic school in Indiana. Heather says that when her daughter came home from school with a text book aligned with Common Core, she realized control over what her child was taught had not only left the school building—it had left the state.

In the 45 states that have signed on to the Common Core, parents who send their children to public schools will soon see this scenario play out. But it is increasingly a reality in private and Catholic education too.

Many dioceses and archdioceses have decided to implement or “adopt” the Common Core national standards. Last May, the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) issued a statement offering its full support of the standards, arguing that implementation would not hinder the teaching of the Catholic Church.

However, Common Core standards are problematic for all of America’s schools—private and public. Since the majority of Catholic children are educated in our nation’s public schools, Catholic parents should be concerned about whether their local school district, their local principal and their children’s primary teachers have ceded authority to bureaucratic “experts” in Washington, D.C.

A true “common core” teaching of Catholic social thought is the principle of subsidiarity, which counsels that decisions be made at the most effective local level. The principle of subsidiarity empowers parents, in consultation with local teachers, schools and churches, to decide which sort of education is best for their children. The Common Core national standards say the opposite: that educational decision-making is best made at the national level.

Common Core aims to impose one set of standards defining what every public school student in America will learn. As a result of textbook spillover, state regulations and concerns about college-test preparations, many private and parochial schools will be subject to Common Core as well.

They shouldn’t.

The mission of Catholic education is to cultivate the moral and intellectual development of all students, forming their hearts and minds by orienting them to their identity in Christ and His Church while providing an excellent academic education. Catholic education, by its very nature, requires that local parishes and parents be in charge of the educational decision- making that prepares students for this life, and the life after.

But Common Core is oriented toward different ends.

Since Washington got involved in education with the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government has spent over $2 trillion on K-12 education, tying the hands of local school leaders with red tape and further burdening education with the bureaucracy of an ever-growing administrative state.

Educational achievement has flat-lined despite a near tripling of inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending by the federal government. High school seniors are no better off today than the seniors of the 1970s. Graduation rates for disadvantaged students have remained stagnant. The United States continues to fall behind international competitors.

The federal government’s solution? Spend more money and usurp more authority from states and parents over what children are being taught. The Common Core is an extension of this misguided logic—and it is covered with federal fingerprints.

Developed in 2009 by private interest groups in Washington, Common Core was immediately incentivized by the federal government. The Obama administration offered $4.35 billion through Race to the Top, a competitive grant program. Perhaps even more enticing, the administration circumvented Congress by offering waivers to states—and now local school districts—from the No Child Left Behind law if they adopted Common Core.

Nearly every state that received a waiver used Common Core to meet the federal requirement to adopt “college and career-ready” standards. The government also directly financed the two national testing consortia—the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment—tasked with designing Common Core-aligned assessments. Finally, the U.S. Department of Education created a bureaucratically titled “Technical Review Panel” to oversee assessment items.

Not only is Common Core costly in terms of educational liberty, it will also financially strap states and schools.

A study released by the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy estimates that the cost to states of implementing Common Core will reach $16 billion over the next seven years. Nearly half of the states that have agreed to adopt Common Core already are seeing their testing costs double under the Washington-approved standards.

Despite evident threats imposed by Common Core, states, schools, and districts press on with implementation. But concerns are growing louder and harder to ignore.

In October, 132 Catholic professors signed a letter sent to each Catholic bishop in the United States, outlining the threat Common Core poses to Catholic education.

The professors’ plea:

We write to you because of what the particular deficiencies of Common Core reveal about the philosophy and the basic aims of the reform. We write to you because we think that this philosophy and these aims will undermine Catholic education and dramatically diminish our children’s horizons. Promoters of the Common Core say that it is designed to make America’s children ‘college and career ready.’ We instead judge Common Core to be a recipe for standardized workforce preparation. Common Core shortchanges the central goals of all sound education and surely those of Catholic education: to grow in the virtues necessary to know, love, and serve the Lord, to mature into a responsible democratic self-government. Common Core adopts a bottom-line, pragmatic approach to education.

The deficiencies in Common Core noted by the professors stem from analyses by James Milgram, professor emeritus of mathematics at Stanford, and Sandra Stotsky, professor of education reform emerita at University of Arkansas, both of whom sat on Common Core’s review committee. They dismissed themselves before the release of the standards because of their concerns with the content.

Dr. Milgram says the mathematics standards will put American students two grades behind international peers by the time they reach seventh grade. Common Core’s sequencing pushes Algebra I off until ninth grade, when most states had been moving toward Algebra I in eighth grade. The delay makes students less ready for most four-year universities.

Dr. Stotsky has similar concerns with the content of the English standards. The diminished emphasis on literature, she says, “makes it unlikely that American students will study a meaningful range of culturally and historically significant literary works before graduation.” She also argues that emphasizing informational text over literature “may lead to a decreased capacity for analytical thinking.”

Catholic schools should not turn over control of curriculum to anonymous boards of experts. Catholic education should recognize the potential in all students and the value of liberal learning regardless of career choices.

Some may argue that because the SAT and ACT college entrance exams have been aligned to the national standards, Catholic schools must adopt them so that their students do well on those exams. This is unlikely to be so.

By and large, Catholic school students outperform public school students by a significant margin. According to the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 49 percent of Catholic school eighth-graders are proficient in reading compared to 31 percent of public school students. Also, 33 percent of Catholic school eighth-graders are proficient in mathematics compared to 26 percent of their peers in public school.

If Common Core pushes back Algebra I by two grade levels for most public schools, what effect will it have on math achievement in Catholic schools?

If Catholic school students significantly outperform public-school counterparts in English because Catholic curricula emphasize literature, what will happen when Catholic schools implement Common Core with its emphasis on informational text such as EPA manuals and executive orders?

The letter from Catholic professors expands on this point:

The history of Catholic education is rich in tradition and excellence. It embraces the academic inheritance of St. Anselm, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Blessed John Henry Newman. In contrast to such academic rigor, the Common Core standards lack an empirical evidentiary basis and have not been field-tested anywhere.

What great works will Catholic school teachers have to give up to make room for the mandated dose of bureaucratically sanctioned informational texts?

It’s not too late for Catholic schools to reject Common Core, this latest federal overreach. It’s not too late to reclaim all that makes Catholic education unique and reflects the values of Catholic families. It’s not too late to ensure that local parishes and schools are in the driver’s seat when it comes to defining curricula for our children.

Maintain Schools’ Religious Character to Protect Religious Freedom

January 9, 2014/in Mission and Governance Commentary, Public Policy and Legal (General)/by Jeremy Tedesco

This is part of a series of research reports on the Common Core State Standards Initative and its potential impact on Catholic education.

Introduction

It is vital that religious educational institutions maintain their religious mission in all their programs—including standards, methods, and curriculum—if they want to avoid being subjected to federal civil rights laws and the federal control that comes with them. Civil rights laws threaten the ability of religious educational institutions, including primary and secondary schools, to preserve their religious character.¹ For instance, Title VII prohibits religious discrimination by employers, including educational institutions,² and Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs.³ And in a concerning development for religious schools, both statutes have recently been interpreted to prohibit gender identity discrimination. In order to maintain their religious character, educational institutions must be able to employ faculty and recruit students who will faithfully promote the schools’ religious educational missions, and comply with their doctrinal teachings.

To do so, religious schools must operate in a manner that affords them the protection of key exemptions from these federal civil rights statutes for religious organizations. But those exemptions do not apply if a school that was founded as a religious institution has become largely secular. A key factor, among many others, in a religious educational institution proving it has maintained its religious character is demonstrating that its curriculum includes instruction in the religious beliefs of the institution. Thus, religious educational institutions must resist governmental attempts to interfere with and control the content of their curriculum.

I. THREATS TO THE RELIGIOUS IDENTITY OF RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS

Title VII’s Prohibition on Employment Discrimination

Title VII bars certain employers from discriminating on the basis of religion and other protected characteristics.⁴ Unlike Title IX, discussed in Section I.B., below, Title VII’s applicability does not depend on whether an employer receives federal funds. Also, Title VII includes a much broader exemption for religious organizations than does Title IX.

Title VII Applicability

Title VII prohibits employers of 15 or more employees from discriminating in hiring and firing employees on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.⁵ These employers may not “limit, segregate, or classify” employees or applicants (again, on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) in such a way as to deprive them of opportunities or negatively affect their status.⁶

Title VII Exemption

Title VII does not apply to religious discrimination by religious organizations.⁷ Title VII does not statutorily define what constitutes a religious educational institution or religious organization, but the exemption is broad: all of a religious organization’s activities are exempt, not just those activities that are specifically religious. General principles of interpretation of the exemption caution that it is fact specific.⁸ Because of the sparse nature of the statute, courts have varied not only in their decisions about whether certain organizations are religious but also in the factors they apply.

In a case particularly relevant to the religious nature of Catholic educational institutions, the Oklahoma Federal District Court found that St. Pius X School was entitled to make employment decisions on the basis of religion under Title VII’s religious employer exemption. The Court stressed the following facts in arriving at its conclusion: (1) The school required participation in daily prayer and religious instruction for all students; (2) The pastor of the parish supervised some school decisions, including whether to renew teacher contracts; (3) The St. Pius student handbook described the school as “first and foremost a Catholic school [that] embraces the Catholic traditions of mass, personal prayer and stewardship” and required students to “actively show your faith by: respecting the Eucharist, participating in the prayer and social life of the church school community, and treating classmates, teachers and visitors with the respect they deserve”; and, (4) The school permitted students of any faith to enroll but gave preference to members of the St. Pius X Parish and the Catholic faith.⁹

In another important case related to religious educational institutions, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Samford, a Baptist university, was a religious educational institution which can consider religion when making employment decisions. The court described the following as relevant to its conclusion: (1) Samford was originally founded as a theological institution by the Alabama Baptist State Convention; (2) The vast majority of its trustees had been Baptist; (3) The Baptist convention contributed over four million dollars to Samford; (4) All Samford’s faculty who taught religion were required to subscribe to a particular Baptist statement of faith; and, (5) Samford’s charter described its purpose in explicitly religious terms.¹⁰ Additional courts have also ruled that particular religious educational institutions were entitled to Title VII’s religious employer exemption.¹¹

Title VII and Gender Identity Discrimination

In a concerning development for religious institutions, the federal EEOC and a number of courts have held that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination forbids discrimination on the basis of gender identity.¹² Accordingly, religious educational institutions ought to have written policies outlining their religious views on gender identity and explaining what they plan to do if confronted by an applicant, student, or employee who challenges those views. Such written policies will put religious institutions in the best position to avail themselves of Title VII’s religious employer exemption and First Amendment defenses if the need should arise.¹³

Title IX’s Prohibition on Sex Discrimination in Education

Although Title IX prohibits sex discrimination¹⁴ in schools that receive federal financial assistance, it has an exemption for religious organizations.¹⁵ If an educational institution is both “controlled by a religious organization” and if prohibiting sex discrimination would “not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization,” then the school may be able to discriminate.¹⁶ But it is clearly limited to differentiating on the basis of sex.¹⁷

Funding Trigger: Federal Financial Assistance under Title IX

Title IX only applies to schools that receive federal financial assistance. Most religious colleges and universities receive federal financial assistance in the form of Federal Student Aid,¹⁸ thereby subjecting them to Title IX’s mandates. But religious schools at the primary and secondary level are far less likely to receive federal funding in this or any other form. Thus, it is not very likely that Title IX will apply to such schools.

For educational institutions attempting to determine if they are receiving federal financial assistance, it is important to note the following: (1) it appears that tax exempt status does not constitute receiving federal funds;¹⁹ and (2) use of small amounts of federal funds has been held to not be enough to classify the school as a recipient of federal financial assistance under Title IX.²⁰ But at least one federal court has found that one Catholic high school’s receipt of federal financial assistance through the National School Lunch Program triggered the applicability of Title IX to all schools within the Diocese.²¹

Should a religious school cross Title IX’s federal financial assistance threshold, the entire institution will be subject to government regulation under Title IX. For example, Title IX applies to religious colleges and universities if their students are receiving federal loans to pay for their education. But they must actually receive federal financial assistance rather than merely benefit from another entity’s receipt of federal funds.²² If federal financial assistance is actually received, subjecting the school to Title IX, there are virtually no methods of institutional structuring which will allow it to maneuver around these regulations.²³

Title IX’s Religious Exemption

Title IX’s exemption for religious organizations is far narrower that the Title VII exemption discussed earlier. It is found at 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3), and is also referenced in similar language in § 1687(4). The procedure for obtaining this exemption requires the highest ranking official of the educational institution seeking the exemption to submit a written statement to the Director of the Department of Education “identifying the provisions of this part [Title IX] which conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.”²⁴ Thus, unlike the Title VII exemption, the Title IX exemption must actually be affirmatively pursued by the institution.

In order to qualify for this exemption, an educational institution must be “controlled by a religious organization.”²⁵ An educational institution that could be classified as a religious institution itself would also meet this requirement.²⁶

On one end of the spectrum, a religious educational institution which is in fact a seminary will generally be considered controlled by a religious organization (or actually may be a religious organization) for the purposes of Title IX exemption. Such a school would then need to establish that, according to its religious tenets, sex discrimination was necessary. Many religious faiths believe in either differing vocational roles for men and women generally or at least, reserve ministerial ordination for men only. These faiths can establish their beliefs based on their interpretation of their sacred texts and foundational documents.²⁷ These are exactly the type of institutions this exemption benefits.²⁸ To the extent that an educational institution which trains religious leaders can establish that its faith does differentiate in particular ways based on sex, it should be able to allow its students to receive federal financial assistance without coming under the sway of government regulations prohibiting the type of role differentiation it practices.

But it is important to understand that the Title IX exemption is quite narrow. A religious primary or secondary school, unlike the seminary above, faces a difficult task in establishing that it is a religious institution or controlled by a religious organization. And it faces an even more difficult challenge in establishing that it has a religious rationale for sex discrimination. A Supreme Court case involving Grove City College demonstrates this difficulty. Grove City objected to signing an Assurance and Compliance form required by the Department of Education, which would have subjected the school to continual governmental oversight, potentially requiring responses to both past and future discrimination. The court found Grove City was not exempted as a religious institution, even though it was committed to the Christian faith since its founding in 1876 and its religious beliefs clearly permeated its educational programs.²⁹ Nevertheless, religious schools which are institutionally connected to particular religious denominations and organizations, like Catholic parochial schools, stand the best chance of fulfilling this requirement.³⁰

Courts apply religious exemptions by weighing the facts carefully, not merely taking a school’s assertion that it is religious at face value.³¹ Importantly, a religious past does not speak for a religious present. Straying from an historic religious character cuts decisively against being regarded as religious or controlled by a religious organization.

Compelled Health Insurance Coverage Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) poses some serious threats to conscience rights of religious schools. The ACA generally mandates that employers provide one of several options of health insurance to their employees. The ACA also grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other administration agencies, which they have used to adopt regulations mandating coverage of contraception, sterilization, and even abortion in an employer ’s coverage options. The regulations grant an exemption for religious employers, but it is extremely narrow. It is limited to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” and “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”³² Most religious schools likely do not qualify for this exemption.

The regulations do provide an “accommodation” for religious organizations that do not qualify for the exemption. Under the accommodation, religious employers must obtain an insurer or third-party claims administrator and submit a form that causes that insurer or third-party administrator to arrange payment for the health care items and services to which the employer objects. A religious organization may believe (and many do)³³ that the “accommodation” substantially burdens its religious beliefs because employees obtain access to the objectionable items and services as a direct consequence of their employment with the religious organization and of their participation in the health insurance benefits it provides. Institutions that attempt to avoid the conscience-violating requirements of the ACA by not providing health coverage for their employees will face stiff financial penalties. Section II(B) below discusses religious schools’ options for avoiding the requirements of the ACA as well as potential grounds for protecting religious freedom through litigation.

II. STEPS TO PROTECT THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF SECTARIAN

Demonstrating A School is Religious

In short, many religious educational institutions, particularly religious primary and secondary schools which were founded on purposes tied to goals of educating in conformity to religious teaching – especially when the ties are denominationally specific or specific to an individual church – should be exempted from federal prohibitions on sex and religious discrimination. But an educational institution that veers from a religious founding will probably not be able to demonstrate it is a religious organization.³⁴ It will therefore not be able to require that its staff, faculty, and student body agree with its religious mission and theology.

The cases indicate courts will consider ten factors when determining whether a school is a religious organization.³⁵ A primary or secondary school is much more likely to be able to qualify for an exemption if it satisfies all of them. They are:

Whether the entity operates for a profit

This factor is not an issue for most religious primary and secondary schools, as few if any operate for-profit. “Nothing in the statute or case law says a for-profit corporation can not [sic] be a ‘religious corporation,’ but every reported claim for that status by a for-profit corporation has been denied.”³⁶ Non-profit status definitely weighs in favor of being considered a religious organization.

Whether it produces a secular product

Many religious schools teach secular subject matters in addition to religious. This does not preclude them from being considered religious institutions (indeed, typically the “secular” subject matter is taught from the religious perspective of the school). For instance, Samford University offers a plethora of secular degrees, but was still considered a religious institution because, among other things, its chief purpose was “the promotion of the Christian Religion throughout the world by maintaining and operating … institutions dedicated to the development of Christian character in high scholastic standing.”³⁷

Whether the entity’s articles of incorporation or other pertinent documents state a religious purpose

All indications are that the governing documents of an organization are important to it being considered religious. No cases were found where an organization was deemed religious even though no religious purpose was stated in its founding documents.³⁸ On the other hand, Samford’s charter reflected its chief purpose of promoting the Christian Religion throughout the world, and that was a significant factor in the court’s determination that the university was religious.³⁹

Whether it is owned, affiliated with or financially supported by a formally religious entity such as a church or synagogue

Though not determinative, this factor certainly figures strongly into the calculation when assessing whether a school is religious. The Court found it significant that Samford University received 7% of its annual budget from the Southern Baptist Convention.⁴⁰

Whether a formally religious entity participates in the management, for instance by having representatives on the board of trustees

This factor is very helpful for determining a school is religious if it is not directly affiliated with a church or other religious body. For instance, in LeBoon, a Jewish Community Center was considered a religious organization even though it was not directly affiliated with any synagogue, because several rabbis were advisory, non-voting members of its board.⁴¹

Whether the entity holds itself out to the public as secular or sectarian

This is one of the most important factors. A school in Hawaii that required its teachers to be Protestant was not religious, due in part to the fact that the school’s introductory pamphlet and course catalogue did not list any religious purpose of the school.⁴² Conversely, another court found it significant that “Samford’s student handbook describes Samford’s purpose this way: ‘to foster Christianity through the development of Christian character, scholastic attainment, and a sense of personal responsibility.’”⁴³

Whether the entity regularly includes prayer or other forms of worship in its activities

Students at Samford University are required to attend chapel—which figured favorably in the court’s determination that it is a religious organization.⁴⁴ But this factor did not help a school in Hawaii due in large part to the fact that most of the religious activities were optional for students.⁴⁵

Whether it includes religious instruction in its curriculum, to the extent it is an educational institution

Sectarian schools must be careful to ensure that religious courses do something more than just teach about religion—which is allowed even in public schools. For instance, this factor weighed against the Hawaii school that was found not to be religious because its curriculum “consist[s] of minimal, largely comparative religious studies….”⁴⁶ Whereas, Samford University actually has a divinity school that trains clergy.

Whether its membership is made up by coreligionists

In the school context, this factor obviously has to do with the composition of the student body and faculty. It is not necessary that students and teachers be limited to individuals of a particular religion. Although Samford students are required to attend chapel, the court made no mention of a requirement that they be Southern Baptist, and determined the school was religious anyway. And only instructors who taught religion courses were required to subscribe to a particular statement of faith.⁴⁷ The court did favorably mention another case where the fact that 88% of the student body and 95% of the faculty were Baptist was significant in determining the school was religious.⁴⁸

Consistent compliance with religious beliefs

Courts have held that a school or entity is no longer religious, even though it once was, because of lack of effort to comply with its original religious teachings. For instance a court found that a home for troubled youth originally established with a religious purpose and governed by church-member trustees was presently secular because it no longer included religion in its programming and attendance at religious services was optional.⁴⁹ Likewise, a school in Hawaii originally established as a Protestant institution was not religious because “the record reveals the purpose and emphasis of the School[] have shifted over the years from providing religious instruction to equipping students with ethical principles that will enable them to make their own moral judgments.”⁵⁰

This factor may be particularly significant for primary and secondary schools that are affiliated with a particular denomination that specifically proscribes religious tenants that must be followed. For instance, all Catholic educational institutions are bound by Canon Law. And universities in particular are also bound by the Church’s Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae.⁵¹

Protection From the ACA

This section discusses religious schools’ options for avoiding the requirements of the ACA as well as potential grounds for protecting religious freedom through litigation. Schools should consult legal counsel to determine what their specific options are under the ACA regime. Some potential options are as follows:

Lobby for amendments addressing conscience protection issues

Members of Congress are aware of the deficiencies in the ACA, and several are proposing amendments to fix the shortcomings. Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) introduced H.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, which would prohibit the federal government from requiring employers to buy insurance coverage that includes items or services against which they have deeply held moral or religious objections. Institutions concerned about the formidable new threats to their conscience rights must lobby for broad protection at both the federal and state levels.

Sue HHS under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In a specific case where all of an institution’s options for fulfilling the ACA’s employee-coverage mandate substantially burden its religious beliefs by forcing it to cover objectionable practices, or arrange and facilitate that coverage through the accommodation, the institution may be able to file a lawsuit alleging that the ACA’s mandate as applied to them violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).⁵² The act prohibits the government from “substantially burden[ing] religious exercise without compelling justification.” Health coverage is an important employee recruiting and retention tool for employers. Having to choose between not providing health coverage and compromising religious values is likely the type of burden RFRA was meant to protect against.⁵³ The success of any such claim will depend on the specific facts of an institution’s circumstances. The institution should be able to assert that it actually has a sincere religious belief against providing or facilitating coverage for certain objectionable practices, and that forcing it to do so will substantially burden its belief because it would select non-objectionable health coverage if it could.

Conclusion

Religious primary and secondary schools are prohibited from discriminating on religion and sex by Title VII and Title IX.⁵⁴ There are exemptions for religious organizations in both of these statutes, but schools can only take advantage of these exemptions if they satisfy multi-factored tests that require them to consistently follow their religious convictions. To the extent that a religious school departs from its historic religious ties, it may be in danger of losing its ability to claim that it is a religious employer exempted from civil rights legislation disallowing even religious discrimination. To minimize regulation, such institutions should firmly maintain their religious identities and should exercise caution when accepting federal funds or allowing their students to accept federal financial assistance.

Religious schools are also subject to new requirements for providing health insurance to employees. Federal regulations implementing this law require employers to provide coverage for items and services to which religious schools may object, such as contraception and abortion. School officials should begin consulting with counsel as soon as possible to determine if there will be any conflict between this law and the school’s religious teachings.

The Common Core vs. the Classical Roots of Catholic Education

December 1, 2013/in Academics Commentary, Common Core/by Dr. Andrew Seeley

In 1977, National Review reprinted a 30-year-old speech given by English mystery author, Dorothy Sayers, on the topic of education. In it, she pointed out evident deficiencies in public discourse that revealed fundamental flaws in British education at the time. She whimsically proposed as a remedy a return to the Trivium-based education that formed some of the greatest minds in history, little dreaming that her proposals would be taken seriously. Forty years later, American parents frustrated with an even worse educational situation took her proposal as the basis for a grassroots renewal of a classical approach to education. Beginning with Douglas Wilson’s Logos school in Idaho and the homeschooling efforts of people like Laura Berquist (Designing Your Own Classical Curriculum) and Susan Wise Bauer (The Well- Trained Mind), classical education has become the way for hundreds of schools and tens of thousands of homeschooling families.

At the heart of Sayers’ proposal was the idea that primary and secondary education should be less focused on passing on the information needed to master prescribed subjects and more focused on making students capable and desirous of life-long learning. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) for English Language Arts and Literacy, at first glance, might appear to share her goal. The standards seem less concerned with passing on particular in- formation than with forming a certain kind of person, the “critical thinker.” Looking to make students ready for “college and career,” the CCSSI begins with the view that success in our information age demands the ability to sort through, make sense of, and judge the “staggering amount of information available today in print and digitally.” This raises the question for classical educators and any Catholic schools that value their naturally classical roots: Should they embrace the Common Core? Is the secular world finally waking up to the needs that motivated parents have been trying to address for the last 35 years?

Catholic schools’ success historically has been based in a classical approach to education, even where substantially compromised by state standards and new theories of education. Today’s best schools retain at least some key elements of classical education, especially with regard to the study of religion, history, and literature. A closer look at the goals and methods of the Common Core reveals that they are fundamentally at odds with the discovery of Truth at the heart of an authentically Catholic education.

Ironically, it seems that the developers of the CCSSI would be sympathetic to Sayers’ criticism of the failures of modern education:

Has it ever struck you as odd, or unfortunate, that today, when the proportion of literacy throughout Western Europe is higher than it has ever been, people should have become susceptible to the influence of advertisement and mass pro- paganda to an extent hitherto unheard of and unimagined?

Are you often bothered by coming across grown-up men and women who seem unable to distinguish between a book that is sound, scholarly, and properly documented, and one that is, to any trained eye, very conspicuously none of these things? Or who cannot handle a library catalogue? Or who, when faced with a book of reference, betray a curious inability to extract from it the passages relevant to the particular question which interests them?

The Common Core aims to address these issues by habituating students to “reflexively dem- onstrate the cogent reasoning and use of evidence that is essential to both private deliberation and responsible citizenship in a democratic republic.” The CCSSI states that “(s)tudents are engaged and open-minded—but discerning—readers and listeners. They work diligently to understand precisely what an author or speaker is saying, but they also question an author ’s or speaker ’s assumptions and premises and assess the veracity of claims and the soundness of reasoning.”

So far, so good. But a deeper look shows that Sayers was not on the minds of the authors (nor were Adler, Hirsch, Bauer, etc., who are conspicuously missing from the extensive bibliographies cited in the Appendices). The thousands of contemporary classical educators inspired by Sayers should take a hard look at the approaches proposed to achieve these goals. Some of these will be found in the standards themselves, even more in the assessment-driven, industrial way the CCSSI has begun to be implemented. One important difference they will notice is that Sayers emphasized that a renewed Trivium-based education would approach language development in a way natural to the young. In the grammar stage younger children (up to around age 11) naturally learn by absorbing language and facts. They are not ready for critical thinking; they are ready to trustingly accept whatever is presented to them in an orderly, engaging manner. Learning by heart and careful observation are key powers to be developed, not just with facts and vocabulary, but with the beautiful rhythms and rich images of the best poetry and prose. By contrast, though the CCSSI proposes some excellent works be introduced to the young, learning by heart seems to play no role. The Common Core intends to make critical thinking, embodied in literary analysis, the focus of every grade level. Sayers strongly warns against this approach:

The modern tendency is to try and force rational explanations on a child’s mind at too early an age. Intelligent questions, spontaneously asked, should, of course, receive an immediate and rational answer; but it is a great mistake to suppose that a child cannot readily enjoy and remember things that are beyond his power to analyze—particularly if those things have a strong imaginative appeal (as, for example, “Kubla Khan”), an attractive jingle (like some of the memory-rhymes for Latin genders), or an abundance of rich, resounding polysyllables (like the Quicunque vult).

In the CCSSI, every grade level is dominated by dialectical/logical/critical activities that are most appropriate for what Sayers described as the “Pert” age, those pre-adolescent and early adolescent years of questioning and challenging. Common Core methods thus push young children into finding their own truths, and also neglect what is natural to older adolescents at the Rhetorical stage. The desire to investigate and formulate ideas about what matters to the student. The dialectical stage begins to close as students desire to really know what they have begun to care about. “Towards the close of this stage, the pupils will probably be beginning to discover for themselves that their knowledge and experience are insufficient, and that their trained intelligences need a great deal more material to chew upon. The imagination—usually dormant during the Pert age—will reawaken, and prompt them to suspect the limitations of logic and reason.” Sayers emphasizes that “the attitude of the teachers” will be crucial; they must see the goal of the education and be aware of how each student is progressing towards that goal. This means that teachers must have much more freedom from bureaucratic assessment if they are going to succeed. Implementation of the CCSSI in our assessment-obsessed educational culture is sure to mean much more harassment for teachers and much less time for them to actually work with students.

Sayers insists that the Rhetorical stage of development demands greater freedom on the part of the student to pursue subjects whose truth really matters to them. This is because Sayers’ ultimate goal, (one which classical schools have embraced) is to provide for each human being to flourish as individuals who can contribute to the common life but who are not in service to it. This puts her, and all classical educators, fundamentally at odds with the CCSSI. Although the Common Core Standards seem to have similar aims for student formation, the overall goal limits and colors everything in them. “The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.” The overriding economic concerns permeate the standards. The critical thinking skills are finally about economic success, not just for the individual, but for the sake of national economic growth.

This latter consideration has raised a great wave of outcry and concern from the classical community, and with good reason. In the 1950s, Bell Telephone instituted a 10-month intensive introduction to liberal arts education to its most promising, technically-trained employees. The program was judged a great success by participants and the professors who organized it. Bell, however, was not pleased with the outcome:

But Bell gradually withdrew its support after yet another positive assessment found that while executives came out of the program more confident and more intellectually engaged, they were also less interested in putting the company’s bottom line ahead of their commitments to their families and communities. By 1960, the Institute of Humanistic Studies for Executives was finished.

“The end is the cause of causes,” and the temporal, economic goal of the Common Core will drive it to neglect—if not positively avoid—the means that would truly open minds and hearts to what is most humanly fulfilling. St. Jerome Academy in the Archdiocese of Washington has gained national attention for its success after choosing a decidedly different path from the assessment-driven, fragmented education of government schools. Faced with declining enrollment and on the verge of shutting its doors, St. Jerome converted from a traditional parochial school to a Catholic classical school. Blessed with a number of CUA professors as parishioners, the school benefitted from a dedicated team of educators, theologians, and philosophers who developed a comprehensive new educational plan in less than one year. St. Jerome’s curriculum goes beyond Sayers’ essay, incorporating her insights but setting them in a broader vision of the goals of a Catholic classical education:

St. Jerome School educates children in the truest and fullest sense by giving them the necessary tools of learning and by fostering wonder and love for all that is genuinely true, good, and beautiful. …We seek to incorporate our students into the wisdom of two thousand years of Catholic thought, history, culture, and arts so that they might understand themselves and their world in the light of the truth and acquire the character to live happy and integrated lives in the service of God and others.

The Common Core also wants to educate for life, but it articulates life’s highest goals as career success and productive contribution to the global economy. Cultural tolerance is another crucial outcome of the Common Core. Content must be drawn from a wide-range of cultures, leading students to be able to work well with the variety of cultural and personal viewpoints of their future corporate fellow laborers.

Students appreciate that the twenty-first-century classroom and workplace are settings in which people from often widely divergent cultures and who represent diverse experiences and perspectives must learn and work together. Students actively seek to understand other perspectives and cultures through reading and listening, and they are able to communicate effectively with people of varied backgrounds. They evaluate other points of view critically and constructively. Through reading great classic and contemporary works of literature representative of a variety of periods, cultures, and worldviews, students can vicariously inhabit worlds and have experiences much different than their own.

Of course, as in many areas, the CCSSI is here proposing some things that any teacher would want for her students. However, under the guise of mutual understanding, curricular materials are likely to usher in an aggressively secular orthodoxy. Without a strong commitment to the existence of objective truth and an awareness of the contributions of Catholic civilization, CCSSI will lead us to the sort of openness that is the virtue of the “dictatorship of relativism,” as Alan Bloom warned us in The Closing of the American Mind:

Openness—and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth and various ways of life and kinds of human beings— is the great insight of our times. The true believer is the real danger.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative intends to form literate, thoughtful, critical readers capable of understanding and judging the best literature and the richest informational literature. But not only are its goals limited—even subversive with respect to a Catholic education—it represents a massive educational project that has not been tried. Catholic classical educators have now more than three decades of experience and over two thousand years of expertise to draw on. Now is not the time to submit children enrolled in any Catholic school to untested, yet no doubt very constraining, shackles.

To the extent that any Catholic school teaches the fullness of Truth in the faith, it offers a piece of the classical vision in its search for wisdom and virtue. Over recent decades, however, many Catholic schools have adopted secular curricula as well as secular instruction and assessment techniques that undermine the unity of faith and reason. In this trend they have followed the pattern about which Sayers warned, with the focus on conveying information needed to master prescribed subjects. By contrast, the time-tested classical approach engages children to discover the truth of reality, both visible and invisible. This is active learning, not passive learning. It cultivates habits of mind that allow the human person to discern what is true, good and beautiful, to glimpse the transcendent. It awakens the soul.

Ironically, it may be the Common Core State Standards Initiative that will awaken all Catholic educators to reject encroaching secular content and methods, and to rediscover the riches of their own tradition. Given the unique, supernatural beauty of the Catholic faith, they should be decidedly skeptical of anything that bills itself as “common.”

The Common Core and the Private School: The Overreaching Effects of a National Standard

November 25, 2013/in Academics Commentary, Common Core/by Maureen Van Den Berg

This is part of a series of research reports on the Common Core.

As parents, educators, and legislators learn more about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and doubts continue to rise, the fact that the CCSS have become a national standard presents real challenges to a group that is already providing excellent education—private, faith-based schools.

These schools are successful because of their ability to maintain autonomy, and, in the case of religious schools, their faith-based mission. They enjoy the freedom to make decisions regarding curriculum and teaching methods that best follow their mission. This kind of “local control” allows them to best meet the individual educational needs of their students, and, in the case of faith-based schools, provide an excellent education from a religious worldview. They are not funded by tax dollars, and their accountability is to the parents— the strongest accountability a school can have. Although these schools are not required to follow government direction regarding standards and curriculum, the CCSS as a national standard will negatively affect the autonomy of these schools, chipping away at the religious freedom enjoyed by faith-based schools.

The CCSS began as a joint effort between the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSSO) to design a set of curriculum standards that could help all students reach the same base-line goals. This collaboration was initially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and resulted in the publication of the Common Core Standards, issued in April 2010. The first two sets of standards published were in Mathematics and English Language Arts. Remaining to be published are standards in Science and Social Studies, both of which arguably could be the more controversial of the four standards, especially for faith-based or classical curriculum-based schools.

Since the release of the CCSS in 2010, there has been a growing controversy surrounding the standards. Supporters claim the CCSS will allegedly raise the standard of education in America, increase literacy, and prepare students for college and global competitiveness, while the opposition argues that the standards are nothing more than a national standard that impedes educational progress by imposing a “one size fits all approach” from the federal government. Educational experts have pointed out that the goal of a national standard inevitably will be to close the achievement gap, which will result in mediocre academics and a “race to the middle.”

More specifically, the English Language Arts standards have been criticized for being heavy on the technical and informative writing, and lacking in the classics. The Mathematics standards received criticism for only taking students to math skills of Algebra 2, rather than reaching for skills developed through trigonometry and calculus. Additionally, there has been a flurry of state legislative pushback as states realize the high cost of implementation and assessments for the CCSS. The American Federation of Teachers called for a moratorium on the CCSS due to a lack of professional development to prepare teachers for implementing the CCSS.¹⁶ Even several U.S. Senators have written a joint letter opposing the standards based on the fact that the standards are tied to federal dollars which means they are not simply a “state-led” effort.

This may be the most troublesome problem with the CCSS – the strong ties to billions of federal dollars. While the CCSS may have started out as an effort between the NGA and the CCSSSO, the federal Race to the Top funds – for which states competed in 2010 through 2012 – were contingent on states’ adoption of the CCSS. Adoption of “college and career ready standards” constituted 40 of the possible 500 points in the Race to the Top application, and the CCSS were the only standards that met the criteria for that definition. Indeed, this “dangling carrot” in the form of billions of dollars caused 45 states and the District of Columbia to adopt the CCSS before they were even released (and, as noted earlier, are still not finalized as in the case of the social studies and science standards). An additional $350 million was awarded to two consortia of states through the Race to the Top Assessment competition to develop an assessment that was aligned with the CCSS.

Then, in the spring of 2013 the U.S. Department of Education established a federal review board whose sole purpose is to assess the assessment for the CCSS. With the amount of federal funds being poured into the CCSS adoption, the assessments, and the review of the assessments, the CCSS really cannot be called a “voluntary, state-led” effort. Rather, it has become a standard with the financial backing and support of the federal government. One could arguably call this a federal standard.

This is not the first time a national standard has been considered by the federal government. In 1995, a national standard for social studies was voted down 99-1 by the U.S. Senate because the standards had become too politicized. This is one of the problems of a national standard: It easily becomes politicized and influenced by controversial societal norms. Such politicization will undoubtedly conflict with traditional values and beliefs undergirding the teaching-learning process. In 1995, political correctness rose up against historical fact, weakening the educational value and demonstrating the danger of politicization when government decides standards.

Another major problem with the CCSS lies in the fact that a national standard by default will bring a national curriculum and a national test. (What good is the standard without a curriculum to meet the standard and a test to ensure the standard has been met?) As previously mentioned, the U.S. Department of Education has not only incentivized the creation of a national test for the CCSS, it also established a review board to assess the assessment! With an endorsement like this from the federal government, the standards and the tests will clearly be controlled from the federal level, rather than the local level where the best educational decisions can be made.⁴³ ⁴⁴

So what does the CCSS mean for private, faith-based schools if they are not required by the government to follow the standards? Consider a few important facts: Recent announcements reveal that the ACT, SAT, and GED tests will be aligned to the CCSS. Students in private, faith-based schools take these tests. As teachers in these schools prepare their students for these tests, they will need to include the information which is necessary to succeed on these tests and this could potentially conflict with their freedom to teach from a religious worldview or in a way that best reflects their core educational beliefs. When students apply to colleges and universities, their transcripts are considered for acceptance. Students could face discrimination by a higher education entity if they graduated from a school that did not adhere to the CCSS. Scholarship money for students desiring to be teachers could be tied to whether or not the college to which the student is applying is teaching the CCSS and the methodologies necessary to work in that environment.

The University of California already refuses to accept some high school credits that follow certain Christian-based textbooks, so it is not a far-fetched idea that colleges will accept only those course credits that follow texts and content aligned with the CCSS. This is all ironic of course, considering that it is a well-known fact that students from private, faith-based schools generally do much better on college entrance tests and are much better prepared for college.⁴⁷ This all places a burden on the private, faith-based school to prove its academics are of a higher quality, exceeding the standards.

Education in America has always thrived because of its diversity and freedom. Improved educational quality will not result from federally-coerced uniformity. Rather, a better path to raising standards would be to establish educational options that would not only improve education in all schools but would also protect the autonomy and religious liberty that allow private, faith-based schools great success.

Do Catholic Schools Need the Common Core?

November 13, 2013/in Academics Common Core, Research and Analysis/by Cardinal Newman Society Staff

Click here for PDF

The following considerations related to the Common Core were provided to Catholic bishops on November 13, 2013, in Baltimore, Maryland. The Cardinal Newman Society partnered with the National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools and the Catholic Education Foundation to present a seminar on the Common Core during the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This publication is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initiative and how those standards potentially impact Catholic education.

Our core is the Catholic Faith.

The core purpose of Catholic education is student formation and nurturing souls.⁵⁵ These must be the primary standards from which curriculum and teaching methods are developed and schools are assessed.
Catholic identity is not an add-on; it cannot be reduced to values and traditions to be “infused”⁵⁶ into secular standards. The standards will determine how and what to teach and how schools are evaluated.
Catholic schools are successful because of their mission… period. Their emphasis on faith and formation points to classical curricula, good literature, reason and ethics, and individualized attention.
Mission drives standards; standards drive curriculum and teaching. Our mission and that of government schools are profoundly different, and different missions demand different standards.
Common Core is explicitly and only “college and career” focused. Our schools are focused on assisting our students to encounter Christ and to pursue truth, beauty and goodness. In the process, they are also well-prepared for college and life beyond.
Education should prepare students for life, but college and career cannot be the sole or primary objectives for Catholic school standards.⁵⁷ Educating for secular ends leads to either pride or despair.
Our standards must inspire, not content with the minimum but pressing forward to- ward the maximum.

Catholic schools are already among the best in the nation.

On the federal NAEP tests, Catholic schools have significantly outperformed public schools for 20 years. Grade 8 scores in 2013: Reading 286 (public schools 226), Math 295 (public schools 284).⁵⁸
In 2011, religious schools far outperformed public schools on the SAT: Reading 531 (public schools 449), Math 533 (public schools 506), Writing 528 (public schools 483).⁵⁹
Parents care about Catholic identity, school environment and learning outcomes—in- cluding test scores and high school/college success. But they don’t seek conformity to public school standards.
Standards influence how and what students learn, but there is no certain correlation between standards and test scores. States with standards rated both “A” and “F” by the Fordham Institute report similar test scores.⁶⁰
Catholic schools can excel on nationally normed, non-Common Core tests available for the next several years.⁶¹ Afterward, testing companies will be eager to serve our schools’ 2 million students.⁶²
Avoiding Common Core will highlight Catholic school competitive advantages: choice, freedom, authentic difference, human excellence, Christian faith, proven, successful, safe, outstanding education.

Catholic schools already prepare for college and careers.

Catholic high schools have a 99% graduation rate (73% public schools), and 85% of Catholic high school graduates attend four-year colleges (44% public schools).⁶³
Good teaching can ensure success on college entrance exams, even when Common Core-compliant, perhaps with some test preparation. The ACT is not changing signifi- cantly, so scores should be stable.⁶⁴

Common Core is not required for Catholic schools.

No government or accreditor requires Catholic schools to adopt Common Core.
Some states may tie Common Core to funding. The Church should defend religious liberty and school choice without compromising Catholic schools’ autonomy.
We must lead with confidence; we do not follow in fear or from intimidation. We do not simply “get on board” because others are doing it. Common Core is becoming toxic, and every failure will be laid at our doorstep if we rush into this.

Common Core seeks radical change in education.

“The Common Core represents a fundamental shift in the teaching and learning process.”⁶⁵ It proposes to fix broken public schools, but Catholic schools are not broken.
Common Core embraces theories of exploration learning and constructivism, conflict- ing with the proven method of direct instruction in younger grades.⁶⁶
Common Core is largely a privately funded initiative of the morally reprehensible Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,⁶⁷ which pays the NCEA to promote Common Core.⁶⁸
Common Core advocates reassure parents that the standards “are not a curriculum.”⁶⁹ That’s a red herring. The standards are intended to drive changes in curriculum, teach- ing and assessment.⁷⁰

Common Core is untested and experimental.

Before any intervention, there should be 1) a need and 2) empirical evidence that the need will be satisfied. Common Core offers neither; its standards have never been test- ed.⁷¹ They were developed by little-known “experts” with no solid research basis, de- spite misleading claims.⁷²
Common Core’s proponents—the Gates Foundation, several state governors and school leaders, the Obama administration, and “big business”—have quietly avoided public scrutiny and accountability by working around Congress, state legislatures, and now Catholic school educators and parents.
Common Core’s emphasis on informational texts depends upon distortions of NAEP data and lacks solid evidence. The 2006 federal Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) found that higher literacy scores correlate to more reading of novels and less frequent reading of information.⁷³

The Common Core standards are flawed.

Common Core demands greater emphasis on reading informational texts, with a cor- responding decrease in great literature.⁷⁴ Some recommended (not required) texts are morally problematic.
Common Core imposes “reform math,” not our traditional and successful math pro- grams. It lowers standards: pre-algebra or algebra is no longer the eighth-grade norm, nor pre-calculus or calculus for 12th grade.⁷⁵ ⁷⁶
There is a misalignment with early grade expectations and lack of detail in upper grades.⁷⁷
There is a lack of specific content knowledge; too much is simply skills-based.⁷⁸

Common Core aims for nationalization, not pluralism.

The Church favors “a plurality of school systems” to “safeguard her objectives in the face of cultural pluralism” and increasing state control of education.⁷⁹ Common Core seeks national uniformity.
Catholic schools risk losing autonomy by accepting national standards. The Church’s relationship to the state should focus on protecting autonomy and school choice, not embracing national uniformity.⁸⁰
Common Core is quickly moving toward a state and federal government program. It is becoming a political issue in the states, and the Obama administration has tied it to federal funds.
It is not valid to argue that we must follow Common Core because we always follow state standards. This is something much more, aiming for nationalization and substan- tial change. Common Core is under intense scrutiny, in ways that state standards never were.

Common Core poses a creeping threat to schools’ Catholic identity.

Common Core reduces Catholic school autonomy and focuses assessment on secular objectives, thereby distracting educators from their core mission. Catholic schools have always been independent, but beware the secularizing path of Catholic universities, hospitals and charities.
Common Core’s priorities “crowd out” the elements of a rigorous, classical Catholic education, emphasizing skills and practicality over vocation and reasoning from a foundation of truth.
State and federal involvement in Common Core could lead to religious liberty viola- tions. Catholic schools’ protection depends on consistent Catholic identity⁸¹ — which Common Core diminishes.

Bishops, parents and educators are being ignored.

We can see no evidence that the NCEA and many diocesan educational leaders have listened to the bishops on Common Core, recognizing their canonical authority and responsibility for the Catholic identity of our schools.
Parents have been poorly informed and not consulted about Common Core changes in Catholic schools, despite their primary authority and responsibility for the education of their children.
Catholic school teachers and principals also have been poorly informed and not prop- erly consulted about Common Core. Among the nation’s best Catholic High School Honor Roll schools, 92% of principals have concerns about Common Core’s impact on Catholic identity.⁸²
Should we not pause and more carefully study and evaluate the Common Core?

10 Critically Important Adaptations to the Common Core for Catholic Schools*

February 14, 2013/in Academics Common Core, Research and Analysis/by Dr. Dan Guernsey

Click here for PDF

This publication is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initiative and how those standards potentially impact Catholic education.

As of yet, there has been no serious effort to analyze the impact of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)⁶⁵ on Catholic education—one that engages Catholic school educators at all levels as well as parents, the primary educators of their children. In view of the current environment, it would seem reasonable for those in leadership positions in Catholic education to pause, reflect and plan prior to moving forward with either adopting or adapting the CCSS.

But in the complex environment of operating a Catholic school system, there may be instances where, for whatever reason, a Catholic School has decided to implement the Common Core State Standards. These schools claim that they are not entirely assimilating the troubled and controversial public school standards, but rather “adapting” the standards by changing them to fit with their Catholic mission and pursuit of academic excellence.

While such an attempt (sincerely implemented) is a step above merely copying the public school system, it does not address the fundamental conflict associated with the integral formation of students. Since standards drive curriculum, a Catholic curriculum must include standards that are integrated with the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.

For example, consider that Catholics have much to say about literature, history, science, and, above all, about Truth, goodness, and beauty. And, since the object of every academic disci- pline is truth, the Catholic curriculum should be based on the conviction that all truths ultimately converge in their source—God. This standard, among others, is sorely lacking in the Common Core.

If a Catholic school or school system chooses to take the more problematic road of adapting the Common Core Standards (as opposed to creating their own standards), the Catholic school system would greatly benefit from a public discussion (or basic research) about how—if at all—Catholic schools are actually changing the Common Core. Additionally, parents should ask their Catholic school officials what elements of the Common Core (if any) they have found necessary to change/adapt.

As yet, there has not been a significant study or public discussion as to what possible changes Catholic schools might be making in voluntarily implementing the Common Core in our schools. I would like to take the initiative to begin this discussion by enumerating ten important changes to consider.

1. Renounce the English Language Arts (ELA) Percentages for Literary and Informational Texts (which are not research-based).⁶⁹

Do not alter your literature selections based on the standards. Stick with the best literature from recognized masters. Use great works with compelling themes that speak to the heart of the human condition across the ages. Do not remove poetry, drama or literature; conversely, do not artificially add more informational texts into your ELA program.
Throw out the Common Core Appendices. These claim to provide examples and recommended texts. Stick to your tried and true curriculum as much as possible if using Common Core Standards.

2. Reduce textbook use when possible.⁸³

Move to actual documents and unadapted works. Middle and high school students should not use mass-produced anthologies. Give them the actual texts. This allows them to mark up the texts and keep them on their library shelves at home for future reference or re-reading. Also, a “between-the-covers book” slows down instruction and respects the dignity of the work. It allows the students to feel that they are getting the “real deal” and not an excerpt or adapted exposure to the brightest and most creative minds. Even if they do not read the entire work, students now have access to it.
Set your teachers and students free with authentic, un-sanitized texts and original questions and assignments. Because the Common Core allows for generic national lessons and lesson plans on topics presented in textbooks, there is a risk of homogenization and standardization, which runs contrary to human diversity and exploration.

3. Respond to the texts, not the Standards.

Do not use the Common Core Standards as the primary guide for inquiry into litera- ture. The Standards attempt to dissect literature into a set of measurable skills or generic questions.⁸⁴ However, literary study should not be stuffed into a pre-determined standard or examined with canned questions, which do not directly emanate from the experience of reading a particular work. Literature needs to be unleashed and encountered “as litera- ture”—the product of a creative mind in dialogue with the reader in exploring the human condition. Treating literature simply as grist for the mill of college and career readiness saps its transformative power of inquiry and translation of experience. Yes, there are some relevant skills that the discipline of literary study requires, and the Common Core identifies some of these; however, development of these skills/tools should not become the goal of reading great works.
Stay away from canned materials and exemplar units. The best teaching is creative, adaptive and natural, as the teacher and students explore the wonders of reality together with joy, passion and excitement. Keep your teachers and instruction creative. Exemplar units and straight textbook “canned” instruction are fine for the teacher to consult so as to get an idea of how effective lessons and units can unfold; just make sure that they do not become the basis of your regular lessons. Some teachers may try to ensure test score suc- cess by not straying from the approved lessons, but authentic learning is often messy and organic—and risky. Beware that computer-based instruction can also be overly scripted and become a crutch and distraction.

4. Do not take the Common Core’s rightful emphasis on text-based arguments too far.

Do not follow the Common Core’s philosophy that the only way that a student can demonstrate knowledge gleaned from a text is using evidence from the text to support their claim. While careful textual citations of evidence is key, the Standards say that “student knowledge drawn from the text is demonstrated when the student uses evidence from the text to support the claim about the text. Hence, evidence and knowledge link directly to the text.” However, in Catholic schools, knowledge is attained and demonstrated when the human intellect, informed by the senses, judges things rightly. Our criteria include not only the text itself but also a rich and wonderful world outside the text (which the text might brilliantly unveil—sometimes with life-changing effect). Evidence and knowledge are certainly based on the text; however, they are ultimately grounded in truth, beauty and goodness. If we miss this, we miss everything about Catholic education.
Allow discussion about outside texts or ideas. Do not discourage middle and high school students from also making extensive references to other works; historical, philosophical and religious trends; or their “gut responses.” Do, however, be sure to require rigorous scrutiny of their positions and gut responses and link those back to explicit under- standings and assumptions about the world as well as the topic under exploration. Teach them to unpack their responses in clarity and truth—not to suppress them so as to simply stick to the world of the text or increase standardized test scores.
Conduct a little test preparation. Teach older students how to sanitize their normal “human” responses for the purposes of the standardized test evaluation.

5. Avoid premature use of technology, peer-editing, research and rhetorical pedagogy in place of good old-fashioned writing instruction.

Use pencil and paper when you teach writing to young children. Technology is only a teaching tool, not a magic smart pill. Using technology to write can wait. Do not panic that your elementary students will be “left behind” if you are still teaching them to handwrite. None of us over 40 had computers in school, but we have managed somehow to be smart, productive, technologically proficient 21st century learners. Technology is the easy part; thinking clearly and deeply is the hard part, and this can happen without extensive technology. We don’t know what type of technology our students will have at their disposal in 15 years, but we do know what type of brains they will have; we need to prepare those brains for maximum clarity and facility of thought.
Avoid the early emphasis on peer-editing (a teaching technique and not a standard) and the too early emphasis on research. The Common Core requires peer input and writing using a computer in 1st grade, and “research” with technology in 3rd grade. Younger children may not be ready to evaluate, process and synthesize another ’s work and insights and should focus on their own thinking and writing. It is easy to find out (or copy/plagiarize) what others think; it is harder to clarify your own thinking and find your own voice. Young students deserve adult guidance at this stage and not the faux guidance of their peers who cannot teach what they do not yet know.
Remember that the goal of writing is to communicate the truth. Writing should not be viewed simply through the Common Core lens of effective rhetoric, where students learn how to manipulate words and use standard grammar to produce a cogent, if not somewhat detached, argument.⁸⁵ Writing should fundamentally be at the service of truth, beauty and goodness, and it should assist the student to articulate his or her understandings or insights based on penetration into reality. Naturally, since it is also a social activity, writ- ing should follow conventions of grammar and reason in service of the truth and effective communication. In sum, writing is ordered toward an explanation of one’s encounter with truth, goodness and beauty, but it can still attend to some of the Common Core’s skill- based focus.

6. Create your own explicit standards for your junior high and high school literature classes.

List the critical texts, time periods, authors and genres that you expect your students to cover. The Common Core Standards only chunk and repeat the same empty skills year after year. While this provides some generic guidance, it does not account for adequate content coverage or skills development necessary for effective high school literature.

7. Do not alter your math progression.

Keep mastery of the standard algorithms using multi-digits at the levels they are currently found. Do not delay these for a year as suggested by the CCSS. Keep addition/ subtraction in 2nd-3rd grade, multiplication in 4th, division in 5th.
Keep Algebra in 8th grade as the norm for your school. A non-algebra track for struggling students can also be offered for those who fall short of the norm.
Keep your geometry program unchanged. Do not follow the unorthodox and failed version presented in the Common Core.
Develop explicit standards for classes necessary for future science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) majors. There currently are no explicit standards for classes such as pre-calculus, trigonometry, statistics, number theory, calculus, etc.

8. Avoid the temptation to push “higher-ordered thinking skills” too quickly.

Give novices (that is, grade school students) the direct instruction that they need. Be extremely wary of Common Core “inspired” instruction that over-emphasizes or pushes higher-order thinking skills too far down into the younger grades, especially in math. This causes an unnecessary sense of confusion or failure, which can lead to frustration and dis- taste for math at an early age. Experts are the ones who benefit more from a constructivist/exploration-based environment, and properly educated high school students are typically entering this “expert” level of mathematical reasoning. Hours lost in prematurely forcing younger kids into expert/abstract thinking not only leads to frustration and a loss of confidence, but also it comes at the cost of exposure to necessary basics that they will need to become authentic experts in the future.
Continue to emphasize memorization in the younger grades. This is the raw material upon which abstract reasoning will draw, as their intellects naturally and gradually mature and bloom.

9. Avoid teaching to the tests.

Focus on good instruction, not this or that test. This is your competitive advantage in a Common Core test crazy environment. Enjoy having more time and freedom to teach; your students will flourish more in the long run. Catholic schools know this from years of experience with not getting trapped into incessant state testing. Authentic tests will expose authentic learning: good instruction trumps unnecessary testing.
Do still give norm-referenced tests with post-Common Core validity such as the Iowa’s to assist with student formation.
Do plan for SAT/ACT testing courses to be formally placed in your high school curriculum. Teach students in a discreet course “how” to take a standardized test and respond to prompts in a Common Core expected manner.

10. Keep the greatest distance possible between your curriculum and the Common Core Standards.

Do not cheerlead for the Common Core. If you are using the standards, that is one thing; there are many usable parts. However, there are also many deep problems with them (perhaps as with any set of standards). When parts fail or weaknesses become evident, you do not want to be married to them.
Do not praise the Common Core: Let it sink or stand on its own without your prior validation. The Common Core Standards are untested. They claim to be more rigorous and focused than many state standards, but that claim is up for debate. What is not up for debate is the fact that states with “rigorous and focused” standards do not have higher test scores than states judged to have poor standards. There is no correlation between state standards and test scores, as strange as that seems.
If you use the Standards, set them as sub-floor but not as a foundation for your Catholic education. The Common Core Standards can possibly be a partial and lower (but not critical) part of your larger more lofty efforts at complete human formation. Our foundation must always be Jesus Christ.
Interpret the Standards as loosely and broadly as possible. Do not attempt to tie daily instruction and lesson plans directly to the Common Core Standards as is required in many public schools. Nevertheless, it is possible with creativity and a healthy skepticism of the philosophies animating the Common Core Standards to give many of them a distant nod. This means essentially saying, “Well yes, when I glance at the Common Core Standards every now and then, I can point to places somewhere not too far from our grade level curriculum where we pretty much do something like that.” In other words, this approach entails not being faithful to the intent and explicit wording of the Common Core, but just acknowledging them close enough to get by.
Normally such behavior is witnessed when conscientious objectors face the tyranny of an unjust law or authority, and this is better than faithfully instituting the flawed Common Core program; but again, why would Catholic schools, who are not required to teach to the Common Core, select this less than ideal approach?
We do after all owe it to the world to witness to the Truth about authentic education and about the human person. We also owe a duty to the majority of Catholic children who at- tended public schools to voice our opposition to the flawed program to which they are being subjected. Some public school supporters of the Common Core point to our schools and say, “See, if the Catholic schools are using it, it must be good!”

With so many concerns, one wonders why Catholic schools would base their efforts on the Common Core at all. Catholic schools have had unparalleled and enviable success for decades using their own standards.

I am concerned that many Catholic schools may have jumped on the Common Core band- wagon too early. After all, the Standards have not had adequate opportunity to be vetted; no “body” of Catholic scholars or educators—especially the parents, the primary educators—has thoroughly explored or discussed them. There is no harm in hitting the pause button and continuing the conversation, as we watch the untested Common Core Standards unfold in the public school arena.

Regardless, as some Catholic schools choose to adapt the Common Core, it would benefit us all to discuss openly what is being adapted and why. As with any initial conversation, these remarks and ideas cry out for correction and expansion. I look forward to the conversation.

* The title has changes from the original, “10 Minimal Adaptations Catholic Schools Consider Making to the Common Core State Standards”

Questions and Answers About What the Latest HHS Mandate Rule Means for Catholic High Schools

February 14, 2013/in Mission and Governance Public Policy and Legal (General), Research and Analysis/by Matthew Bowman

Click here for PDF

This Issue Brief takes a look at the new⁸⁶ “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” issued on February 1, 2013, by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning the federal mandate that health insurance plans, including those provided or arranged by non-exempt Catholic high schools, must include coverage of early abortion pills, contraception, sterilization, and related education and counseling for women with a reproductive capacity.

What was the government’s intent with the February 1^st“Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”?

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”)⁸⁷ sets forth a proposed (not final) structure for public comment on whether or how the government will respect religious objections to its coverage mandate of early abortion pills, contraception, and sterilization. It concerns three categories of entities with objections to the mandate. Generally, these categories are: (1) houses of worship; (2) all other religious non-profits; and (3) all other objectors.

Is this the final rule?

No, it will be finalized by August 1, 2013. The public may submit comments by April 8, 2013.

Who would be exempt from the mandate under the NPRM?

The NPRM proposes that basically only houses of worship would be exempt from the mandate. Exempt entities are called “religious employers,” and these must be either “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,” or “the exclusively

religious activities of any religious order.” These categories are narrow and well-established in Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii). Many Catholic high schools might not fall into these categories. They should consult with an attorney or tax advisor to review whether or not they qualify.

Is this a change from the existing exemption?

In one respect, the NPRM proposes a change from the existing mandate exemption. Under the existing exemption, houses of worship are still the only entities eligible for an exemption, but in addition those houses of worship must function to inculcate beliefs, and must primarily hire and serve only those of their own faith. The NPRM proposes to remove the latter three requirements from the definition of exempt “religious employers,” but retain the fourth criteria by which the entity must be a house of worship, church, religious order, or the like as listed above. The NPRM insists that this change is a clarification, not a broadening of the exemption. Since houses of worship are still the only entities that qualify for an exemption, the NPRM’s changes “would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended” in the existing rule.

In another respect, the new proposal appears to be worse for entities such as Catholic high schools. Under last year’s regulations, it was suggested that if a school’s employees received insurance from a diocese’s health plan, the school’s coverage would fall under the diocese’s exempt status as a church. See 77 Fed. Reg. 16,502. But the new proposed exemption intentionally removes this possibility and says employers will be treated separately: only if a school is itself a church or integrated auxiliary thereof will it be exempt, even if its employees use the diocesan health plan. 78 Fed. Reg. at 8,467. Thus, many schools that are affiliated with churches, but not integrated auxiliaries thereof, may lose their access to exempt insurance.

Is this a very narrow definition of “religious employer,” or one that is used commonly by the federal government?

This definition is extremely narrow compared to other federal laws providing for conscience exemptions. The 40-year-old bipartisan standard established throughout federal law, including in health and insurance coverage of items such as contraception, is to exempt any person or group with moral or religious objections. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in particular requires the federal government to exempt any religious objector from rules such as this Mandate. The administration has instead constrained religious freedom by using a category in tax law that has no relationship to conscience, but instead relates to whether a group files its own 990 tax form. Even within that code section, the administration gerrymandered this rule by selecting subparts (i) and (iii) but not (ii) which includes other nonprofits. The administration apparently selected a category with the smallest possible scope it could find. This is consistent with its view that religious freedom really only inheres in worship and not in the exercise of religion outside a house of worship.

How would the NPRM deal with objections from colleges and other non-profits?

The NPRM proposes to apply the coverage mandate to all non-exempt entities, including religious groups. But for some religious non-profit groups, the NPRM proposes to accomplish this through what it calls an “accommodation.” The accommodation is a complex arrangement designed to create the impression that the religious organization is not involved in giving its employees access to objectionable items such as early abortion pills, while at the same time insisting that the employees will receive those items seamlessly with their employer’s own provision of coverage.

Their employees would still receive objectionable coverage from those groups’ own insurers or plan administrators, and would receive it “automatically,” so that the employees could not opt out of the coverage for themselves or their female family members.

What qualifies an organization for this “accommodation”?

The NPRM applies its accommodation to non-exempt “eligible organizations.” These should not be confused with exempt “religious employers” discussed above. (Exempt religious employers—houses of worship—are not subject to the accommodation scheme.) A non-exempt “eligible organization” is one that meets the following criteria:

The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered under section 2713 of the PHS Act on account of religious objections.

The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.

The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.

Again, these “religious organizations” are those that do not fall within the exempt category of houses of worship discussed above.

How does the “accommodation” work for non-exempt “eligible organizations”?

The organization must sign a certification asserting that it meets the above-described criteria, keep the certification in its records “for examination upon request so that regulators, issuers, third party administrators, and plan participants and beneficiaries,” and provide the certification to the insurance issuer(s) and/or its self-insurance plan administrator(s) that the group pays for their ordinary duties.

Under the accommodation, once the religious group’s insurer or administrator receives that certification, the insurer or administrator is required to “automatically” provide the religious group’s employees and plan beneficiaries with insurance covering the objectionable items.

If the religious group uses an insurer, that insurer also becomes the insurer for the objectionable items. The NPRM claims that this insurance plan will be “separate” and will not be charged to the religious group. But it admits that there are up-front costs to the items, and it claims that these costs will be offset by the benefits of the primary insurance that the religious group is paying for (since, it theorizes, fewer childbirths will lead to lower costs).

What about self-insured non-profit religious groups?

If the religious group is self-insured, the NPRM proposes that it be required to use a plan administrator (even if it does not presently have one). When that plan administrator receives the certification it will take on the additional duties of finding an external insurance company to “automatically” issue insurance coverage of objectionable items to the religious group’s employees. The NPRM does not address the privacy implications of releasing employee health information to an insurance company with which the religious group never contracted, for a purpose to which the religious group objects.

The NPRM proposes that the costs of the objectionable items will be offset by rebates that the federal government will offer those insurers in the health “exchanges” otherwise implicated by the Affordable Care Act.

Is the NPRM correct that the “accommodation” does not implicate an objecting entity?

The NPRM imposes what is essentially a moral judgment that the “accommodation” frees objecting entities from culpability for coverage of objectionable items. Entities are not allowed to disagree with this moral judgment set forth by the government. Several factors might lead objecting entities to differ from the government’s moral viewpoint. Under the accommodation, the Affordable Care Act will still be requiring objecting entities with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance coverage, and that coverage will be the trigger for the objectionable items to flow to its employees. The objectionable coverage will come from the same insurers or plan administrators that the religious group is paying. The provision of objectionable coverage will be triggered specifically by the religious group’s mandated delivery of its religious certification to its insurer or plan administrator. For insured entities, the costs of the objectionable items will allegedly be offset by the main plan the objecting entity is buying. For self-insured entities, the NPRM does not fully explain how costs will be offset. Unprecedented burdens and fiduciary duties will fall on insurers and plan administrators with whom religious groups contract, because of that contract. The NPRM does not fully explain how these additional burdens will not eventually be reflected in the ability of religious groups to contract with insurers or administrators in the first place.

What religious freedom allowances does the NPRM provide to other objectors?

None.

Neither an exemption nor a feigned accommodation is provided under the NPRM for: employees of religious non-profit groups who do not want free abortion-pill, contraception, sterilization and counseling coverage for themselves, their spouses or their daughters; non-profit groups that object to abortion-pills or contraception for non-religious reasons; insurance companies or plan administrators that object; religious families that earn a living running a business; or individuals that arrange for their own insurance coverage not through an employer.

Notably, the Affordable Care Act uses secular reasons to refrain from applying this mandate to tens of millions of other Americans, such as because a plan is “grandfathered” from many ACA regulations. Yet the government refuses to exempt most religious objectors.

Is the NPRM still subject to comment?

Yes. The NPRM is not final and the government will accept public comments until April 8, 2013, about any aspect of the proposal. The Alliance Defending Freedom work with The Cardinal Newman Society to prepare a formal comment and other institutions are welcome to join that comment. Individual organizations may also submit their own electronic comments to www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference file code CMS–9968–P.

If I have more questions, whom do I contact?

General questions can be address to Bob Laird at the Cardinal Newman Society’s Catholic High School Honor Roll, (703) 367-0333 x 106 or blaird@CardinalNewmanSociety.org. Specific questions about legal actions should be directed to Matt Bowman at Alliance Defending Freedom, 1-800-835-5233.

Catholic Schools, Firing Policies and Teacher Misconduct

Common Core Assessments May Be Cost-Prohibitive for Catholic Schools

Cost Drivers

Alternate Testing Possibilities

References

Catholic Identity Should Be at Heart of Common Core Decisions

Catholic Education in America: Accountable to the Church or the Feds?

Maintain Schools’ Religious Character to Protect Religious Freedom

Introduction

I. THREATS TO THE RELIGIOUS IDENTITY OF RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS

II. STEPS TO PROTECT THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF SECTARIAN

Protection From the ACA

Conclusion

The Common Core vs. the Classical Roots of Catholic Education

The Common Core and the Private School: The Overreaching Effects of a National Standard

Do Catholic Schools Need the Common Core?

10 Critically Important Adaptations to the Common Core for Catholic Schools*

1. Renounce the English Language Arts (ELA) Percentages for Literary and Informational Texts (which are not research-based).⁶⁹

2. Reduce textbook use when possible.⁸³

3. Respond to the texts, not the Standards.

4. Do not take the Common Core’s rightful emphasis on text-based arguments too far.

5. Avoid premature use of technology, peer-editing, research and rhetorical pedagogy in place of good old-fashioned writing instruction.

6. Create your own explicit standards for your junior high and high school literature classes.

7. Do not alter your math progression.

8. Avoid the temptation to push “higher-ordered thinking skills” too quickly.

9. Avoid teaching to the tests.

10. Keep the greatest distance possible between your curriculum and the Common Core Standards.

Questions and Answers About What the Latest HHS Mandate Rule Means for Catholic High Schools

THE CARDINAL NEWMAN SOCIETY

NAVIGATION

SUPPORT

NEWSLETTERS

Cost Drivers

Alternate Testing Possibilities

References

Introduction

I. THREATS TO THE RELIGIOUS IDENTITY OF RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS

II. STEPS TO PROTECT THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF SECTARIAN

Protection From the ACA

Conclusion

1. Renounce the English Language Arts (ELA) Percentages for Literary and Informational Texts (which are not research-based).69

2. Reduce textbook use when possible.83

3. Respond to the texts, not the Standards.

4. Do not take the Common Core’s rightful emphasis on text-based arguments too far.

5. Avoid premature use of technology, peer-editing, research and rhetorical pedagogy in place of good old-fashioned writing instruction.

6. Create your own explicit standards for your junior high and high school literature classes.

7. Do not alter your math progression.

8. Avoid the temptation to push “higher-ordered thinking skills” too quickly.

9. Avoid teaching to the tests.

10. Keep the greatest distance possible between your curriculum and the Common Core Standards.

THE CARDINAL NEWMAN SOCIETY

NAVIGATION

SUPPORT

NEWSLETTERS

1. Renounce the English Language Arts (ELA) Percentages for Literary and Informational Texts (which are not research-based).⁶⁹

2. Reduce textbook use when possible.⁸³