This announcement is sure to reignite the controversy surrounding the decision to turn struggling Catholic schools into non-religious versions of their former selves. Washington, D.C., did just that by closing seven schools last year and re-opening them as charters in September. (You can find OSV's story on the charter controversy here.)
Supporters of the shift to charter schools say that it will allow the Church to continue to educate children in under-served communities. Bishop DiMarzio, at today's press conference, said: “We’re looking at a new direction that can be beneficial financially to the city and to the students that we do serve.” (For The New York Times story on the press conference, click here.)
But that raises more questions than it answers. Becoming a public charter school means that the former Catholic schools can no longer teach religion during school hours or display crucifixes on the walls. So we come down to the heart of the matter: Is the mission of Catholic education to provide academically rigorous alternatives to failing public schools, or is the mission of Catholic education to impart the faith within the context of an academically rigorous educational setting? Will Catholic students now attending those schools be able to attend religious education in those building after school hours, or will that be off limits? Will students who now leave class to serve a funeral Mass, say, be allowed to do so if and when the schools turn public? Will Catholic students have the option of leaving class for Masses on holy days or first Fridays? Will teachers have to provide state-mandated health education programs that might include morally offensive materials for Catholics?
There is no doubt that Catholic education is struggling and the Church needs to find answers to some difficult questions facing schools on the verge of closure, but is the best solution to leave the Catholic faith out of the equation?
