A CASE STUDY: ARCHBISHOP HOBAN HIGH SCHOOL’S JOURNEY TO
COEDUCATION
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty at The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Mary Anne Beiting
December, 2005
A CASE STUDY: ARCHBISHOP HOBAN HIGH SCHOOL’S JOURNEY TO
COEDUCATION
Mary Anne Beiting
Dissertation
Approved: Accepted:
______Advisor Department Chair Dr. Sandra Spickard Prettyman Dr. Susan J. Olson
______Committee Member Dean of the College Dr. Susan Clark Dr. Patricia Nelson
______Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Rudy Fenwick Dr. George Newkome
______Committee Member Date Dr. Susan Kushner Benson
______Committee Member Dr. Susan J. Olson
ii
ABSTRACT
Archbishop Hoban High School changed from an all boys to a coeducational school in 1973. This case study looked at internal and external influences that led Hoban to change to a coeducational school. The research was guided by these questions: What internal and external influences played a role in the decisions that led Archbishop Hoban
High School to change to a coeducational school? How did Hoban as an organization react to these influences? The theoretical framework for the study combined several strands of research: the history and philosophy of Holy Cross education; organizational theories of decision making and change; research on the culture of Catholic schools; and research on the social context of the 1960s and 1970s in the United States. This case study analyzed primary and secondary documents about the school’s history during the period from the late 1960s through 1973. The researcher also conducted interviews with eleven key participants in the decision making process and added their responses to the data collected. Results indicated that the decision to become coeducational was expedient and natural, but that structural, political, human resources, and symbolic factors influenced the decision. The change was also consistent with the Holy Cross philosophy of education that encouraged its schools to meet the individual needs of those it served. As the cultural and social context of the Catholic Church changed after Vatican
II, as parents became more interested in coeducation, as the social context changed, and as economic factors pushed the Brothers of Holy Cross to reframe the organization, iii
changing to coeducation became a natural and pragmatic decision. By reviewing this study, other schools facing critical incidents can find a method to frame an analysis of the decision that needs to be made. Looking at the problem from its historical basis, studying the cultural context, and analyzing the structural, political, human resources, and symbolic nature of the decision may help the organization respond positively to change.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was made possible by the encouragement and support that I have received from the Brothers of Holy Cross during the years I have worked at Archbishop
Hoban High School. I am grateful for the many ways in which they have invited me to walk side by side with them as we pursue the ideals of Father Moreau. In particular, the
Brothers who have been Presidents at Hoban—Brother Richard Gilman, C.S.C., Brother
Paul Kelly, C.S.C., and Brother Kenneth Haders, C.S.C.—have made it possible for this research to happen. The Provincial of the Midwest Province, Brother Robert Fillmore,
C.S.C., allowed me to research in the archives and to have full access to available information and personnel. I deeply appreciate all that the Brothers have done.
I would also like to thank Bishop Anthony Pilla for allowing me to conduct research in the archives of the Diocese of Cleveland.
The special help that I received from the archivists, Brother John Kuhn, C.S.C., and Ms. Chris Krosel, facilitated my research. I thank them for sharing with me both the collections of important documents that they maintain and their expertise. This research could not have been accomplished without their assistance.
Even though the events of this study occurred over thirty years ago, the eleven subjects who consented to interviews provided me with details that allowed the narrative of Hoban’s history to unfold. I appreciate their openness and willingness to tell their stories. I would like to offer special thanks to Ms. Sally Riede and Brother Robert
v
Lavelle, C.S.C., who shared with me their personal files about the move to coeducation.
I was moved by the dedication to education that all these people displayed.
Throughout my journey at the University of Akron I have encountered teachers
and colleagues who have inspired me. Dr. James Hardy helped the members of our
Capstone cohort start our doctorate work. His untimely passing saddened us, but he had succeeded in teaching us a great deal. The collegiality of our cohort made our initial studies very interesting and intellectually stimulating, and I value how our work together improved my practice as an administrator and my work as a student. I also appreciate the guidance and support of my advisor, Dr. Sandra Spickard Prettyman, and of my committee members, Dr. Susan Clark, Dr. Rudy Fenwick, Dr. Susan Kushner Benson, and Dr. Susan Olson. I thank Dr. Duane Covrig for serving on my dissertation proposal committee. The helpful suggestions from all these professors have made it possible for this study to come to life.
I am most indebted to my family for the support that they have provided me throughout my education. I thank my grandparents and parents for instilling in me the importance of an education and of a strong work ethic. Thank you, Melissa, Tony, Jake, and Steve for bearing with me through all the long years of studies. My most special thanks go to my husband, Michael, who has always found a way to make it possible for me to add one more thing to the list of things I was doing. For your love and support
throughout these thirty years, I dedicate this research to you, Michael.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………..xi
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...xii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………...... ……………..1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………….....2
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………….…...3
Research Questions………………………………………………………….….....3
The Role of the Researcher in the Study……………………………………….....3
Importance of the Study…………………………………….……………………..7
Delimitations ……………………………………………….……………………10
Definitions...... 11
II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE………………………………………………..16
A Brief History of Holy Cross Education and Archbishop Hoban High School ……………………………………………………………...... 16
The Founding of Archbishop Hoban High School…………………………16
A Brief History of the Congregation of Holy Cross……...………………...17
The Charisms and Ministries of Holy Cross...... ……………19
The Holy Cross Philosophy of Education…………………………………..22 vii
The Establishment of Catholic Schools in the United States……………….24
The Growth of Holy Cross Education……………………………………...25
The Development of Archbishop Hoban High School……………………..28
Organizational Theories …………………………………………………………35
Structural Frame…………………………………………………………….37
Human Resource Frame…………………………………………………….40
Political Frame……………………………………………………………...41
Symbolic Frame…………………………………………………………….43
The Culture of Catholic Schools ………………………………………………...48
The Social Context of the 1960s and 1970s……………………………………...55
III. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………….61
Procedures …………………………………………………………………….....61
Data Collection……………………………………………..…………………....64
Access to Documents………………………………………………………….....66
Access, Entry, and Property Rights………………………………………..67
Unique Records………………………………………………………….....68
Closed Stacks and Noncirculating Materials………………………………69
Assembling Documents to Study…………………………………………..70
Access to Participants ………………………………………………..……….....72
Data Management …………………………………………………………….....76
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………..………...... 76
Validity and Reliability……………………………………………..…………....79
viii
Limitations ……………………………………………………………………....81
Subjectivity……………………………………………………………………....81
IV. RESULTS……………………………………………………………...………...... 83
The History of Internal Influences…………………...... 85
The Congregation of Holy Cross and its Members………………………...86
The Hoban Board and the Lay Advisory Board……………………………86
The Financial Condition of the School……………………………………..91
Parents and Students………………………………………………………..93
The History of External Influences………………………………………………93
The Catholic Church on Coeducation………………………………………93
Vatican II ……………………………………………….…. ....………...... 102
The Diocesan Campaign for the High Schools …………….....………...... 107
The Summit County Survey……………...…………………...... 113
The Summit County Board of Catholic Education………...... ………...... 118
The Golden Age of Boardsmanship …………………………...... 121
The High School Question and Various Proposals...... ………...... 123
The Bishop of Cleveland………………………………………………....128
The First Critical Incident: A Co-institutional School…………………………128
The Second Critical Incident: The Merger Proposal and the 1970 Chapter…...133
The Third Critical Incident: The Decision to Become a Coeducational School.………...... 142
Internal Influences on Each Critical Incident and How Hoban Reacted………159
External Influences on Each Critical Incident and How Hoban Reacted...... 163
ix
Analysis of Themes…………………………………………………………….166
Experimentation in Structural and Political Frames…………………….167
Formal Structures were Loosely Coupled……………………………….172
Importance of Who Made the Decision…………………………………175
Coeducation was an Expedient Decision………………………………..177
A “Garbage Can” Decision……………………………………………...178
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ...... ……...... 182
Summary of the Study ...... ……...... 182
Conclusions...... ……...... 183
Implications...... ……...... 193
Suggestions for Further Research ...... ……...... 194
REFERENCES ...... ……...... 197
APPENDICES ...... ……...... 205
APPENDIX A. IRB Approval Letter…………………………………………..206
APPENDIX B. Letter to Participants, Approved By IRB……...... 207
APPENDIX C. Participant Acceptance Form…………………………………208
APPENDIX D. Interview Questions………………………………………...... 209
APPENDIX E. Permission to Conduct Research, Diocese of Cleveland……..211
APPENDIX F. Permission to Conduct Research, Brothers of Holy Cross...... 212
APPENDIX G. Permission to Conduct Research, Archbishop Hoban High School…………………………………………………………………………..213
APPENDIX H. Permission to Use Personal Files of Sally Riede…………….214
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICIPANTS IN INTERVIEWS………………………65
3.2 TITLES OF UNPUBLISHED FILES USED IN THIS RESEARCH………………73
4.1 HIGH SCHOOL ENROLLMENT …………………………………….…………..115
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
4.1 ARCHBISHOP HOBAN HIGH SCHOOL’S JOURNEY TO COEDUCATION….85
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Archbishop Hoban High School opened in Akron, Ohio in the fall of 1953 and continues to educate adolescents over 51 years later (Employee Handbook 2004-2005
Archbishop Hoban High School, 2004, p. 4). While the school still adheres to the educational philosophy formulated by the Brothers of Holy Cross who founded the school, there have been many changes that occurred throughout the 51-year history. The school was founded as “a school for men taught by men” but has been coeducational since the fall of 1973. The school has changed from an organization that was administered and staffed by the Brothers of Holy Cross to one with lay administrators, teachers, and board members. Governance structures have evolved to reflect these changing roles. Despite almost closing in 1976, the school has remained a vibrant organization in East Akron. Hoban’s story provides fertile ground for research about how an institution experiences important changes. Through an examination of aspects of
Hoban’s history, it is possible to study how an organization responds to internal and external influences when a making a decision to reframe itself in a fundamentally different structure.
1
Statement of the Problem
One of the most significant changes in Hoban’s history occurred as the result of
events from 1968-1973. In the late 1960s, there were discussions about Hoban becoming
a co-institutional school with St. Mary High School, but that decision was not finalized.
In 1970, there had been a proposal made to the brothers that Hoban should merge with the all girls St. Mary High School (Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled
“High School, Archbishop Hoban,” document entitled “A Proposal for Joining St. Mary
and Archbishop Hoban High Schools, 1970”). This merger did not occur, however,
because the brothers voted against it at their Chapter meeting. Instead, St. Mary’s
merged with the coeducational St. Vincent High School in the fall of 1971 and the new
school became St. Vincent-St. Mary High School. As time went on, the financial
situation at Hoban made it obvious that the school would need to enroll more students to
operate efficiently. This caused the Brothers of Holy Cross to reconsider admitting girls,
but this time without a merger with another school. In the spring of 1972, therefore, the
brothers announced that Hoban would become coeducational starting in the fall of 1973.
Facing such a critical incident, some schools might not have been able to respond
effectively and therefore would have closed. Hoban remained open and continues to
grow. By studying the decisions that led to Hoban’s move to coeducation, it is possible
to analyze the internal and external influences that explain the organization’s reaction.
The review of literature examines four sources of information: Holy Cross educational
history and philosophy, organizational theories that deal with decision making and
change in organizations, research on the culture of Catholic high schools, and information
on the social context of the 1960s and 1970s.
2
Purpose of the Study
This case study investigates the internal and external influences on Hoban’s decision to become coeducational at each of three decision points. The school discussed becoming a co-institutional school with St. Mary High School in the late 1960s, but that discussion was dropped. In 1970, the Summit County Board of Catholic Education proposed to the brothers that Hoban should merge with St. Mary’s to become a coeducational school, but the brothers voted no to the merger in June, 1970. In 1972, the brothers went through a complex series of steps that did result in the announcement that
Hoban would become coeducational in the fall of 1973. In conducting my study, I sought to uncover the factors that explain how the organization reacted to each decision in the process of reframing itself eventually into a fundamentally different structure as a coeducational school.
Research Questions
The dissertation focuses on these research questions:
1. What internal and external influences played a role in the decisions
that led Archbishop Hoban High School to change to a coeducational
school?
2. How did Hoban as an organization react to these influences?
The Role of the Researcher in the Study
I came to Archbishop Hoban High School for the first time in the spring of 1988 to fulfill requirements for a Field Experience in my Masters program in Educational
Administration at the University of Akron. As a lifelong Catholic who attended Catholic
3
schools from grades K-12 in Louisville, Kentucky, I believe strongly in the value of
Catholic education. Because I had moved to Akron from Kentucky in 1985, I was not
familiar with the Catholic high schools in the area, but knew that I was interested in
learning more about them so I could continue my career in a Catholic secondary school in
the area. I had previously taught French since 1975 in Lexington, Kentucky, and knew
that I would either be returning to teaching or moving into a position as a high school
administrator. While taking classes in educational administration, I had taught part-time in the French department at the University of Akron in 1987-1988. As part of a Field
Experience during the spring of 1988, I visited numerous Catholic schools in Akron.
One day in the spring of 1988, I interviewed Brother Richard Gilman, C.S.C., who was the principal at Hoban. As he talked about the Holy Cross philosophy of education, his words resonated with my personal beliefs. I learned, too, that there would be an opening for the Associate Principal position. Even though the youngest of our four
children was only turning two years old, I was convinced that this was an opportunity that
I did not want to pass up. Within the next couple of months, I applied for the position
and got it, beginning the job on July 1, 1988. There had been a nun, Sister Mary Therese
Berry, H.M., who had been an Associate Principal before me in 1980-1984 (Personnel
files at Hoban, file entitled “Sr. Mary Therese Berry, H.M., 1980-1984”), but I was the first lay woman to be hired as an administrator. In 1989, the Board of Trustees and the
brothers decided to return to the president/principal model of school administration.
Brother Richard would be the president, and there was a national search to find a candidate to be principal. I was one of the candidates who applied for the position, and in
May 1990 I was appointed as principal. I was the second lay person to serve as principal
4
and the first lay woman, and I have served in that capacity since the 1990-1991 school
year.
Education has always been important in my life. As the granddaughter of Italian
immigrants, I was the first woman in our family to enroll in college. After earning a B.A.
with majors in French and History from Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, I earned a
Masters in French from the University of Kentucky. After my husband and I moved to
Akron, I earned a Masters in Educational Administration from the University of Akron. I
began my doctoral studies in the Capstone Program at the University of Akron, working
with other administrators from urban settings. For our family, education has been a key
focus with our children, and the Hoban community has had a central role. Our daughter
and three sons have all graduated from Hoban. All of our children have also continued
their education at Catholic universities for their undergraduate, graduate or professional
studies.
My eighteen years at Hoban have given me an opportunity to work side by side
with many Brothers of Holy Cross. I have participated in annual leadership meetings
with principals and presidents/heads of school from across the United States. These first-
hand experiences have helped me understand and live the educational mission of the
brothers.
The culminating experience in my formation as a leader in Holy Cross education
occurred during the summer of 2004. The Marianite Sisters of Holy Cross have
sponsored an international Institute on Holy Cross Spirituality for many years. Priests, brothers, and sisters from the Congregations founded through the work of Father Moreau come together from all over the world to attend the Institute. In 2003, for the first time,
5
lay people working in Holy Cross ministries were invited to attend the Institute. In 2004,
I was able to join the second Institute that included lay people. For two weeks, we met in
Le Mans, France. We attended seminars on the history of Holy Cross and on its spirituality. We also made pilgrimages to the places of historical importance. Because of
this experience, I have a deep personal knowledge about the history and philosophy of
Holy Cross education. My dissertation draws from this personal knowledge.
Until the late 1980s, much of the history of Holy Cross education remained an
oral tradition. As more lay people were working in the schools, the old pattern of having
large numbers of brothers in the schools to pass on the oral and lived tradition was changing. The brothers recognized the need to begin to articulate and write down fundamental information about Holy Cross education. Having begun my doctoral work in educational administration in the 1990s, my search for a dissertation topic led me back to Hoban and to Holy Cross education. Working with the brothers has enriched my practice as an administrator. I had heard about how Hoban had experienced many
changes that profoundly influenced the course of events for the school. I wanted to be
able to chronicle some of the changes to contribute to the brothers’ efforts to capture that
oral tradition by writing down my findings. I was also fascinated about how the school
as an organization had made decisions to change. I wanted to study how important
decisions had been made: the decisions that led to coeducation, the 1976 decision that the
school would close followed by the successful efforts to save Hoban, and the change in
governance with an increased role for the laity. As I narrowed the topic for my
dissertation, in consultation with my committee, I decided to concentrate on the time in
the school’s history when decisions were made that led to coeducation.
6
As I described above, Hoban and Holy Cross education have been important parts of my life since 1988. But detailed information about the decisions that led to
coeducation at Hoban was not part of my personal knowledge. As the researcher in this
study, I sought to gather objective data to deconstruct and then reconstruct how the
decisions that led to Hoban becoming coeducational had been made. I sought to
triangulate data sources, never relying on what a participant said in an interview or what I
read in one document as the truth of the matter until I found other sources to verify the
facts. I sought confirmation from at least three sources of evidence before concluding
that I had accurate data. I relied on my training as an historian and as a qualitative researcher to devise ways to limit my subjectivity and to increase the objectivity of my study. These efforts are delineated in the methodology section of this study.
My experience as the researcher in this study was a very positive one. I had the opportunity to delve into documents that revealed how Hoban developed in its early years. The interviews gave me the chance to hear the stories of remarkable people who tried hard to make major decisions at a critical time in the history of Catholic secondary education in Akron. It is with a deep sense of appreciation for the efforts of all who came before me that I have entered into this project to record and analyze Hoban’s journey to coeducation.
Importance of the Study
In the world of private education, the strength of a school’s operation is closely tied to its ability to maintain a vibrant enrollment figure. As tuition costs have risen and the economy has tightened up, the question of how to maintain a sufficient enrollment vexes schools that are struggling. For some single-sex schools or for smaller schools, the
7
questions of whether to change from single-sex to coeducational and/or to merge with another school remain relevant discussions today. My research about Archbishop Hoban
High School’s story can provide insights that these schools can consider in their decision making.
The viability of Catholic schools is heavily related to their financial stability, and this in turn relates directly to the number of students whose parents choose to enroll them in a Catholic school instead of the public school which does not charge tuition.
Enrollment in Catholic schools is always a critical issue in determining which schools survive. Catholic schools flourished after the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884 when the bishops called upon parents to educate their children in Catholic schools and called on every parish to establish a school (Kennelly, 2003, p. 77). In the late nineteenth century, waves of Catholic immigrants from Europe came to this country. Catholic schools were established for their children in order to pass on the faith traditions, to help the immigrants assimilate into American culture while also helping many to maintain ties with their ethnic heritages, and to mitigate against the discrimination in public schools.
Enrollment in Catholic schools grew substantially, especially in the years from 1946-
1965, when it peaked in 1965 with a total of 5,582,354 students (Greene & O’Keefe,
2004, p. 162). In fact, enrollment dropped by half from 1965 to 1990 when it reached 2.5 million students (Bryk, Lee & Holland, 1993, p. 33). The Catholic population in 2004 was 67.3 million, making up 23% of the U.S. population, but enrollment in Catholic schools has declined 3.2% in the past 10 years, 6.2% in the past 5 years, and 2.7% in the past year (The Context of American Catholic Education, 2004, pp. 1-5.) At a time when many Catholic schools are facing declining enrollments and the threat of merger or
8
closure, an analysis of a how a school has successfully responded to such issues by
becoming coeducational provides important information to a school looking to identify
factors that can lead to continued vitality rather than decline. This research may aid such
schools.
There is a need to study how successful schools have experienced organizational
changes over time. By studying an individual school, the researcher can analyze unique
local characteristics. By capturing the qualitative data on how one school made the
decision to change to coeducation, this study can provide a framework for other schools
to use to study how their communities evolved to their current conditions. Although the
research questions are not designed to study an issue that will be generalized to a larger
population, the framework might prove useful to other schools. Therefore, stakeholders from other Catholic high schools might be able to read my research and decide if it generalizes to the facts of their situations. In Catholic education, there is a system of schools rather than one school system. Because each school is somewhat unique, I chose a qualitative, in-depth analysis as the appropriate approach to discern a way to look at an
organization and its decision to change. I believe that other schools could do similar
studies.
Hoban’s story is an important piece of the educational history of Summit County.
As this research documents, the late 1960s and early 1970s were periods when many
decisions were made that had profound effects on how and where educational
opportunities developed in the Catholic high schools in Akron. By capturing the details
of that period, I seek to provide important documentation of the history of Hoban as well
as of this period in Summit County.
9
Organizational theorists provide an interesting framework through which to investigate this period in Hoban’s history. By analyzing these data through the lenses they provide, I attempt to understand better the factors that influenced the events in
Hoban’s move to coeducation. I combined research about the history and philosophy of
Holy Cross education, about the culture of Catholic schools, and about the social context of the historical period along with organizational theories to create the conceptual framework for my study. Using this conceptual framework, I can recount with more depth and better analyze how events unfolded on Hoban’s journey to coeducation.
Delimitations
The events in this study occurred over thirty years ago. As the researcher, I made efforts to deconstruct and then reconstruct the events through archival records and through interviews with key participants. I attempted to deconstruct the events to find out the key internal and external influences on Hoban’s decisions involving coeducation.
I then attempted to reconstruct the decisions in as complete a way as I could. This was a challenging task given that thirty years had gone by, there were many files of documents available, and many potential people to interview. The first delimitation is therefore that, even though many alumni, parents, teachers, and friends of Hoban might have had information to share about the events in this study, the interviews were limited to those who participated in some way in the decision making about the eventual move to coeducation. I did not invite individuals to participate in the study if I was aware that the person’s health would impede full participation. I delimited participants to those individuals involved in the decision making who responded to my letter requesting an
10
interview and who were available for interviews over the summer of 2005 when I conducted this research.
While Hoban has experienced many changes over its 51-year history, in this study
I focused on the decisions that led to the change of becoming coeducational. There are other changes that are important and worthy of investigation as well, but studying them would have required a broader study than it was possible to complete at this time.
Definitions
There are several terms that I will use throughout this study that need to be
defined. Some of these terms have their origin within the Catholic Church or have a
special bearing on a study of coeducation. The defined terms are italicized in the following paragraphs.
Brother of Holy Cross, provincial, province: It is important to define who is a
Brother of Holy Cross as well as who is the provincial and what is his province. A
brother is a lay religious man who takes vows of celibacy, obedience, and poverty,
dedicates himself to his ministry, and lives within the community of the brothers. He is
not a member of the clergy and is therefore not ordained as a priest. Within the Catholic
Church, the provincial is the head of the province, a geographic region. The provincial carries authority under canon law that is similar to that of a bishop in a diocese. In the
United States today, there are three provinces of Holy Cross brothers: the Eastern
Province, the Midwest Province, and the South-West Province. There are also three
Provinces of Priests. The provinces are united under the Superior General in Rome.
Critical incident: In this study, I use the term a critical incident to refer to an
event or decision in an organization’s history that has the potential to result in major
11
change in the life of the organization. I consider three decision points as critical incidents: whether Hoban should become a co-institutional school with St. Mary High
School; whether Hoban should merge with St. Mary High School into a coeducational school in 1970; and whether Hoban should decide in 1972 to become coeducational.
C.S.C.: Within the Catholic Church, members of religious congregations use
initials after their names to identify the congregation to which they belong. These initials
generally refer to the Latin name of the congregation. For the members of Holy Cross,
they put C.S.C. after their names to identify that they are members of the congregation
whose Latin name is Congregatio a Sancta Croce. Within this study, the initials S.J. will
appear after the name of a Jesuit priest and O.P. after the name of a Dominican sister.
Internal and external influences: At each decision point (or critical incident) in
Hoban’s journey to coeducation, there were influences that had an impact on how Hoban
reacted. Internal influences are factors within the Hoban organization and school
community that had an impact on what Hoban did. These included: the Congregation of
Holy Cross and its members; the school’s governance structures, such as the role of the
principal, the Hoban Board and the development of the lay advisory board; the financial
condition of the school; the parents; and the students. External influences are factors outside of the school’s organization and community that also had an impact on how
Hoban reacted. These included: Vatican II; the Catholic Church and its views on coeducation; the Diocesan Campaign for the High Schools; the Summit Regional Board of Catholic Education; the Bardsley & Haslacher (1968) Survey in Summit County; and the Bishop of Cleveland. I recognize that the boundaries between internal and external influences can be permeable within an organization. For the purposes of this study,
12
parents of Hoban students are considered internal influences, reflecting the integral role that parents have within the community of a Holy Cross school. The members of the
Congregation of Holy Cross and the Midwest Province are also considered as internal
influences because of how closely tied together the brothers at Hoban were with their
provincial leadership and structures when making decisions for the school.
Laity: The term laity refers to the members of the Catholic Church who are
neither ordained as priests nor members of a religious community. The laity consists of
lay men and lay women.
Members of the Corporation, Board of Trustees, lay advisory board, Board of
Directors: Today, many Catholic high schools have Boards of Directors. In many
instances, how these boards function has evolved over time. Hoban is an organization
that has experienced such an evolution. In the early years of the school, the Board
consisted of two groups of brothers who fulfilled special functions in accordance with the
bylaws of the school. The two groups were the Members of the Corporation who met
annually and had certain reserved powers, and the Board of Trustees, another group of brothers who fulfilled certain powers under the bylaws. In the late 1960s, the brothers at
Hoban established a lay advisory board composed of lay men and women who had an interest in the school and who advised the principal. Eventually, the lay advisory board was asked to assume greater responsibilities under the organization’s revised bylaws, and the governance of the school was shared when lay men and women were selected to join the brothers and a priest from the Akron area on the Board of Trustees. This self- perpetuating board assumed duties for the financial well being of the school as outlined in the bylaws. The Board remained a two-tiered board, with the Members, who were
13
brothers, retaining reserved powers. Today the board is the Board of Directors under the
latest bylaws that also retain the two-tiered structure. The Members are currently still
brothers.
Single-sex, coeducational, co-institutional: There are several terms that enter into
discussions about how to describe the gender groupings of populations in schools. The term single-sex refers to a school population of only males or only females. Hoban began as a single-sex school for boys. The literature on Catholic schools and coeducation that I studied most often uses the term single-sex rather than single gender (Lasser, 1987;
Marsh, Smith, Marsh & Owens, 1988; Convey, 1992; Tyack & Hansot, 1992; Bryk, Lee
& Holland, 1993; LePore & Warren, 1997; Mael, 1998; Augenstein, Kauffmann, &
Wister, 2003; Hunt, Joseph, & Nuzzi, 2002; Hunt, Joseph, & Nuzzi, 2004a; Hunt, Joseph,
& Nuzzi, 2004b). Coeducational refers to a mixed school population of males and females attending classes in the same school, and describes Hoban’s population since
1973. Co-institutional refers to the practice of enrolling males and females in the same school building, but separating the genders for classes. In co-institutional schools, there might be separate administrations for the males and females, often of the same gender as the students.
Social context: In this study, social context is part of the conceptual framework
used to analyze the data. The social context refers specifically to the social environment
in the United States where the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the
student protest movement were important elements that created the social milieu.
Vatican II: The Second Vatican Council is referred to as Vatican II. Pope John
XXIII announced the council in 1959, and nearly 2500 bishops from all over the world
14
met in four sessions from 1962-1965. Vatican II issued many documents and resulted in major changes in the liturgy and worship spaces, the life of religious men and women, the role of the laity, the study of Scriptures and religion, and other aspects of life in the
Church for Catholics (Hunt, Joseph, & Nuzzi, 2004a, pp. 681-683).
15
CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A Brief History of Holy Cross Education and Archbishop Hoban High School
The Founding of Archbishop Hoban High School
The story of how the Sumner family’s farm in east Akron came to house
Archbishop Hoban High School is an interesting one that contains elements of importance to the general histories of both Akron and Catholic education from 1953-
2005. The Archbishop of Cleveland, Edward F. Hoban, had been educated by the
Brothers of Holy Cross in Chicago and invited them to extend their work into Akron.
Monsignor Dowed, pastor at Annunciation Church in East Akron, had wanted a school built that would educate the sons of the blue collar members of his parish. Two orders, the Franciscans and the Carmelites, had each agreed to run a school, but had later backed out of their agreements. (Archives of the Brothers of Holy Cross Midwest Province, file entitled “Lay Advisory Board/1967-1971,” May 22, 1970 letter from Brother John
Benesh, Principal at Hoban, to Mr. Phil Horan, Advisory Board Member). On May 2,
1949 the Diocese of Cleveland purchased property from Sumner Home for the Aged for
$60,000 and on June 21, 1949 from Akron Brick & Tile Co. for $9,000 (Archives of the
Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled “Educational Institutions St.Vincent/St. Mary Akron” in a memo dated August 3, 1976 to Msgr. Quinn from Cas Rutt. The stationery lists
Msgr. A. James Quinn as Diocesan Financial Secretary and Mr. Casimir J. Rutt as Legal
16
Counsel). Accepting the Archbishop’s invitation, the brothers established a boys’
school—“a school for men, taught by men,” as the saying went in the early days of the school. The Rutt memo also states that the Diocese conveyed the property to Archbishop
Hoban High School by quitclaim deed on January 31, 1957. The Brothers of Holy Cross
that the Archbishop invited were members of the Midwest Province of Brothers of the
Congregation of Holy Cross.
A brief summary of their history will set the stage for the ministry in Akron. The
Holy Cross history is verified in written accounts (Constitutions, 1988; Giallanza, 1998),
but it also comes from my experiences in 2004 when I studied and retraced this history as
part of the Institute on Holy Cross Spirituality. There are also historical facts related to
Catholic education in the Diocese of Cleveland that I know because I have been an
administrator at Hoban for 18 years and have either had to live through the experiences or
have learned about them in my work.
A Brief History of the Congregation of Holy Cross
Founded by Father Jacques Dujarié in Ruillé-sur-Loir, France, in 1830 as the
Brothers of St. Joseph, the group set out to educate the poor in the countryside still ravaged following the French Revolution. The French Revolution in 1789 had overthrown the previous social order, the Ancien Régime, which was based on the three
Estates and divided the people into three classes: the nobles, the clergy, and everyone else. As the old order was dismantled, society changed dramatically. The multiple governments had resulted in a chaotic situation that included the breakdown of religion
and of education. The Church was discredited and outlawed following the Revolution.
In the ensuing years, it was very dangerous to practice Catholicism. Despite these very
17
real obstacles and dangers, Father Dujarié had studied and been ordained in secret, and
ministered from his place in hiding on a farm. The poverty that he saw, as well as the
disruptions in educational and religious systems, encouraged him to establish the brothers
to teach the young and to evangelize them. Two groups, the Sisters of Providence and
the Brothers of Saint Joseph, developed through the efforts of Father Dujarié, and these
orders educated young men and women in the rural area of France around Ruillé-sur-
Loir.
Eventually, however, Father Dujarié’s work became limited by his own failing health and
lack of finances, so he entrusted his group of brothers to Father Basil Anthony Moreau in
1835.
Father Moreau worked in nearby Le Mans and had gathered a group of Auxiliary
Priests. They also worked to educate the young people of the area in the Catholic faith.
The brothers joined with Father Moreau’s Auxiliary Priests through the Fundamental Act
in 1837. Father Moreau received approval from Rome in 1857 for his Congregation from
Ste-Croix, a suburb of the city of Le Mans, France, where Father Moreau lived and
worked. Ste-Croix means “Holy Cross” in English. Father Moreau had envisioned an
order where priests, brothers, and sisters all worked together. That kind of mixed gender
congregation was not the norm in the Church at that time. The official name of the
Congregation is Congregatio a Sancta Cruce, giving the initials C.S.C. which members still use in their names. Rome did not initially approve the sisters as part of the
Congregation with the brothers and priests. The sisters received approbation for
worldwide status in 1867 as a separate order, the Congregation of the Marianites of Holy
Cross, thus fulfilling one aspect of Father Moreau’s vision for the organization.
18
Father Moreau believed that the members of his family of Holy Cross should also spread out as missionaries to bring education in the faith to those in need outside of
France. The Congregation moved to many places, including the United States, Bengal
(Bangladesh today), Haiti, and Canada. Father Edward Sorin and seven brothers launched the ministry in the United States in 1842. They landed in New York and went to Vincennes, Indiana, eventually moving to South Bend, Indiana. There they founded
what today is the University of Notre Dame du Lac. From this foundation, they
established schools throughout the country. Many of these followed the French model of
the collèges. These schools served young men through middle school and high school
years. While education has remained a primary arena in which the brothers work, they
have also branched out into many ministries including parish work, medicine, and social
work. The international character of Holy Cross remains a significant characteristic of
the order today since the Midwest Province has brothers working in schools in Illinois,
Ohio, Ghana, Peru, and Bangladesh as well as in missions serving the poor throughout
this country and Africa.
The Charisms and Ministries of Holy Cross
The characteristics of a Brother of Holy Cross, of the provincial, and of the province were operationally defined in Chapter I of this study. Brothers of Holy Cross live their lives in accordance with the Constitutions and Statutes of the Congregation of
Holy Cross (1988). Their ministries display the charisms of the Congregation. Charisms are the special graces that are “oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the
Church” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p. 485). These unique, grace-filled
19
characteristics define the spirituality at the basis of the work of the Congregation. For
Holy Cross, important charisms include developing a sense of community modeled on the Holy Family, welcoming each other with the hospitality of Christ, demonstrating a preferential option for the poor, providing education in the faith, demonstrating inclusivity rather than exclusivity, maintaining excellence in the work they do, and modeling the values they seek to develop in those with whom they minister. Hospitality is important in Holy Cross communities, and manifesting this quality calls members of
Holy Cross institutions to meet, greet, and invite all members to participate fully, just as the gospels record that Christ did to all He encountered. Preferential option for the poor is a concept from the Catholic Church that suggests that its ministries should exemplify principles of the social justice teachings of the Church and commit resources needed to serve those most in need. The social teachings of the Church include several key themes: the life and dignity of the human person; a call to family, community, and participation; rights and responsibilities; option for the poor and vulnerable; the dignity of work and the rights of workers; solidarity; and care for God’s creation (U.S. Catholic Conference,
1999). The Constitutions (1988) explain this commitment: “We stand with the poor and the afflicted because only from there can we appeal as Jesus did for the conversion and the deliverance of all” (p. 21). The brothers are also sensitive to the local character of the communities where they go to minister. They seek first to get to know the local people and Church, and to establish their ministries to address the unique needs present in each locale. They seek to become involved in the local church. This aspect of their charisms helps explain why there is such diversity in the types of ministries in which the brothers engage throughout the Congregation’s work. As a result, the schools and agencies
20
sponsored by the brothers are not all exactly alike because they reflect the needs of the
local church in which they are located. As Brothers of Holy Cross they live out the call
of their Constitutions (1988) to be “men with hope to bring” (p. 76) as they help those to
whom they minister. It is a collaborative ministry that forms important relationships with students, as the Constitutions state: “Wherever we work, we assist others not only to recognize and develop their own gifts but also to discover the deepest longing in their lives. And, as in every work of our mission, we find that we ourselves stand to learn much from those whom we are called to teach” (p. 22).
In the United States today, there are three provinces of brothers: the Eastern
Province, the Midwest Province, and the South-West Province. There are also three
Provinces of Priests. All these provinces began as one province in the United States.
Over the years, as the number of brothers increased along with the number of ministries in which they worked, questions arose about roles, responsibilities, and finances and the control over those elements. The challenges led the brothers and priests to seek permission to split into autonomous, homogeneous provinces of priests and brothers.
This new arrangement became reality on July 1, 1946. Initially the split was into two provinces, one for priests and one for brothers. Then the brothers’ provinces split into the three separate ones that exist today. The provinces are all part of the international
Congregation of Holy Cross, headed by the Superior General and his council in Rome.
The evolution of the structure of the provinces continues to be a question of interest to the brothers. Due to the reality imposed by the declining numbers of vocations and of current brothers in all three provinces, there are discussions about whether provinces should once again join together. Thus, while the commitments to their vows and to the
21
work of the Congregation have remained as constants throughout the history of the
brothers, the organizational structure of the provinces has evolved to respond to changing historical situations and needs, and continues to do so today.
The ministries of the brothers in the United States have diversified over the years.
Many work in education, especially at secondary schools or in higher education. These schools are rooted in the initial work of the brothers and priests who came as missionaries
to the United States. There are also brothers who work in other social service fields such
as health care and social work. They live their lives in accordance with the Constitutions and Statutes of the Congregation of Holy Cross (1988). Their ministries display the charisms of the Congregation. The charisms help explain why there is such diversity in the types of ministries in which the brothers engage throughout the Congregation’s work.
As a result, the schools and agencies sponsored by the brothers are not all exactly alike because they reflect the needs of the local church in which they are located. As will be discussed in more detail later, the three Cleveland area Holy Cross schools serve very different constituencies. While schools in Ghana and Bangladesh are different from each other and from those in the United States, all schools still reflect the charisms of the
Congregation as outlined by Father Moreau in his writings. Strong relationships are at the heart of the spirituality of the brothers. The brothers are to be spiritual men, but not
live cloistered lives. They believe in their motto, “Spec Unica,” that the cross is “the only
hope,” an idea also symbolized in their emblem containing a cross and two anchors.
The Holy Cross Philosophy of Education
Father Moreau was a scholar and visionary. He taught in seminaries and established many schools as part of his ministries in France. As he sent missionaries out
22
to places like Bangladesh, Haiti, Canada, and the United States, they went with the goal
of educating the people they encountered in order to spread the faith. They established
schools to accomplish this mission. Father Moreau wrote extensively on education, and his words still resonate with those ministering in Holy Cross schools today. Many of his ideas are found in Christian Education, an unpublished manuscript translated by Hunt and Blauvelt (2001), as well as in the circular letters that he wrote to the brothers while
he was Provincial. In a way that was very revolutionary for the times, he believed in
more than the classical education, preferring a holistic education that educated the heart
as well as the mind of the student, giving the student the competence to see and the
courage to act. He wrote that education should touch the whole person, including
academics, athletics, the arts, and spirituality. He distinguished between instruction and
education. Education should include information, leading to formation of the student,
and eventually achieving transformation of the student who is prepared for this life and
the Kingdom to come. He believed that scholarship without values was empty, so he
contended that society had a greater need of people of values than scholars. He believed
that a Holy Cross school should include those most in need, and that teachers should give
extra help to those students to minister to their special needs. He believed that a Holy
Cross school should maintain traditions, but should also be a model for excellence in the
latest scholarship. Within Holy Cross ministries, he emphasized that the notion of
family, modeled on the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, should be the type of
communal relationship that predominates. Within the structure of his organization,
therefore, he included lay associates to work and pray with the members of the
Congregation, recognizing that the inclusion of men and women who were religious and
23
lay working together for the education of the young would enhance the formation of all
involved. This emphasis on inclusivity rather than exclusivity continues to characterize how brothers carry on the philosophy of education of Father Moreau today as they work side by side with lay men and women.
The Establishment of Catholic Schools in the United States
Catholic schools developed in the United States as a response to the bishops’ call
in Baltimore in 1884, attempting to meet the needs of an immigrant population within the
Church (Kennelly, 2003). The schools reached their peak enrollment in 1965. Within
Catholic education, there are three primary forms of schools: parochial, diocesan, or
private. Individual parishes fund parochial schools and the pastor oversees the school,
hiring a principal to administer it. A diocesan school is funded and administered by a
diocese, which is run by a bishop. There is a central office of the diocese, often with a
vicar of education in charge of catechesis and a superintendent who manages schools, as
well as a principal who administers each school. A private school operates under the
auspices of a bishop in matters of faith and morals, but is funded and administered by a
religious Congregation, such as the Jesuits or the Brothers of Holy Cross, or other group approved by the bishop. Today many religious Congregations sponsor private high schools. Archbishop Hoban is a private high school sponsored by the Brothers of Holy
Cross of the Midwest Province.
Many of the early Catholic schools were parochial elementary and high schools
staffed by religious women or men who belonged to Congregations. The dedication to
teaching combined with the contributed services of these religious men and women, who
received minimal salaries and benefits, allowed the schools to flourish. The term
24
contributed services describes the practice whereby members of religious Congregations
received minimum financial remuneration for the work they did in the schools, a practice
that kept the cost of running the schools low. Religious Congregations were often invited
by bishops to come to a specific diocese to operate schools, with the Congregation
assuming responsibility for staffing and administering the school.
The Growth of Holy Cross Education
The Congregation of Holy Cross participated in the national growth, establishing schools in states that included Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Maryland,
Oregon, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and California. The period following World
War II was a time of many changes in the United States. The prosperity and growing population of the nation also affected Holy Cross and its educational ministries. As the need for schools increased, the brothers were invited to expand their ministry by starting new high schools. In addition, the G.I. Bill provided an influx of men seeking education at the colleges run by the brothers, especially at St. Edward’s University at Austin, Texas.
There were also increased numbers of candidates for vocations, resulting in increases in the personnel from Congregations such as Holy Cross who were available to staff schools as administrators and teachers. The increased growth in the population, popularly known as the “Baby Boom,” spurred the building of numerous Catholic schools. Holy Cross participated in this expansion of Catholic secondary schools.
After separating from the priests and forming as an autonomous province in 1946, the brothers needed new financial resources. To help meet their financial needs, they established property schools that they owned and managed (Armstrong, 1995). The first provincial of the brothers in the United States, Brother Ephrem O’Dwyer, C.S.C., was
25
acutely aware of this need to establish financial stability for the brothers and their new province. He gladly worked with Archbishop Hoban, accepting the Archbishop’s invitation to the Brothers of Holy Cross to establish three schools within the Diocese of
Cleveland. The Archbishop headed the Diocese of Cleveland and had been appointed to this post by the Pope.
The brothers’ relationship with Archbishop Hoban provided significant opportunities for them, and Brother Ephrem was keenly aware of the importance of the
Archbishop’s new school plans for the success of Holy Cross. In addition to continuing a favorable relationship with the Archbishop by providing brothers to staff schools, Brother
Ephrem collaborated with the Archbishop to create a unique financial plan for the expansion of Holy Cross schools. In this period of tight finances, Brother Ephrem developed what he called the Hoban plan for developing new schools, acquiring the land and building in agreements like he had with Archbishop Hoban and using the architectural plans from one school and its financial resources to create the next school.
The importance of the personal and financial relationships is captured in a letter written by Brother Columba Curran, C.S.C., who reported that Archbishop Hoban was
the best friend in all our [the brothers’] history. He and Brother Ephrem had a great respect for, and trust in, one another—each recognizing the other’s greatness. Bishop Hoban gave us far more financial support and independence than we had received elsewhere, and Brother Ephrem was to carry with him the Bishop Hoban plan for financing new schools when he went East [sic] as Provincial in 1956. (Armstrong, 1995, pp. 144-145)
The three schools established in Ohio were Gilmour Academy (1946), St. Edward High
School (1949), and Archbishop Hoban High School (1953). Gilmour began on an estate in Gates Mills, Ohio, as a boarding school that served boys in grades 8 and 9. Both St.
26
Edward and Archbishop Hoban High Schools were established as comprehensive high schools to serve boys in grades 9-12 who were day students.
Working together with Monsignor Dowed, the pastor at Annunciation Church in east Akron very near the Sumner farm, the Archbishop invited the brothers to start “a school for men, taught by men” as the motto went in the school’s early years. Consistent with common practice among schools founded by Congregations, the school was single- sex originally. The agreement was that the diocese would build the school and the brothers would enter into a fifty-year agreement with the Diocese to run the school. After paying the Diocese 20% of the cost, the brothers received a quitclaim deed for the property in 1957. This was similar to the arrangement they had used to set up St. Edward
High School. In a letter to the principal at St. Edward in 1951, Brother Ephrem gave details about how all this worked. He wrote:
[i]n all that is being done now, you are simply the agent of the Bishop— who is incurring the obligations. All property and equipment remains his and in his name till [sic] our 25 years are up. And we should not let our contract information get outside yourself. The faculty and public should not know unless the Bishop wants to tell them. My letters on these matters are also private. (Armstrong, 1995, p. 186)
Called the Hoban Plan, this arrangement between the Archbishop and the Congregation was quite unique and allowed the cash-strapped province to build multiple schools on a short time line in Ohio as well as in the East and in California. Details were kept confidential. Having the property school also allowed the brothers access to residential space in the summer months. With access to housing, the brothers could plan programs that met the needs of the burgeoning province. Beginning in 1961 the brothers established a second novitiate at Hoban as a renewal program for those men already in
27
final vows as they sought to become brothers, and it continued to operate “over several summers” (Armstrong, 1995, p. 255). The establishment of Archbishop Hoban High
School on the former Sumner farm thus contributed to the educational plans of both the
Archbishop of the Diocese of Cleveland and of the Brothers of Holy Cross. The acquisition of the property also contributed to the financial resources of the Midwest
Province of Brothers, providing them with housing for current brothers and space to train new members.
The Development of Archbishop Hoban High School
Archbishop Hoban High School opened in 1953 with 82 boys with classes held in the school at St. Bernard’s in downtown Akron (Employee Handbook 2004-2005
Archbishop Hoban High School, 2004, p. 4). Shortly after construction began on the property on the hill that had been the Sumner farm, the construction also began on I-76, splitting the school’s property. In 1954, the school, staffed primarily by brothers, moved into its new building on this property on Fifth Avenue in the heart of the area of Akron where the rubber companies had their plants. Many students had parents who worked in those companies. The upper level of the property housing the school building and parking lots was connected with the lower level of the property by a bridge over I-76. The main school building was designed to house the school and a residence for the brothers. This design was common among Congregation-sponsored high schools built during this time period across the United States. The brothers ceased living in the residence in the 1980s, and today the space has been renovated as instructional and office spaces for school use.
On the lower level of the property on the other side of I-76, the school has several facilities: a band field; a stadium used by football, soccer, lacrosse, and track teams; a
28
baseball field; a softball field; a soccer field; and parking lots. The school prospered, reaching a peak enrollment of 1200 boys in 1964 and 1965, according to enrollment data supplied by the Diocese of Cleveland. This peak corresponds with the national peak enrollment in 1965 (Greene & O’Keefe, 2004, p. 162). Over the years, Hoban earned a reputation as a blue-collar school, due to its location and to the backgrounds of its families.
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, events began to bring changes to Akron and to the Catholic Church. The industrial economy began to change, and the blue-collar jobs of the rubber industry were moved out of Akron. In addition, Vatican II had brought many changes to the Catholic Church, including an increased role for the laity (Hunt,
Joseph, & Nuzzi, 2004a). Because of changes in religious life and new opportunities for the laity, there was a drop in vocations to religious life as well as a departure from the vowed religious life by many already professed members. The reduction in the number of brothers available meant that more lay persons would have to be hired to teach at the school. Without the contributed services of the brothers, the new lay salaries required more resources. These changes impacted all Congregations and dioceses, including the
Congregation of Holy Cross.
As enrollment decreased, and as debts and expenses rose, the idea of becoming a coeducational school emerged as a potential option. The brothers’ ministry had always been primarily to boys, especially on the secondary school level. At Hoban, there had been a series of classes opened to the girls from St. Mary High School, a parochial high school. St. Mary had been coeducational but had graduated its last male graduates in
1964. By the fall of 1965, St. Mary High School was an all girls school. There were
29
initial discussions in the late 1960s about whether the Hoban and St. Mary’s should establish a co-institutional school on the Hoban property. There was also a proposal that
St. Mary’s and Hoban should merge. At their Chapter, the legislative meeting for the province, the brothers rejected the merger idea for Hoban in 1970, postponing coeducation for the school. Eventually St. Mary’s merged with another high school that was already coeducational, St. Vincent High School, to form St. Vincent-St. Mary High
School in the fall of 1971. The merged school was a diocesan high school run by the
Diocese of Cleveland. At Hoban, enrollment dropped to 650 in 1972. Coeducation remained a topic of interest to the Hoban community. Students expressed their wish to have the school go coeducational by sponsoring a walkout on the football field on April
28, 1972. Eventually details were worked out and Hoban began to admit girls in the fall of 1973. Issues associated with equal rights were gaining momentum in the early 1970s in the United States with the Civil Rights Movement, the rise of feminism and the passage of Title IX of the Educational Amendments in 1972. It is ironic that while philosophical issues were part of the discussion within the social context, the actual move to coeducation occurred as a pragmatic solution to increase enrollment. This move echoes the work of Tyack and Hansot (1992) about coeducation in public high schools.
In other words, relatively undifferentiated coeducation probably continued to be the predominant gender practice in the public schools, not so much because educators had unanimously concluded that it was desirable— although people like Dewey continued to believe in coeducation as a matter of democratic principle—but because it was taken for granted as the only practical way to teach students in specialized academic courses in relatively small high schools. (Tyack & Hansot, 1992, p. 232)
The coeducational issue resurfaced in Akron when Walsh Jesuit High School announced that it would change from an all boys to a coeducational school beginning in the fall of
30
1993. For Archbishop Hoban High School, the thirty-one years as a coeducational
institution have produced a rich history. The details about the dropped discussion of a
co-institutional school, the rejected merger and the eventual decision to become
coeducational provide a complex yet interesting set of facts. Because those details
provide the data for this case study, more in-depth information about the merger and the
decision to become coeducational is available in the results section of this study.
The financial issues did not resolve themselves completely after Hoban initially changed to a coeducational school in 1973. St. Vincent-St. Mary and Our Lady of the
Elms had built new facilities for their high schools, and Walsh Jesuit had recently opened in 1964. The diocese was conducting a campaign to build future high schools to meet anticipated needs. Enrollment continued to decline at Hoban, and the school was in significant debt to the Province ($376,893) because of assessments that had gone unpaid as the school’s cash flow became limited (Files at Hoban, Legal Memorandum form
Daniel G. LaPorte to the Finance Committee of Archbishop Hoban High School, Inc.,
1976). The financial crisis peaked, and on November 4, 1976, the brothers announced that the school would close at the end of the 1976-1977 school years. Instead of allowing that to occur, the Hoban community rallied and began a fundraising campaign, Hoban
Forever, to save the school. At that time, a lay advisory board existed to help the brothers with the school. The brothers worked out an agreement with this board, which became the Board of Trustees, to assume more responsibility for the school, especially fiscal responsibility, and devised a payment agreement to retire the debt to the province.
Today the Board has adopted contemporary terminology and is a Board of Directors in the current bylaws. As a result of the Hoban Forever campaign, significant money was
31
raised, and the community used it to establish the Hoban Trust Fund to create an endowment to ensure that there would be adequate financial reserves to sustain the school in the future.
The school has continued to develop. Enrollment has been an issue, but it has progressively risen in recent years, reaching 863 in October 2005 (Files at Hoban entitled
“State Reports, 1988-2005”). A decline to 639 students had occurred at Hoban following
Walsh Jesuit’s decision to become coeducational beginning in the 1993-1994 school year
(Files at Hoban, entitled “State Reports, 1988-2005). The Board of Trustees announced a major building campaign, Hoban 2000, in 1993. As part of a strategic planning process, the Board realized that the school’s facilities needed to be updated and expanded if the school wanted to attract and retain more students. At the same time, the Board also made the commitment that the school would remain at the current location in the inner city, following the call of Bishop Anthony Pilla’s document, The Church in the City (Pilla,
1995). Hoban 2000 was an ambitious campaign, and it financed significant capital improvements. Since Hoban 2000 began, the school has completed over $13 million worth of renovations to the campus. The school also conducted a campaign to raise funds for the endowment that supports the school, especially through financial aid and scholarship funds for students. The academic and cocurricular programs are strong, and students frequently earn local, state, and national awards. The school earned a major national award in 1997-1998 when the U. S. Department of Education recognized
Archbishop Hoban High School as a Blue Ribbon School of Excellence (Files at Hoban,
32
entitled “Blue Ribbon Schools: letter confirming selection, May 21, 1998”). The
financial status of the school has remained healthy as the enrollment has remained strong,
reaching 863 students in October 2005.
As the number of brothers available for ministry has declined, the laity has played
an increased role in the school community. The first lay principal was Mr. Jerry Partyka from 1983-1985 (File at Hoban entitled “Principal’s Report, 1983-1985). Brother
Richard Gilman, C.S.C., replaced him in 1985. As administrative demands in Catholic high schools have increased, many schools have modified the chief administrative position and have adopted dual roles. Moving from the principal as head into a model with either a president/head of school functioning as a chief executive officer and the
principal as a chief operating officer, high schools have used this new model to improve
the efficiency of their overall operation. Hoban had experimented with this model but
had merged the two roles again when Brother Richard became principal. The Board and
the brothers decided to return to the president-principal model of administration
beginning with the 1990-1991 school years. Brother Richard became the President and
Mary Anne Beiting became the Principal. In 2005, there are seven brothers working full- time at Hoban. Two serve in the administration, three teach, one serves in Campus
Ministry, and one is the Attendance Officer. In today’s Catholic high schools, it is noteworthy to have so many religious men working actively in a school. Their presence speaks to the continued dedication of the Midwest Province to the work with young people at Archbishop Hoban High School, and it is also an important feature of the
Hoban community.
33
Throughout its history, Hoban has maintained its charter as a comprehensive high school. To meet the requirements of this charter, the school originally offered shop classes, including wood and metal working, in addition to academic classes. When the school went coeducational, a small auditorium was converted into a home economics lab that included kitchens and sewing machines. Today these facilities are used by courses in
Family and Consumer Science at Hoban and are taken by students of both genders. The comprehensive nature of the curriculum is maintained by these courses along with other electives that students can take in addition to their college preparatory classes. The school recognizes that most of today’s students are not preparing for factory jobs but instead intend to go to college. In recent years, 96-97% of graduates annually enter college, and for the class of 2005, the figure is 98% (Files at Archbishop Hoban High
School, entitled “State Reports, 1988-2005”). The curriculum prepares students for this outcome, but the school recognizes that not all students enter at the same point of preparation. Therefore, there are courses and tutors available to shore up the skills of those who need such services, as well as opportunities for the highest achieving students to continue their development in honors classes that begin on the sophomore level. The shop classes are gone. Electives today include courses in family and consumer sciences, technology, business, music, and the visual arts. Students take a rigorous course of studies and earn at least 24.25 credits to graduate.
Throughout these fifty-one years, Hoban has educated a socioeconomically, ethnically, and academically diverse student population in the Holy Cross tradition. The contribution of the Brothers of Holy Cross to the work at Hoban is significant. Their philosophy of education that was articulated by Father Moreau continues to inspire the
34
members of the Hoban family. The unique charisms of the brothers are being maintained
despite major changes from what existed when the school was founded. As changes have
occurred among the Congregation of Holy Cross, within the Catholic Church, and in
Akron, they have caused or worked together with changes at Hoban. At Hoban, the
student body has become coeducational, and the laity has assumed a greater role and more responsibilities as teachers, administrators, and members of the Board of Directors.
Enrollment and finances are strong, supporting the academic and cocurricular programs.
Rising up after nearly closing, the school remains vibrant.
Organizational Theories
Many researchers study organizations and institutions in order to better
understand how they make decisions and how they react to change. Over the years, they
have developed theories to explain how some organizations and institutions interact
successfully with change while others do not. The interplay of the organization and the
world in which it exists is at the heart of whether or not an organization can survive.
Various theories analyze different aspects of that interplay to determine the most salient reasons for the organization’s success. In this section of the study, I will present some examples of how organizational theory explains decision making and reaction to change.
Bolman and Deal (2003) have synthesized the research, developing four frames for analyzing an organization’s operations. They suggest that their purpose is to encourage managers and leaders to look at decisions from multiple perspectives.
As always, our primary audience is managers and future leaders. We have tried to answer the question, What do we know about organizations and leadership that is genuinely important and useful to practitioners? We have worked to present a large, complex body of theory, research, and practice as clearly and simply as possible. We tried
35
to avoid watering it down or presenting simplistic views of how to solve managerial problems. We try to avoid solutions in favor of more powerful and provocative ways of thinking about organizational opportunities and pitfalls… …[W]e have tried to produce a clear and readable synthesis and integration of the field’s major theoretical traditions. We concentrate mainly on organization theory’s implications for practice. We draw on examples from every sector and around the globe. Historically, the organization studies have been divided into several intellectual camps, often isolated from one another. Works that seek to give a comprehensive overview of organization theory and research often drown in social science jargon and abstraction and have little to say to practitioners. We try to find a balance between misleading oversimplification and mind- boggling complexity. (pp. xvi-xvii)
The purpose of the work therefore is to explain theory in understandable ways, and to
provide many examples from the public and private sectors to illustrate the theoretical explanations. The work of Bolman and Deal also suggests links to other organizational theorists.
Central to the work of Bolman and Deal (2003) is the idea of reframing, looking at “how the same situation can be viewed in at least four ways” (Ibid., p. xvii). The four ways to reframe can be used to look at a decision that has already been made, analyzing what was done well and what aspects were overlooked. The hope is that as managers and leaders learn more about the four frames, they will use this multifaceted approach in making decisions. The frames are particularly useful for studying the lenses a leader employs when making decisions. The frames are: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. If a leader uses these multiple perspectives in making a decision, it can enhance the quality of the decision because more diverse characteristics of the situation have been considered. Bolman and Deal define a frame as “a coherent set of ideas that enable you to see and understand more clearly what goes on day to day” (Ibid., p. 41).
36
Bolman and Deal (2003) also contend “frames are windows on the world of leadership
and management. A good frame makes it easier to know what you are up against and
what you can do about it” (p. 13). There are limits to the use of each frame, and leaders
should recognize that, “Like maps, frames are both windows on a territory and tools for
navigation. Every tool has distinctive strengths and limitations” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 13). A leader must learn the capabilities of each frame and the appropriate use of each one to manage change successfully in an organization.
Structural Frame
Bolman and Deal (1990) assert that the structural frame evolved from the field of sociology, and that it highlights goals and efficiency. The structure of an organization is complex, and it “represents its resolution of an enduring set of basic tensions or dilemmas” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 69). There is an assumption that an organization is rational. In addition, there is a tendency for an organization to remain stable. When an organization decides to restructure, it represents a leap of faith because the outcome is uncertain. By making a decision to restructure, the organization responds to a problem or opportunity. Bolman and Deal provide four types of pressures that can cause such a change: shifts in the environment; changes in technology; growth in organizations; and changes in leadership (Ibid., p. 84). A change through restructuring carries risks for the organization, but success is possible.
Success or failure in the long run depends on how well the new model aligns the organization with its environment, task, and technology, and on the effectiveness of the processes for putting the new structure in place. Effective restructuring requires both a microscopic view of typical structural problems as well as an overall, topographical sense of structural options. (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 92)
37
By using the structural frame, therefore, it is possible to analyze changes that an
organization makes that affect its basic goals and operations.
The structural frame discussion recalls the work of other researchers in
organizational theory. The rational-contingency model “adds goals back into the reasons
why organizations act as they do” (Hall, 2002, p. 269). Hall (2002) also summarizes an
explanation of contingency theory asserting that the constraints of both goals and the
environment in which the organization will have to relate determine the best way to
organize (p. 270). By combining rationality and contingency theory, this model suggests
that organizations try to interact with their environment, and that organizations also know
that there are multiple ways to accomplish this.
In contrast to a rational explanation for how an organization makes decisions,
Hall (2002) describes the “garbage can” model of decision making (p. 158). This theory
suggests that a solution to a problem is proposed, and, if it appears that it might work, the
organization adopts it. Thus, this theory would argue that there are limits to the rational
economic model of decision making, and that we should apply the garbage can model.
Hall suggests, too, that the garbage can model is based on organizations making use of
the collection of decisions found within their organizational refuse, that is, within
decisions that have already been considered and then discarded or put aside, thereby limiting the possibility that new sources of data will make their way into the decision process (Ibid., p. 159). Hall also states that there is a lid on the garbage can: “Decision making and access to decision making are constrained by forces in organizations’ institutional environments, as well as organizational structural constraints” (Ibid.).
38
Thus, decision making according to the garbage can model can be constrained by
structures within the organization and its environment.
Another organizational theory, the population-ecology theory, also fits in with the
structural frame because it critiques the ability of any organization to make rational
decisions. Instead of being rational, it sees organizations as passive in the face of
environmental pressures. Because it becomes passive, an organization fails to develop
rational strategies to navigate the changes in the environment. As a result, the
environment selects those organizations that will survive. The population-ecology model
concentrates on populations or forms of organizations. Catholic secondary schools would
constitute a population. The population-ecology model is best applied to organizational
populations rather than to individual organizations (Hall, 2002, p. 264). The population- ecology model is related to ideas of the functioning of the individual and populations in the biological world. Thus, the stages in this model are that a variation occurs, it is selected, and eventually retained. The model assumes that the reason for the selection is so that an organization creates a better fit with its environment (Ibid., p. 261). Research in this area also examines the organization’s attempt to find a niche in the environment.
Niches uniquely combine resources and other constraints to support an organizational form (Ibid., p. 262). Hannan and Freeman (1977) discuss this theory and how it can be
used to study the relationship between organizations and their environments.
There are indeed reasons why organizations change their structures, and these forces impact the ability of an organization to implement a structural change effectively.
The organizational theories discussed in this section therefore lend credence to the notion that the structural frame plays a role in decision making and change in organizations. But
39
the theories support, too, that more than just one frame can be at work within an
organization at any given time. Therefore, it is important to examine the other frames as
well.
Human Resource Frame
The human resource frame is the second one that Bolman and Deal develop
(2003). It is grounded in the fields of organizational behavior and psychology (Bolman
& Deal, 1990). The human resource frame considers the links between the needs of
people and the needs of an organization. There are four core assumptions:
• Organizations exist to serve human needs rather than the reverse. • People and organizations need each other. Organizations need ideas, energy, and talent; people need careers, salaries, and opportunities. • When the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer. Individuals are exploited or exploit the organization—or both become victims. • A good fit benefits both. Individuals find meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed. (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 115)
Several classic examples of theories about the characteristics of human and organizational needs are reviewed. Providing a foundation for the human resource frame are Maslow’s hierarchy of needs of people (physiological, safety, belongingness and love, esteem, and self-actualization), McGregor’s Theory X (workers are lazy, resist change, and need to be led) and Theory Y (workers are self-directed if their needs are met by the organization), as well as Argyris’ theory that there are built-in conflicts between people and the structures of how management and organizations are set up. In recent years, there has been a conflict between two management philosophies: lean and mean vs. investing in people. The downsizing trends in businesses exemplify the lean and
40
mean philosophy. The philosophy of investing in people suggests success occurs when one matches the needs of people and the organization. Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest an effective human resource strategy allows the organization to hire the right people, to keep them, to invest in them, to empower them and to promote diversity (pp.137-54).
Bolman and Deal (2003) also discuss the work of Argyris and Schön which explain the difference between espoused theories and theories-in-use. An espoused theory is how a person explains, describes, or predicts his/her behavior, while a theory-in-use is what the person really does. It is important to maintain a balance between the needs of people and an organization. By using the human resource frame as a guide, this alignment between personal and organizational needs comes to the forefront and can be addressed, thereby increasing the effectiveness of individuals and of the organization.
Political Frame
The third frame in this research is the political frame, which has its roots in political science (Bolman & Deal, 1990, p. 4). According to this lens, “politics is simply the realistic process of making decisions and allocating resources in a context of scarcity and divergent interests. This view puts politics at the heart of decision making” (Bolman
& Deal, 2003, p. 181) and is based on five assumptions:
1. Organizations are coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups. 2. There are enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality. 3. Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources—who gets what. 4. Scarce resources and enduring differences make conflict central to organizational dynamics and underline power as the most important asset. 5. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position among competing stakeholders. (Ibid., p. 186)
41
Conflict can be viewed as the status quo in any organization, rather than a problem, since
there is most often a scarcity of resources. The political frame differs from the structural and human resource frames because those two frames look at conflict as a problem to solve. On the other hand, the political frame looks at strategies and tactics for dealing
with the conflict (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 197). It is in the continuous negotiations and
bargaining within an organization that goals, structure, and policies spring forth,
according to the political frame. Building coalitions is the way that people in organizations maneuver through the conflicts. The environment in which the organization exists also impacts its ability to deal with conflicts.
As agents, organizations are tools, often very powerful tools, for achieving the purposes of whoever controls them. But they are also inevitably dependent on their environment for needed support and resources. They exist, compete, and co-evolve in business or political ecosystems with clusters of organizations, each pursuing its own interests and seeking a viable niche. As in nature, relationships within and between ecosystems are sometimes fiercely competitive, sometimes collaborative and interdependent. (Ibid., p. 238)
In a study that analyzed perceptions of leaders as both managers and leaders, Bolman and
Deal (1990) discovered that
the human resource and political frames are positively related to effectiveness as both manager and leader in every sample. What is more stunning is that, across sectors, the political frame is usually a better predictor of both managerial and leadership effectiveness than the human resource frame…that people who are more adept in understanding and using the political frame are perceived by their colleagues, superiors and subordinates as better managers and leaders. (pp. 8-9)
The political frame is therefore a key ingredient of how successfully an organization is
able to manage critical incidents that come its way.
42
The political frame as a way to study decisions and change in organizations also seems to link with other work in organizational theory, particularly the resource- dependence model. The resource-dependence model is based on the notion that decisions are made within the political environment of organizations and that organizations try to manipulate the environment in which they operate, with management playing a vital role in these processes (Hall, 2002, p. 265). The environment is important because all organizations are dependent on their environment for resources. Organizations also have to consider internal coalitions which determine who controls resources, affecting how groups depend on each other within the organization. The strategic choices that top executives make are very important, and the power distribution is a critical component
(Ibid., p. 265). Three components of strategic choice are that decision makers have autonomy, that the organization acts to manipulate its environment, and that
“organizational actors define reality in terms of their own background and values” (Ibid., p. 267). Limits on the range of choices come from legal barriers, economic barriers, or the lack of power. The way that organizational forms are retained is important. This can occur through bureaucratization, the socialization process, or the leadership structure
(Ibid., p. 269). Thus, the notion that organizations are seeking a niche in a world of scarcity where they use political means to exercise power seems to support how the political frame portrays the exercise of influence within organizations and their environments.
Symbolic Frame
The final frame is the symbolic, and it evolves from numerous disciplines including anthropology (Bolman & Deal, 1990). By using the symbolic frame, an
43
individual and an organization can make meaning out of the world around them. The
basic assumptions of this frame are:
• What is most important is not what happens but what it means. • Activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings because people interpret experience differently. • In the face of widespread uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, increase predictability, find direction, and anchor hope and faith. • Many events and processes are more important for what is expressed than what is produced. They form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories that help people find purpose and passion in the personal and work lives. • Culture is that glue that holds an organization together and unites people around shared values and beliefs. (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 243)
Uncovering the culture of an organization is an important exercise for its members and
leaders.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) assert that institutional isomorphism explains why
organizations form as they do. DiMaggio and Powell describe the “iron cage” of
rationalization and bureaucratization that flows from Max Weber’s writings. In
describing an oversimplification of Weber’s writings, DiMaggio and Powell suggest that
because people believe that a bureaucratic, hierarchical structure is more efficient,
organizations tend to adopt such structures, despite whether there is real evidence of greater efficiency. There are cultural and symbolic pressures at work. DiMaggio and
Powell also state that there are three ways that organizations come to resemble each
other: coercive isomorphism, mimetic processes, and normative pressures. Coercive
isomorphism exists when the organization takes on forms required by the state or similar
agencies. Thus the configuration of an organization, especially as it reframes, is
44
influenced by the structural demands required by its environment, but it is the cultural beliefs and cognitive understandings that all the institutions hold regarding what are the appropriate forms of organization that are most important. Thus, these rationalized myths become the models for how organizations seek to frame themselves. DiMaggio and
Powell also describe two other processes: mimetic processes through which organizations model the other organizations within their field, and normative pressures.
Professionalization exemplifies a normative pressure that is very powerful, especially through the formal education of members and professional networks. DiMaggio and
Powell (1983) explain how their theory can be used, and the explanation suggests links to the structural and symbolic frames.
We argue that a theory of institutional isomorphism may help explain the observations that organizations are becoming more homogeneous, and that elites often get their way, while at the same time enabling us to understand the irrationality, the frustration of power, and the lack of innovation that are so commonplace in organizational life. (p. 157)
Thus, an organization can restructure due to institutional isomorphism, but it is the cultural pressures that exist within the environment that push organizations to adopt similar structures.
Meyer and Rowan (1977) also studied this process. Meyer and Rowan stress that cultural norms develop for what people believe to be the right structures in an organization, developing myths. Organizations become loosely coupled, so that gaps develop between the ceremonial adaptation of the myths of formal institutional structures and their actual work activities. Meyer and Rowan (1977) contend that organizations resort to decoupling:
45
[b]ecause attempts to control and coordinate activities in institutionalized organizations lead to conflicts and loss of legitimacy, elements of structure are decoupled from activities and from each other…. Thus, decoupling enables organizations to maintain standardized legitimating, formal structures while their activities vary in response to practical considerations. (p. 357)
As a result, the structures might change and adapt to the coercive norm, but the organization engages in decoupled activities to meet its needs within this new culture.
Scott (2001) presents a different perspective on decoupling. Rather than relying on the premise that decoupling occurs, Scott suggests examining the reasons for why it happens.
Finally, rather than assuming that decoupling automatically occurs, we should treat this as an empirical question: When and under what conditions do organizations adopt requisite structures but then fail to carry out the associated activities? Again, what elements can be expected to affect the response? Organizations are more likely to practice avoidance when confronted with external regulatory requirements than with normative or cognitive-cultural demands. They also may decouple structure from practice when there are high symbolic gains from adoption but equally high costs associated with implementation. (p. 173)
Scott concludes the discussion on how organizations respond to institutional processes by acknowledging that organizations are “creatures of their institutional environments” but also noting that most modern organizations are active agents, not passive (p. 179). The culture, or symbolic frame, of the institutions thus plays a significant role in explaining how organizations act.
Scott (2001) also analyzes how organizations adapt their structures in response to their institutional environments. He presents the idea that there are variable institutional pressures at work, and that they help explain why some organizations adopt a new process early and others adopt it late. Thus, cultural pressures are critical components of this process. Scott (2001) summarizes his ideas: 46
[i]n the early stages of an institutionalization process, adoption of the practice by organizations represents a choice on their part, which can reflect their varying specific needs or interests. As the institutionalization process proceeds, normative and cultural pressures mount to the point where adoption becomes less of a choice and more of a requirement. Differences among individual organizations are of less consequence when confronted by stronger institutional imperatives. Although, in one sense, the logic of action has shifted from one of instrumentality to appropriateness, in another sense, the situation confronting each organization has changed so that it is increasingly in the interest of all to adopt the practice. Not to do so can result in loss of legitimacy and, perhaps, attendant material resources. (p. 164)
These theories lend support, therefore, to the importance of looking at organizations through the symbolic frame as the culture of the institutions changes.
Culture is both the product created and handed down within an organization as well as the process used to acculturate people and to perpetuate the culture. The component parts of the symbolic frame help create the story of the organization. By telling myths, studying the role models of heroes and heroines, and by sharing rituals and ceremonies the members come together to breathe life into the culture of an organization.
The community that is formed is an important force. It is a reciprocal effort by the individuals and the organization to bring the culture to life. Symbols help keep a community grounded, but they also can be created anew as a way to deal with changes in an organization. When that happens, the symbolic frame is a sign of hope and gives an organization a means for coping with change. “Change becomes exciting, uplifting, and vital. The message is heartening and spiritually invigorating. There is always hope; the world is always different” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 286). The symbolic frame helps the organization find a way to resolve conflicts, rebalance itself, and articulate the hope embedded within the change. The symbolic frame is of particular importance for this
47
study because it coincides with the research on the culture of Catholic schools found in
the next section of this chapter.
The Culture of Catholic Schools
The next body of research that I studied as part of the review of literature deals
with the culture of Catholic high schools. While the philosophy of education of Holy
Cross and the work of organizational theorists can provide frameworks for analyzing the
internal and external influences on Hoban’s change to coeducation and the organization’s reaction to the change, another important component is the impact of the culture of the school as a Catholic school. Are there specific characteristics that come from this body of literature that can shed light on why Hoban made the decision to change?
Bryk, Lee and Holland (1993) conducted a major study on the culture and effectiveness of Catholic high schools. The work statistically analyzed data on Catholic high schools from the 1980 High School and Beyond survey and also conducted fieldwork in seven schools in 1982-1983. Bryk et al. (1993) also developed a quantitative indicator of communal organization based on three critical components:
shared values; shared activities; and social relations (p. 277-278).
Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993) found higher levels of academic achievement in
the Catholic schools than in public schools, and determined that the organization of
Catholic schools contributed to this difference. The Catholic schools tended to have a core curriculum that was more limited in scope than that found in large, comprehensive, public schools. The researchers also found a strong sense of community. There was less bureaucracy in the Catholic high schools, leading to a larger role for the faculty and more decentralization in governance. There was also a strong sense of mission that guided the
48
organization. The culture and climate in the Catholic school created by organizational
features impact the success of the schools.
Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993) found that because Catholic schools cannot be all
things to all people, they tend to concentrate on a more limited curriculum. At the same
time, the students who enroll are all exposed to this same curriculum rather than being
tracked out of courses with higher standards. Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993) found that this tended to result in higher expectations for all students as they encounter the core curriculum. Because the Catholic high school often exercises site-based management and is thus responsible for itself rather than merely being one school among several in a district, faculty members have diverse duties that extend beyond classroom teaching responsibilities. Governance is also different since Catholic high schools often have a great deal of autonomy, a factor that aligns with the Church’s principle of subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity supports the notion that decisions should be made at the level where they will be implemented so that a higher order community does not interfere with the functioning of a lower order community, thereby avoiding unneeded interventions (The
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p. 460).
Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993) found that the Catholic schools function better since each school forms a “voluntary community” (p. 314).
Thus Catholic schools work better not because they attract better students (which is somewhat true) or because they have more qualified faculty (which does not appear to be the case). In general, these “inputs,” or what economists call “human capital,” are quite ordinary. Rather, Catholic schools benefit from a network of social relations, characterized by trust, that constitute a form of “social capital.” In this regard, voluntary association functions as a facilitating condition. Trust accrues because school participants, both students and faculty, choose to be there. To be
49
sure, voluntary association does not automatically create social capital, but it is harder to develop such capital in its absence. Our investigation of Catholic schools suggests that the formation of a school as a voluntary community has important institutional and personal consequences. On the organizational side, a voluntary community enjoys a base of moral authority. (Bryk, Lee & Holland, 1993, p. 314)
The sense of community that exists in a Catholic school is an important part of its culture.
For Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993), the sense of community is a vital aspect of what makes Catholic schools distinctive and successful.
Anyone who has recently spent time inside Catholic high schools finds it difficult to ignore the distinctive atmosphere in many of them. In seeking to understand this special character, we have concluded that the description used by both students and adults—“we are a community”— captures the essence of the schools’ social organization. (p. 127)
Bryk, Lee and Holland (1993) conclude that the absence of moral authority is at the heart of problems in schools today when reforms are made through “an application of instrumental authority rooted in coercive power” (p. 326) and thus fail to renew the organizations by rallying social resources.
Many of the findings on the culture of Catholic schools build on themes that echo the work of Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993). The culture that they describe flows from the reason why Catholic schools exist within the Church in the United States. Walch (1996) chronicles the history of the Catholic parish school and lists six themes that emerge: survival, immigration, the variety of responses to the parish school movement, adaptability, community, and identity (pp. 3-4). The high schools face many of the same issues. Survival depends on finances and enrollment. The Catholic schools on all levels developed most rapidly beginning at the end of the nineteenth century as a way for the
Church to meet the needs of its immigrant population. During the Baby Boom following
50
World War II, there was another increase in the number of schools. Yet, not all Catholics
send their children to Catholic schools, and this diversity of response requires that the schools market heavily to maintain adequate enrollment. Despite the challenges, however, Catholic schools that succeed display the ability to adapt to the larger American
culture and mesh the best of American public education with the fundamental elements of
Catholic education. Two of those elements revolve around the community of the
Catholic school and its Catholic identity.
For the Catholic high school, one of the clearest expressions of how the school
fits into the mission of the Church is the document by the American bishops entitled To
Teach as Jesus Did: A Pastoral Message on Catholic Education (1972). In this
document, the bishops affirm the threefold role of Catholic education: message,
community, and service. Message means that the schools pass on the doctrine of the
Church as the primary reason for their existence. Community calls the schools to form as
Christian communities because it is not possible to develop in solitude to live a faith-
filled life. Service is the way in which the message and community are brought to life where members work together for the benefit of all. In schools this occurs through the
educational ministries of the faculties, and it also calls the school community to be involved with the secular educational community as well. In their works, Bryk, Lee and
Holland (1993) and Walch (1996) underscore how Catholic schools have been faithful to this threefold message.
Cook (2003) takes this research a step further and proposes that school leaders need to develop a Catholic school culture. Cook brings together diverse research on leadership, organizational culture, school culture and school effectiveness. Cook
51
suggests that relationships are at the heart of Catholic school culture, a finding that
mirrors Father Moreau’s philosophy of education for Holy Cross schools. Cook defines
Catholic school culture as:
a way of life rooted in Christ, a Gospel-based creed and code, and a Catholic vision that provides inspiration and identity, is shaped over time, and is passed from one generation to the next through devices that capture and stimulate the Catholic imagination such as symbols and traditions. (Cook, 2003, p. 16)
The Catholic school community must build the social capital to continue to keep this culture alive. It must be clear on its core beliefs and values, “what groups stand for and aspire to as well as what groups hold sacred” (Ibid., p. 17). For Congregations that sponsor schools, these core beliefs and values are the charisms of the sponsoring order
(Ibid., p. 19). To develop an identity that is true to these charisms, the Catholic school community must intentionally hold them out as a litmus test for whether the mission of the school is alive and well. In that way, the school can be sure that it is keeping alive the message, developing the community, and being of service, as called to do by the bishops.
The research on the importance of symbols in Catholic school culture links to the research on the symbolic frame in the work of Bolman and Deal (2003). Other authors have also researched symbolism and culture in schools. In describing how leaders shape school culture, Deal and Peterson (1999) present eight symbolic roles that the leader must assume: historian; anthropological sleuth; visionary; symbol; potter; poet; actor; and healer (pp. 88-89). Symbolic leadership is particularly needed when schools are starting up or “when they require considerable transformation to serve their students” (p. 99).
Deal and Peterson (1999) also provide this list of characteristics for positive and successful cultures:
52
A mission focused on student and teacher learning A rich sense of history and purpose Core values of collegiality, performance, and improvement that engender quality, achievement, and learning for everyone Positive beliefs and assumptions about the potential of students and staff to learn and grow A strong professional community that uses knowledge, experience, and research to improve practice An informal network that fosters positive communication flow Shared leadership that balances continuity and improvement Rituals and ceremonies that reinforce core cultural values Stories that celebrates [sic] successes and recognize heroines and heroes A physical environment that symbolizes joy and pride A widely shared sense of respect and caring for everyone. (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 116)
Sergiovanni (2000) provides another way to look at the culture in a school by contrasting the lifeworld and the systemsworld of schools.
In our case, leaders and their purposes, followers and their needs, and the unique traditions, rituals, and norms that define a school’s culture compose the lifeworld. And the management designs and protocols, strategic and tactical actions, policies and procedures, and efficiency and accountability assurances compose the systemsworld. School character flourishes when the lifeworld is the generative force for determining the systemsworld. And school character erodes when the systemsworld is the generative force for determining the lifeworld. (p. ix) It would be a mistake to assume that the systemsworld is secondary to the lifeworld. Both are important. But both must be in balance for schools to work well. Balance is achieved when the lifeworld of the school determines the systemsworld, and colonization of the lifeworld occurs when the systemsworld determines the lifeworld. (p. 180)
Citing the works of Coleman and Hoffer (1987) and Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993),
Sergiovanni reiterates that it is because religiously-affiliated schools form value
communities, generating spiritual and social capital, that the schools succeed in
supporting students’ academic performances (p. xi). Sergiovanni goes on to discuss how
schools can experience change but remain stable, but that deep change involves “the
reconstructing of existing individual and collective mindscapes of practice” (p. 148).
53
Thus, research on successful school cultures echoes the importance of the characteristics
of Catholic school culture.
Lesko (1988) presents a qualitative study of life in a coeducational Catholic high
school referred to as St. Anne’s. Lesko contrasts the public domain where community
reigns and the private domain where individualism dominates. The Catholic high school in the study was community oriented. Lesko chronicles how two themes are in conflict within the Catholic high school, caring and contest. Both contribute to how students and teachers experience the community of the school. In this Catholic high school, the goal was to lead students to something beyond just the four years of high school. Thus, there was an “absence of value-neutrality” (Lesko, p. 145).
Across different interpreting principles, students and teachers understood their lives, religion, and literature in light of higher or deeper principles. These practices contrasted with the value-neutrality of public schools. (p. 145)
Looking at high school as myth and ritual, Lesko emphasizes the symbolic aspects of schooling. The study concludes that both the caring and contest views of school “need to be preserved; the tension between them is productive, just as is the tension between public and private welfare” (Ibid., p. 148). This research looks at two very different aspects of the culture in a Catholic school, but states that culture still is a defining
characteristic of what makes the school successful.
Research on Catholic high schools therefore contains this consistent theme of the
importance of the culture as a source of what the school is really all about. The schools
may vary in their organizational forms, but they demonstrate important common
characteristics of community, Catholic identity, a unified message, subsidiarity, and
54
service to the multiple groups with whom they come in contact. All of these components combine to underscore the centrality of culture in the Catholic high school. This research also links well with the symbolic frame in the works of Bolman and Deal.
The Social Context of the 1960s and 1970s
A final body of research that I reviewed looks at the social context in the United
States during the 1960s and early 1970s. This literature is important for understanding why organizations might be open to questioning traditional ways and considering fundamental changes during that historical period. Three important elements within the social context were the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the student protest movement.
The civil rights movement had been inspired by Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white person (Blumenthal, 2005). The civil rights movement had pushed Congress to act. Eventually Congress responded by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to grant civil rights for minorities. While the philosophy of nonviolent protest that Dr. Martin Luther King preached was a guiding force within the civil rights movement, the reality was that there were many acts of violence perpetrated upon those seeking equal rights. There were also outbreaks of violence and rioting.
In Akron, violence erupted on a very hot July 17, 1968, when a group of about
400-500 African Americans in the Wooster Avenue area began “an outbreak of rock- throwing and looting” (Giles, 1968, July 18, p. A1). Stories in the Akron Beacon Journal detailed the events of the evening, and the newspaper provided a list of the calls in the police dispatcher’s log, showing that the calls began shortly after 1 a.m. (Gaynor, 1968,
July 18, p. A2). Other articles reported that police tear gassed those protesting, that
55
Mayor John Ballard and Police Chief Henry Whiddon ordered a curfew for the city from
9 p.m. until 6 a.m., that surrounding towns also imposed a curfew, and that the mayor
worked with Governor Rhodes to call in the National Guard (McBane, 1968, July 18, p.
A1). Leaders in the African American community were issued special passes to be
allowed to enter the area to help quell the violence, but even one of those leaders was
maced and beaten (Hess, 1968, July 18, pp. A1-A2). The disturbance erupted in another
area, Arlington Street and 5th through 7th Avenues, and the tensions continued until July
23. The Arlington Street disturbance was near Hoban, and Hoban was used as a staging
area for the forces (Personal interview, Brother Joseph LeBon, C.S.C., 2005). As of July
21, 171 adults and 50 juveniles had been arrested, and 40 people had been treated for
injuries (Giles, McBane, & Grisola, 1968, July 20, p. A1). Arrests were made for many
reasons, ranging from curfew violations through violent acts. An article in the July 18,
1968, Akron Beacon Journal not attributed to a specific writer explained that there was a group of lawyers who went to the place where those arrested had been taken in order to help advise them (Volunteers rush to help 42 nabbed in trouble area, 1968, July 18, p.
A2). Tensions finally were eased when the mayor, the police chief, and other officials met with a group of African American community leaders who urged that the curfew, which had been moved to start at 10 p.m., be eliminated, and that the National Guard patrols be moved out. This was important because the protesters had announced that they would not honor the curfew on July 23, increasing the potential for more violence. The meeting was arranged by personnel at the Akron Beacon Journal, and occurred on July
23 under a six-hour deadline, with the final agreement reached at 9:10 p.m. (Giles, 1968,
July 24, p. A2; Vance, 1968, July 24, p. A2). The July 24 Akron Beacon Journal
56
contained a page-one story taken from wire services that reported that racial violence had
erupted in Cleveland on July 23 (Cleveland Terror: 10 killed, 18 wounded, 53 arrested in
sniper plot by black nationalists, 1968, July 24, p. A1). The story did not link the Akron
and Cleveland episodes.
Despite such violent events, the civil rights movement caused the country to
reconsider old stereotypes of what was acceptable as well as legal treatment for certain
groups within the society. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 helped to codify these changes
into laws with the intent of ending racial discrimination (Blumenthal, 2005, p. 14).
Added to the Civil Rights Act were several amendments or titles, and the House voted to
add “sex” to the hiring section of the Civil Rights Act, thus including a clause outlawing
discrimination against women. This Title VII was controversial, but did pass and was
part of the Civil Rights Act signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2,
1964 (Ibid., p. 17).
Betty Friedan had published The Feminine Mystique in 1963. This work was a
banner for the women’s movement and attracted widespread media attention. The movement inspired women to look beyond their roles within the homes. The rise of
feminism and the establishment of NOW (the National Organization for Women) in 1966
encouraged women seek more opportunities for full participation in society (Blumenthal,
2005). By the beginning of the 1970s, women were seeking increased roles and rights in
society. There were many barriers that women faced as they tried to move into other
fields of employment and schooling that had not been opened to them previously.
The addition of Title IX to the Education Act of 1972 was a monumental piece of
legislation that established equal opportunities for women in colleges and universities in
57
admissions as well as well as access to sports programs appropriately funded by the
universities and colleges on a nondiscriminatory basis. Title IX stated: “[N]o person in the United Stated shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance” (Secretary’s Commission on Opportunities in
Athletics, in Simon (ed.), 2005, p. 3). Since the passage of Title IX, the number of bachelor degrees earned by women changed from 44% in 1972 to 57% in 2000, the percentage of women earning medical degrees has risen from 9% to 43% in that period, and the percentage of women participating in sports has risen dramatically (Ibid., p. 4).
The number of college women’s teams increased 66% from 1981-1999, and the number of girls participating in high school sports rose from 294,015 in 1971 to 2.7 million in
2002 (Ibid.). In discussing what led the universities and colleges to change, Stimpson
(1987) suggests that pressure played a role.
Too often, if they [colleges and universities] have accepted change, it has been under pressure from individuals, groups, and the government. It was the federal government, which in 1972 passed Title IX of the Education Amendments, which prohibited federal funding of a program or activity that permitted sex discrimination. (p. 158)
Although Title IX was not in place when the initial discussions about coeducation were taking place at Hoban, the topics of the rights and roles of women were being discussed within the social context.
The 1960s and 1970s were also a period of student protests, in the United States and around the globe. Boren (2001) characterized 1968 as “the Year of the Student” because of the number of worldwide protest movements, “a historical moment that crystallized the global power of the student” ( p. 149) on college and university
58
campuses. In the United States, students protested for civil rights, against the war in
Vietnam, for student representation, and for social revolution (Boren, 2001, p. 171). The students were more united in their “resistance to ‘the establishment’ than on specific, attainable goals” (Ibid., p. 172). Students staged protests and walkouts, and they occupied campus buildings. The violence of the events at the Democratic National
Convention in Chicago in 1968 “radicalized protest movements, which after Chicago were forced to accept that liberal reforms through elections were not a viable option”
(Ibid., p. 181). By 1969, many women in the student protest movements such as the SDS
(Students for a Democratic Society) and SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee) shifted their efforts to women’s liberation organizations (Ibid., p. 182). The violence of the Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970 followed two weeks later by killings at Jackson State College shocked the nation. Boren (2001) suggests that
while the Kent State and the Jackson State massacres brought public sympathy and support to students as victims of overzealous police and state troops, the radical students taking increasingly violent measures to effect change were turning that same public against student activists. (pp. 188-189)
As the decade of the 1970s continued, “U.S. student political radicalism decreased in popularity” (Ibid., p. 192). The Vietnam War had ended, there were negative perceptions of the student movement because of the actions of extremists, and “faced with rampant apathy and careerism on campus” (Ibid.), the student protest movement was over.
Student protests also came into high schools over a variety of issues during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Some cases went to the courts for resolution. The U. S.
Supreme Court in 1969 reversed and remanded a lower court decision in Tinker v. Des
Moines dealing with the right of students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam
59
War (Alexander & Alexander, 1985, p. 326-329). In Guzick v. Drebus in 1970, the U.S.
Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit decided that schools could ban protest buttons (Ibid., pp.
329-336). People v. Overton in 1967 dealt with school officials’ rights to inspect lockers
(Ibid., pp. 352-354). The decisions in courts reflected that students in high schools were also involved in challenging authority and seeking new voice during this time period.
These reform movements impacted the social context of the 1960s and 1970s.
There was significant questioning of authority and established practices within the larger culture of the United States. There were landmark legal efforts that focused on securing increased rights for formerly oppressed groups. Public protests were a common occurrence during this time period. These characteristics of the historical period help define the social context in which the events in this study take place.
60
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This case study examines the internal and external influences on
Archbishop Hoban High School’s decision to become a coeducational school, as
well as how the school reacted to these influences. The nature of the research
questions made it appropriate to frame the research as a qualitative study. To
complete this project, I studied historical data coupled with contemporary data
collected from interviews, analyzing these data through the conceptual framework
of the literature I reviewed.
Procedures
This study contains large amounts of historical data. One of the questions that I had to resolve was whether I would frame the study as an historical dissertation or as a case study. As I researched the similarities and differences between the two types of
studies, I decided that my research fit within the parameters of a case study. In this
section, I review some of the reasons that led me to that conclusion.
Denzin (2001) described a process for conducting interpretive interactionism
which “attempts to make the world of lived experience visible to the reader [and] the
focus of interpretive research is on those life experiences that radically alter and shape the
meanings persons give to themselves and their life projects” (Denizen, 2001, p. 35).
Denzin further suggested that the proper way to conduct such research was to study the
61
individuals involved, and named these life-changing moments “epiphanies” (Denizen,
2001, pp. 34-39). Patton (2002) compared the epiphanies to “critical incidents, crises, transitions, or organizational lessons learned” (p. 451) for organizations. For Hoban, the
decisions that led to the school changing to a coeducational school occurred in multiple
steps, including a proposal to become a co-institutional school that was dropped, a
rejection of a merger with an all girls school in 1970, and the decision in 1972 that the school would become coeducational. Each of these decision points represented a critical
incident in the school’s history. In this research, I looked at the internal and external
influences on these decision points and at how the school reacted to the influences. The
organization responded to these influences that changed its environment and made
coeducation a viable solution. The school realized by the third decision point that it was
in a crisis, and that a radical change was necessary to resolve it.
Yin (2003) contended that a qualitative study was appropriate if the researcher
was answering “‘how’ and ‘why’ questions” (p. 7). Yin further stated:
Assuming that “how” and “why” questions are to be the focus of study, a further distinction among history, case study, and experiment is the extent of the investigator’s control over and access to actual behavioral events. Histories are the preferred strategy when there is virtually no access or control. The distinctive contribution of the historical method is in dealing with the “dead” past—that is, when no relevant persons are alive to report, even retrospectively, what occurred and when an investigator must rely on primary documents, secondary documents, and cultural and physical artifacts as the main sources of evidence. (p. 7)
There are historical components of my research, as exemplified by the archival data and
other primary source documents utilized for analysis. However, to collect data for this
study I also included contemporary interviews with key participants in the decision making of the school. As delineated by Yin, my study is more aligned with a case study
62
than merely an historical study. Yin explained that, while writing a case study and writing a history can rely on similar techniques, the case study can add contemporary
data, such as the interviews that I conducted for this study. While the topics under study
were past historical events and could not be manipulated, it was still possible for me to
conduct a case study, adding contemporary information gathered in 2005. In creating this
case study, I combined these new data with primary or secondary documents, and
examined all the data through the conceptual framework formed by the history and
philosophy of Holy Cross education, the organizational theories related to decision
making and change, the research on the culture of Catholic secondary schools, and the
social context of the time period. This conceptual framework made it possible for me to
examine how Archbishop Hoban High School made the decisions that led it to reframe
itself as a coeducational school.
My research developed as a qualitative case study using naturalistic inquiry and
focusing on “meaning in context” (Merriam, 1988, p. 3). Much of the data were
historical and came from examinations I conducted of archival documents. The bulk of
the documents that were primary or secondary sources were housed in the archives of the
Midwest Province of the Brothers of Holy Cross and in the archives of the Diocese of
Cleveland. I also researched documents found at Archbishop Hoban High School. One
of the interview participants (Sally Riede) shared with me her personal files from the time
period. She had maintained these records in files at her home since the years that she had
been the chairperson of the Summit County Board of Catholic Education. These
historical documents provided a foundation for my dissertation, the identification of key
decision makers, and the formation of questions I used to interview key participants.
63
The participants in the interviews are identified in Table 3.1. The subjects
interviewed were board members at Hoban, members of the Summit County Board of
Catholic Education or its employees, members of the Brothers of Holy Cross, and the
former superintendent of the Akron Public Schools. The story that emerged from the
documents and the interviews was compelling and reflected a very active period in decision making at the school and in the community. These decisions affected the
Catholic secondary schools in Akron, and Hoban in particular. The story revealed what internal and external factors influenced Hoban’s decisions at each point as the organization reacted at each juncture, eventually becoming a coeducational school. Thus, a qualitative case study approach that captured the essence of the story matched as the best way to analyze these historical events and to bring information from contemporary interviews into the total picture.
Data Collection
Denzin (2001) suggested that the researcher must first deconstruct the event. In essence, that occurred in the initial stages of my research for this dissertation. It was necessary to mine the archives to uncover the minute details that had been recorded about the decisions that led to coeducation in order to answer the basic who, what, why, when and where questions about the internal and external factors that influenced the decisions that were made. Visits to the Archives of the Midwest Province and of the Diocese of
Cleveland occurred in June, 2005. Data within the files in the archives suggested other
areas for inquiry. Prior to the visits to each archive, I telephoned each archivist to set up
appointments for doing research and to outline my key areas of interest.
64
Table 3.1
Identification of Participants in Interviews
Name/Home of Participant Role in Decision Making at Hoban During the 1960s-1972
Mr. William Aylward/Akron, OH On boards at Hoban, 1966-1978; Member of lay advisory board beginning in 1966 and its president in 1969; Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, 1975
Br. John Benesh, C.S.C/Lima, Peru Principal at Hoban, 1969-1974; Brother of Holy Cross
Br. John May, C.S.C./Notre Dame, Assistant Principal/Director of Studies at Hoban, IN 1970-1978; Brother of Holy Cross
Br. Joseph Fox, C.S.C./Notre Dame Worked in Provincial Treasurer’s Office, 1970; Brother of Holy Cross
Ms. Sally A. Riede/Akron, OH Member of Diocesan School Board for 10 years; Chairperson of the Summit Regional Board
Sr. Dorothy Mattingly, O.P./Akron Consultant to Summit Regional Office for Elementary Education
Br. Edward Libbers, C.S.C./Akron Chemistry teacher at Hoban beginning in 1967; Brother of Holy Cross
Mr. Conrad C. Ott/Akron Superintendent of the Akron Public Schools, 1966-1991
Br. Joseph LeBon, C.S.C./Akron Latin teacher at Hoban beginning in 1965; Moderator of the school yearbook; Brother of Holy Cross
Br. Robert Lavelle, C.S.C./Gates Religious studies teacher, counselor, Director of Mills, OH Guidance; worked in Admissions; at Hoban from 1965-1976
Ms. Marie M. Waickman/Akron Member of the lay advisory board; a board president
65
Additional data came from eleven interviews with key participants in Hoban’s
decision to become coeducational. The participants were a snowball sample in the sense
that as I conducted my research by reading the documents and interviewing people, new
names came up as people I could contact. I then sent letters and response forms to those individuals to request interviews. I conducted these interviews in the summer of 2005. I prepared a script containing questions that would be used during each interview. These questions are in Appendix D. The questions were designed to allow participants to share with me their knowledge of what internal factors accounted for the decisions that led to
Hoban becoming coeducational. The questions also gave me a chance to uncover whether external factors influenced the decisions. I chose an initial group of people identified through the early study of the history and documents. I sent letters to them requesting the interviews, and copies of the letter and response form each participant received are in Appendices B and C. As other names surfaced during study of the documents and after conducting interviews, I sent out additional letters to those new participants and repeated the process just described. During each interview, I wrote down answers to the scripted questions and I also made tape recordings of each interview.
After the interview, I listened to the tapes as I reread my notes, filling in any missing information. I also had the tapes transcribed for accuracy in order to be able to analyze the data.
Access to Documents
66
Working in archives requires a researcher to be aware of “a radically new set of
protocols” (Hill, 1993, p. 20) as compared with the protocols for library research. Hill
(1993) also identifies five structural issues that are at the heart of the difference: “(a)
access to materials, (b) the uniqueness of archival materials, (c) the noncirculation of
materials, (d) property rights, and (e) the ‘closed stacks’ organization of archival repositories” (p. 20). I experienced these structural issues as factors that framed the conditions in which I worked within the archives.
Access, Entry, and Property Rights
Access involved two steps for me: gaining entry and physical access to the collections. I was able to gain entry and access to the archives of both the Midwest
Province and the Diocese of Cleveland by writing letters seeking permission to conduct research for this study and to publish the results. Brother Robert Fillmore, C.S.C., is the current Provincial of the Midwest Province, and he granted my requests. A copy of his
letter is found in Appendix F. Through telephone calls to various offices at the Diocese
of Cleveland, I learned that I had to address a letter to the Chancellor, Father Ralph E.
Wiatrowski, J.C.D., S.T.L., to ask permission to work in the diocesan archives and to
publish the results. A copy of Father Wiatrowski’s letter granting me access as well as
permission to research and to publish results is found in Appendix E. The permission
that I received to publish results also took care of the property rights issue involved in
archival research, the fourth issue Hill (1993) had mentioned.
Entry into the archives was easy for me to obtain, therefore, but required formal,
written permission. Whether other researchers would find the same ease of entry is a
question with which future researchers would have to grapple. Hill (1993) addressed this
67
possible dilemma for researchers: “Happily, because academics and advanced graduate
students already possess demonstrable institutional legitimation, most readers of this
book will gain archival entry with relative ease” (p. 21). The academic nature of my
research did help me secure permission to enter the archives. I had no indication that I
had received any special entry because of my years of service at Hoban.
The next step was to arrange for physical access to the collections. For each
archive, I telephoned the archivist to arrange for dates when I could spend days working
in the archives. When I spoke with Brother John Kuhn, C.S.C., the archivist for the
Midwest Province, we decided that I could work in the archives from June 14-17, 2005.
This was the week when there was a seminar for the brothers about the spirituality of
retirement as well as the annual Jubilee celebration at the end of the week, on Saturday.
We agreed that this would be a good time to do research in the archives because I would
also have physical access to participants in my interviews while they were at Notre
Dame. Brother John asked me to prepare a list of topics I would like to research while in the archives. I gave him that list on our first morning, but we expanded those topics as we worked together over the next few days. When I arrived at the archives, Brother John
directed me to my work station within the archives and we got to work.
Unique Records
Archival records are unique. The archival files included whatever records had
been sent to the archives annually by the school. These files included carbon copies, and,
later, photocopies of letters that had been sent by the principals and provincials, as well as the original letters sent to these brothers. There were files that contained Akron Beacon
Journal newspaper clippings pertaining to stories about the school, copies of the school
68
newspaper, The Visor, scrapbooks of happenings at the school that the Mothers Club had prepared, school publications, the Bardsley & Haslacher study of parents’ opinions, and various other data. The Mothers Club scrapbooks contained photographs, programs from events at the school, newspaper clippings and other items that chronicled events at the school for each year. We also looked at the Provincial Council records, Chapter minutes, and records of correspondence with Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C. There were also the original minutes of the house meetings held by the brothers who lived in the residence at
Hoban. The records in the Archives at the Diocese of Cleveland were also diverse and included copies of and original correspondence, studies that the diocese had conducted, and records for Summit County schools and the Regional Board. In both cases, the archival records were unique and varied.
Closed Stacks and Noncirculating Materials
The stacks were closed in both archives and the materials in the collection were noncirculating. In the Midwest Archives, Brother John Kuhn, C.S.C., opened all files to me that pertained to Hoban and to the time period when Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., was provincial. In each case, he opened the files and read the titles to me. If the title fit within my topic and time period, he pulled the file for me to read through. At the
Midwest Archives, because I sat in the room where the files were stored and went into other rooms with Brother John, I can verify that we searched all drawers, boxes, or other files that related to Archbishop Hoban High School. At the diocesan archives, the files were much more closed. They were not located in the room in which I worked. Ms.
Krosel pulled the files and brought them to me. If I asked her if there were other files,
69
she would go back and check. Because some of the files contained very sensitive
correspondence, I concluded that my access to documents was not being restricted,
however.
Assembling Documents to Study
After setting up appointments with the archivist, Brother John Kuhn, C.S.C., I
spent six days at Notre Dame, Indiana. At the Archives of the Midwest Province,
beginning on June 14, 2005, Brother John Kuhn, C.S.C., began searching for documents
based on the requests I had made in our initial telephone conversation, augmented by a
list that I prepared and gave to him on the first day in the archives. Brother John
searched out the documents in the files. I read through the original documents and asked
Brother John to photocopy ones that pertained to the story of Hoban’s move to
coeducation or the time period. Brother John stamped each document to verify that it was
a copy of a document in the archives. I have photocopies of 315 pages of documents in
my file from the archives. All documents from the same file were placed in one archival
sleeve, and each sleeve was labeled with the file’s title. An archival sleeve is a folded
paper stamped with the archival seal. Since staplers are not used in archives, the sleeve
provided a way to organize the contents of different files to maintain their integrity. In a
notebook, I also kept a list showing the order in which the files were searched, the title of
each file, its location in the archives, and any archival numbering used to identify it. The
titles of the files and the locations of the files are listed in Table 3.2. I spent some hours
over each of four consecutive days working in the archives and paid for the cost of photocopying. Because interviews were also being conducted over the six days spent at
Notre Dame, additional topics for documents to research also surfaced, and those topics
70
were added to the list that guided Brother John’s search. Since Brother John also had
knowledge of the historical events, he suggested some additional files to research.
Brother John opened all files that we could find that mentioned Hoban.
On June 21, 2005, I worked in the Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland at the
Chancery. Ms. Chris Krosel had pulled files for St. Vincent-St. Mary High School and
for Archbishop Hoban High School as well as the files of the Bishops related to
education during the late 1960s and early 1970s. There were also some files from the
Diocesan Board of Education and from the Summit County Regional Board of Catholic
Education. I read through these files and requested that Ms. Krosel make photocopies of
322 pages from the relevant documents. I paid the fee for photocopying. I kept each file of documents together. After leaving the archives, I filed all the Diocesan archival documents in a large binder, with a divider for each section listing the name of the original file and any archival numbering information. The titles of all these files are listed in Table 3.2 along with the fact that they came from the Archives of the Diocese of
Cleveland.
At Hoban, I sought out the minutes of the Members of the Corporation and of the
Board of Trustees for the years included in my study. These minutes were kept in the safe
in the Business Office. I made photocopies of the minutes for the years involved in this
study. These minutes were labeled and bound together in chronological order. I also
worked with the President of Hoban, Brother Kenneth Haders, C.S.C., to go through the
files kept in his office that referred to this time period in Hoban’s history. I pulled from
the file drawer any files that contained pertinent information. I also went through the
files in the Associate Principals’ office that contained information from the time period of
71
the study. The titles of any files from Hoban that I used in the study are included in
Table 3.2. I did not photocopy these files since I had direct access to them.
During an interview with Sally Riede, former chairperson of the Summit County
Regional Board of Catholic Education, she brought some of her personal files to the interview and shared them with me. The files contained the records she had kept of agendas, minutes, newsletters, copies of articles from the newspapers, and other
documents from the time when she was on the Regional Board of Education. She
indicated that she had kept these records at her home. On the day of the interview, she
gave oral permission to me to use those files, and later documented her permission for me
to research these files and to publish information with her letter that is in Appendix H. I
photocopied the pertinent documents from Ms. Riede’s files and placed them in a new
file in chronological order. Within several weeks, after I had read and photocopied the
documents I needed, I returned the originals to Ms. Riede. Brother Robert Lavelle,
C.S.C., also shared his personal files with me. I did not use them in the research because
they dealt primarily with a later time period when Gilmour Academy was studying
whether to become coeducational.
Access to Participants
Simultaneously with the archival research, I identified those key participants who
played a role in decisions that led to coeducation at Hoban, who were still living, and
who were in good health. The participants are identified in Table. 3.1. I had identified
them as I studied the documents as well as when I was conducting interviews. I sent
letters to an initial group and, as in a snowball sample, sent out additional letters to
72
individuals identified during the process of conduction my research. I sent letters to a
total of twelve individuals, inviting them to be interviewed. In the initial round, I sent
Table 3.2
Titles of Unpublished Files Used in this Research
Title of File Location of File Bulletins for Prospective Students, 1965-1985 Archives, Midwest Province
Diocese of Cleveland/Board of Education Archives, Midwest Province
Br. Wm. Fitch Correspondence w/Diocesan officials, Archives, Midwest Province 1962-1968
Br. Wm. Fitch Correspondence w/ Msgr. Novicky Archives, Midwest Province
School Attitude and Opinion Survey (Bardsley & Archives, Midwest Province Haslacher Survey)
Hoban file: Correspondence/School, 1962-1977 Archives, Midwest Province
Lay Advisory Board/1963-1967 Archives, Midwest Province
Lay Advisory Board/1967-1971 Archives, Midwest Province
Lay Advisory Board/1971-1972 Archives, Midwest Province
Lay Advisory Board/1972-1973 Archives, Midwest Province
Provincial Chapter files, 1970, files A,B,C,D Archives, Midwest Province
Provincial files of Br. Charles Krupp, C.S.C., 1968-1979, Archives, Midwest Province Archbishop Hoban High School/Akron, Ohio 1972, 12/3/13, Folder I and Folder II
House Council meetings, Hoban, 1957-1978 (Notebook) Archives, Midwest Province
Mothers Club Scrapbook, 1969-1970 Archives, Midwest Province
Hoban Happenings, 1971-1972/1972-1973 Archives, Midwest Province
The Hoban Visor/1973-1974 Archives, Midwest Province
Publicity & Press Releases/1968-1983 Archives, Midwest Province
(Bishop) Issenmann—Educational Institutions Archives, Cleveland Diocese High Schools: St. Vincent-St. Mary, 1966-1973
73
Issenmann—Educational Institutions Archives, Cleveland Diocese High Schools: Archbishop Hoban, 1967-1973
Issenmann—Church: Diocese Archives, Cleveland Diocese CCCA: Consultations Panel, Catholic Board of Education, 1972-1974
Table 3.2, Titles of Unpublished Files Used in this Research, continued
Title of File Location of File
Issenmann—Church: Diocese Archives, Cleveland Diocese Board of Catholic Education, Summit County Office, Correspondence, 1968-1974
Issenmann—Church: Diocese Archives, Cleveland Diocese Board of Catholic Education, Summit County Office, Minutes, 1972
Issenmann—Church: Diocese Archives, Cleveland Diocese Board of Catholic Education, Summit County Office, Newsletter, 1969-1972
Issenmann—Church: Diocese Archives, Cleveland Diocese Board of Catholic Education, Summit County Office, St. Vincent-St. Mary, Redevelopment, 1970-1973
Educational Institutions, St. Vincent-St. Mary, Akron Archives, Cleveland Diocese
(Bishop) J.A. Hickey—Educational Institutions, Archbishop Archives, Cleveland Diocese Hoban High School
High School—Archbishop Hoban Archives, Cleveland Diocese
Issenmann—Church: Diocese Archives, Cleveland Diocese Diocesan Education Office, Enrollment 1967, 1970-1973
Issenmann—Church: Diocese Archives, Cleveland Diocese Education: Finances, High School Campaign, 1966-1970
Issenmann—Church: Diocese Archives, Cleveland Diocese Diocesan Education Planning Study, An Overwhelming Yes to Catholic Education, 1969-1970
Summit County Regional Board Sally Riede’s Personal Files
Dealings with the Diocese Archbishop Hoban H.S.
Minutes of the Members and Board Meetings, Archbishop Hoban H. S. Archbishop Hoban High School, 1955-1977
Principal’s Report, 1983-1985 Archbishop Hoban H. S.
State Reports, 1988-2005 Archbishop Hoban H. S. 74
Blue Ribbon School, 1997-1998 Archbishop Hoban H. S.
Sr. Mary Therese Berry, H.M., 1980-1984 Archbishop Hoban H.S.
seven letters and the additional five letters were sent after new names surfaced during the archival research and interviews. There was only one letter that I sent that was returned with no forwarding address. Eleven letters resulted in interviews. Two interviews took place prior to the work in the Midwest Archives: on June 8 with Mr. William Aylward at
Hoban and on June 13 with Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., at the Inn at St. Mary’s at Notre
Dame. Interviews with Brother John May, C.S.C., and with Brother Joseph Fox, C.S.C. took place on June 14 at Notre Dame. During the time I was at Notre Dame, I was able to speak with Brother Charles Krupp, the former Provincial, but was unable to conduct the full interview due to his health. Back in Akron, separate interviews were arranged on
June 23 with Ms. Sally Riede and with Sister Dorothy Mattingly, O.P. On July 26, I interviewed Brother Edward Libbers, C.S.C., followed by Brother Joseph LeBon, C.S.C., on July 28. On July 27, I interviewed Mr. Conrad Ott at his home. Mr. Ott was the
Superintendent of the Akron Public Schools, and I interviewed him to verify that he had conversations with the brothers about the possibility of selling the Hoban property to the
Akron Public Schools. On August 3, I conducted a telephone interview with Brother
Robert Lavelle, C.S.C. The final interview was with Ms. Marie Waickman on August 3.
For each interview, I printed a new copy of the scripted interview questions, and I took notes on that copy while tape recording the interview. After each interview, I reread my notes while listening to the tape, adding information to my written notes to fill in any
75
gaps about what had been said during the interviews. Interviews were transcribed to provide accuracy in the data as I reviewed and processed them.
Data Management
I created a file for each set of documents. All of the sleeves of documents from the Midwest Archives were placed in one folder. Documents were always kept in the appropriate sleeve. For the copies of documents from the Diocesan Archives, I created a binder and placed each set of documents in a separate section, having labeled each section with the title of the archival file. The interview reports were placed in a file in chronological order, indicating the date when and the place where the interview took
place along with the name of each interviewee. I attached the transcripts of the
interviews to the set of data for each interview. The copies of the documents from Sally
Riede’s file were placed in a file in chronological order. I also created another file from
the documents that were copies of the Minutes of the Corporate Board at Hoban. I also
kept a notebook with pertinent information on all the files and any notes I made while
conducting the research.
Data Analysis
After assembling the photocopied documents, after conducting each interview and gathering its data set, and after reading the other documents and taking notes, I reread
every piece of information. I kept all the documents from each location together so that I
maintained the integrity of the files. Within those files, though, I highlighted passages of
importance as I read and reread the documents to find meaning. I marked the documents
76
to identify which decision makers were mentioned or involved in the correspondence as
well as what each document was about. As I read, I created a timeline, grouping the
documents along the timeline to show how they contributed to the overall history. Using a strategy of comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), I looked for commonalities and discrepancies, using both inductive and deductive reasoning. All photocopied documents were kept within files that contained the name of the original file and any archival numbering information.
As the story within the documents began to unfold, I made preliminary notes and timelines to try to piece together the major factors and when key events occurred. I looked for ways to triangulate data, always looking for a second or third source of particular information to confirm or disprove the data. If someone mentioned a fact in an
interview, I looked in the documents to confirm or disprove the fact. Here is an example
of how the process worked: in his interview, Mr. Aylward mentioned that the Akron
Public Schools had been interested in purchasing the Hoban property. I found a letter in
a file confirming this interest, and I interviewed Mr. Ott to confirm the truth of this fact.
Another example was that I found letters between the Bishop and the Provincial about
meetings with the Summit Regional Board regarding Hoban becoming coeducational in
1973, and I confirmed the meetings through records of agendas or minutes in Ms. Riede’s
files. I tried to remain in the realm of objective truth rather than that of cloudy memories
or partial data.
I worked through all the documents in this way, trying to identify key factors in
the history of the events in order to identify common themes or to account for any
anomalies. Using a conceptual framework grounded in the literature review, I attempted
77
to organize the data to answer the research questions. There was a large amount of historical data that needed to be chronicled so that any reader would be able to understand the background information about the internal and external influences that affected each critical incident. The research questions also evolved and became more focused during the analysis phase. I also attempted to uncover the themes that emerged from the data. During the writing process, all the files of documents were out and I worked through the chronology of events and the themes that I had identified. I continued to research studies about the development of coeducation in schools, particularly in
Catholic schools. Research about the history of Holy Cross education, the research about organizational theories, research about the culture of Catholic schools, and research about the social context formed the conceptual framework for my analysis. I took notes throughout the process to organize my thoughts as the bigger picture began to emerge from the pieces of data. I created an audit trail by establishing a chain of evidence with a complete set of documents that other researchers could examine. The documents from each archive are bound together, maintaining the individual files from each source. The files from Ms. Riede and Hoban are also bound together. I clearly labeled all the documents, as explained above. The transcripts of the audiotapes of the interviews give a clear statement of what each participant said and are available for analysis. The audiotapes are also preserved to verify what was said in each interview. The highlighted passages and my notes on all the documents indicate what was important in each one as well as how the data I analyzed emerged from the documents and interviews. All these documents are stored together.
78
As naturalistic inquiry, the case study focused on the meaning that emerged from the research data. The research process required me to pull together information from disparate sources. I considered the process interactive because new bits of information from one source would cause me to look again in the other sources I had to try to corroborate or dispel interpretations I was forming. I wrote thick descriptions of the historical details of how Hoban became coeducational. I had direct contact with participants through the interviews with individuals who played vital roles in the events.
E-mail was used to follow up with Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., who lives in Peru.
Combining deductive and inductive analysis, I identified key factors that created the major themes that emerged from the data.
Validity and Reliability
The dissertation addressed Yin’s (2003) four tests for case studies: construct validity; internal validity; external validity; and reliability (pp. 34-39). To ensure construct validity, I used multiple data sources and established a chain of evidence. I used member checking, asking key sources of information and participants in the interviews to review information. Brother Kenneth Haders, C.S.C., the President at
Hoban, read an early draft of the section on the history and philosophy of Holy Cross education to verify its accuracy. I incorporated his suggestions into the text. Participants in the interviews who are mentioned in the dissertation received copies of an early draft of the historical accounts to review the written reports for accuracy.
I engaged in external and internal criticisms of the historical documents. Gall,
Gall, & Borg (2003) defined external criticism as, “the process of determining whether the apparent or claimed origin of a historical document (author, place, date, and
79
circumstances of publication) corresponds to its actual origin” (p. 525). Internal criticism
“involves evaluating the accuracy and worth of statements contained in a historical
document. In engaging in internal criticism, researchers ask such questions as: Is it
probable that people would act in the way described by the writer: Is it physically
possible …?” (Ibid., p. 527). First, I conducted external criticism. The archivists had
organized all of the original documents and created the files within the archives.
Letterheads and signatures confirmed that these were original documents. Since this
same identifying information appeared in files in each of the archives and in Ms. Riede’s files, I was able to compare the traits and determine that these were original and genuine documents. After conducting external criticism, I concluded that the documents appeared genuine and I did not have any indication that they were forgeries. As I triangulated data,
I tried to resolve any variations among the sources I was using. I only accepted data as factual if three sources corroborated the information. To conduct the internal criticism, I tried to get to the truth of an issue by looking at more than one source. For instance, I compared information in newspaper accounts as reported by a journalist with information found in documents in the files or gleaned from the interviews. By triangulating the data,
I attempted to move beyond subjective accounts to the facts of the matter. I have a sign on my desk that reads: “Every story has three sides—yours, mine and the truth,” and my efforts while conducting this research were always directed toward uncovering that truth.
In this way I attempted to avoid bias in my sources or in my work.
To the extent that establishing causation was a goal of the dissertation, internal validity could have been a concern. But my research dealt more with explaining rather than establishing causation. External validity could be a concern if I were attempting to
80
generalize beyond this immediate case study. The purpose of my study was not
generalizability, but rather allowing the history of the events to unfold. Reliability could
be attained if a subsequent researcher followed the same design and techniques I used.
Limitations
Because the events happened about three decades ago, collecting the data presented me with some unique challenges. It was important to read the archival data as objectively as possible, avoiding the application of 2005 standards to findings, and therefore avoiding the error of “presentism” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 529). It was important to attempt to read the data from the viewpoint of the 1960s and 1970s. The contemporary data gathered from participants in the events were affected by the thirty- year time lapse. Triangulating the data helped me to determine which data were not overly affected by memories that had been enhanced or that had lost details.
Subjectivity
As I described earlier, I have been employed by Archbishop Hoban High School since 1988. From 1988-1990, I was the Associate Principal and I have been the Principal since 1990. Because I moved to Akron in 1985, I did not personally experience the events that are the subject of this study. But because of the impact of these events on the subsequent history of the school, I have been influenced by the fact that they occurred. I attempted to follow the advice of Harry, Sturges, and Klingner (2005), trying to bridge objectivity and my biases. In describing their role in a research project, Harry, et al. stated:
81
Our first concern was a challenge that we believe should be treated as a foreground issue in discussions of qualitative methodology, and of grounded theory in particular. The essence of the method is its inductive nature. This inductiveness requires the researcher to approach the data from a perspective of relative neutrality, the main goal being to describe and understand, rather than to evaluate, patterns within and across cultures. (p. 11)
I have attempted to avoid subjectivity and to achieve the kind of neutrality that Harry et al. described. My goal has been to utilize effective research habits that move the study beyond my personal ties to Archbishop Hoban High School to create an objective analysis of the decisions that led to coeducation.
If truly reflective research habits are developed, the apparent dichotomy between neutrality and value laden perspectives need not be an obstacle in qualitative research. Indeed, we propose that this dichotomy can be re-envisioned as a potential bridge between extant knowledge and the researcher’s grounded insights. (Ibid.)
It was important in this dissertation for me to bridge the apparent dichotomy between neutrality and value laden perspectives. I have an undergraduate major in history and used skills from that training to write objective historical research in this study. My graduate coursework in qualitative research techniques also helped me to separate my contemporary personal experience from the historical reality of the story told by the documents and the interview participants. I made a concerted effort during the interviews to allow the participants to tell their stories, capturing their memories and interpretations of the events as objectively as possible, avoiding the addition of my perceptions of events. In writing the case study, I have attempted to let the perspectives of the participants come through rather than my own perspective. I combed through the documents to create the timeline of events and to link the evidence, avoiding speculation on my part about events, speculation that would have been based on how the organization
82
has operated during my years of involvement. I discovered an interesting and complex
story with many fascinating characters who worked hard to improve Catholic secondary
education in Akron to meet the needs of parents, students, and the Church.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This study examined the decisions that led to Archbishop Hoban High School
becoming coeducational in 1973. There were three critical incidents that were decision
points when the all boys school could have become coeducational. I outlined the three
decision points in Figure 4.1, showing the major events in the timeline for each critical incident. The first decision point occurred in the late 1960s when there were discussions
about the school becoming a co-institutional school with St. Mary High School, a
discussion that was dropped when a new principal came to Hoban. The second critical
incident occurred in 1970 when the Summit County Regional Board proposed to the brothers that Hoban should merge with St. Mary High School, a proposal that the
brothers voted against in their Chapter. The third critical incident occurred in 1972 when
the brothers asked the Regional Board to approve Hoban becoming coeducational in the
fall of 1972, a proposal that the Regional Board rejected. The bishop at the time
indicated publicly that the brothers could change Hoban to a coeducational school, the brothers pursued this and got approval from the bishop, and eventually the Summit
83
County Board met in a special session to approve Hoban becoming coeducational. The brothers announced that the change would begin in the fall of 1973.
At each decision point, there were internal and external influences on the decisions. Internal influences were factors within the Hoban organization and school community that had an impact on what Hoban did. The external influences were factors outside of the school’s organization and community that also had an impact on the decisions and on Hoban’s reaction. I acknowledge that organizational boundaries are permeable, and that what are internal or external influences could be defined differently.
For this study, I defined parents and the Congregation of Holy Cross as internal influences, as explained in the definitions in Chapter I. In this study, I looked at the history of the internal and external influences, explained the events within each critical incident, and then examined which influences played a role at each critical incident. I also examined how the school reacted to the influences at each decision point. The internal influences were: the Congregation of Holy Cross and its members; the school’s governance structures, such as the role of the principal, the Hoban Board and the development of the lay advisory board; the financial condition of the school; the parents; and the students. External influences were: Vatican II; the Catholic Church and its views on coeducation; the Diocesan Campaign for the High Schools; the Summit County
Regional Board of Catholic Education; the Bardsley & Haslacher (1968) Survey in
Summit County; and the Bishop of Cleveland. I concluded this chapter with an overall analysis of Hoban’s journey to coeducation using the conceptual framework of the ideas from the review of literature.
84
Several themes emerged from the data as I analyzed these decision points. 1)
During the late 1960s and early 1970s in Akron, there was experimentation in structural and political frames among the Catholic school community, especially in the high schools and with the Summit County Board of Education, changing the environment for the high schools. 2) The formal structures in place did not always determine how internal or external influences played roles in the decision making. 3) At each decision point, who made the decision was important. 4) The final decision to become coeducational was not a decision that resulted from a reasoned, deliberate process as much as it was expedient.
5) The garbage can model of decision making seemed to explain what occurred in 1972.
I elaborated on these themes in the analysis section of this chapter.
Decision on Decision to merge becoming co- Decision to become with St. Mary High institutional with coeducational School St. Mary High beginning in fall 1973 School
Request by Hoban to the Summit Request from Bishop Regional Board to allow Hoban to Issenmann to consider become coeducational beginning co-institutional, January Proposal from the Summit in fall 1972 1968 Regional Board to the Brothers
Summit Regional Board rejects Hoban's request, March 1972 Walkout by the students at Hoban Proposal to the House in support of Brother William Fitch, at Hoban, January 1970 coeducation, April C.S.C., Principal, presented 28, 1972 proposal to the brothers at Hoban, February 1968
Bishop Issenmann's Meeting with Emergency comment that the Bishop, the meeting of the Summit Regional Proposal to the Chapter, the Brothers Provincial and Board to review April 1970 can decide if others: Hoban Hoban's Hoban can become becomes coeducational proposal; coeducational permission granted for coeducation in Subcommittee formed to 1973 make recommendation at June Chapter meeting, 1970 Letter from Bishop Issenmann to Br. Charles Krupp, the Announcement by Hoban Provincial, confirming the that the school would be Provincial Council's decision coeducational in fall 1973 Decision never finalized; new that Hoban would become coeducational, stating no need principal in 1969 Vote at the Chapter: No to for other revision to the original the merger, June 1970 agreement with the Bishop
85
Figure 4.1 Archbishop Hoban High School’s Journey to Coeducation
The History of Internal Influences
In this section I have provided a narrative that tells the history of each of the
internal influences that I identified as having an impact on the decision points. Because
these internal influences contributed in different ways to the critical incidents, it was
important to explain what each one was about to help paint a detailed picture of what was
happening.
The Congregation of Holy Cross and its Members
The Brothers of Holy Cross who lived and worked at Hoban as well as the
leadership in the Midwest Province influenced how decisions were made. In the 1960s,
the school was still relatively young. The organizational arrangement gave the brothers
primary responsibility for operating and staffing the school. The Midwest Province was
committed to staffing the school and to providing brothers to run the operations. The
bylaws established the Members and the Board of Trustees, who were brothers, as those
with policy making and fiduciary responsibilities. These conditions were consistent with
the principle of subsidiarity and with the brothers being responsive to local needs in their ministries. The staffing situation began to change as the number of brothers available to work in schools began to decline. One of the first formal changes to this situation occurred as Brother William Fitch, C.S.C., who was the principal, established a lay advisory board. I have provided information in the next section about the Hoban Board and the lay advisory board, and those details help explain more fully the role of the brothers as an internal influence at Hoban.
The Hoban Board and the Lay Advisory Board
86
The early minutes of meetings of the Board at Hoban reflected the structure of
governance at Hoban. Then as now, Hoban had a two-tiered board structure, with
brothers serving as Members of the Corporation with reserved powers and as a Board of
Trustees. The earliest minutes reflected that the Board of Trustees was originally another
group of brothers. The two-tiered board was appointed in accordance with the terms of
the bylaws that were written following the model of the 1952 Articles of Incorporation of
St. Edward High School in Lakewood, Ohio, another Holy Cross high school (Files at
Archbishop Hoban High School, file entitled “Minutes of the Members and Board
Meetings, AHHS, 1955-1977”).
The principal at Hoban, Brother William Fitch, C.S.C., invited members of the
laity to serve as an advisory board (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled “Lay
Advisory Board ’63-’67”). As the school developed, this board evolved into the Board of
Trustees in 1976 which contained both lay board members, brothers, and other religious.
In 1976, the bylaws were amended to provide for the new responsibilities for the Board.
Structurally, it remained a two-tiered board, and the Members retained reserved powers.
Recently, the name of the Board was changed to the Board of Directors to comply with
current usage in the Ohio Revised Code. In 2005, the two-tiered board consists of the
Members and of the Board of Directors.
At the school, I discovered bound copies of the minutes of the annual meetings of
the Members and of the Board of Trustees. The minutes of the annual meetings of the
Members followed the format outlined in the bylaws. After approving the minutes of the
previous meeting, the Members would update the names of the brothers who had resigned
as Members, and new Members were elected. Each year, the principal of the school
87
provided a report about finances and enrollment. The Members would also update the
names of the Board of Trustees in the same way that they had elected Members.
Appropriate resolutions were duly recorded. In a letter to the Provincial, Brother Charles
Krupp, C.S.C., dated July 11, 1972, Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., Principal at Hoban,
described the Board of Trustees as
five Holy Cross Brothers, and according to the laws of the State of Ohio, this board is supposed to have full authority over the operation of Hoban. In actual fact the Board of Trustees does not exercise this authority, and all authority and decision making and policy making end up in the principal’s lap. (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Provincial files of Br. Charles Krupp, C.S.C, 1968-1979, Archbishop H.S./Akron, Ohio 1972, folder I, 12/3/13”)
Even though the formal structure of the Board and its duties were spelled out, in
1972 the reality was that the principal, a brother, was the one who exercised authority, decision making, and policy making. This situation would change by
1976 when the advisory board became the Board of Trustees. As the boards at
Gilmour Academy and at other Holy Cross schools began to change, the Board of
Trustees for Hoban would too, developing into a corporate structure that included more lay members.
In the Archives of the Midwest Province, I found correspondence related to the lay advisory board. In a July 17, 1963, letter to Mr. M.G. O’Neil, President of General
Tire & Rubber Company, Mr. Wm. C. Richards, Jr., Executive Vice-President of Bellows
Sign Company, invited him to the next meeting of the Advisory Board on August 14.
Mr. Richards stated that the Principal, Brother William Fitch, C.S.C., was “in the process of establishing an Advisory Board to counsel him in the long range plans and development of the school and its environment” (Archives of the Midwest Province, file
88
entitled “Lay Advisory Board ’63-’67”). In an August 8 letter in the same file, Brother
William welcomed Mr. Richards as a member of the Principal’s Advisory Board of
Archbishop Hoban High School and mentioned that the August 14, 1963 meeting would be the first official meeting with all members present. The letter indicated that a financial summary statement and budget as well as a directory of the members of the Board were sent with the letter. The financial summary was in the file, but not the directory of members. A listing of the 1967-1968 Advisory Board Members listed the names of twelve men. There were two attorneys, a judge, an architect, the President of General
Tire, a university professor, an insurance man, the assistant circulation manager for the
Akron Beacon Journal, the store operations manager for the O’Neil Company, a vice- president/ sales manager for Excelsior Stamp Works Company, the Naval Plant
Representative and the manager of material procurement from Goodyear Aerospace, and a retiree.
When discussing the lay advisory board, Mr. William Aylward described them as
“cosmopolitan” (Personal interview, 2005), representing key people with leadership roles within the community. Mr. Aylward, Assistant Circulation Manager at the Akron
Beacon Journal, started on the Advisory Board in 1966 and served on that Board and its successor, the Board of Trustees, until 1978. He served as President of the Advisory
Board as well as Chairperson of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Aylward reported that the
Advisory Board was forward thinking and that the question of whether Hoban might eventually become coeducational was brought up during the time period when the school’s enrollment was still thriving. The Board and brothers were meeting at a cabin owned by the brothers when one of the Board members suggested that Hoban should
89
consider whether it would want to become coeducational in the future if the boys’
enrollment began to decline (Aylward, Personal interview, 2005).
The structure of the advisory board changed in 1972. In a September 22, 1972, letter, the principal, Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., wrote to Patrick Hughes, Vice
President and Sales Manager at Excelsior Marking Products Company, that, “The final meeting of the ‘old’ Advisory Board will take place on Wednesday, September 27…The membership of the new board will be announced and present members will be recognized for their past efforts” (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled “Lay Advisory
Board/1972-1973”). A memo dated July 20, 1973, and addressed to the Hoban Faculty from the Hoban Lay Board welcomed them and stated that, “The days ahead for all
Catholic Schools are going to be filled with obstacles and challenges that will have to be met head on and then resolved in order to keep our schools open” (Ibid.). The memo mentioned “the cooperation in the past years with the former lay advisory board and the principal and faculty” (Ibid.) as “a very distinct advantage in planning for the future”
(Ibid.). The fourth item in the memo explained that the new Hoban Lay Board “that will establish policy for the school in the future, is composed of experienced members from the lay advisory board and newer members who have shown great enthusiasm and very frankly, are loaded with talent” (Ibid.). Six members of the faculty were appointed as liaison members of standing committees of the Lay Board to provide input. There was other general information about insurance and other issues, and the memo closed with these words: “The most important ingredient for this success in our first year as a co- educational [sic] school is that we all work together. If we do work and pull together we will have an outstanding school that should be viable for many years to come” (Ibid.).
90
Even though the document was written as a memo, Bill Aylward, Chairman of the Lay
Board, signed it.
The lay advisory board and its successor, the Hoban Lay Board, along with the
Hoban Board of Trustees, were important structural and political developments in
Hoban’s history as the organization sought to reframe itself to respond to changing circumstances. The structural and political developments paved the way for the new culture that would emerge, eventually establishing coeducation as the solution for Hoban.
The interactions of these boards with other developments described in this chapter influenced how Hoban reacted along the way on its journey toward coeducation.
The Financial Condition of the School
Finances had become a problem at Hoban, especially after the opening of Walsh
Jesuit High School. In 1964, through a letter from the Most Reverend John F. Whelan,
Vicar General, the principal, Brother William, had received permission from the diocese to raise the tuition from $180 to $200 (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled
“Fitch correspondence with Diocesan officials, 1962-1969”). But this was not enough to compensate for the difficulties the school was experiencing. In a letter to Bishop
Issenmann dated October 11, 1966, Brother William lamented the problems that the school faced.
For a school designed to operate efficiently at a minimum of 1000 students, there have been only five such years of efficient operation. This year, the enrollment has dropped dangerously close to this 1000 level. Our projected figures indicate that we can expect a student deficit of almost 400 students in two years. (Ibid.)
Brother William pointed to the 1964 opening of Walsh Jesuit High School as the biggest reason for Hoban’s decline in enrollment.
91
Since the opening of Jesuit Walsh High School [sic] in our area, substantial numbers of students living in the northern area of the county have enrolled there. This fact has resulted in a drop in our enrollment which can be expected to continue for at least the next two years until they have their full complement of students. I am under the impression that they have not met their expectations in enrolling students either. Nonetheless, their enrollment seems to have been the substantial cause of our decrease. It does not appear that any significant increase of Catholic families have [sic] decided upon a Catholic high school education in preference to public education as was predicted upon the construction of the new Catholic high school in this area. (Fitch Correspondence)
Brother William appealed for help from the diocese or from the pastors. In a letter also dated October 11, 1966, to Msgr. Novicky of the Diocesan School Board, Brother
William mentioned that,
We are presently in severe financial straits because of this problem [of decreased enrollment]. I am sure that you will understand that we can hardly afford the contribution to your office since we cannot even afford to pay all of our obligations on time. There is absolutely no possibility for us to borrow money from our Provincial as we did during the first nine years of our operation. (Ibid.)
Financial issues continued to grow more serious for Hoban. In a January 9, 1969 letter to the Major Superiors of Religious Communities from the Superintendent, the Very
Reverend Msgr. Richard E. McHale announced that there are “no diocesan funds available for the subsidizing of high school tuitions” and that there would not be any parish funds available either “because of the substantial increase in teacher salaries during the past year” (Ibid.). The letter concluded with this statement: “In the meantime, to repeat, all secondary schools are to be self-sustaining and charge the tuition necessary to support the annual operation of the school” (Ibid.).
Hoban’s enrollment continued to decline, causing more financial concerns. The need to hire more lay teachers and pay their salaries also increased the financial
92
pressures. More details about the financial problems appear in the section about the third critical incident, since financial difficulties were a major reason that the brothers considered coeducation in 1972.
Parents and Students
There was not a large body of evidence to describe the roles of parents and
students. Some information provided insights, however.
Some of the members of the lay advisory board were parents, so that group
provided a formal structure through which parents could make their opinions known and
have some influence on decision making. Later in this study, an external influence is the
Bardsley & Haslacher Survey (1968) that looked at parents’ attitudes and opinions about
Catholic schooling. As explained in more detail in that section, the survey found that
Catholic parents were in favor of coeducation. That research piece established parental interest in coeducation in Summit County as an important influence.
The students at Hoban eventually became interested in coeducation. A key statement of their interest was the walkout that they staged in April, 1972, in favor of coeducation.
The History of External Influences
In this section I have told the history of each of the external influences that played a role in the critical incidents. I have provided thick descriptions about each influence in order to explain the complexity of these external influences. Together the stories helped
93
to set the stage for what was happening as the three critical incidents occurred and decisions needed to be made.
The Catholic Church on Coeducation
The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884 had decreed that every parish
should establish a school and that Catholic parents had an obligation to send their children to Catholic schools. While the dream of the Council never fully materialized, many parish schools were built at the end of the nineteenth and into the twentieth
centuries. Much of this growth coincided with the waves of European immigrants from
Europe, helping those new to the country find a way to educate their children in the faith
as well as in the ways of the United States. The presence of religious men and women to
staff these schools also facilitated their growth. The elementary schools begun during
this time were generally coeducational schools. The increase in secondary schools
occurred following World War II. The high schools sponsored by religious
Congregations were most often single-sex, reflecting whether sisters or brothers taught in
the schools.
On December 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI promulgated an encyclical entitled Divini
Illius Magistri. Its English title is Christian Education of Youth. Pope Pius declared:
Education is essentially a social and not a mere individual activity. Now there are three necessary societies, distinct from one another and yet harmoniously combined by God, into which man is born: two, namely the family and civil society, belong to the natural order; the third, the Church, to the supernatural order. (Pope Pius XI, 1929, paragraph 11, p. 2)
Pope Pius also wrote in this document that the natural and supernatural orders need not
be in conflict with each other, but a theme ran throughout the work that naturalism had
become a potential danger when separated from its divine roots. The encyclical
94
explained the Church’s interest in private and public education in all countries, fulfilling the teaching mission of the Church. The document reiterated that Catholic children should be in Catholic schools when it stated:
We renew and confirm [Popes Pius IX’s and Leo XIII’s] declarations, as well as the Sacred Canons in which the frequenting of non-Catholic schools, whether neutral or mixed, those namely open to Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is forbidden for Catholic children, and can be at most tolerated, on the approval of the Ordinary [local bishop] alone, under determined circumstances of place and time, and with special precautions.” (Pope Pius XI, 1929, paragraph 79, p. 15)
The document thus highlighted the role of parents and their duty to educate their children as Catholics. In fact, the Church and the family were seen as those with primary responsibility for educating the children since “the mission of education regards before all, above all, primarily the Church and the family, and this by natural and divine law, and that therefore it cannot be slighted, cannot be evaded, cannot be supplanted” (Pope
Pius XI, 1929, paragraph 40, p. 7). The document discussed the role of the State in educating children and concluded that the State must respect the rights of the Church and of the family in this matter. The encyclical also included a statement that faith and reason can work together harmoniously. The document warned, however, that scientific instruction must be in accord with Church teaching, cautioning that “whoever disturbs the pupil’s Faith in any way, does him great wrong” (Ibid., paragraph 57, p. 11).
I found it interesting that the encyclical cautioned against two trends in educating youth: sex education and coeducational schools. That these two topics were mentioned together in a papal document about Christian education was curious. The Pope described sex education as misguided, “falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural” (Ibid., paragraph 65, p. 12) and ignoring
95
the “inborn weakness of human nature” (Ibid., paragraph 66, p. 12). He allowed for parents to discuss sexuality with children as necessary, but cautioned the parents to speak
in generalities only, using “those remedies which produce the double effect of opening
the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice” (Pope Pius XI, 1929,
paragraph 67, p. 13).
The Pope next moved to the topic of coeducation and expressed his negative
opinion.
False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of coeducation. This, too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public. (Pope Pius XI, 1929, paragraph 68, p. 13)
The term promiscuity is somewhat difficult to understand in the second sentence. In
explaining the Latin title of the Instruction on Coeducation discussed in the next
paragraph of this study, Frison says that promiscuous “retains the classic Latin meaning
of ‘without distinction’” (Frison, 1959, p. 28). Thus, the term promiscuity in the
96
encyclical seems to refer to the characteristic of coeducation that it removes distinctions rather than implying today’s use of the word. The papal encyclical also praised good teachers as critical agents in the moral education of youth. Pope Pius XI encouraged pastors and the superiors of religious congregations to pay special attention to teachers’ formation.
The Pope also decried “impious and immoral books, often diabolically circulated at low prices,” (Pope Pius XI, 1929, paragraph 90, p. 17), the modern cinema, and the radio as materials that could be used to turn the students to immoral ways. All of the instructions in the encyclical were designed to explain how Christian education sought to improve human life, “to elevate, regulate and perfect it, in accordance with the example and teaching of Christ” (Pope Pius XI, 1929, paragraph 95, p. 18). This encyclical had a profound impact on Catholic education, and the stance discouraging coeducation remained strong until years later.
For the Brothers of Holy Cross, the message of the encyclical meant that the schools they ran would be all boys or co-institutional. Their mission to teach only boys was the way they operated. In fact, in 1939 the brothers withdrew from Central Catholic
High School in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, after the bishop announced that it would become coeducational the following year. Armstrong (1995) quoted Brother Columba Curran, a provincial councilor with the first provincial, that the brothers thus had to leave Ft.
Wayne because “we were not permitted to teach girls below the college level” (p. 144).
When Hoban opened, the agreement between the brothers and Archbishop Hoban stated that the school would be all boys (Files at Hoban, file entitled, “Dealings with the
Diocese,” 1953 Agreement between the Brothers of Holy Cross and Archbishop Hoban
97
High School). This mindset permeated the culture at Hoban, so that when coeducation was eventually suggested, it was a significant departure from the prevailing cultural norms. In order for Hoban to change to a coeducational school, the structure of the agreement with the bishop would have to be changed. The political and symbolic implications of such a change meant that the culture would have to evolve before the change could occur.
On December 8, 1957, the Sacred Congregation of the Affairs of Religious issued an Instruction on coeducation in secondary schools that was published in Acta
Apostolicae Sedis on February 24, 1958 (Frison, 1959). Exercising a commission given by Pope Pius XII, this plenary meeting convened several groups involved in the educational ministry to study the question of coeducation “for the purpose of putting the mandate of the Sovereign Pontiff into effect” (Ibid., p. 15). In the commentary on the
Instruction, Frison addressed the question of whether the Instruction was interpretive or obligatory. In fact, Frison (1959) concluded that it was important to consider both aspects because
one cannot ignore the fact that the term “instruction” is flexible, and that the pronouncement can contain suggestions, as well as strict precepts or commands. One cannot argue that certain provisions are not obligatory only because this document is an Instruction. (Frison, 1959, p. 27)
The Instruction stated that, “‘Coeducation’ in its true concept cannot in itself be approved in general” (Ibid., p. 17). While conceding that coeducation could be considered an extension of family life, the Instruction stated “the dangers stemming from its inherent practices—particularly during the age of puberty—are without doubt far greater than the possible advantages” (Ibid.). The Instruction dubbed Pius XI’s Divini Illius Magistri,
98
discussed in the above paragraph, the “Magna Carta” of the question of coeducation
(Ibid., p. 18). Yet, as I have discovered was often the case when it came to the question
of coeducation, the Instruction included a pragmatic realization that coeducation might be
necessary in certain locales. In such cases, coeducation became “a lesser evil” (Ibid.) and
could be “tolerated” (Frison, 1959, p. 19). Recognizing this reality, the Instruction
suggested that the bishop would have to lay down “definite norms” (Ibid., p. 20). The
Instruction favored the co-institutional arrangement rather than coeducation when
possible. The Instruction detailed duties of the superiors of religious congregations,
including assigning to coeducational schools “men and women religious of proven virtue
and whose maturity of judgment has been proved by experience” (Ibid., p. 21). The
importance of carefully selecting lay teachers when such a necessity arose received a
specific comment in the text. The Instruction required a religious prefect or spiritual
director for a coeducational school. It also stated that men and women religious should not manage such schools without specific permission from the Sacred Congregation of the Affairs of Religious. According to Frison’s comments, this applied to male religious
because
there has been a tendency to be less severe in the case of women religious, because women are more apt to direct successfully a school of adolescents of both sexes, as proved by experience. Although the Instruction gives no indication that the distinction was accepted and adopted, it is a well founded opinion among writers that the safeguard in question applies only to men religious. (Frison, 1959, p. 63)
It was important for men and women religious to follow their constitutions, which
generally specified that women religious could teach coeducational classes through the
eight years of elementary school and then that they would teach only girls in high school,
99
while the men’s role was to teach boys in high schools. If men religious wanted to
manage schools within a coeducational setting, there was “the requirement of an
apostolic indult to be able to take charge of coeducational high schools” (Ibid., p. 64).
The Instruction included suggestions that in a coeducational setting there would have to be special attention given to having moderation in the social interactions of the students
and to the importance of modesty, especially among the girls. Frison (1959) summed up
this point with these words: “The degree of the boys’ refinement in social life is often
determined by the behavior of the girls” (p. 68). The Instruction continued with detailed
explanations of specific cases in which the students should be separated by gender. For
instance, there were not to be athletic contests that included boys and girls together. The
Instruction spoke out against coeducational boarding schools. There were also four
places that the Instruction recommended separation: in classroom seating arrangements;
when the boys and girls entered and exited or went to locker rooms or similar areas;
during lectures on specific topics, including topics in sexuality, psychology, and biology;
and during games. Frison indicated that there had been discussion about whether the
lunchroom was a place where adolescents should be separated (Ibid., pp. 73-75). The
Instruction required that there be a Prefect of Discipline in every high school. A final
section of the Instruction dealt with a precaution that religious who taught in
coeducational or in girls’ schools should “refrain from superfluous contact with girls”
(Frison, 1959, p. 76). This Instruction set the stage for how Catholic high schools should
be run.
During the growth in Catholic high schools following World War II, this model
predominated. Religious congregations of women tended to establish schools for girls
100
while congregations of men established schools for boys. In 1935, 46% of Catholic
schools were single sex, with 28% for boys and 72% for girls, and among the 46%, the
“overwhelming majority” were private, secondary schools (Greene & O’Keefe, 2004, p.
168). The percentage was stable in the 1940s and declined to 40% during the 1980s
(Convey, 1992). Bryk, Lee, & Holland (1993) found that there had been a strong
movement away from single-sex schools in the 1960s and 1970s. This change occurred
because the single-sex arrangement was viewed as a “barrier to successful adolescent
socialization” (Ibid., p. 227). Schools either closed or became coeducational “in order to
stabilize enrollments” (Ibid., p. 228). In keeping with these national trends, the Holy
Cross schools were all boys initially. In Akron the Dominican sisters ran Our Lady of the
Elms High School. It is interesting to note that the high schools in Akron that began as parish schools (St. Mary’s and St. Vincent High School), and thus were not run by a specific congregation, were coeducational. St. Mary’s became an all girls school only after Hoban opened and the male enrollment declined significantly at St. Mary’s. The
Brothers of Holy Cross opened Hoban as “a school for men taught by men” and when
Walsh Jesuit High School opened, it was all boys, too. Thus, the initial pattern in Akron fell within what was the national norm. The structural frame thus established a common norm with coeducation as the structure in parish or diocesan Catholic secondary schools, but the single-sex structure in those high schools run by religious congregations.
Changing that cultural norm at Hoban would involve structural, political, human resources, and symbolic changes within the organization and community.
Other factors were at work as well, as will be discussed in the rest of this chapter.
These other factors influenced whether schools would remain single-sex or become
101
coeducational. In the 1960s and 1970s, ideas about whether schools should be single-sex
or coeducation were changing. Hoban was among the schools dramatically affected by these shifts.
Vatican II
On January 25, 1959, Pope John XXIII made an announcement that was
surprising, saying that he would convene the twenty-first ecumenical council and that its
objective would be to update the Church, promising aggiornamento (updating). (Caruso
in Hunt, Joseph, & Nuzzi, 2004, p. 683). Because he died suddenly, Pope John XXIII
only presided over the opening session from October 11-December 8, 1962. Pope Paul
VI, his successor, presided over the other three sessions, ending on December 8, 1965. In
the Foreword to the 1998 edition of the documents of the council, the late Joseph
Cardinal Bernardin discussed the importance of Vatican II to the Church.
The Second Vatican Council was the most important event in the life of the Catholic Church during the twentieth century. The Council has also had a powerful impact on the human family throughout the world… Some people emphasize the spirit of the Council over its substance. Important as the spirit or atmosphere was, our key to assimilating that spirit is familiarity with its substance—its teaching. The conciliar documents help us incorporate its spirit within our lives in a way that is faithful to the Council itself. (Flannery, p. xxii)
The council produced four constitutions, nine decrees, and three declarations. Two of
those documents were important for this study.
Apostolicam Actuositatem (whose English translation is The Decree on the
Apostolate of Lay People) was issued on November 18, 1965. The decree opened with a
statement that praised the “laity’s special and indispensable role in the mission of the
102
Church. Indeed, the Church can never be without the lay apostolate; it is something that
derives from the layman’s very vocation as a Christian” (Flannery, 1998, p. 766). The decree went on to say that
the laity are made to share in the priestly, prophetical and kingly office of Christ;…The characteristic of the lay state being a life led in the midst of the world and of secular affairs, laymen are called by God to make of their apostolate, through the vigor or their Christian spirit, a leaven in the world.” (Flannery, 1998, p. 768)
The decree also proclaimed that the hierarchy of the Church was to “favor the lay
apostolate, furnish it with principles and spiritual assistance, direct the exercise of the
apostolate to the common good of the Church, and see to it that doctrine and order are
safeguarded” (Ibid, p. 789). This new relationship within dioceses also suggested that
councils should be established
to assist the Church’s apostolic work, whether in the field of evangelization and sanctification or in the fields of charity, social relations and the rest; the clergy and religious working with the laity in whatever way proves satisfactory. These councils can take care of the mutual coordinating of the various lay associations and undertakings, the autonomy and particular nature of each remaining untouched. Such councils should be found too, if possible, at parochial, inter- parochial, inter-diocesan level, and also on the national and international plane. (Ibid, pp. 791-792)
That fact that Vatican II encouraged the formation of such councils impacted the events
in this study because lay boards were formed. The lay advisory board, though merely
advisory, represented this involvement by the laity. The formation of the Summit County
Board of Catholic Education was another example of lay involvement in decision making
following Vatican II. In the interviews, Mr. Aylward, Br. John May, C.S.C., Ms. Riede,
Sister Dorothy Mattingly, O.P., Brother Edward Libbers, C.S.C., Brother Joseph LeBon,
C.S.C., Brother Robert Lavelle, C.S.C., and Ms. Waickman all cited the influence of
103
Vatican II on how events unfolded at Hoban because it opened up life in the Church and
in religious life, providing more choices as well as new opportunities for the laity
(Personal interviews, 2005). These influences resulted in structural changes with the creation of boards. Political changes occurred as resources were allocated to support the work suggested by these boards. Symbolic changes occurred as well as the laity functioned in roles that had traditionally been reserved for the clergy or religious. All of
these changes impacted the culture of the school and community, resulting in changes in
how the religious and laity worked together. Despite all the changes, the sense of
community remained a strong characteristic of Hoban as an organization.
The decree discussed how members of the laity should be trained to work in the
lay apostolate. It also made mention of Catholic schools, colleges, and other educational
institutions as a way in which others are trained for this work. The decree said that all the
educational institutions
should foster in the young a Catholic outlook and apostolic action. If the young do not get this type of education, either because they do not attend these schools, or for some other reason, all the greater is the responsibility for it that devolves upon parents, pastoral and apostolic bodies. As for teachers and educators, who by their calling and position practice an outstanding form of lay apostolate, adequate learning and a thorough grasp of pedagogy is a prerequisite to any success in this branch of education. (Flannery, 1998, p. 795)
Thus, one of the fresh breezes that blew through the window that Pope John XXIII
opened was the opportunity for the laity to participate more thoroughly in the life of the
Church and to have more responsibility.
Another document of Vatican II that affected the schools was Gravissimum
Educationis (whose English title is The Declaration on Christian Education), which was
104
promulgated on October 28, 1965, by Pope Paul VI (Flannery, 1998). The declaration affirmed that all people have an “inalienable right” (Ibid., p. 726) to an education, and that all Christians have a right to a Christian education. It discussed the parents’ role in educating children, but recognized, too, that society must help the family. It placed particular emphasis on catechetical instruction. It suggested that the school was of
“outstanding importance” (Flannery, 1998, p. 730) and commended the vocation of teachers. The declaration stated that parents should have choice in schools and encouraged civil authorities to use public subsidies to protect this freedom of choice for parents. It also expressed concern for the development of students in non-Catholic schools. In commenting on the role of the Church in Catholic schools, it stated:
It is, however, the special function of the Catholic school to develop in the school community an atmosphere animated by a spirit of liberty and charity based on the Gospel…Thus the Catholic school, taking into consideration as it should the conditions of an age of progress, prepares its pupils to contribute effectively to the welfare of the world of men and to work for the extension of the kingdom of God, so that by living an exemplary and apostolic life they may be, as it were, a saving leaven in the community. (Ibid., p. 733)
The declaration reaffirmed the Church’s right to establish schools and reminded teachers
that they were responsible for whether or not the Catholic school fulfilled its goals.
While the declaration did not address the question of coeducation directly, it did state that
schools could “assume various forms according to local circumstances” (Flannery, 1998,
p. 734) and reminded schools to “keep modern developments in mind” (Ibid., p. 734),
including exploring other forms of schooling. This change in emphasis highlighted that
structural and political changes were occurring. Hoban would experience the movement
toward change.
105
Although the majority of their work studied the issues of coeducation and gender equity in public schools, Tyack and Hansot (1992) commented on the rise of coeducation in Catholic schools, linking it to Vatican II as well as to economic needs.
The Catholic church [sic] had long regarded coeducation as a violation of the fundamental separation of the sexes, but in Council Vatican II it softened its doctrine somewhat. An increasing proportion of Catholic schools became coeducational, a decision often justified by economic expedience. (p. 280)
While Tyack and Hansot were speaking of schools in Europe, their comments reflected what was occurring in Catholic schools in the United States following Vatican II. In another work, Tyack and Hansot (1988) traced the history of coeducation in public high schools, finding that the two primary reasons that it developed in schools were that coeducation was considered to be expedient and natural (p. 35). Tyack and Hansot
(1988) found that coeducation was one of the “mysteries of educational history” (p. 34) and that citizens generally moved readily from the question of “why to why not” (p. 34), although their acceptance did not imply that they supported a change in gender roles for women within society. Thus the change to coeducation linked to Vatican II, but also exemplified that expedience was a determining factor. Similar changes in structural, political, and human resources were found in Hoban’s move to coeducation after Vatican
II. Despite dropping the co-institutional proposal, and initially rejecting a merger, coeducation eventually became the expedient option, and the question of why did not appear to trouble the community by 1972. Instead, the school community was asking the
Regional Board and the bishop, “Why not?”
The changes found in the Decree and the Declaration represented striking departures from the pronouncements found in previous documents and reflected the
106
influence of Vatican II as it opened up new possibilities within the Church on questions involving the role of the laity in schools and coeducation. These changes would impact
Hoban.
The Diocesan Campaign for the High Schools
In a fall 1967 memo addressed to “the faithful of the Diocese,” Monsignor
Richard E. McHale, Superintendent of Schools, and Monsignor William N. Novicky,
Director of Secondary Schools, gave an account of the Diocese of Cleveland High School
Program (Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled “Issenmann: Church:
Diocese Education: Finances, High School Campaign, 1966-1970”). The two priests reviewed that in 1962 the Diocese of Cleveland had begun a plan to expand the facilities of the high schools. Archbishop Edward F. Hoban had started the campaign, and his successor, Bishop Clarence G. Issenmann, working with his Vicar of Education, the Most
Reverend Clarence E. Elwell, had continued it. The campaign had five goals: 1) to renovate and expand some facilities; 2) to build new plants at some schools that already existed; 3) to purchase property in certain areas for new high schools; 4) to conduct a diocesan wide fund raising campaign; and 5) to construct new schools and further expand existing schools. The 1967 memo stated that from 1962 through 1967, space had been added for nearly 5000 more students and that enrollment increased 26% from 22,700 to
27,500. The same document listed projects that were funded either through existing diocesan funds or through some funds from the High School Campaign that had a goal of
$20 million. In Summit County, the memo listed that Walsh Jesuit, which had opened in
1964, had received $1 million as a contribution for construction and that St. Vincent High
107
School had received $300,451 for renovations and to purchase property to expand. The
memo announced that the Diocese had spent $11,501,839 since 1962.
The same 1967 memo from Monsignors McHale and Novicky (Archives of the
Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled “Issenmann: Church: Diocese Education: Finances,
High School Campaign, 1966-1970”) gave a preview of what else would be happening.
Two coeducational diocesan schools, Lorain Catholic High School and Lake County
Catholic High School, would be built to open in September 1969. For Summit County, the memo described St. Monica High for girls, a school that was to be built at the intersection of Hudson and Hollywood Boulevard in Cuyahoga Falls and staffed by the
Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine. An architectural firm had been hired to design the school. In addition, there were other projects for Cuyahoga County. For Summit
County, there were still plans for a school in the Barberton-Norton-Wadsworth area and
“the first high school in Medina County” (Ibid., 1967 Memo, p. 2). The memo ended by
informing the people that $13 million had been pledged and that about $8 million was
still outstanding. The final note at the very end of the memo stated “Any and all funds
received in the High School Campaign will be used for the expansion of high school
facilities in the Diocese. Funds will not be used for any other purpose” (1967 Memo, p.
2).
The Campaign created an environment that would be changing dramatically. The
potential existed that there would be structural changes as new schools would be
developed. Most strikingly, the political consequences that went with the decisions about
which communities would get the funds and schools were significant. The Summit
108
County Board would work hard to ensure that money and infrastructure came back to the
area after residents had contributed significantly to the Campaign.
Within the same file in the Diocesan Archives was a report that listed
“Contributions to Diocesan High School Campaign, period 2/1/65-11/30/70” (Ibid.).
This report listed the contributions from every parish in the Diocese, and these came to a total of $15,134,280.41 in cash. Unrealized cash contributions from the Trust Fund at St.
Gregory, real estate at St. Basil, and insurance policies totaled $1,225,000. The grand total for all contributions was $16,359,280.41. The report also listed that $2,048,173.34
was earned as interest. The report stated that Actual and Remaining Expenditures in
Summit County were: $400,000 for Our Lady of the Elms, $207,000 for St. Vincent
High School, and $1,000,000 for Walsh.
The money for the Elms and Walsh contributed to the funds for their new school buildings, and those constructions highlighted the poor condition of the older St. Vincent or St. Mary facilities. The large sums of money raised through the Campaign created a
political situation because the Catholics in Summit County wanted to be sure that new
facilities were built in the area, so that the investment reflected the proportion of money
they had contributed. This political question of how to allocate resources heavily
influenced how the Regional Board sought to resolve the high school question.
Another report in the file was labeled “Diocesan High School Campaign Account
Total Receipts & Expenditures 2/1/65-7/31/70” (Ibid.) and listed gross receipts collected
less pledge returns, added in interest, and gave a total of $17,125,941.09. It listed
expenses for the Campaign as $706,688.06, listed the capital costs and grants as well as
loans to the high schools, and, in the end, showed a closing balance of $5,484,095.56.
109
Among the loans charged to interest was an additional $65,000 to St. Vincent. Capital
expenditures and grants listed the $400,000 to Our Lady of the Elms as well as $103,281
for St. Monica.
A letter dated August 20, 1965, from the Most Reverend C.E. Elwell, Auxiliary
Bishop of Cleveland and Superintendent of Schools was sent to “Dear Father, Brother,
and Sister” on August 20, 1965. (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled “Fitch
Correspondence with Diocesan Officials, ’62-’69”). The letter was printed on stationery
for the Board of Catholic Education, Diocese of Cleveland. This letter announced that
the Diocese was about to enter into a Campaign for High Schools and that the “Most
Reverend Bishop has asked all parishes to limit their fund raising activities and has
prohibited individual parish campaigns for a period of two years prior to and during the
Campaign” (Ibid.). In addition, the letter stated that the Executive Committee has
requested that all fund raising activities be curtailed in the high schools from September to December, inclusive. Hence, in accordance, no high school bazaars, raffles, sales, or other types of money-raising projects are to be conducted during this time. As you can readily see, it is essential that all schools strictly observe this moratorium and that they schedule any such activity during the second half of the present school year. (Ibid.)
The Campaign was therefore an important effort within the Diocese of Cleveland to raise
funds for the future of the high schools. The importance was further highlighted by the
fact that parishes and high schools were asked to curtail their efforts at raising money.
A letter dated August 23, 1965, from Brother William Fitch, C.S.C., Principal at
Hoban, to the Most Rev. Clarence E. Elwell referenced receipt of the August 20th letter and sought permission to be exempted from the requirement to suspend fundraising
(Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Fitch correspondence w/Diocesan
110
officials ’62-’69”). Hoban had contracted with World’s Finest Chocolates, and the
company had “advanced the $13,000 anticipated profit from the sale. This money has
been spent and we must fulfill our part of the contract which was negotiated last
February” (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled “Fitch correspondence
w/Diocesan officials ’62-’69”). The letter also mentioned that the opening of Walsh
Jesuit High School
has caused a decrease in our total enrollment by a significant reduction of our freshmen. This problem was anticipated and brought to your attention when the announcement of the building was made. This decrease of students has put an added strain on our present financial picture. Added to this problem is the constant increase in operating costs. These new financial pressures call for a very close budget and constant planning. The income from the chocolate sale is a definite part of our precarious financial balance. (Ibid.)
In a response letter dated August 27, 1965, the Superintendent allowed the exemption since there was a contractual commitment. He also addressed the enrollment issue:
I was hoping that there would be no decrease in enrollment at your high school this year, even with the opening of the Jesuit high school. At present we are enrolling well less that half of the potential Catholic high school students in the Akron area. I’m sure concentrated efforts will close the gap next year. (Ibid.)
This optimistic statement did not reflect Hoban’s reality. The chocolate sales continued, but so would the decline in enrollment and financial challenges that the established
Akron area Catholic schools would have to face.
Political questions loomed large in the wake of the Campaign. The Diocese had collected significant sums of money, but there were still financial strains in the high schools in Summit County. Hoban’s experience of needing to continue a chocolate drive because the money had already been spent highlighted how scarce resources were. The
111
innocent confidence from the diocesan official that enrollment would increase the following year indicated that there was a gap in how realistically officials perceived the gravity of the financial crisis for Hoban.
Another challenge was developing throughout the area. A result of the Campaign was that Catholics in Summit County developed a concern that, although they had contributed significantly to the Campaign, there was little real investment in high schools in Summit County. Brother Barry Lambour, C.S.C., referenced this concern in a letter written to Ms. Riede on November 28, 1969. The next meeting of the Summit County
Board on December 2, 1969, would address the high school question, and Brother Barry felt the need for “a time table for action” (Personal file of S. Riede). Brother Barry stated that the Board members felt the need for action because “There has been such a delay in action following the High School Fund Drive, that doing something to implement the promises of that campaign assumes a character of great urgency” (Ibid.). New schools mentioned in the memo never materialized. From the list of schools mentioned above, those schools that were never built were: St. Monica’s; a school in the Barberton-
Norton-Wadsworth area; and a Medina County high school. In 1970 through 1973, as more questions were asked in Summit County about coeducation and how high schools should be configured, the perceived lack of investment in Summit County from the
Campaign became a refrain repeated often.
Financial concerns continued to plague Hoban and the other high schools in
Summit County. While trying to resolve these issues, the political question of whether funds from the Campaign for the High Schools would ever be spent in Summit County
112
became a high priority for the Regional Board and for the administrators of the high schools.
The Summit County Survey
In April 1968, Bardsley & Haslacher, Inc. published a Report and Analysis of the
Attitude and Opinion Study of Catholic Education and High School Sites, Summit County,
Ohio (Bardsley & Haslacher, 1968). Bardsley & Haslacher, Inc. were described as
“marketing research consultants” on the title page of the study, with offices in Portland,
Oregon, Palo Alto, California, and Salt Lake City, Utah. The synopsis revealed that the survey was conducted among Catholic households in Summit County. Its objectives were: “to measure the attitudes toward Catholic High School education; to determine the preferred type of schooling facility; and to ascertain the site most desired” (Ibid., p. 1). In the methodology section, the researchers described how data were
obtained from government agencies and school boards of Summit County and the City of Akron; the Board of Catholic Education, Diocese of Cleveland; The Chancery, Diocese of Cleveland; and a survey by Bardsley & Haslacher, Inc., of Catholic persons living in the county. (Ibid., p. 2)
A data analyst compiled and interpreted population figures, school enrollment data, and parish rosters, and the statistics that were generated “were accepted as being accurate with discrepancies being noted” (Ibid.). The survey was given to a random sample of
Catholic households that had been created from the rosters of the individual parishes in
Summit County. “It is firmly believed, that within minor tolerances which any sample of
113
human beings must accept, the results shown are projectable to the Catholic population in
Summit County, Ohio” (Ibid.).
The fieldwork for the study began in January 1968 and finished in March 1968.
The report explained how the random numbers were assigned. Primary and secondary listings of parish members were forwarded to the Field Supervisor, and “experienced research interviewers” (Bardsley & Haslacher, 1968, p. 3) received personal training from an executive from the company and were “given identical instructions for obtaining respondents” (Ibid.). If after they made two attempts to contact a person they were unsuccessful, or if another person was living at the given address, the researchers would move to names on the secondary listing. The researchers conducted a total of 780 interviews with about 60% women and 40% men. The report gave ranges of variability for the total sample. A Project Coordinator supervised the editing and coding of completed questionnaires by experienced personnel. Data were transferred to computer cards and “tabulated on a Control Data Corporation 3800 computer using a customized research program developed and owned exclusively by Bardsley & Haslacher, Inc.”
(Ibid., p. 4).
The study concluded that the 107,153 Catholics in Summit County represented
18.42% of the total population, and projected that the 1980 Catholic population would grow to 21%. The study found that there were 105,000 elementary and secondary students in Summit County, and that 16% of those students attended Catholic schools.
The study reached the following conclusion:
Although the percentage of total county population which is Catholic is increasing, the growth rate of Catholic education is not commensurate. The increases in Catholic school population experienced
114
in the five years from 1952-1957 decreased substantially in the period 1957-1962. The growth rate was reduced sharply in the public school system within the county in the period 1962-1967, and actually became a minus figure in this period for Parochial [elementary] schools. (Bardsley & Haslacher, 1968, pp. 15-17)
The report included the information found in Table 4.1 about High School Enrollment from 1952-1968.
Table 4.1
High School Enrollment
Elms Hoban St. Mary’s St. Vincent’s Walsh
1952-3 175 --- 610 675 ---
1957-8 250 729 737 780 ---
1962-3 300 1100 614 800 ---
1967-8 338 1010 650 786 514
Source: Bardsley & Haslacher, 1968, p. 18
The study found that with the Catholic high school enrollment at 3,298 students in
1967, schools were at 78.78% of capacity. One reason that two out of five Catholic parents gave for not sending their students to Catholic high schools included the expense, but it was less important for parents of girls than for parents of boys. The researchers found that there was a positive overall attitude about Catholic education on the high school level. Three out of five parents favored a Catholic high school over the arrangement of a CCD Center adjacent to a public high school. Parents of high school students were “more aware” (Ibid., p. 7) of plans to build more facilities for Catholic high schools. They preferred that Hoban would become coeducational. “The first choice of
115
parents of school age children is to have Hoban become a co-educational [sic] school”
(Ibid., p. 1)
The researchers discovered that 68.9% of parents preferred coeducational high
schools, while 15.5% favored single-sex schools and 13.3% favored co-institutional
schools. The researchers stated: “Co-educational [sic] schooling was preferred primarily
because the respondents felt it to be a ‘more natural’ situation for boys and girls”
(Bardsley & Haslacher, 1968, p. 7). The parents responses’ showed that, of the 82.5%
preferring coeducation for the naturalness of the environment, three categories grouped
their primary reasons for wanting boys and girls together in high school: “should be
getting along” (39.0%); “better adjusted, healthier, more normal” (26.6%); and “believe
should be together” (16.9%) (Ibid., p. 32). The survey asked respondents who preferred
coeducation to rank their preferences about sites for such a high school. The researchers concluded: “Based on preferences for the type of school, the facility and site, the first choice is Hoban becoming co-educational [sic], of course, at its present site. Second choice is to locate St. Vincent’s at Cuyahoga Falls” (Ibid., p. 8). This survey gave statistical reasons to support that a structural change to coeducation at Hoban would be politically wise and would meet the needs expressed by the community.
The Bardsley & Haslacher (1968) study provided a research base for the
discussions that were taking place about coeducation in the Catholic high schools in
Summit County. There was a Summit County Regional Planning Committee, and
Brother Barry Lambour, C.S.C., was Superintendent of the Summit Region. On April 25,
1969, he wrote a letter to Dr. Alden H. Blankenship who was Director of the Department of Administrative Services of the Educational Research Council of America, which was
116
located in Cleveland. In this letter, Brother Barry requested that the Council prepare a
“popularized version” of the study (Personal files of Sally Riede). On May 28, 1969,
Lawrence Marquit, a Research Associate, responded to Brother Barry’s request. The letter summarized the objectives of the study and how the data were gathered. The letter analyzed responses as well as the methodology used in the study, making suggestions for how the research might have been improved by asking different questions. Marquit cautioned against drawing inferences and accepting them as fact. He concluded that, “I don’t think that the study should be used when considering any plans for Catholic education. Statistically speaking, the sample size of 780 is acceptable. The problem is in the procedures…” (Personal files of Sally Riede, Marquit letter, p. 3). Marquit listed six aspects of the research that concerned him. Several times he criticized the language used as too vague, resulting in inferences rather than causal relationships. He found that the sample was biased because only members of parishes were surveyed. Because parishes provided selected lists of members, Marquit found that the sample was selected rather than random and that the amount of variability was too great. Not everyone answered every question, and Marquit claimed that the total number of respondents surveyed and the number of those who responded to individual questions were not given.
Even if the Bardsley & Haslacher (1968) study was flawed in some respects, it was important that there had been an attempt to gather data for decision making. The fact that there was evidence that Catholic parents preferred coeducation gave an impetus to the leaders of Catholic education in Summit County to pursue different arrangements for the high schools. Structural changes would be needed, and the political questions were large. The leaders who explored these questions included the Hoban Advisory Board and
117
the Summit County Board of Catholic Education. A change in the culture of those who supported Catholic education suggested that coeducation was an important option to explore.
The Summit County Board of Catholic Education
Brother Barry Lambour, C.S.C., was selected by the Diocese of Cleveland to
become the Regional Superintendent for the Summit County Office of the Board of
Catholic Education, receiving his appointment from Bishop Clarence G. Issenmann,
Bishop of Cleveland, on June 10, 1969 according to the August, 1969 Newsletter
(Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled, “Issenmann: Church: Diocese,
Board of Catholic Education, Summit County Office, Newsletter, 1969-1972”). The members of the Summit County Board of Catholic Education were also appointed by
Bishop Issenmann on the same day, and the Board held its first meeting at Our Lady of
the Elms High School on June 16, 1969. The Bishop appointed Mr. M.G. O’Neil, Sally
Riede, Sister Mary Rose, O.P., Raymond Hromco, Richard P. Culbertson, the Rev. John
J. Hilkert, the Rev. John Archibald, and Brother Barry Lambour, C.S.C. As recorded in
minutes of meetings and reports, by 1972 this group also referred to itself as the Akron
Regional Board of Catholic Education (ARBCE). The minutes record that the first
meeting dealt with locations where the Board could establish an office, arrangements for
the first public meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 26, 1969, at Walsh Jesuit High
School, the establishment of a commission on restructuring of the Catholic Board of
Education, public hearings with the regional board, a problem at a local parish,
118
suggestions for a newsletter, and adjournment (Minutes of the “Meeting of the Summit
County Board of Catholic Education, June 16, 1969” in personal files of Sally Riede).
These same minutes also included a draft of a policy statement for the Board.
It shall be the policy of the Summit County Board of Catholic Education
1) To provide the best Christian Education for the greatest number of students at the secondary and elementary levels in the Summit County area, 2) To welcome suggestions and proposals and to discuss problems brought before this Board by any group for the advancement of Catholic Education in this area, 3) To resolve problems and to utilize proposals to the best advantage of all concerned, 4) To make final decisions on local educational matters within the framework of the policies of the Diocesan Board of Catholic Education, 5) To refer all matters that affect regions other than our own to the Diocesan School Board for corporate decisions. (June 16, 1969 Minutes)
The final draft of these policies appeared in the August, 1969, Newsletter (p. 4) as the statement of policy, with the only revision occurring in item 4, which became, “To make final decisions on local educational matters within the framework of the broader
Diocesan School Board Policy” (italics added). This regional board thus acted under the
auspices of the Diocesan Board of Catholic Education.
This was the first of the regional boards, and there were discussions about
whether the model should expand to other regions in the Diocese as well. In a copy of
the Summit County Regional Board’s presentation to the Commission on Restructuring
on June 28, 1969 (Personal files of S. Riede), four suggestions appeared. First, Summit
County’s Board proposed a system of regional boards responsible for educational issues
it their areas, along with the creation of a Central Board of Catholic Education. This
119
Board would be comprised from members of each regional board and at-large-members
and would be responsible for “the broader educational interests of the Diocese in matters
that cannot be determined by a regional board, and in affairs in which Diocesan-wide advantage can be gained through the collegial action of all regional boards” (Ibid.) The second suggestion was that the Bishop would appoint all members for the regional boards and the Central Board’s at-large members, each regional board would select one representative for the Central Board, religious communities would have two representatives (one from the men’s and one from the women’s communities), and other at large members could be appointed to the Central Board’s 10-15 seats (Personal files of
Sally Riede, Board presentation, p. 2). The third suggestion proposed that the regional and Central boards should have autonomy, giving proper deference to the Bishop, but saying that he would not have veto power. The copy of the proposal gives this rationale:
“The basis for this statement lies in the belief that Catholic schools in the future will have to rely on government funds for a significant part of their support” (Ibid., p. 3). This statement might have been related to ongoing discussions that culminated in the July,
1969 passage of House Bill 531 by the Ohio Senate, granting $50 per child in nonpublic schools as assistance along with lay teacher salary supplements for the secular subjects
they taught (Personal files of S. Riede, copy of The Focus: Newsletter of the Catholic
Conference of Ohio, 3, 25, pp. 132-133). The final recommendation proposed that the
regional board would be
constituted the legal owner of all the Catholic schools under its purview and direction. Such ownership is a necessity if the desired autonomy and authority is to be realized. The system of support shall continue to be exercised through the parishes, but there shall be two separate records of accounting for
120
expenditures—one for the school, one for the church—and two operations, the church and the school, acting harmoniously but under separate jurisdictions. (Ibid.)
These suggestions covered a broad range of issues, indicating how highly innovative
were approaches that the Summit County Board considered. This very active regional
board would lead the high schools in Summit County through major changes in a
relatively short time span (1970-1973). There were significant structural, political, human resources, and symbolic changes that set the stage for the work of the Regional
Board. The new role for the laity in political decisions affecting the operations of the
schools and the relationship with the Diocesan Board represented important changes in
all these frames.
The Golden Age of Boardsmanship
Sally Riede, a member of both the Diocesan Board and of the Summit Regional
Board, described this era as “the golden age of boardsmanship” (Personal interview,
2005). Information gleaned from the documents from the time period and from
interviews conducted in 2005 provided evidence that the boards were very active in the
field of education within the Diocese during the years important to this research. We
have already looked at the beginnings of the Hoban lay advisory board. The previous
section made reference to a Commission on Restructuring that the Diocesan Board had
formed and before which people came to make presentations. The Summit County
Board, as a pilot regional board, provided a voice for the Catholics in Summit County.
Because of the separation from Cuyahoga County, there were perceptions before the
Summit County Regional Board existed that the needs of Catholics in Summit County
did not get as much attention. The Campaign for the High Schools and the lack of visible
121
investment in Summit County had exacerbated the situation. The regional board was a unique attempt to resolve issues.
An undated report entitled, “Report on the Summit County Regional Planning
Committee” and signed by Mrs. David C. Riede, Chairman, Summit County Planning explained the origin of the Summit County Board (Personal file of S. Riede). The context suggested that the report had been prepared for the Diocesan Board of Education, of which Ms. Riede was also a member. According to the document, the Summit County
Planning Commission was established in November (presumably of 1968), and the five members were assigned two objectives: to find an office for the Regional Board of
Education and to set up the guidelines that the Regional Board would follow once it was established. The report stated that later in November the appointed members met with
Monsignor McHale,
who further explained our duties and also explained the fact that since this will be the first Regional Board to be set up in the country, there is no precedent from which to work and therefore guidelines and the relationship of the Regional Board to the Diocesan Board should be explored at great length. (Ibid.)
This ground-breaking group was hard working and quickly got to the task of learning how to work together as a board.
To prepare for the work of the Summit County Planning Committee, there was a
Seminar on Group Function held on January 8, 1969, at the University Club on Fir Hill
Street and sponsored by the Department of Administrative Services, Educational
Research Council of America, according to a copy of the agenda from the meeting
(Personal files of S. Riede). Dr. Alden Blankenship, Director, and Dr. Lawrence J.
Marquit, Research Associate, of the sponsoring agency were the presenters. Msgr.
122
McHale from the Diocese explained the purpose of the workshop and Mr. Paul
Morehouse, from the Akron Board of Education and Manager of Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company, discussed “Some Problems of Boardsmanship” (Personal files of S.
Riede.). The participants were: Father Archibald, Richard Culbertson, Father Hilkert,
M.G. O’Neil, Sally Riede, and Sister Mary Rose, O.P. During their group discussions, they addressed three questions:
1. How can we work to improve the quality of Catholic education? 2. How can we improve our meetings? 3. How can we develop a clear identification of our role in relation to the Diocesan Board? (Personal files of S. Riede)
The Summit County Board took up the Planning Commission tasks and scheduled meetings with administrators, teachers, parents, and students from schools in the region.
After the Summit County Board set up its office in Akron, the group began to correspond with the Diocese and the schools to establish the documents necessary to clarify the authority of the Board. The issue of who would authorize mergers or similar major changes was a thorny problem that did not resolve itself quickly. The question of what to do about secondary education in the region rose to the surface as a significant issue for the Board. The high school question was a large problem that the Board tried to resolve.
The High School Question and Various Proposals
Through the meetings that the Planning Committee conducted, the Summit
County Board realized that a major issue was the high school situation. In the minutes of the October 7, 1969, meeting of the Summit County Board, Father Hilkert reported on a meeting with the City Planners of Akron, Mr. Petrino and Mr. Alkar, who informed the
123
Board that there was no property “available in the inner City [sic] for school purposes in
the amount that would be required—some 25 to 50 acres. This pointed to the need to
look at the Hoban property for possible expansion” (Personal files of S. Riede). There
had been interest in land around Opportunity Park for a Central Catholic High School.
(Archives of the Diocese, file entitled, “High School, Archbishop Hoban” in the
“Meeting with Hoban School Board, January 7, 1976”). According to a copy of the
Agenda for a meeting of the Summit County Board held on November 3, 1969, the Board put forward a process for a series of meetings that would allow the Board to develop and
implement “a proposed solution to the high school question (Personal files of S. Riede).
The Board considered that in Phase I, a preliminary proposal would be presented to
provincials and to diocesan officials. “We understand that these officers will have to
clear the proposal with their advisers, so that additional work will have to be carried out
to negotiate changes” (Ibid.). After these groups cleared the proposal, it would be
presented to elementary and high school principals and to pastors. Phase II was that the
Summit County Board would get the formal approval from the Diocesan Board of
Education and then present the proposal to the Bishop. Phase III suggested a way to
“Take plan to the Catholic public” (Ibid.) The overall question that guided the work of
the Board was: “What solution will effect the greatest good for the Catholic people of
Summit County and for Summit County itself?” (Ibid.). The agenda noted points of
concern, including: that there was some “polarization of opinion” (Ibid.) because some
details had leaked out; that, “The high school principals tend to act independently and
unilaterally”; and that the admissions process would begin in January for the high
schools, so a decision should be made before then “if it is humanly possible” (Ibid.) The
124
agenda favored a comprehensive high school for the Catholic students in Summit County, one that
would admit all Catholic students who are required by law to attend school (MR would be excluded, because the attendance law does not apply to them). In short, our Summit County comprehensive Catholic high school could be one that “parents can get their children into…” (Personal files of S. Riede)
There were planning sheets attached to this agenda, labeled “Top Drawer Confidential.”
Five different worksheets described possible ways that the current schools could be realigned, what construction would be necessary to meet each proposal, enrollment projections, and notes about the character and operation, reaction, advantages, and disadvantages of each proposal. In addition to those proposals, the principal at St.
Mary’s High School had submitted a proposal to the Board. All possible cases were considered, but whether St. Mary’s should merge with Hoban or Walsh seemed to garner the most attention. In a letter to Ms. Riede on November 29, 1969, Brother Barry had attached an agenda for the December 2 public meeting of the Board, and those two mergers were listed as proposals (Personal files of S. Riede). The Board acknowledged that such mergers would have involved ownership changes for the two schools owned by religious congregations, Hoban and Walsh (Ibid.).
There was a meeting on December 4, 1969, with the members of the Summit
County Board, Brother Barry, Sister Dorothy Mattingly, O.P. (an Educational Consultant for elementary schools in the Region), major superiors/provincials of the religious communities staffing schools in Summit County, and Father Moraghan, Director of St.
Vincent High School. The minutes of that meeting reflected that Brother Charles Krupp,
C.S.C., posed the question of whether the Diocese of Cleveland would consider buying
125
back owned property such as Hoban, whereby the brothers would sell back the property
and ask only for reimbursement for improvements and then they would staff the school
“with the same proportion as any of the other schools staffed by the Brothers of Holy
Cross” (Personal files of S. Riede). Father Farrell, S.J., the Jesuit Provincial of the
Detroit Province, was present and pointed out that Walsh was a “competitive College
Prep. School” and that it had been started because the “Jesuits moved in to give an education which was not there (in S.C. [Summit County])” (Ibid). The Board wondered with whom all this information should be shared. The meeting had also addressed whether faculty could be shared among the schools, but the problem of transportation came up. The minutes also addressed the need to get more information from the Diocese about approval and financing. The minutes pointed out that the Provincials noted that the
Bishop, not the Board, could make a presentation to the Provincials, and that there would be no more religious available for staffing schools, and probably fewer (Ibid.). The
Bishop/Provincial protocol was an important structural and political consideration, and the staffing issue was a significant human resource issue. There were also concerns raised about making any announcement so close to the January 25th date for admissions
decisions by students planning to enroll in Catholic high schools. At the January 13,
1970, meeting of Diocesan Board of Education, Ms. Riede read a strong “Statement from
the Summit County Board of Catholic Education on the Current Status of the High
School Situation” (Personal files of S. Riede). The statement reiterated the work that the
Summit Board had done in the short time since its appointment (and even before), noting
that it had
126
directed a major portion of our time and energies to studying the high school situation with reference to making use of the funds from the recent High School campaign in the most efficient way possible, while at the same time reflecting the wants and needs of the people in Summit County. (Ibid.)
The statement mentioned that Diocesan officials had not responded to the Summit
Board’s requests, even though “vocal and written explanations of all meetings have been
passed along to the Superintendent, the Vicar, and to both Bishops” (Personal files of
Sally Riede). The statement requested a meeting before the January 25th deadline which
was looming.
The pressure of the January 25 deadline was to bring to a plausible and successful end the many months—no years—of frustrations for those in our area over many plans and promises, but no action. Now we must also submit these people of Summit County to this same frustration of plans and promises—and now no action. We can still begin “phase one” of our program if only one meeting and the answers to the three basic questions can take place this week. (Ibid.)
A “Confirmation Memo” from Brother Barry dated January 15, 1970, was sent to
Msgr. Novicky, Superintendent, to Father Hilkert, Pastor at St. Mary Church, and to
Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., Provincial. A meeting with Bishop Issenmann was arranged for January 22, 1970 to discuss “the plans for high school realinment [sic] in
Summit County” (Ibid.).
The meeting must have been successful, because a press release dated January 31,
1970, reported that the Board of Catholic Education of Summit County was drafting a
proposal that would be submitted to the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who
staffed St. Mary High School, and to the Brothers of Holy Cross, who staffed Hoban
(Ibid). The membership of the two orders would have to act on the proposal, which
suggested September 1971 for the coeducational high school on the Hoban site. St.
127
Mary’s would enroll a class for September 1971. The proposal assured the two teaching
orders that Hoban’s facilities would be “enlarged and modified to accommodate the
expected increased student body. All other details of the proposal dealing with administrative and academic alignment will not be made public until decisions have been made by the two teaching orders” (Personal files of S. Riede).
In the end, the configuration that the Board supported was that Our Lady of the
Elms High School would remain all girls, Walsh Jesuit would remain all boys, St.
Vincent would remain coeducational although concerns about the building remained, and
Hoban and St. Mary’s would merge. The January 31 press release also said that the
Board’s studies of “establishing additional educational facilities in the northern end of the county most likely will not be completed until early spring” (Ibid.). Thus, the primary structural, political, and human resource changes were embedded in the merger proposal for St. Mary’s and Hoban, while the other schools would continue to operate according to the status quo.
The Bishop of Cleveland
Bishop Issenmann was the Bishop of Cleveland who succeeded Archbishop
Hoban. He was an external influence on the events in my study because he impacted
Hoban’s decision making. Ultimately, the school sought his approval for any major changes. As the stories about each critical incident will show, he played a role in raising the issue of changing from an all boys school. He either personally or through an agency of the diocese, such as the Summit County Board, exercised influence.
The First Critical Incident: A Co-institutional School
128
The first decision point or critical incident in the story thus began in the 1960s.
The decision point was to resolve the question of whether Hoban should establish a co- institutional school with St. Mary High School. Correspondence between the Diocese and the principal, Brother William Fitch, C.S.C., illustrated how the question developed in formal channels. At that time, the brothers sought permission from the Bishop if they
wanted to make a major change at the school, even increasing tuition (Archives of the
Midwest Province, file entitled “Fitch correspondence with Diocesan officials, 1962-
1969”). A letter from the Most Reverend Clarence E. Elwell, V.G., Auxiliary Bishop of
Cleveland, dated January 24, 1968 and addressed to Brother William Fitch, C.S.C., the
principal at Hoban, discussed the possibility of building a girls’ school (Ibid.). In the
letter, Bishop Elwell referred to a January 16th letter from Brother William to Bishop
Issenmann and explained that Bishop Issenmann had asked him to get a response from
Brother William on several issues. He requested a sketch of the Hoban property to show
where two acres were located that Hoban’s neighbor, the Children’s Services Board,
wanted, and then explained that he was asked to bring up a specific matter, “the advisability of building a new girls’ high school (perhaps a relocated St. Mary’s) on the property adjacent to Archbishop Hoban High School with the possibility of easy interchange of faculties, common use of facilities, etc., etc.” (Ibid.). In a response letter
dated January 29, 1968, Brother William explained that the two acres were “of relatively
little value to our institution because of the topography of the land,” and he concluded the
letter by writing: “Archbishop Hoban High School has no objection to the possibility of
locating a girls’ school on our property. Further discussion on this matter would be
interesting” (Ibid.).
129
During this time period, the brothers lived together in a residence at Hoban, and minutes were kept of the House Meetings. On November 7, 1967, the minutes reported
“Br. William [Fitch, Principal] announced that a committee of one hundred Akron laymen has been formed to discuss where the new St. Mary’s will be located. A study of the pattern of the area’s Catholic population is planned” (Archives of the Midwest
Province, file entitled “Minutes of House meetings, 1954-1979”). The February 5, 1968, minutes of the House meeting referenced that “Br. William presented some dittoed notes on alternatives for Hoban High School” (“Minutes of House meetings” file). A document entitled “A Proposal for the building of a girl’s [sic] school connected to the present Archbishop Hoban High School building” (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled “Lay Advisory Board ’63-’67”) listed nine advantages for moving St. Mary’s to Hoban’s site. The proposal was for a co-institutional arrangement. The nine advantages were: 1) transportation would be easier; 2) the per pupil cost could be lowered by sharing facilities; 3) the ability to construct a new library to serve both schools; 4) the ability to share faculties and to reduce the number of teachers needed, as well as broaden the curriculum; 5) scheduling social events would be easier; 6) it would settle the uncertainty surrounding St. Mary’s High School, allowing autonomy of administrations but centralization of bookkeeping and financing; 7) extra-curricular expenses could be reduced; 8) it would allow a reduction in clerical help, office staff, and cafeteria help; and 9) more girls could be accommodated and there would be no disruption to operations at the current St. Mary’s during construction (Ibid.). In each advantage, there was always a mention of the financial savings that would accrue.
Under the fourth advantage point, Brother William had written:
130
For example, St. Mary’s and Hoban presently share the services of our Brother teaching Physics. Next year the plans indicate that we will share the services of a Latin teacher for small enrollment in Latin III and Latin IV. (Ibid) Then as now, Brother Joseph LeBon, C.S.C., was the Latin teacher at Hoban. In his interview with me, he shared insights about his experiences teaching the girls from St.
Mary’s.
Prior to any discussion of coeducation, I had taught one year at St. Mary’s High School. I taught one class in Latin II over there because their Latin teacher had died. They wanted to discontinue Latin, but they had one group of girls who had taken Latin I and they wanted to allow them to take Latin II. It was a first-period class. I would go over there for first period and then come back and teach the remainder of my day at Hoban. So I had some experience in teaching in an all boys environment and some experience in teaching in an all girls environment. It is very interesting, the tenor of the voice pitch in the corridors between classes. With all boys, it was a very deep tenor, and over at the all girls school it was very shrill. Now in our situation, it is kind of modulated. The other experience I had teaching girls was in the third and fourth year Latin. They would send St. Mary’s girls to Hoban if they wanted to take third and fourth years. So my advanced classes were coeducational. We also did that kind of an exchange for Physics: they sent some girls over to take Physics, which we called “Powder Puff Physics.” So, I had three experiences in teaching in my earlier years. I had coeducational classes at Hoban and, of course, all boys classes and one class in all girls. My preference was coeducation, personally. (Personal interview, 2005)
Thus, there was a relationship with St. Mary’s that was pragmatic, meeting needs of the
students and schools. The proposal for a co-institutional arrangement which the Diocese
had asked Hoban to consider had potential advantages for both schools. What exactly
happened with this proposal was unclear. Mr. Aylward reported that there were
discussions with the principal at St. Mary’s, and that the idea of the schools joining was
popular (Personal interview, 2005). According to his account, the sisters at St. Mary’s
consulted with the Diocese, but the Diocese rejected the plan. I could not find any
131
corroboration of this outcome in the files at either the diocesan archives or at the Midwest
province’s archives. Another possible explanation came from Brother Edward Libbers,
C.S.C., when he stated in his interview that:
[Brother William] was the primary proponent of this. Unfortunately, he left Hoban and was replaced by Brother John Benesh who was new to the school, and I don’t think he had a full understanding of how serious the problem was. He seemed reluctant to go in the direction of going coed. (Personal interview, 2005)
Thus, whether there was an actual decision made not to become a co-institutional school
is unclear. The outcome was that this proposal was tabled by the time Brother William
Fitch, C.S.C., ended his term as principal and Brother John Benesh became principal in
1969.
The brothers were also investigating other options that they might have for the
property. As talk of possible consolidations or mergers began, the brothers sought out
others who might be interested in the property should Hoban relocate. A September 27,
1968, letter from Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., Provincial, addressed to the Very Rev.
Msgr. William N. Novicky, Board of Catholic Education in Cleveland, discussed that
Conrad Ott, Superintendent of the Akron Public Schools, “continues to be interested in
purchasing the Hoban High School property and that His Excellency Bishop Issenmann is
in favor of the general plan” (Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled, “High
School, Archbishop Hoban”). Mr. Ott confirmed that he had been interested in the
property, especially with Dowed Stadium, as a place to relocate East High School
(Personal interview, 2005). Mr. Ott recalled that he had met with Brother Charles Krupp,
C.S.C., but that discussions had stopped there. In his letter to Msgr. Novicky, Brother
Charles had requested that he be informed if there was a possibility that the Akron board
132
would be acting on the proposal because he would need to arrange to submit it to the members of the province. No further action was taken on this proposal.
The Second Critical Incident: The Merger Proposal and the 1970 Chapter
The House minutes of the brothers living at Hoban as recorded by Brother Joseph
LeBon, C.S.C., reported that on January 25, 1970, there was a special meeting between the brothers and the Summit County Board of Catholic Education to discuss the proposal that Hoban should merge with St. Mary High School (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “House minutes”). Making the presentation for the Summit Board were:
Brother Barry Lambour, C.S.C., Sister Dorothy Mattingly, O.P., Sally Riede, Father
Hilkert, M.G. O’Neil, and Richard Culbertson. Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., the
Provincial, was also present. Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., the principal, welcomed everyone, and then the brothers made statements. Brother John and Brother Leonardo
Bebetu, C.S.C., both believed that the matter should go before the 1970 Provincial
Chapter. Brother Edward Libbers, C.S.C., agreed and also expressed concern about administrative issues such as needing time to reorganize the curriculum. Brother
Kenneth Chappuis, C.S.C., said that the original interest in coeducation was financially motivated, but he did not see such a problem now and that perhaps people in Akron would want the option for single-sex schools maintained. Brother Robert Lavelle,
C.S.C., agreed that initially there were financial issues, stated that St. Vincent was not turning away applicants, wondered whether the Bardsley & Haslacher study which was eighteen months old might now be out of date, and suggested that the merger question should come before the Province. Brother John Federovicz, C.S.C., stated that he would like more time to study the latest finding about advantages of coeducation, noted that the
133
Akron Public Schools were considering separating the sexes, and suggested that Conrad
Ott, superintendent of the Akron schools, should be consulted. Brother Donald Morgan,
C.S.C., said that he preferred all boys, but would “go along” if there were a need and that he thought that the matter should come before the Province. Brother Donald Stabrowski,
C.S.C., identified himself as the Director of Studies, and said that it seemed “impossible” to imagine going coeducational by September 1970.
Ms. Riede then said that many of the points the Brothers made were good ones, and that the Board had thought about them. “She then made a formal (verbal) presentation of the proposal” (House minutes). No details of the specific components of the proposal were recorded in the House minutes. The minutes reflected that Sister
Dorothy gave population statistics and projections. Following a “long discussion” (Ibid.), the meeting wrapped up. “At the end, the Brothers seemed less skeptical. Brother
Charles Krupp said that this would be placed on the agenda of the Spring session of the
Provincial Chapter, and invited the Board members to address the Chapter” (Ibid.). The
House minutes of March 31, 1970, also recorded by Brother Joseph LeBon, C.S.C., as
Secretary, noted that Hoban’s Local Chapter met at 9 p.m. that day to discuss the written copy of the merger proposal that had arrived by mail.
A written copy of the proposal was in the Diocesan Archives (Archives of the
Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled “High School, Archbishop Hoban”). The proposal began with a “Prologue” and summarized “Studies Leading to the Recommendation”
(Ibid., p. 1). In the second section, the proposal explained that parents wanted a
“comprehensive, coed high school” and that there was no large enough parcel of land available from Akron (Ibid., p. 2). The proposal said that city planners recommended
134
that “we further develop the resources we have presently, and encourage us to stay in the downtown area” (Hoban file). The proposal mentioned the Campaign for the High
Schools, which had been done for a year, and “has left the Catholic population here angry and anxious for the problem to be resolved as soon as possible” (Ibid.). The proposal described that the Board had approached the Brothers of Holy Cross, the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Pastor at St. Mary’s parish and others about the possibility of the merger. This was not going to be the only project, but was “part of the total plan for the development of high school resources” (Ibid.). There was a set of eight guidelines included with the proposal, and these were signed by Bishop Issenmann on
March 6, 1970 (Ibid.). The eight guidelines stated that: 1) the diocese was in “whole hearted agreement” with the merger; 2) that the new consolidated facility was to be coeducational; 3) that the diocese was proposing that the Brothers of Holy Cross own and operate the new facility; 4) that any funds for remodeling or expansion were to be
“underwritten by funds from the Diocesan High School Campaign;” 5) the brothers were not to incur an operational deficit, and that if one developed, it would be determined by
Hoban, the Summit County Board, and others if necessary; 6) an architect was to be chosen for drawing up preliminary plans to adapt the school to coeducation; 7) Brother
Barry Lambour was to coordinate the project as the Diocesan Superintendent; and 8)
Father Hilkert, the pastor at St. Mary’s, agreed with the need for the new facility.
The proposal also contained a document that provided information about the role and responsibilities of the Summit County Board. A final document in the file was entitled “Basic Assumptions of the Summit County Board Recommendation” (Ibid.).
There were seven basic assumptions. The first one was that all understood what type of
135
school the Board hoped to see developed. The second assumption was that the school would operate “in cooperation with the policies of the Summit County Board” (Hoban file, p. 1). There had been discussions about whether the school would accept all students or be more selective, and the third assumption addressed the concern that the people wanted their children to be able to get into the school. The fourth assumption was a commitment by the Summit County Board to explore funding sources, both Church and civil, to help keep tuition costs down. The fifth assumption discussed the hope that the richness of the heritages of both schools could be preserved, and also enhanced. The sixth assumption reaffirmed that the IHM sisters had a strong commitment to working with the people of Akron. The document ended with a compliment to the Brothers of
Holy Cross for the “outstanding secondary school for boys in the Akron area,” and hoped for “new heights of excellence” (Ibid., p. 2).
The Fifth Provincial Chapter of the Midwest Province of the Brothers of Holy
Cross opened with a mass on April 2, 1970 (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Provincial Chapter files, 1970, B”). The first meeting was on April 3, and
Brother Charles Krupp, the Provincial, gave his report on the state of the Province. In his report, he discussed the changes that had been going on within the Province, echoing themes that emerged after Vatican II and in the 1970s.
Nobody denies that many of our men are bewildered by changes in the Church and in the province these past two or three years. Some question new ideas about religious life, the changes in house schedules, the attitude of certain ones to daily Mass and other traditional community exercises, the removal of familiar structures, the changing concept of obedience. These, and other matters, have a dispiriting effect on some of our brothers. On the other hand, there have been many encouraging signs during the past year. In general, there’s a greater confidence in the province’s
136
efforts at renewal and in its apostolates—not to mention its future. Interpersonal relationships are much improved. There’s clear evidence of better relationship with those in authority. The competence and effectiveness of our religious generally are on the rise. Most are trying hard to develop a life style in keeping with our constitutions and suited to our times. (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Provincial Chapter files, 1970, A,” pp. 1-2)
Brother Charles also addressed the issue of the decline in the number of brothers in the
Midwest Province, a change that began in 1964. He reported that there were a total of
1,219 in the three brothers’ provinces in 1964, with 548 in the Midwest, but that by
September 1969, there were a total of 1,040 brothers with 470 in the Midwest. From
1964 to 1969, the number of finally professed brothers in the Midwest declined from 399 to 381. Brother Charles summarized:
The figures indicate that for us the greatest decline over the past eight years has been in number of temporarily professed and novices…Personally I am convinced that we can reverse what to some may seem an unalterable trend; we’ll grow in numbers if our lives and our efforts equal the needs of our times. (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Provincial Chapter files, 1970, A,” p. 7)
In a section on “The Apostolate,” Brother Charles mentioned the property schools.
Hoban was one of those schools but was not listed by name. There was no mention of the proposal about the merger that would be presented to the Chapter. Brother Charles made these comments about the property schools:
Our property schools are in a healthy state. It’s true they are feeling the effects of rising operational costs and are working on tight budgets. But at present none is in dire straits. Enrollments have remained fairly stable, and because these schools are located in populous areas, we may continue to be reasonably confident. We can be optimistic, too, about state and federal aid, perhaps, in the future. (Ibid., p. 14)
After the Provincial’s report, committees and subcommittees gathered to prepare their reports for that evening’s session.
137
At 1:30 p.m. the next afternoon, the general assembly convened and heard the
presentation from the Summit County Board of Catholic Education, asking the province
to approve the merger between Archbishop Hoban High School and St. Mary High
School. Brother Barry Lambour, C.S.C., made the main presentation, assisted by Sally
Riede and Sister Dorothy Mattingly, O.P. After the presentation, the chapter “was given
the opportunity to question the Summit County officials concerning the proposal”
(Provincial Chapter files, 1970, file B, p. 7). No other details about the proposal were
explained. The minutes stated that, “The chapter spent several hours discussing the
proposed merger” (Ibid.). The official minutes noted that the discussion “continued until
5:00 p.m.” (Ibid., p. 4). Five brothers were appointed by the chapter to form a committee
“to investigate the proposal and make recommendations at the June session” (Ibid.). The
five brothers were: Brothers John Benesh, Jerome Chandler, Pedro Haering, Raymond
Harrington, and Paul Kelly.
A document entitled, “Report to the 1970 Provincial Chapter, Brothers of Holy
Cross, Midwest Province, From: Archbishop Hoban High School, June 5, 1970”
(Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Provincial Council, 1970, D”) reported the comments of the principal, Brother John Benesh, about the state of the school. Many positives were reported. He mentioned that “enrollment, staffing, and finances are all tied together; each one affecting the other two” (Ibid., p. 2). Brother John reported that the present enrollment was 850, the lowest since 1959. He reported that the highest enrollment had been 1196 in September, 1964, the year that Walsh had opened. He was upbeat about the enrollment: “Despite local uncertainties about school consolidation, I believe the enrollment will hold above 800 and perhaps close to 850” (Ibid.). Br. John
138
also reported that the staff in 1970-1971 would be made up of about half brothers and half lay teachers. He reported that, during the previous two years, the number of brothers at Hoban had declined by 7. Tuition had been $390 for the 1969-1970 school year, and he anticipated that the school would be “in the black” for that year, but he anticipated a budget deficit of $15,000 for the upcoming school year. He discussed the value of state money from House Bill 531 that granted $50 per student per year, with “up to 85% of these funds may be used to supplement lay teacher salaries and this means a saving of about $35,000 per year…Without state aid, this school would be in serious financial trouble” (Provincial Council, 1970, p. 3). Br. John began wrapping up his remarks by noting, “The Catholic high school situation in the Akron area is in a confused state”
(Ibid.). He reviewed the proposal for the merger between Hoban and St. Mary’s, mentioned that there was talk of expanding or rebuilding St. Vincent’s, and “it is not known what Walsh Jesuit Boy’s [sic] High School plans to do” (Ibid.). He cited the uncertainty of whether there would be financial support for the schools. He concluded with this assessment:
The alternatives for Hoban seem to be either to remain all-boy, a situation with which we are familiar and in which we have been successful, and to compete with Walsh (Jesuit) Boy’s [sic] High School in some areas, or to become co-ed and compete with an expanded and remodeled St. Vincent High School in many areas, since both schools are somewhat centrally located. (Ibid.).
It is not clear from the minutes of the chapter whether this report influenced the subsequent vote on the merger. Brother John’s report does, however, give a flavor for how the situation in Akron was perceived by the head of the school. There was interest
139
in Hoban remaining a single-sex school, but uncertainties dominated the financial
situation as well as the issue of how the other schools in the market might evolve.
On June 17, there was a closed and confidential session of the Chapter. The
document entitled “Minutes of the closed, confidential session of the chapter, June 17th”
(Ibid.) told the story of the report of the committee charged with investigating the merger as well as the eventual vote. Brother Barry had sent a letter to the Provincial asking that any information “pertinent” to the merger be kept confidential until he could present it to the Summit County Board. Each member of the committee presented his views about the merger proposal. Brother Jerome stated he had been for the merger but was now against it due to the uncertainties, particularly financial ones, especially since the Bishop had not signed the guidelines for the merger for coeducation. Brother John Benesh, the principal, stated that he was initially against the merger and remained so, due to the uncertainty in
Summit County about Catholic high schools, that the Board did not plan to “release any plans until the merger,” and that the lack of “funds and faculty” concerned him. Brother
Paul stated that he had been against the merger initially but had resolved to be open- minded when he had been appointed to this committee. He remained opposed to the merger due to the capital outlay that would be necessary and the uncertainty of where money would come from to maintain the buildings. The minutes gave an account of his ideas: “People as well as school boards are not too ready to raise money for the annual upkeep, and since the board will not answer questions posed to them by the committee, and since he is sure St. Vincent’s will expand at diocesan expense” (Ibid.), he voted no to the proposal. (The fact that St. Vincent received diocesan subsidies while Hoban did not was a longstanding issue with the brothers as they struggled with finances at Hoban.)
140
Brother Raymond was also opposed to the merger for financial reasons. Brother Pedro said that he had been in favor of the merger initially, and that coeducation was not the issue because “the faculty is not opposed to such an extent that they couldn’t accept a merger” (Provincial Council, 1970). He wondered whether the Akron community would support a coeducational school any more than they had been supporting Catholic education in general. Brother Pedro stated that, “The Catholic Board’s plans are idealistic but too vague and they refuse to answer important questions” (Ibid.). The
Chapter as a whole then continued the discussion of the merger question. The final recommendation was worded:
The chapter does not accept the merger proposal as suggested by the Summit County Board of Catholic Education. The committee appointed to study the proposal, along with the Provincial, should compose a letter to the Summit Board indicating this rejection and the reasons for it. (Ibid.).
The final vote was 57 yes, 1 no, and no abstentions. The meeting closed with a prayer at
12:46 a.m.
A common perception among the current members of the Midwest Province is that the merger was rejected because the brothers from Akron were not in favor of it.
Brother Joseph LeBon, C.S.C., who had been at Hoban in 1970, expressed regret that the
Hoban community of brothers had not been asked to provide more detailed information about their opinions toward the merger before the vote was taken at the Chapter (Personal interview, 2005). But the details from the minutes of the closed session suggest that the merger was rejected because of the uncertainties about what schools would be built or renovated to serve which populations in Akron.
141
The Third Critical Incident: The Decision to Become a Coeducational School
The rejection of the merger by the brothers had set into motion a series of events in Akron. The Summit County Board next proposed that St. Vincent and St. Mary High
Schools merge, beginning in September, 1971. This occurred. The issue of what to do with the properties of the two campuses posed the next dilemma. Initially the schools operated the two campuses. The Board proposed the redevelopment of the schools on an expanded site that included land of the Green Street Stadium that the Diocese purchased from the Booster Club at St. Vincent. But the building plans came to a halt when area pastors passed a resolution in the spring of 1972 that the new school should not be built.
After loud protests from many in Akron, the Bishop sent Brother Barry a letter authorizing Eugene F. Peddle, the architect, to invite bids on the construction. This letter was dated May 20, 1972 (Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled, “Issenmann,
Educational Institutions, High Schools: St Vincent-St. Mary, 1966-1973”). The groundbreaking ceremony occurred on September 20, 1972 (Archives of the Diocese of
Cleveland, file entitled, “Issenmann—Church: Diocese, Board of Catholic Education,
Summit County Office, Minutes, 1972, September 1972 Newsletter”). The issue of financial stability and the need to become coeducational at Hoban had not dissolved with the rejection of the merger proposal and the redevelopment of St. Vincent-St. Mary High
School, however.
The enrollment at Hoban in the fall of 1970 continued to decline. In the minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Members held on September 21, 1970, the Chairman,
Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., who also served as principal in the school, reported the decline. He noted that 854 students had enrolled for 1970-1971, compared with 880 for
142
the preceding year, with freshmen at 219 boys compared with 237 the previous year
(Minutes of the Members, Archbishop Hoban High School). The situation was even
more dire the following year. In the minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Members held
on September 20, 1971, Brother John reported “that the school had suffered its sharpest
decline in enrollment in its history. Enrollment for the 1971-1972 school year is 670…”
(Minutes of the Members, Archbishop Hoban High School.) Brother John also reported that only 177 freshmen had enrolled. Tuition was $525 for 1971-1972, “a substantial tuition increase” (Ibid.), but Brother John anticipated that the school would operate in a deficit for the school year. He also suggested to the Members that he would like to hold tuition at $525 for the next school year. He summarized by saying, “The decline in enrollment only serves to emphasize the urgent need for Hoban to become a co- educational [sic] institution at the earliest possible time” (Ibid.).
Brother John wrote a letter to Sally Riede, President of the Regional Catholic
School Board, on January 26, 1972 (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled,
“Provincial files of Br. Charles Krupp, C.S.C., 1968-1979, Archbishop Hoban
H.S./Akron, Ohio, 1972, 12/3/13, Folder I”). Brother John was concerned that the proposed redeveloped St. Vincent-St. Mary High School added seats for boys but reduced total seats for girls, and that it would actually result in a “surplus of boys’ facilities and lessening of girls’ facilities” and that this change “could lead to the demise of one of the boys’ schools and to a greater number of girls in public high school” (Ibid.). Brother
John wrote Ms. Riede another letter on February 3, 1972, following a meeting of the lay advisory board at Hoban. Brother John noted that there had been a meeting on Friday,
January 28, 1972, with the lay board and Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., the Provincial,
143
about Hoban’s situation. “At this Friday meeting the Board members (names listed
below) were unanimous in recommending to Brother Charles Krupp that Hoban become
a coeducational school as soon as possible” (Provincial files). The lay advisory members
who supported the change were Bill Aylward, Sam Bartlo, Phil Horan, Bob Huddleston,
Pat Hughes, Judge Oscar Hunsicker, Ken Kirtland, Bob Kraus, Bill O’Neil, Murray
Powers, and Dave Riede, who was the husband of Sally Riede (Ibid.). The letter also asked that a subcommittee of the board consisting of Bill Aylward, Sam Bartlo, and Pat
Hughes be given the chance to meet with either the Executive Committee of the Regional
Board or with the full Board.
Ms. Riede, Chairperson of the Regional Board, wrote a letter to Brother John on
February 17, 1972 (Ibid). The letter acknowledged that the three members of the Hoban board had met with the Secondary Education Committee of the Regional Board and that
Mr. Bartlo had made a “fine presentation” (Ibid.). The information from that meeting was shared with “the full Board at their executive session” (Ibid.). The Regional Board appreciated that Hoban was looking at the whole picture of secondary education in
Summit County: “It was noted with gratification by members of the Board that your proposal for Hoban to admit freshmen [sic] girls in the fall of 1972 was framed in the total perspective of the good of the Summit County area”(Ibid.). However the Regional
Board would not support that Hoban could become coeducational by the fall of 1972. “It was the unanimous decision of the Board that to change the internal structure of Hoban to accomodate [sic] even a limited number of girls by the fall of 1972 would be an impossible task in these seven intervening months” (Ibid.). The letter cited the need to prepare faculty and staff and to develop the curriculum. The Board did recognize the
144
“gravity of the dilemma in which you find Hoban High School with regard to a further
drop in anticipated freshmen [sic] enrollment for fall of 1972 and the ensuing financial
strain” (Provincial files). The Board left open the possibility of Hoban becoming
coeducational in the future: “Our Board and staff is [sic] ready to study with you the
possibilities of a request for a future coeducation program at Hoban” (Ibid.).
Brother Barry Lambour, C.S.C., was the Regional Superintendent in Summit
County, and followed up with his Provincial, Brother Charles, by writing a letter on
February 19, 1972, reiterating the points in Ms. Riede’s letter to Brother John. Brother
Barry’s letter recapped how the decision was made, noting that the decision of the
Regional Board “would be accepted as final,” and asked, “just what is the matter
anyhow? It isn’t wholly a matter of finances. In Ohio our schools are receiving $104.53
per student per year by indirect benefits from parental grants and auxilary [sic] services”
(Ibid.). Brother Barry hoped that the Congregation would not give up. He mentioned that the idea of Hoban becoming coeducational went back to the administration of
Brother William Fitch, C.S.C., as principal, and that the idea had been much discussed.
Brother Barry was concerned:
I cannot yet accede to the notion that Hoban has at best a dismal future. I am convinced that we need to re-examine the philosophy, the management, and many other items. As a Brother of Holy Cross, I am not yet ready to give up property schools easily, to cast aside all present priorities in favor of untried ones. (Ibid.).
Brother Charles responded to Brother Barry in a letter written on February 21, 1972. He expressed that, “I am particularly pleased that Brother John agreed to accept the decision of the board” (Ibid.). He responded that he would be willing to explore with Brother
Barry what was “the matter,” and mentioned that finances seemed a major issue. Brother
145
Charles commented that at meetings he had attended he heard “parents publicly pleading
with Brother John not to raise tuition and plead [sic] for a family plan, similar to St.
Vincent’s which in effect admits the third child tuition free” (Provincial files).
Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., drafted a confidential memo to the faculty to update
them on the events taking place regarding Hoban’s future. The February 25, 1972, memo
recapped the events since January 26 when the lay advisory board had met (Ibid.).
Brother John wrote that he hoped he would be able to meet with the faculty next week,
and that he was trying to arrange for Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., to attend the
meeting. The issue of who could really make the decision for Hoban to become
coeducational was still a challenge.
One thing I hope to make clear when we meet next week is the role I play in these negotiations and the role Brother Charles Krupp plays. I realize that on occasion he has said “it’s a local matter” but he has also said we should work through the Diocese and through the local Catholic School Board. In all I have done so far I have checked with him and cleared courses of action with him, because contrary to what I was told recently, I can’t do as I please. (Ibid.)
Discussions continued on numerous fronts as the question of who could make the decision for Hoban to become coeducational seemed unsettled.
By March 17, 1972, Murray Powers sent a letter to Brother Charles Krupp,
C.S.C., the Provincial, asking about Hoban becoming coeducational. (Archives of the
Midwest Province, file entitled, “Archbishop Hoban H.S./Akron, OH, 1972” in the
Provincial files of Charles Krupp, folder 12-13/13, Folder II”). Mr. Powers reiterated
that the lay board had unanimously supported the merger with St. Mary’s in 1970, and
wrote that “we never heard actually first hand what happened….That’s water over the
dam, but a few months ago, worried about Hoban’s future, we again unanimously voted
146
Hoban should accept girls” (Provincial files). Mr. Powers also noted that the Hoban faculty, both lay teachers and the brothers, had met with the Regional School Board, as had parents and some members of the Hoban lay board. All groups favored coeducation.
The worried faculty met with the Regional School Board’s committee, asked for four-year coeducation in 1972. The faculty, both brothers and laymen, did a good job, showed their love for this school. The laymen admitted they feared Hoban might be going down the drain and asked if they should not be looking for jobs. The brothers said they were weary over talk they could not teach girls. Then parents met with the Board and urged immediate coeducation. (Ibid.)
The stage was set. Mr. Powers also stated that there was a “prominent member” of the
Regional School Board who was unhappy over the merger of St. Vincent and St. Mary
High Schools, and “he does think we ought to wait a year because we could not get a curriculum and staff ready in time. The faculty disputes this” (Ibid.). Mr. Powers also asked Brother Charles who would make the decision to become coeducational, and what would be the role of the lay advisory board in such a process? What year would coeducation begin, and would it be on all grade levels? Would Brother John make these decisions, or would it have to go to the Provincial Chapter? Mr. Powers concluded by saying that the situation was “frustrating” and that, “All of this boils down to asking [for] some sort of a decision. I am sure the advisory board will go along with you. But the board, the parents, the students, the faculty and especially Hoban need a decision” (Ibid.).
A handwritten note on the letter indicated that Brother Charles had called Mr. Powers and told him that Brother Rex Hennell, C.S.C., the Assistant Provincial, would come to
Akron to help resolve the problem.
Brother Rex prepared a ten page report on the situation. In a document entitled,
“Report Requested by Summit County Catholic Board of Education on Request of
147
Archbishop Hoban High School to Admit Girls for 1972” (Archives of the Midwest
Province, file entitled, “Publicity & Press Releases/1968-1983”), Brother Rex explained that he had spent March 21-26 in Akron learning about the situation. He addressed numerous questions and issues: Should Hoban be saved? Can Hoban be saved? Clearing away the debris; Where are we? Where are the bodies? The Figures game; Should
Hoban admit girls? Trying to put it all together; Where do we go? What do I think?
Unspoken in all this; Now, about the brothers; Finally, the end (Ibid.). He carefully addressed each of the issues. He mentioned that if Hoban met a need in the community, that the issue was not really whether to become coeducational, but when. He wrote:
“Admitting girls to Hoban is not really the problem. All parties agree it is good and would be desirable. When it should be done is the question under consideration” (Ibid.).
He posited that Walsh’s opening had hastened the decline at Hoban which had gone from
1,196 boys in 1964 to 670 in 1971-1972, and that 575 was anticipated as the enrollment for the 1972-1973 school year, a loss of more than 50% over eight years, combined with a deficit of $35,000-40,000 for the 1971-1972 school year (Ibid.). The “Unspoken” referred to the proposed redevelopment of St. Vincent-St. Mary with a new school building, a proposal that the pastors in Akron had just voted to ask the Bishop to reconsider. While recognizing that his role was advisory, Brother Rex stated that he would hope Hoban could become coeducational in the fall of 1972, but thought that a fall
1973 date was reasonable, too. Brother Rex reiterated that the brothers were willing to enter into negotiations regarding their relationship with the Diocese and to recognize the
Regional Board’s authority to negotiate if that were the Bishop’s wish. They also wanted to appoint an ad hoc committee of brothers to represent their interests. He added: “At a
148
later date, a local board for Hoban would be constituted which could speak for Hoban in normal relations between the school and the [regional] board” (Publicity & Press
Releases). The appointed bodies could make recommendations to the Bishop and to the
Provincial. Brother Rex concluded that, “Final agreements would be made on the bishop-provincial level” (Ibid.).
The Regional Board of Catholic Education met on March 28, 1972. Among other items on the agenda was a discussion of the request from Hoban. The Minutes of that meeting noted in the section, “Questions from the Public,” that “at least 400 persons were in attendance” (Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled, “Issenmann-Church:
Diocese, Board of Catholic Education, Summit County Office, Minutes, 1972”).
According to these Minutes of the Public Meeting of the Regional Board, the Board presented seven reasons why the Secondary Education Committee recommended that
Hoban’s request be denied:
1) Ninth grade registration had been completed prior to the request. 2) The request would not serve the general good of the entire Summit County Region. 3) The time required to get ready by Fall was too short—the financing of physical renovations, the objections of the professional staff concerning curriculum. 4) Consideration of the 1953 Contractual Agreement which will require the approval of the Bishop and BHC [Brothers of Holy Cross]. 5) The confusion and bad public relations which could probably result for Hoban with their high schools, parents and others would be damaging to Hoban over the suddenness of the change after registrations had been completed and commitments made. 6) The difficulties which would arise over teacher contracts and general staffing requirements. Teacher contracts are to be completed in April for the most part. 7) The recommendation of the professional staff of the Board which had studied the matter thoroughly. Outside consultants had been called in: Sister M. Owen, Assistant Superintendent in charge of
149
Curriculum; Brother Rex Hennell, C.S.C., Assistant Provincial, BHC; Dr. Lawrence Marquit, Special Services Division, Education Research Council of America. The professional Staff recommended against going coed in 1972, and that going coed in 1973 be recommended with the proviso that certain conditions be met. (Summit County Board, Minutes)
Following discussion, the vote of the Board was unanimous and thus the proposal for
Hoban to become coeducational in the fall of 1972 was rejected. The minutes also noted that, “The Chairman announced that negotiation with the BHC [Brothers of Holy Cross] would continue for a 1973 proposal” (Ibid.).
The minutes also included information that the pastors had voted 17-2 to ask
Bishop Issenmann to postpone the construction of the new building for St. Vincent-St.
Mary. Ms. Riede asked Mr. Hromco to assume the Chairmanship of the meeting, and then she read a four-page personal statement outlining the work of the Board in getting to
this point to resolve the high school question, emphasizing how much consultation had
occurred (Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled, “Issenmann—Educational
Institutions, High Schools: St. Vincent-St. Mary, 1966-1973). She listed eight reasons as the primary reasons for the decision to redevelop the school:
1. Long hours of study. 2. Another direction having to be taken when our original proposal was turned down by the Brothers of Holy Cross. 3. A limited choice of land in the downtown area on which to build the replacement facility (which, by the way must be in the downtown area in order [to] serve the needs of the entire County. 4. An urgency to make a decision immediately in order to save not only the two high schools but also the two grade schools which are under citation by the state because of having grade schools and high schools in the same building. 5. An attempt to use the faculties and other resources of the two existing facilities in order to make the transition as smooth and economical as possible.
150
6. To try to fulfill at least a part of the Diocesan commitment relative to the Diocesan High School Campaign. 7. To work within the financial limitations set by the Bishop. 8. And finally and most important to me: to answer the needs of our Catholic people who have told us overwhelmingly that they want co- ed Catholic high school education for their children. (St. V-M file)
Ms. Riede reiterated that the proposal had the full support of the Regional Board, the full
Diocesan Board, and officials at the Diocesan level. While sympathetic to the financial strains that pastors faced in their parishes, she expressed concern that the pastors’ vote seemed to indicate that they had “not availed themselves of the information we have placed at the disposal of all our people through our open Board meetings, our newsletter, and the various meetings between the pastors and professional staff of our office” (Ibid.).
She concluded by recommending that the Regional Board adopt a resolution that a delay in construction “will jeopardize the faculty commitments, the future student enrollments, and possibility of the bids coming in under the limit set by the Bishop himself” (Ibid.).
She also recommended that the Regional Board send a letter to Father Byrider, Chairman of the Pastors’ study committee, “placing the Board at the disposal of the committee to discuss the results of our studies” (Ibid.), and the Minutes reflected that both motions passed. The March 29, 1972, Akron Beacon Journal reported on the meeting, and noted,
“The split among laity, clergy and Catholic educators caused one priest to comment that a confrontation was developing ‘which shouldn’t develop, especially during Holy Week’”
(Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Publicity & Press Releases/ 1968-
1983”).
This delay in the redevelopment plans for St. Vincent-St. Mary had an impact on
Hoban’s move to coeducation. On Monday, April 24, according to the Executive
151
Meeting Minutes of April 25, 1972 of the Regional Board (Archives of the Diocese of
Cleveland), Bishop Issenmann had told the Board that he would let the bids. Later that same day, the Bishop was giving a speech to address the kickoff dinner for the annual
Catholic Charities Appeal according to the April 25, 1972 Akron Beacon Journal in an article by Wayne Lynch (Archives of the Midwest Province). The Akron Beacon Journal article reported that about 200 protestors who were parents and students from St. Vincent showed up outside the Holiday Inn on Exchange Street where the Bishop was speaking
(Ibid.; Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland). Brother Robert Lavelle, C.S.C., reported that in response to the question of whether Hoban could go coeducational, the Bishop was said to have responded that the brothers could do what they wanted (Personal interview, 2005). This development became more formalized when the Provincial,
Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., posed the question to the Bishop. The Minutes of the
Emergency Executive Meeting on April 30, 1972, of the Akron Regional Board of
Catholic Education reported this development (Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland, file entitled, “Issenmann-Church: Diocese, Board of Catholic Education, Summit County
Office, Minutes, 1972”). According to those minutes, Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., met with the Bishop on April 26 to request a change in the Diocesan contract with the
Brothers of Holy Cross to allow Hoban to become coeducational in the fall of 1973. The minutes reported that, “To his surprise, the Bishop took the initiative and informed
Brother that Hoban could go coed whenever the Administration decided; the Bishop thought that September, 1972, was fine” (Ibid.). On April 27, there was a meeting with
Brothers Barry, Charles, John Benesh, John May (Director of Studies at Hoban) and
Robert Lavelle (teacher and counselor at Hoban) and Msgr. Novicky. There was
152
disagreement about when the school should go coeducational, with Brother Charles
expressing the opinion that it should happen in the fall of 1972, but the local school
administrators wanting to hold to the agreement with the Regional Board (Summit
County Board minutes). As a result of this meeting, the group agreed to ask the Akron
Regional Board to reconsider its March 28 decision. The meeting with the Regional
Board was scheduled for the next day, April 28.
On Friday, April 28, the boys at Hoban staged a walkout at 8:30 a.m. to demonstrate their support for Hoban becoming coeducational. The Minutes of the
Emergency Executive meeting of April 30 reported the walkout (Ibid.) as did the Akron
Beacon Journal of April 29, 1972 (Archives of the Midwest Province, Beacon Journal article entitled “Hoban to Resumes Classes Monday,” no author listed). At Hoban, for instance, students staged the walkout, but they were encouraged to come back into the building and were dismissed at noon by Brother John Benesh (Personal interviews with
Brother John Benesh and with Brother Joseph LeBon, 2005). Eventually, those who did walkout had to serve detentions for each class they missed, even though the next week the official announcement was made that the school would become coeducational in the fall of 1973. Classes resumed Monday and Brother John read the students the Press release on Tuesday that announced that Hoban would be coed. The culture within the school was ready for the change to coeducation. The school would remain true to its mission, but become more inclusive by admitting girls.
The Emergency Executive Committee Meeting continued on April 30. Although a quorum of the Board had not been present, there had been a meeting on April 28 with
Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., Sally Riede, Raymond Hromco, Jerome Wagner, Brother
153
Barry Lambour, C.S.C., Sister Dorothy Mattingly, O.P., and Father Muzic. At the meeting, Brother John had presented Ms. Riede with a formal request for the Board to
reconsider its decision and to allow Hoban to become coeducational for the 1972-1973
school year. On April 30, the Board agreed to the following statement:
The recommendation of the ARBCE is that Hoban should go coed in the 1973-1974 school year. However, if the Hoban administration decides that the obstacles listed on March 28 by the Board will be overcome, then the Board will not oppose the decision to go coed in 1972, and will cooperate. To extend full cooperation, the negotiations to align the school with Board operation and policies should be given top priority. (Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland)
Brother Barry wrote a letter to Brother Charles on May 9, 1972, explaining the recommendation and providing Brother Charles with written confirmation of the telephone conversation they had had on April 30 (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Provincial files of Br. Charles Krupp, C.S.C., 1968-1979, Archbishop Hoban
H.S./Akron, Ohio, 1972, 12/3/13, folder I”).
A press release dated April 30, 1972, from Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C.,
Provincial, stated that “Archbishop Hoban High School announces coeducation for
September, 1973” (Ibid.). According to the press release, Bishop Issenmann had
“formally stated” at a meeting with Brother Charles on April 26 that he “approved
altering Archbishop Hoban High School’s contract with the Diocese of Cleveland to
allow the school to become coeducational” (Ibid.). The press release also stated that
“Brother Charles felt that action should not be taken without consulting with the Summit
County Regional Catholic School Board, the official spokesman for the people of Akron
in matters of Catholic education” (Ibid.). Recognizing that not everyone will be pleased
with the decision, but acknowledging that the decision was the best in the long run, the
154
September 1973 date was set. “Plans for converting the school to a coeducational character will begin immediately” (Provincial files of Br. Charles Krupp, C.S.C., 1968-
1979, Archbishop Hoban H.S./Akron, Ohio, 1972, 12/3/13, folder I).
On May 23, Brother Charles wrote a letter to the Bishop explaining why he believed it was best to begin coeducation in 1973 rather than 1972. He acknowledged that the Bishop had probably heard from those who wanted the change sooner. Brother
Charles also wrote, “I continue to await a letter from you stating our agreement concerning converting Archbishop Hoban High School into a coeducational institution”
(Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Contact w/diocese 1952-1979”). In a reply letter dated May 27, 1972, Bishop Issenmann made six points. He wrote:
1. Archbishop Hoban High School is to enroll and educate both boys and girls. This decision of the Provincial Council of Brothers I heartily accept and approve. 2. Archbishop Hoban High School is to go co-ed as of September, 1973. I also accept this decision of the Brothers. Personally I hoped that the enrollment of girls may have begun this September. I trust that this decision for September, 1973, does not interfere with the practice of educating girls from St. Mary’s High School as it has been carried on in the past several years. I would think that the decision of the Brothers having been made public, general acceptance has followed. The time schedule was of little import in the minds of people, one it was known as a fait accompli that Hoban was going co-ed. I have had not one reaction by letter or phone. This acceptance should be a consolation to you and your Council that the decision is popular. 3. There seems no need to form a new contract. The one in effect since the high school’s inception may be supplemented by this and your letter, if agreeable to you and the Brothers. If not, we can do a new one. 4. Within the present building, adaptations required of present facilities for a co-ed high school need to be planned. We leave it to the Brothers, since they own and operate Hoban, to make the preliminary selection of an architect, if needed, or a reliable contractor.
155
5. I ask that you and I go over the very preliminary plans for the adaptation, when prepared, and the estimated cost, so that we can discuss the sharing of the cost. If I am informed correctly, the Brothers at Hoban have assurances of financial assistance from alumni and parents of student and benefactors toward this adaptation. There is no reason that the Brothers cannot begin at once to solicit this help. 6. There is also the matter of faculty to be prepared for September, 1973. Both you and I may well ask the Immaculate Heart Sisters of Monroe for their members to transfer to teach at Hoban. Other communities need not be excluded. (Contact w/diocese file)
The Bishop’s letter to his peer, the Provincial, made no mention of the role of the Akron
Regional Board in this decision. The letter mentioned only the action of the Provincial
Council that had approved that Hoban would become coeducational. I could not find evidence of action by the Provincial Council about Hoban changing to coeducation. I was not able to locate minutes of a Provincial Council meeting where the matter was discussed or when a vote had been taken. On June 1, Brother Charles responded to
Bishop Issenmann’s letter and agreed in principle to all points except to Paragraph 5
(Ibid.). Brother Charles expressed doubt that Hoban’s benefactors could cover the cost of the renovations, stating that
few if any of these will come forward with contributions. For the most part, the clientele at Archbishop Hoban are hardly able to pay tuition and fees. I alluded to this in our conversation at the time we formulated the agreement. (Ibid.)
Brother Charles also noted that, while the Diocese had paid 80% and the brothers 20% of the initial capital expenditures for the building, over the past few years the brothers had
“an unwritten policy to the effect that they would not involve themselves in capital expenditures in their schools” (Ibid.). Brother Charles then requested that the Diocese cover all the costs of “adaptations” to the building, assuring the Bishop that there would
156
not be any additions built. These structural and political issues were important and
needed to be resolved as the school reframed as a coeducational organization.
Kraus & Stitz, Architects drew up the plans for the adaptations to the building.
The renovations would include a girls’ locker and shower room, a home arts area, toilet facilities, conversion of the chapel area into a study hall area, guidance department offices, library renovations, classroom alterations, and improving the look of the loading dock, for a grand total of $185,040 (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled,
“Archbishop Hoban H.S./Akron, Ohio, 1972”). The creation of the study hall was necessary because the home arts area was created by filling in the study hall-lecture room on the lower level. The study hall space was replaced by the modification to the chapel area. In a letter of August 28, 1972, Bishop Issenmann wrote to Brother Charles Krupp,
C.S.C., and approved the preliminary architectural plan. Brother John related an anecdote that he believed helped explain how the Bishop agreed to pay for the renovations.
I may have told you about my one personal contact with Bishop Issenmann. After coeducation had been approved there were negotiations about the costs of the renovations of the Archbishop Hoban HS plant. Br. Charles Krupp finally arranged a meeting with the Bishop. He, Br. Barry Lambour and I were to go, and at the last minute, I told those two that we had better bring along the architect, Bob Kraus, since we were to talk about the renovations that Kraus had already designed. When we walked into the meeting the first words of the Bishop were, “Hi, Bob, how is your dad?” I learned later that Kraus’ dad was also an architect and had done business with the Bishop when he was in Columbus, OH. At that point the rest of us let Kraus do most of the talking, and in the end Issenmann agreed to pay for the renovations. (Personal correspondence; e-mail sent on August, 25, 2005, by Brother John Benesh to me)
157
The renovations did proceed as planned, paid for by the Diocese. The addition of home
economics and business facilities could be interpreted as cultural reflections on the role of women. But the classes were not limited to only female students.
The planning went forward, but 1972-1973 was a difficult year at Hoban. Brother
John Benesh, C.S.C., wrote to the Provincial on September 28, 1972, discussing the projected deficit of $83,000, which Brother John claimed was actually $70,000 (Archives of the Midwest Province, file entitled, “Provincial files of Br. Charles Krupp, C.S.C.,
1968-1979, Archbishop Hoban H.S./Akron, Ohio 1972, 12/3/13, folder I”). Brother John detailed that the freshman enrollment was 132 with 562 overall. Brother John expressed hope that he could enroll in 1973 some of the girls who had been at St. Mary’s, enrolled
in the merged school, but had since left it. The letter also contained a proposal for tuition
assistance. Brother John told the Provincial how difficult it was to pay the $40,000
annual debt to the province on the original investment of the brothers to build the school.
This letter presaged more problems that would develop. The inability of the school to
repay this debt would play a major role in the 1976 announcement by the brothers that
Hoban would close at the end of that school year.
The Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Members on September 17, 1973,
reported that the actual deficit for 1972-1973 was $66,344.97 (Minutes of the Annual
Meeting of the Members, records at Archbishop Hoban High School.) “It was hoped that
with the change to a co-educational [sic] institution that enrollment will be increased and
the annual deficit reduced” (Ibid.). The Minutes also recorded that the enrollment for
1973-1974 was 725, with 210 girls in all grades, including 23 in the senior class (Ibid.).
The renovations were explained and it was noted that the Bishop had agreed that the
158
Diocese would pay for them. The Minutes listed new faculty members. The student newspaper, The Visor, expanded on this list in its October, 1973 issue, reporting that there were fifteen new faculty members, including six women (Archives of the Midwest
Province, file entitled, “The Hoban Visor/1973-1974”). Those interviewed recounted how the addition of more women faculty members had helped the transition to coeducation. Sister Claire Young, H.M., joined the faculty as the guidance counselor for some sophomores and juniors and the moderator of the ski club. Miss Sharon Madoff joined the faculty as a Spanish teacher. Mrs. Jackie White taught home economics with classes in foods and clothing. Miss Kathy Nelson taught girls’ physical education and health. Miss Deborah Deonise came to Hoban to teach French. Mrs. Dreajean Brown taught business courses. In the same edition of The Visor, students expressed positive views on the change to coeducation with quotations: “It’s O.K.” or “I like it.” (Ibid.).
The article said that some students had “second thoughts” about Hoban leaving the tradition of a boys’ school. The article ended with a positive note: “There may be people who don’t like co-education, [sic] but they are hard to find. An interesting comment from senior Jim Kiel was, ‘It’s fantastic, great, but too late!’” (Ibid.). Later editions of the school newspaper that year also reported positive feelings among the faculty and students about the change to coeducation.
Internal Influences on Each Critical Incident and How Hoban Reacted
The first critical incident was whether Hoban should become a co-institutional school with St. Mary’s. Internal influences that were important were the Brothers of
Holy Cross and their interest in the question. In particular, the principal, Brother William
Fitch, C.S.C., was instrumental in following up on the question. Brother William was the
159
one who had made a presentation on the proposal to the House at Hoban, detailing what the advantages would have been. Brother William had established the lay advisory board, and they, too, were interested in exploring the possibility of the school changing to a co-institutional model and expanding its facilities.
The school reacted by studying the possible change through the efforts of the brothers and of the lay board. In the end, however, the internal influences were not strong enough to sustain the implementation of this change. For reasons that remain unclear, the initiative was dropped by the time that Brother William left as principal and
Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., assumed the position in 1969.
The second critical incident was the merger proposal and Chapter vote in 1970.
Internal forces that played significant roles were the brothers and the Midwest Province, the governing structures, and the finances at the school. While the proposal resulted from the external influence of the Summit County Board, the role of the brothers was significant. The Summit County Board had brought the proposal to the brothers at Hoban early in 1970. From there, it was decided that the proposal would go to the Chapter for a vote. Thus, it was not just the local community of brothers who would make such a major decision regarding the structure of the school. Instead, the Chapter, the legislative body for the province, would be the decision maker. Once the brothers heard the proposal at Chapter in April of 1970, they formed a committee to study the question and to make a recommendation to the June session of the Chapter. Finances played a role, too, in all these matters. As I explained in the narratives above, the enrollment at the school was declining, and finances were becoming more of a problem. In the report of the committee to the Chapter, the financial uncertainties within the Akron high school
160
situation seemed to have been a decisive factor in the decision of the Chapter. The brothers were not certain about exactly what new building or renovations of current schools the Diocese was really committed to in Summit County. The brothers were not sure what schools would be coeducational or single-sex. Given these uncertainties, the brothers voted no at the Chapter.
Hoban thus reacted by learning about the situation, turning the question over to the Chapter for an actual decision, and abiding by the decision of the Chapter. I also heard anecdotal evidence that the brothers at Hoban were not in favor of coeducation and that their opinion had influenced the vote. I was not able to find evidence that documented this perspective. Neither the files of the House meetings nor the Chapter minutes verified this perception. In fact, Hoban had girls from St. Mary’s taking classes and a brother teaching Latin there. The reaction of the Hoban community seemed to be based more on the uncertainties that the brothers learned about in the June meeting. The school reacted by accepting the vote at the Chapter that the merger should not occur. The school carried on, even as St. Vincent and St. Mary High Schools merged in 1971.
The third critical incident was the decision made in 1972 that Hoban would become coeducational in the fall of 1973. Internal influences that impacted this decision were the financial condition of the school, the roles of the lay advisory board, the principal and the provincial, and the interest of parents and students. The finances had become very strained due to the decrease in enrollment and to the increased cost of more lay teacher salaries. The lay board and the principal recognized that the situation had become untenable for the school. Thus the board encouraged Brother John Benesh,
C.S.C., to try to get the school to become coeducational. As explained earlier, Brother
161
John contacted the provincial, Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., to ask who would be
responsible for making the decision that Hoban would become coeducational. This gap
in the governance structure was an issue that had to be dealt with. Brother John had
noted that the brothers on the Board of Trustees were charged with this responsibility, but
that in fact it was the principal who had to make the major decisions. The evidence
presented earlier showed that the lay advisory board wanted Brother John to continue to bring forward that Hoban needed to become coeducational, and noted that parents were in favor of this change. Working with the provincial, it was decided that Brother John
would propose to the Summit County Board that Hoban would like to become
coeducational in the fall of 1972. Thus, the brothers, especially Brother John, the lay
board, and the finances all advanced the question of Hoban becoming coeducational,
moving it into the political and structural arena of the external influence of the Summit
Board. The students staged a walkout later in the decision making process, an event that symbolized their interest in coeducation. Whether this walkout strongly influenced the decision is doubtful, because by April there were meetings taking place where the decision was already being approved.
Hoban’s reaction to this decision point was to make the decision that the school needed to become coeducational to survive. The principal, guided by the lay board and the provincial, persisted and pressed the issue throughout the structural and political frames. External influences played a large role in resolving this decision point, too, as I will explain in the next section.
162
External Influences on Each Critical Incident and How Hoban Reacted
At the co-institutional decision point, the Bardsley & Haslacher (1968) study was
in important external influence along with the Bishop and the Diocese. The survey had
provided research data that supported discussions that had been going on at Hoban. Now
it was not just the brothers, especially the principal, and the lay board who were
interested in changing the school from a single-sex facility. Because the study showed that Catholic parents in the area wanted a comprehensive and coeducational school for their high school students, there was momentum to continue the discussions. Bishop
Issenmann influenced this decision point by raising the question of a co-institutional arrangement. The Diocese continued to ask for information about the possible change.
Hoban reacted to these external influences by pursuing the question. The principal had developed a proposal that was shared with the brothers. What is unclear is why the option of a co-institutional school was dropped. The school did not pursue, then, implementing this change, and by 1969, with a new principal, the question was off the table.
The second critical incident, the merger question, was also influenced by external factors. The Summit County Board, a novel structure as the first board of its kind in the nation that gave regional authority for schools to a local board, had done a great deal of study, as I detailed in the above narrative. As a result of their work, they had decided that the best way to meet the needs of the local community to resolve the high school question
was to ask Hoban and St. Mary’s to merge into a comprehensive, coeducational school.
Drawing on the data from the Bardsley & Haslacher (1968) study that detailed parental
preferences for those characteristics of a Catholic high school, the Summit County Board
163
had proposed to the Brothers of Holy Cross that they should make the change to
coeducation at Hoban by merging with St. Mary’s. Another external influence, the
Campaign for the High Schools, had generated large sums of money as well as frustration
in Summit County that no visible investments had come back to the Akron area. The
Campaign had also generated plans for possible new schools, but they had remained
vague at this point. The uncertainties of those plans had a major impact on the vote
against the merger by the brothers at Chapter. Vatican II had also exerted external
influence at this decision point because its opening up of Church structures had resulted
in an increased opportunity for laity to have a voice in boards, as evidenced with the
Summit County Board. There had also been changes in religious life as a result of
Vatican II, and those changes had impacted staffing issues at Hoban, further stressing the financial situation as more lay salaries were required.
Hoban’s reaction to these external influences was to listen to the proposal and to move it forward to the provincial level for a decision. Thus, the school community looked beyond the local level to make a decision. Ultimately, the external factors underscored the uncertainty that the brothers had about what the diocesan plans were for the future. Finances were already in a difficult situation, and the vote against the merger at the Chapter ended the discussion about affiliating with St. Mary’s. The brothers’ negative vote was against the merger, not against coeducation per se. The vote left the
Summit County Board in a somewhat precarious position. They had reached out in an authoritative way to the brothers at Hoban, but when the congregation nixed their plan, they had to go back and regroup. Thus, Hoban’s reaction had an impact on the next proposal that the Summit County Board made and enacted, the merger of St. Mary’s with
164
St. Vincent High School. The Summit County Board had more control of those two former parish schools that were moving to diocesan school status, and so the Board could both propose and enact the decision.
For the third critical incident, the 1972 decision that Hoban would become coeducational in the fall of 1973, external factors played critical roles. As I mentioned in the discussion about the impact of the internal factors on this decision, the financial situation had pushed the principal and the province to pursue the option of Hoban changing to a coeducational school. No merger with another school was part of this discussion, so it was just Hoban that would be involved. Bishop Issenmann was a critical player at this point. The Church had loosened up its view on coeducation, and Vatican II had caused new ventures to start. For Archbishop Hoban High School, the written agreement with the Bishop when the school began had stated that the brothers would operate a school for boys. Thus, if there was to be a change in the mission, the bishop would have to give his approval. The brothers and the province had struggled with the question of where this decision could be made, and what authority could make it. The brothers had approached the Summit County Board to request that the school could become coeducational in the fall, 1972. It was not surprising that the Summit County
Board in March turned down Hoban’s request to become coeducational in 1972. That
Board was deeply involved in their initiative to merge St. Vincent and St. Mary High
Schools, was struggling with the pastors to get their support so that the bids could go out for the new school at the redeveloped St. Vincent-St. Mary High School, and was struggling with Bishop Issenmann to get his final approval to go to bids. The Summit
County Board had left open the possibility of Hoban coming back and requesting to
165
become coeducational in 1973. But Hoban’s financial condition caused the lay advisory
board to push Brother John Benesh to persist to accomplish the change now. When
Bishop Issenmann made the public remark that the brothers could decide on coeducation,
the stage was set.
Hoban reacted by persisting through all the steps necessary to finalize this
decision. The provincial worked with the bishop, his peer. Ultimately, it was at that
level that the decision was made. But the issue still came back to the Summit County
Board, this newly formed structure trying to develop its structural and political roles. The
die was cast by the time the Summit County Board met and determined that Hoban could
become coeducational. Even after the announcement was made that Hoban would
become coeducational in 1973, Brother Charles Krupp, C.S.C., the provincial, continued
to work with Bishop Issenmann to get in writing that the Bishop gave his approval of the
change in the brothers’ agreement with the diocese.
Analysis of Themes
Hoban’s journey to coeducation was a complex story. I have deconstructed the
story so that the individual components of the narrative could be told, and reconstructed
them so that the complex story could be understood. By providing the history of the internal and external influences on each critical incident, analyzing the role the influences
had on each decision point, and analyzing how Hoban reacted to the influences at each
critical incident, I have given a detailed picture of the events that happened on Hoban’s
journey to coeducation. At this point in the study, I have pulled together the various
components into a larger analysis of themes that emerged from the data. There were five
themes that I analyzed using the conceptual framework derived from the literature that I
166
reviewed. The themes were: 1) During the late 1960s and early 1970s in Akron, there was experimentation in structural and political frames among the Catholic school community, especially in the high schools and with the Summit County Board of
Education, changing the environment for the high schools. 2) The formal structures in place did not always determine how internal or external influences played roles in the decision making. 3) At each decision point, who made the decision was important. 4)
The final decision to become coeducational was not a decision that resulted from a reasoned, deliberate process as much as it was expedient. 5) The garbage can model of decision making (Hall, 2002) seemed to explain what occurred in 1972.
Experimentation in Structural and Political Frames
The social context of the l960s and 1970s was characterized by the questioning of authority and the establishment. While there were calls for increased rights for minorities and women, there were also calls for an increased voice in decision making on the part of those who would be affected by decisions. There were pressures, therefore, on organizations to reorganize to provide this increased voice. Within the Catholic Church, a similar movement was underway following the changes brought about after Vatican II.
Vatican II had also called for an increased role for the laity in making decisions within the formal structures of the Church. This increased emphasis on subsidiarity—making decisions at the level where people would be affected by the decision—also recalled the founding principles of Holy Cross education. Father Moreau had called on the members of his congregation to respond to the needs that they found within the local church where they came to minister. In Akron in the late 1960s and 1970s, these same forces had an influence on how decisions were made regarding the Catholic high schools and their
167
futures. The development of the lay advisory board at Hoban and of the Summit County
Board of Catholic Education exemplified how experimentation with structural and
political frames occurred within the social context of the time period and changed the
environment within which Catholic high schools operated.
Religious congregations exercised significant autonomy in how they set up and
governed the schools they operated. They had to comply with their local agreements
with the bishop in the diocese where the school was located, but each congregation was
essentially responsible for decision making within its school. The school’s decision
making was intertwined with the decision making process within their provinces. Thus,
Hoban complied with its agreement with the Bishop and did things like seek permission
from him when the school needed to raise tuition. When it came to the policy making or
operational decisions within the school, however, the brothers had the authority to make
decisions. Thus, it was an innovative experiment when Brother John Fitch, C.S.C., had
established the lay advisory board at Hoban in 1963 when he was principal.
Creating this structure opened up the possibility for a new political structure as
well. The laity of the community would have the opportunity to give input on decisions at
the school. Since there were parents on the lay advisory board, that opened up a new
avenue for the parents to have a voice in decisions. The lay board had limited authority
to make decisions, but its members had access to the principal and brothers, at least giving them the ability to have a voice when major issues arose. The correspondence that
I read suggested that the members understood that their role was advisory, but that they
did not shy away from raising important issues with the principal. The lay board
members had raised the question of coeducation, were involved in the discussions about
168
forming the co-institutional school, and pushed the brothers to pursue the 1972 decision
to change to coeducation. While they did not have the authority to make decisions, their
involvement at least gave them an opportunity to be part of the process.
It was also possible to analyze the creation of the lay advisory board from the
human resource lens. The establishment of the lay advisory board represented a unique
way to respond to the needs of the people within the larger Akron community and to the
needs of those within the Hoban community. It suggested that the school was interested
in having a broader base in its decisions, looking beyond the local Holy Cross house for
input. By inviting leaders from the corporate and civic communities in Akron to become
advisors on the lay board, the principal received guidance from experienced managers
and leaders. The interaction between Hoban and its environment was strengthened
through the communication between the brothers and the lay advisory board.
The new structure of the lay board was also important from a symbolic frame. Its
creation demonstrated a shift in the culture and beliefs of the organization. By being
inclusive and inviting lay participation, the principal was expanding the culture and
changing the myths about how information for decisions should be gathered. The lay
board helped to create social capital, expanding the network of social relations
characterized by trust. The changes were consistent with the findings of the research about the characteristics of a school with a strong Catholic culture.
The Summit County Board of Catholic Education was also a unique experiment.
As the first regional board of Catholic education established in the country, the board was indeed a unique attempt at governance. Not only did the board give voice to the laity, but a lay woman was its chairperson. Analyzing this development from structural and
169
political frames, it seemed that the board wrestled with how to operate. As a new
structure, it had to figure out what would be its parameters. It established goals and tried
to set up structures that would allow it to operate, and its existence affected the environment within which the schools operated. This was not an easy endeavor, because,
while the Summit County Board kept pushing the established boundaries of the authority
of the pastors and congregations, those same previously established structures used their
existent authority and stymied the work of the board. Thus, there was a convergence of
structural and political factors that affected the work of the board. Three cases
exemplified this convergence: the board’s proposal to the brothers that Hoban should
merge with St. Mary’s; the pastors vote to stop the redevelopment of St. Vincent-St.
Mary by asking the bishop not to let the bids for the new high school; and the provincial
going to the bishop to move forward the final decision on coeducation.
When the Summit County Board had proposed the merger to the brothers, they
decided that they would have to take the request to the next level, that is, to the legislative
assembly for the province, the Chapter. In a way, the effort by the Summit County Board
seemed naïve because they did not have any authority to make the decision. The power
and authority rested solely with the congregation. Thus, even though they had deemed
that the merger was their best option for the future of Catholic secondary education in the
county, they were powerless to bring about that decision. When the Chapter voted
against the merger, therefore, they had to regroup and come up with a new plan.
Because they could exert structural and political control over the diocesan schools
in the area, the board was able to enact a new merger, one between St. Vincent and St.
Mary High Schools. Once again they experienced difficulties, though. They reached the
170
point where they were ready to let bids for construction of the new high school, but they
were stymied again when the pastors came out against the plan and questioned whether it
was needed. Financial questions loomed large in the minds of the pastors, and by not
supporting the decision of the board to ask the bishop to allocate over $2 million from the
Campaign for the High Schools to Summit County, there was a serious problem. By the
pastors not supporting the board’s efforts, the old order of the power of the pastors came
to the forefront to counteract the efforts of the experimental body, the Summit County
Board. The board was able to get the attention of the bishop and, ultimately, his permission to proceed with their project, but it required more effort.
In the example of the final decision for Hoban to become coeducational, the
Summit County Board also experienced difficulties that were structural and political. It
was very unclear in early 1972 who really had the authority to decide that Hoban could
become coeducational. As noted above, Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., the principal, had
himself expressed his uncertainty to his provincial, questioning who really could decide
that Hoban would change. The lay advisory board wanted the change and was pushing
for it. Brother John asked the Summit County Board to approve it, and they voted against
Hoban changing in 1972. After being turned down in 1970 by the brothers and amid the
board’s struggles to get the new high school under way, it was not hard to understand the
board’s reluctance to approve coeducation for Hoban. But the financial pressures kept
the issue alive at Hoban. After the bishop casually remarked that the brothers could do
what they wanted regarding coeducation at Hoban, the brothers pursued the matter. They
worked through the bishop and also contacted the Summit County Board to ask them to
reconsider their decision. By the time the board met to reconsider their vote, the bishop
171
had already given the provincial approval for Hoban to change. In a subsequent letter,
the bishop acknowledged that he was affirming the decision of the Provincial Council. In
fact, the Summit County Board was left just to rubber stamp a decision that had moved
outside of their structural and political frames.
Formal Structures were Loosely Coupled
In each of the critical incidents, the formal structures that were in place did not
always determine how internal or external influences played roles in the decision making.
In the first critical incident, the question of becoming a co-institutional school, the
internal influences of the brothers and the school’s governance structures (especially the
roles of the principal and the lay advisory board) were particularly important. The
external influences were the Bardsley & Haslacher study in 1968 along with the Bishop
and his office. The survey had set the stage by saying in 1968 that parents were interested in a coeducational school at Hoban. The Bishop had gone through formal structures and had his assistant ask the principal to consider Hoban becoming a co- institutional school. The principal, Brother William Fitch, C.S.C., explored the possibility. He discussed it in depth with the brothers in the house at Hoban and with the
lay board. It is not clear just where the structures fell apart in the decision making. The
structures that were in place, however, were not able to carry through to get the decision
made.
In the second critical incident, the merger question in 1970, the internal influences
were the brothers and the province (especially the vote at the Chapter) and the financial
difficulties of the school. External influences were the Summit County Board and its
attempt to resolve the high school question, the Bardsley & Haslacher survey, the
172
Campaign for the High Schools, and Vatican II. The formal structures revolved around the actions of the brothers and the Chapter, as well as around the actions of the Summit
County Board. The minutes of the Chapter give a reasoned account for the vote against the merger: there were too many uncertainties in the environment because the diocesan plans for building or renovating schools and determining whether they would be single- sex or coeducational were unclear. In the report of the committee to the Chapter, the brothers said that it was not evident how the funds from the Diocesan Campaign would be spent. Thus, the formal structure depended on a rational-contingency model to make the decision. The informal structure of the Chapter suggested, though, that the Chapter decision was influenced by a perception that the brothers from Hoban were not in favor of moving to coeducation. Vatican II had loosened its views on coeducation, and there were schools changing from single-sex to coeducational arrangements. The financial situation at Hoban was deteriorating and coeducation was coming on as a viable option in
Akron, especially since the Bardsley & Haslacher survey had stated parental support for coeducation at Hoban. It could be interpreted, therefore, that the Chapter decision was loosely coupled with the influences within the decision making process.
The formal structures of the Summit County Board were still in the process of being developed. They were influenced by the opinions expressed in the Bardsley &
Haslacher survey, by their desire to get money from the Campaign for the High Schools invested in Summit County, and by their efforts to resolve the high school question. The board did their research and made what they thought was the best proposal: that Hoban merge with St. Mary’s. The external influences supported their efforts, and took them as far as making the proposal. But their structures were loosely coupled with the ability to
173
make the decision. The board lacked the structures and political power to effectuate the
decision, yet not the political or social will.
In the third critical incident, the decision in 1972 that Hoban would become
coeducational, it was not clear who could make the decision. Thus, the influences of the
brothers, the province, and the Summit County Board were loosely coupled with the
decision making capability. This situation caused a complex series of events to unfold
before a final decision was made. Politically, there were financial issues that compelled
the principal to push for a change. The coercive force of declining enrollment since
Walsh opened in 1964 combined with the mimetic force resulting from the new school
that was in the works in 1972—a coeducational St. Vincent-St. Mary. The negotiations
were ongoing and continued during the winter and spring, even after initial decisions
were announced. The brothers went to the Summit County Board, and it rejected their
request. Then the brothers went back to the board to repeat their request. The resource-
dependence model explained why the school persisted: the school needed the
environment to provide more students so it could bring in more money. When the
bishop’s remark opened the possibility of the brothers deciding the coeducation question
at Hoban, the brothers pressed for a final decision because they had to for the school to
survive. The social context supported questioning authority and encouraged a “do your own thing” attitude. Structures tended to loosen up during this era because of that social
context, thus making it permissible to question the establishment and encouraging people
to engage in actions that allowed them to pursue their beliefs. Site based management
was in its infancy at Hoban with the lay advisory board, but the group pushed by
encouraging Brother John to pursue securing permission for Hoban to become
174
coeducational. The principal agreed and kept trying to bring about the decision on
coeducation because he had to if he wanted to have a chance to resolve the financial woes
of the school. Near the end of the process, students staged a walkout symbolizing their desire for coeducation, but the decision was virtually sealed by that time. The student protest indicated the desire of the students to have their opinion heard, to influence the decision, and to have their opinion acknowledged by the school. Eventually, the provincial worked with the bishop to secure approval for coeducation, forcing the
Summit County Board to meet to approve the move, but the board was not functioning as the primary decision maker. Through it all, therefore, the formal structures were not fully in line with how the events played out.
Importance of Who Made the Decision
At each decision point, who actually made the decision was important. In the first critical incident, the situation was different because it was not possible to determine who actually made a decision not to become a co-institutional school. I still suggest, however, that it is significant that it was not possible to determine the decision maker. All the right players who held the power to make decisions at that time were in place: the principal, the Bishop and the Diocese, and even the lay advisory board. It was the wrong time to make the change, though. There were not sufficient forces at play through institutional isomorphism to compel Hoban to make sure that the change occurred. The decision makers did not experience pressures through coercive or mimetic isomorphism to cause them to make the change to coeducation. For these reasons, the decision was dropped and the community lost the chance to get an edge by being an early adopter of a change in the environment.
175
In the second critical incident, the 1970 merger, the Summit County Board was a
new structure whose political responsibilities were not fully defined. The brothers were
the ones who held the formal, official power, and thus they were able to exercise the role of decision maker. To a certain extent, the decision was made in a rational manner using the power structure to exercise political authority. In 1970, there was neither enough pressure within the environment to force Hoban as an organization to accept coeducation nor to view the Summit County Board as a decision maker whose advice should be followed. The stirrings toward change within the social context were not strong enough to cause the brothers as decision makers to change the school. The brothers were fully in control of Hoban’s fate, functioning as the decision makers.
By the time that the decision to become coeducational was made in 1972, there
were changes in the culture and in the environment. The enrollment decline that began at
Hoban after Walsh opened in 1964 was very serious by 1972, and it showed no sign of
abating. The redeveloped St. Vincent-St. Mary High School was coeducational. Thus,
institutional isomorphism and the school’s finances were pushing the brothers to change to coeducation. The decision making capabilities of the Summit County Board were clearer as the board worked hard on the St. Vincent-St. Mary project. The brothers would have to negotiate with the Summit County Board to get their decision on coeducation finalized. It was therefore a complex decision path that developed, and the responsibility for who could make the decision bounced around among decision makers. The brothers made a request to the Summit County Board, who rejected their request. The principal went back to the provincial, because the principal was unsure about who could really authorize the change at Hoban, and he wondered whether the province needed to be
176
involved. In the meantime, the Bishop quipped publicly that the brothers could make the
decision for Hoban to become coeducational, and that set the final chain of decisions into
motion. There were discussions among the brothers, and then the provincial contacted
the bishop. The bishop referenced a decision by the Provincial Council, a decision I was
not able to document. But once the two peers under canon law—the bishop and the
provincial—agreed to the change, it was, for all intents and purposes, a final decision.
That fact left the work of the Summit County Board somewhat in the lurch, but the board still met in special session and approved the brothers’ request. Thus, a structural view of the decision could say that all stakeholders—the brothers, the bishop, and the Summit
County Board—all had roles as decision makers along the way. The most significant fact was that the decision rested ultimately within the power of the brothers who pursued it to the end.
Coeducation was an Expedient Decision
After analyzing all the data in this study, I concluded that the decision for Hoban to become coeducational was an expedient decision, echoing that findings of Tyack and
Hansot (1992). The Bardsley & Haslacher survey had stated in 1968 that parents wanted a coeducational school located at Hoban. The final decision to become coeducational was not made according to the rational-contingency model based on the organization’s goals and structures. It was not a philosophical decision that came directly out of the changing social context. Perhaps it was indirectly impacted by the changing cultural norms. But those factors were secondary to the political question of the scarce resources: the lower enrollment could not generate enough funds to run the school efficiently. The declining enrollment that had resulted since Walsh opened in 1964 was a compelling
177
force that challenged Hoban as it tried to meet its budget and financial obligations to the
diocese and the province. The forces within the changing environment of the culture of
the Catholic high schools joined with the mimetic forces that were growing as the
coeducational school at St. Vincent-St. Mary was redeveloped. Politically, Hoban
needed to find a new niche and build it up. The school was dependent on the
environment to create new resources. All of these factors explained the emphasis on the financial difficulties of the school as the prime motivation for change. Becoming a coeducational school thus presented itself to Hoban in 1972 as the expedient way to resolve the financial issues.
A “Garbage Can” Decision
The decision was expedient, but how else could we describe the way that the decision was made? The garbage can theory (Hall, 2002) was the best way to describe how the final decision was actually made. The brothers had let the co-institutional suggestion drop and had then rejected the move to coeducation when they voted against the merger in 1970. Yet, conditions involving enrollment and finances had deteriorated more by 1972. The brothers’ concerns from 1970 about the uncertainty of the plans of the diocese had been resolved by 1972 as the plan had crystallized in the Summit County
Board’s work to redevelop St. Vincent-St. Mary High School. The garbage can model described the decision to become coeducational because the brothers reverted to the previously discarded notion of becoming coeducational as the only solution to the financial difficulties. Institutional isomorphism guided the decision as the normative and cultural demands pushed Hoban to go back to the notion of coeducation. There was one
178
difference in the plan since there would be no more talk of a merger, because that option was gone. Hoban would just accept and enroll girls.
From a symbolic viewpoint, it was just not working for Hoban as it tried to enroll only boys. The coercive and mimetic forces were too strong, and they were increasing the pressure on Hoban to change. Parents had also expressed their interest in Hoban being the site of a coeducational school through the 1968 Bardsley & Haslacher survey.
Students expressed their interest in coeducation through a walkout, a very 1970s thing to do.
Analyzing the decision from the political frame, the resources were scarce because money was limited due to the declining enrollment. The school had attempted to manage the decline since Walsh had opened, but had come to the conclusion that it would no longer be enough for Hoban to limit its enrollment to boys. The school had decided that it had to enroll girls. No other myth or reality entered the picture as a possible solution. The school therefore decided to enter into the series of negotiations that occurred with the Summit County Board and, ultimately, with the Bishop to accomplish the change.
From a structural lens, Hoban had accepted that its goals could change to allow coeducation. The brothers’ decision to seek coeducation was consistent with its charisms and philosophy of education. Expanding the mission of the school to girls demonstrated an emphasis on inclusivity. If the school admitted girls, the brothers could also respond to needs of the local Church by doing what parents had favored. Since the institutional practice was changing as St. Vincent-St. Mary developed as a merged, coeducational school, the brothers also were true to the philosophy of Father Moreau that the
179
congregation’s schools should be aware of and adopt current developments in educational
practice. After Vatican II, there was an easing of requirements about schools becoming
coeducational as well as an increased role for the laity, and Hoban’s decision to change
reflected these structural changes. Within the social context of the time period, it was
common to question authority, and the role of women was changing. There seemed to be
an assumption that, to use Sergiovanni’s (2000) images, that if the systemsworld of
Hoban changed, then the lifeworld would just follow. Thus, Hoban realized that it had to
change to respond to the environmental pressures if the school was to improve its niche,
and accepted this as the viable course of action.
In the end, Hoban reverted to its garbage can containing previous decisions, thereby using what it already knew to accomplish the end it needed. The brothers justified the decision as the only recourse. This caused them to persist in doing all the steps necessary to get the decision made. Could they have found other solutions?
Perhaps that was possible, but no alternative was pursued. The Hoban decision making effort contrasted with the process Gilmour Academy, another Holy Cross school, used in the 1980s. They engaged in a much more deliberate process, conducting an intensive study and involving many stakeholders in the discussions (Personal interview, Brother
Robert Lavelle, C.S.C., 2005). Hoban did not look for other options, or raise questions about what effect coeducation would have on the school. Instead, the school went back and accepted coeducation as the solution it needed.
These five themes emerged from the data as explanations of what occurred and why throughout Hoban’s journey to coeducation. It was a multi-step process, involving the three critical incidents of the question of a co-institutional school, the merger, and the
180
1972 decision to become coeducational. There were internal and external factors that
impacted each critical incident, and Hoban reacted in specific ways to the influences at
each decision point. There was significant experimentation in new structural and political frames. Formal structures were loosely coupled with the influences on each
decision point. At each point, who made the decision was important. In the end, the
decision to become coeducational was expedient and exemplified a garbage can model of
decision making.
181
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary of the Study
This case study examined the history of Archbishop Hoban High School’s journey to become a coeducational Catholic high school beginning in the fall of 1973.
Using primary and secondary documents available in the Archives of the Diocese of
Cleveland, in the Archives of the Midwest Province, in records at Archbishop Hoban
High School, and in the personal files of Sally Riede, I uncovered the major elements of this change in institutional organization. Interviews with key participants supplemented the written records. Using the history and philosophy of education of the Brothers of
Holy Cross, organizational theories, research on the culture of Catholic high schools, and information on the social context as the conceptual framework, the study analyzed the internal and external influences on three decision points and how Hoban reacted to them.
The internal influences were: the Congregation of Holy Cross and its members; the school’s governance structures, such as the role of the principal, the Hoban Board and the development of the lay advisory board; the financial condition of the school; and the parents and students. The external influences were: Vatican II; the Catholic Church and its views on coeducation; the Diocesan Campaign for the High Schools; the Summit
County Board of Catholic Education; the Bardsley & Haslacher (1968) survey; and the
Bishop of Cleveland. Five major themes emerged from the data: 1) During the late 1960s
182
and early 1970s in Akron, there was experimentation in structural and political frames
among the Catholic school community, especially in the high schools and with the
Summit County Board of Education, changing the environment for the high schools. 2)
The formal structures in place did not always determine how internal or external
influences played roles in the decision making. 3) At each decision point, who made the
decision was important. 4) The final decision to become coeducational was not a
decision that resulted from a reasoned, deliberate process as much as it was expedient. 5)
The garbage can model of decision making seemed to explain what occurred in 1972.
The data helped answer the two research questions of the study:
1. What internal and external influences played a role in the decisions that led
Archbishop Hoban High School to change to a coeducational school?
2. How did Hoban as an organization react to these influences?
All these data combined to make it possible to articulate the conclusions from this
research.
Conclusions
In response to the first research question, the internal and external influences
created an interesting set of circumstances in which the school experienced each critical
incident. The three critical incidents were the co-institutional question, the merger vote
in 1970, and the final decision in 1972 that Hoban would become a coeducational school
in the fall of 1973. The internal influences were: the Congregation of Holy Cross and its
members; the school’s governance structures, such as the role of the principal, the Hoban
Board, and the development of the lay advisory board; the financial condition of the
school; the parents; and the students. The external influences were: Vatican II; the
183
Catholic Church and its views on coeducation; the Diocesan Campaign for the High
Schools; the Summit County Board of Catholic Education; the Bardsley & Haslacher
(1968) survey; and the Bishop of Cleveland.
In the first critical incident, the school considered whether to become a co-
institutional school with St. Mary High School. The Bishop’s office had asked the
principal to consider this question. The principal had worked hard on this proposal, and
had presented information about its advantages to the brothers who lived in the house at
Hoban. The lay advisory board was in favor of the proposal. The proposal was dropped,
although the reasons why were not clearly explained in the researched documents and interviews. By the time a new principal was at Hoban in 1969, the proposal was no longer being considered.
The second critical incident was the proposed merger with St. Mary’s in 1970.
This incident involved the brothers at Hoban as well as those throughout the Midwest
Province. The Summit County Board of Catholic Education had extensively studied the high school question in Akron. There were many different proposals that they examined.
The Summit County Board was trying to meet needs as articulated by the parents in the
opinions they voiced in the Bardsley & Haslacher (1968) survey. The parents wanted a
coeducational, comprehensive high school located on Hoban’s site. The merger would
also be a plan that would invest funds from the Campaign for the High Schools into
Summit County. The Summit County Board proposed the merger to the brothers at
Hoban and then to the Provincial Chapter. The Chapter established a committee to study
the question, and the committee reported in June, before the vote was taken at Chapter.
The Chapter minutes also revealed that there were changes occurring in the Church since
184
Vatican II, and that these had affected the brothers. There was a decline in the number of
brothers, and that affected the numbers of people available to staff the schools. There was
also a report on the property schools, including Hoban, stating that the schools were
experiencing tight budgets but that none was in dire straits. After hearing the committee’s report, the brothers voted no to the merger proposal because of uncertainties about the diocesan plans for building or renovating high schools as well as uncertainties about whether those schools would be single-sex or coeducational. There is a perception among the brothers today that the no vote reflected that the brothers in Akron did not want the merger and coeducation to occur, but this opinion was not substantiated by the historical documents.
The third critical incident was the 1972 decision that Hoban would become a
coeducational school beginning in the fall of 1973. Enrollment had continued to decline,
causing financial difficulties for the school. After the brothers voted against the merger,
the Summit County Board had initiated a merger between St. Vincent and St. Mary High
Schools. While the plans for the redevelopment of the new school were underway, the
brothers realized that they would need to change Hoban to a coeducational school in
order to enroll more students and solve the financial problems they were facing. There
was some question about who could really make this decision. The principal, Brother
John Benesh, C.S.C., pursued the matter along many different avenues. He asked the
Summit County Board to pass a proposal that would allow Hoban to become
coeducational in the fall of 1972. The board denied this request in March 1972. The
brothers persisted because they knew that the school would not survive without more
students. The lay advisory board at Hoban agreed that the school’s continued success
185
was linked to a change to coeducation. On April 24, Bishop Issenmann made a public
remark to a group of people protesting about the delay in building the new St. Vincent-St.
Mary High School, remarking that the brothers at Hoban could go to coeducation if they wanted. That remark prompted another series of communications among the brothers and the province, resulting in the provincial asking his peer, the bishop, about the issue.
The result was that the bishop gave his approval, eventually indicating that he was agreeing with a recommendation from the Provincial Council. The Summit Board had agreed to meet with the brothers to reconsider the earlier request. Just prior to that meeting, the students at Hoban staged a walkout on April 28 in support of the change at
Hoban. The board did meet on April 30 and approved Hoban becoming coeducational.
The school announced the following week that the change would begin in the fall of
1973. Renovations were made to the building during the 1972-1973 school years, and
female teachers and counselors were added to the staff. The new structure began in the
fall of 1973.
The second research question looked at how Hoban reacted to the influences on
each critical incident. The co-institutional decision ended up being a non-decision. But
before the issue was dropped, the brothers (particularly the principal, Brother William
Fitch, C.S.C.), the lay advisory board, the Bardsley & Haslacher survey (1968), and the
Bishop and his office were important influences. Hoban reacted by listening to the
request from the Bishop that the school consider becoming co-institutional with St.
Mary’s. The principal pursued the idea with the lay board and with the brothers. The
Bardsley & Haslacher survey provided information that parents were in favor of
coeducation and of such a school being located at Hoban. The Hoban community thus
186
pursued the idea since the influences were strong and presented a compelling story. For reasons that I could not fully determine, however, the proposal was dropped, and was not an active issue by the time a new principal came on board in 1969.
The second critical incident, the merger, was influenced strongly by the brothers and the Midwest Province, the governing structures, the finances at the school, the
Summit County Board of Catholic Education, the Diocesan Campaign for the High
Schools, the Bardsley & Haslacher survey, and Vatican II. The school reacted to the proposal from the Summit County Board by listening to it and moving it on to the
Chapter for the decision to be made. The board wanted to make sure that money from the
Diocesan Campaign was invested in Summit County, and had put significant effort into studying the high school question prior to presenting this proposal as their best alternative. The brothers at Hoban listened to the merger proposal from the board, and then moved along the decision making to a higher level, that is, to the provincial level at the Chapter. Vatican II had resulted in changes within the Church, and some of those resulted in declining numbers among the brothers. That fact was changing the staffing patterns at Hoban. The finances at Hoban were getting tighter as enrollment continued to decline, but the brothers did not yet perceive a crisis. The Chapter listened to the proposal about the merger, appointed a committee to study the question, and then heard that committee’s recommendation in June. After hearing about the uncertainties in the diocesan planning, the brothers voted no to the merger question. Hoban abided by the decision made at the provincial level. Did the brothers working at Hoban influence the final vote because they were not in favor of the merger or of coeducation? Popular
187
opinion among the brothers today draws that conclusion, but the evidence in the documents did not prove that reaction and explanation.
The school reacted to the influences on the third critical incident in a number of different ways. By 1972, it was clear to the brothers at the school that Hoban would have to become coeducational in order to survive. The enrollment had declined and finances were now a real problem. The principal, Brother John Benesh, C.S.C., very actively pursued the issue. Influences on this critical incident were: the finances at the school; the governance structures at the school, especially the roles of the brothers, of the lay advisory board, and of the province; the interests of parents and students; Bishop
Issenmann; the changing views on coeducation within the Catholic Church; Vatican II; and the Summit County Board of Catholic Education. It was not clear to the principal exactly who had the authority to make a change in Hoban’s mission by becoming coeducational. He pursued the question through numerous channels. He wrote to the provincial, he corresponded with the lay advisory board about the issue, and he asked the
Summit County Board to approve Hoban’s request to become coeducational in the fall of
1972. None of these structures proved the right political venue where the decision could be made. The Church’s views on coeducation were not as critical of the practice as they had been earlier in the century. Whether brothers would be able to teach in a coeducational school without special permission was therefore less of an issue. St.
Vincent-St. Mary was being redeveloped, and the pressure was on Hoban to join in the practice of coeducation. The results of the Bardsley and Haslacher survey and inquiries to the principal by the lay advisory board reflected parental interest in coeducation at
Hoban. After a comment by Bishop Issenmann that opened the door to the change, the
188
brothers at the school worked with the provincial who contacted his peer, the Bishop, and
approval was granted. That still left some unfinished business for the school since,
during this same week, the students had a walkout in favor of coeducation and the
brothers were still working with the Summit County Board to get their approval for
coeducation. The decision was finally made and announced, and Hoban started planning
for the fall of 1973 when girls would join the boys at Hoban.
Pulling all the data together, I analyzed the five themes that emerged from the
data, using the conceptual framework formed by the research I examined in the review of
literature. The five themes were: 1) During the late 1960s and early 1970s, in Akron,
there was experimentation in structural and political frames among the Catholic school
community, especially in the high schools and with the Summit County Board of
Catholic Education, changing the environment for the high schools. 2) The formal
structures in place did not always determine how internal or external influences played
roles in the decision making. 3) At each decision point, who made the decision was
important. 4) The final decision to become coeducational was not a decision that resulted
from a reasoned, deliberate process as much as it was expedient. 5) The garbage can
model of decision making seemed to explain what occurred in 1972.
The lay advisory board and the Summit County Board of Catholic Education
exemplified experimentation in structures and in exercising political power. These
innovative bodies came into existence during an historical time period whose social context created a milieu that questioned authority and the establishment. It was a time when women and minorities were gaining increased rights, and a time when people were seeking a greater voice in decision making, especially when they would be affected by
189
the decisions made. These movements influenced the Catholic Church at the same time
that there were calls for a greater voice for the laity within the Church after Vatican II,
along with changes in religious life that affected the congregations. Within Summit
County, the experimentations in decision making affected the institutional environment in which the schools operated. The Summit County Board made attempts to make policy to manage the high schools and to disburse funds from the Diocesan Campaign to build and renovate schools. But the culture of the schools maintained the older ways of structural, human resource, and political frames that were actually operational. Decisions about
Hoban rested more with the brothers than with the lay board or the Summit County
Board. By the mid-1970s, the situation at Hoban would change as the lay advisory board evolved into the Board of Trustees. But at the same time, the Summit County Board was never able to develop structures and political power to manage Hoban, as it had envisioned in the early days of the Board. The symbolic and cultural changes that were in development during the shift to coeducation represented initial and significant starts to changes in the environment in which Hoban operated.
The second theme was that formal structures did not always determine how the internal and external influences identified above played roles in the decision making.
Echoing the works of DiMaggio and Powell (1983), Meyer and Rowan (1977), and Scott
(2001), the influences were loosely coupled with the formal structures. As the school moved through each decision point, informal factors played roles. In the co-institutional question, the decision was not taken through formal channels to an end point. In the merger question, the Summit County Board was left stranded outside of the decision making process after the brothers voted against the merger. In the final decision to
190
become coeducational, the Summit County Board rejected a proposal from the brothers,
but the principal persisted and pressed the issue because he knew that the school had to
become coeducational to survive. Eventually, the provincial and the board agreed that
the school could become coeducational, leaving the Summit County Board to agree with
the decision.
Another theme was that the decision maker was important. In the co-institutional
question, the principal, Brother William Fitch, C.S.C., had followed up on the bishops’
suggestion and pursued the idea. But the decision did not have enough strength to stand
on its own and was dropped. It was significant that no one could be identified as the decision maker as I conducted this research. The merger question took the decision off
the local level and to the province. The Summit County Board was, in essence, shut out
of the decision process that they had initiated. There were not sufficient structural and
political forces to empower the board to make the decision. In a sense, the same thing
happened with the decision that Hoban would become coeducational. It was really the
structural and political forces within the brothers’ power that made the decision happen,
especially the connection within the Church of the provincial and the bishop, who were
peers. There were environmental pressures that caused the brothers to push for
coeducation because of the scarcity in the number of students who had been enrolling.
Hoban needed to create a new niche, and set about doing this. The brothers used their
capabilities as decision makers to accomplish this goal.
Another theme that emerged connected with Tyack and Hansot (1992) who found
that coeducation was often implemented because it was expedient and natural. This was
the case for Hoban. While there were many interesting developments within the
191
influences on the decision and within the social context, the brothers pushed hard for
coeducation in 1972 because they believed that it was the only way to increase
enrollment enough to be able to resolve the financial difficulties that the school was
facing.
In the end, the final theme that emerged was that the decision to become
coeducational at Hoban represented a “garbage can” model of decision making as
described by Hall (2002). The school went back to what it had previously discarded in its
decision making process and examined that information to find a solution to the pressures
it was feeling from the environment. Pressures had come from Walsh’s opening in 1964
which had caused Hoban’s enrollment to decline annually. Mimetic pressures were coming from the redevelopment of St. Vincent-St. Mary High School as a new facility that would be coeducational. The school was dependent on the environment for
resources, and was experiencing scarcity and thus a lack of power. Hoban needed to find
a new niche, and the only solution it considered was becoming coeducational. It was
willing to change its structures to accommodate the new population of the girls. The culture was ready to support the change, represented symbolically by the boys’ walkout
in favor of coeducation. The social context of the time period supported challenging old
ways and structures, and supported new rights for women. Parents had expressed their
desire for coeducation at Hoban with their responses to the Bardsley & Haslacher survey
in 1968. All these events existed in Hoban’s “garbage can” for making decisions, and
came together in 1972 to push the brothers to persist until they had permission for the
school to become coeducational beginning in the fall of 1973.
192
Implications
The research revealed a complex story of decision making about critical incidents.
By studying and analyzing this rich narrative, it was possible to understand the many factors that influenced Hoban’s journey to becoming a coeducational school. The three critical incidents each represented decision points when the change could have been made. But, as the organizational theories supported, the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic forces were not in place for the first two. Thus, the co- institutional idea was dropped and the merger was voted down. By 1972, the political
forces were gaining momentum because finances were low due to declining enrollment.
Institutional environmental pressures were not strong in the first two incidents, but
pushed Hoban to coeducation in 1972. That the organization was able to make such a
dramatic shift and continue to grow in the end underscored an inherent strength in the
Hoban community. Balancing the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic
frames allowed the school to meet the challenge of this fundamental change head-on.
The organization adapted well to the transformation. Because the change allowed Hoban
to stay true to the philosophy of Father Moreau and Holy Cross education, this
foundation provided another reason why the Hoban community could adapt. The change
was a local decision that met the needs of the community, allowing the school to become
more inclusive and adapt to current educational practice. The strong Catholic culture of
the school also supported this evolution within the school to meet current needs of the
Church population. The social context of the 1970s created a milieu in which it was
acceptable to question authority and current practices and in which women’s roles and
rights were changing.
193
Many schools have had to face critical incidents. It is valuable to be able to analyze what were the important influences in the critical incidents, and how the organization reacted to them. Developing a conceptual framework provides an organization with a way to analyze its situation. Studying how an organization reacted in the past helps the organization be aware of strengths and weaknesses in how it makes decisions, with the possibility that it can build on the strengths to respond to new critical incidents.
Suggestions for Further Research
This study provided details of an important time in the history of a school community. For Archbishop Hoban High School, these were the first of several critical incidents. Conducting a similar study on the 1976 announcement that the school would close and the subsequent efforts to save Hoban would create a record of another important step in Hoban’s history. The 1976 critical incident was perhaps the most serious crisis in Hoban’s history, and it has left many lasting effects. The topic is ripe for study and analysis. Another study could be conducted on the development of the governance structures of Hoban, culminating in an analysis of the origins and implications of the memorandum of understanding with the Midwest Province and its accompanying sponsorship documents. Making an attempt to understand all these critical incidents in Hoban’s history would yield good subjects for further research.
Survival through a strong enrollment and a healthy financial picture continues to be a challenge for many private and public schools today. These problems cause the schools to deal with questions about mergers, consolidations, closings, or other organizational changes. In the Diocese of Cleveland, two high schools have closed, one
194
each in the last two years. Those schools were Lorain Catholic High School, a
coeducational school, and St. Augustine Academy, a school for girls in Lakewood, Ohio.
Other dioceses across the country face similar issues. In the spring of 2005, the Detroit
Diocese announced the closing of its diocesan high schools in the city. The Brothers of
Holy Cross closed Le Mans Academy in Indiana at the end of the 2002-2003 school year
and Holy Cross High School in River Grove, Illinois, the next year. By identifying
critical incidents in a school’s past, identifying internal and external influences that
influenced those incidents, studying how the organization reacted to each influence, and
analyzing the themes that emerge using this study’s conceptual framework, the school
could identify characteristics the organization has called upon successfully in the past.
The schools could use this knowledge as they work to resolve current crises. Such
studies would be other subjects for further research.
Single-sex schools continue to thrive in many locales. There are also those who call for single-gender programs within existing public or private schools. It would be
interesting for researchers to study how such schools or programs originated and why
these schools or programs are single-gender, whether these schools or programs must
deal with enrollment and financial pressures, and the impact of the institutional
environmental pressures in today’s social context as the schools or programs remain
single-gender. Researchers could study these issues to look for the reasons that account
for the successes or failures of these programs as another area for further research.
As time progressed, the Summit County Regional Board of Catholic Education
and the Diocesan Board of Education ceased to exist in the same ways as they had in the
late 1960s and early 1970s. Schools and parishes began to develop boards to help with
195
managing the schools. Some were advisory and some had more authority, as exemplified by the Hoban Board of Trustees. There are still Regional Boards in the different areas of the Diocese of Cleveland, but they do not manage affairs in the high schools. They are primarily a resource for the elementary schools, while the high schools work with the
Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools. Another potential area of study would be to identify regional boards across the country that functioned like the Summit County
Board of Catholic Education, to study their history, and to determine whether they are still in existence and the reasons why or why not. The evolution of this educational reform would provide interesting material for a case study on the whole phenomenon as well as for case studies of regional developments.
196
REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. (1999). Reprinted in 2003. Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Alexander, K. & Alexander, M. D. (1985). American public school law. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
Armstrong, P. (1995). A more perfect legacy: A portrait of Brother Ephrem O’Dwyer, C.S.C., 1888-1978. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Augenstein, J. & Meitler, N. (2000). Catholic school growth 1985-1999. Washington, DC: NCEA (National Catholic Educational Association).
Bardsley & Haslacher, Inc. (1968). Report and analysis of the attitude and opinion study of Catholic education and high school sites, Summit County, Ohio. Prepared for Committee on Catholic High School Education, Diocese of Cleveland, Project No. BH 260/68.
Bartunek, J. (2002). The proper place of organizational scholarship: A comment on Hinings and Greenwood. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 422-427.
Blumenthal, K. (2005). Let me play: The story of Title IX, the law that changed the future of girls in America. New York: Atheneum Books.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1990). Images of leadership. Presented at the American Educational Research Association, April 1990.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 82, 4, 509- 534.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boren, M. E. (2001). Student resistance: A history of an unruly subject. New York: Routledge.
Bryk, A., Lee, V., & Holland, P. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 197
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications.
Clegg, S. (2002). Lives in the balance: A comment on Hinings and Greenwood’s Disconnects and consequences in organization theory? Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 428-441.
Cleveland Terror: 10 killed, 18 wounded, 53 arrested in sniper plot by black nationalists. (1968, July 24). The Akron Beacon Journal, pp. A1-A2.
Coleman, J. & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Constitutions and Statutes of the Congregation of Holy Cross. (1988). Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press.
Convey, J. J. (1992). Catholic schools make a difference: Twenty-five years of research. Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Denzin, N. (2001). Interpretive interactionism. 2nd Edition. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 16. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
Dzieken, T. A., C.S.C. (2001). A Holy Cross Scrapbook: Educating Hearts and Minds. Notre Dame, IN: Holy Cross Educational Ministries.
Employee Handbook, 2004-2005, Archbishop Hoban High School. (2004). Akron, Ohio: Archbishop Hoban High School.
Faithful past faith-filled future: Papers commissioned for the Centennial of the National Catholic Educational Association. (2003). Washington, DC: NCEA (National Catholic Educational Association).
Finkelstein, B. (1992). Education historians as mythmakers. Review of Research in Education, 18, 255-297.
Flannery, A., O.P. (Ed.). (1998). Vatican Council II: The conciliar and post conciliar documents. New York: Costello Publishing.
198
Frison, B., C.M.F. (1959). Coeducation in Catholic schools: A commentary on the Instruction on Coeducation. Rome: Institutum Iuridicum Claretianum.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gaynor, D. (1968, July 18). Police radio talk tells trouble story. The Akron Beacon Journal, p. A2.
Giallanza, J., C.S.C. (Ed.). (1998). “A simple tool”: The mission and message of Father Basil Moreau. Rome: Instituto Salesiano Pio XI.
Giles, R. J. (1968, July 18). Ban unnecessary movement from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. The Akron Beacon Journal, pp. A1-A2.
Giles, R. H. (1968, July 24). Negroes, mayor reach agreement in last minute. The Akron Beacon Journal, pp. A1-A2.
Giles, R. H., McBane, R., & Grisola, J. (1968, July 20). Guardsmen also at Arlington; 2 boys hit by buckshot. The Akron Beacon Journal, pp. A1-A2.
Greene, J. & O’Keefe, J. (2004). Enrollment in Catholic schools in the United States. In T. Hunt, E. Joseph & R. Nuzzi, (Eds.), Handbook of research on Catholic education (pp.162-182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing
Hall, R. (2002). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes. (8th ed.) Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall.
Hallihan, M. (2002). Catholic education as a societal institution. Catholic Education: A journal of inquiry and practice, 6, 5-26.
Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. (1977). The populations ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 5, 929-964.
Harry, B., Sturges, K., & Klingner, J. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34, 2, 3-13.
Heft, J. (1997). The culture of Catholic schools. Catholic Education: A journal of inquiry and practice, 1, 27-36.
Heft, J. & Davidson, J. (2003). The mission of Catholic high schools and today’s millennials: Three suggestions. Catholic Education: A journal of inquiry and practice, 6, 410-421.
199
Hess, D. (1968, July 18). “Cool it, go home”—Negro leaders. The Akron Beacon Journal, pp. A1-A2.
Hill, M. R. (1993). Archival strategies and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hinings, C. & Greenwood, R. (2002). Disconnects and consequences in organization theory? Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 411-421.
Hoban to resume classes Monday. (1972, April 29). The Akron Beacon Journal.
Hope, A., C.S.C. (1999). Notre Dame—One hundred years. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.
Hudson, W. (2203). Building community is not just nice, it’s necessary. Momentum, 34, 3, 28-36.
Hunt, E., C.S.C. & Blauvelt, D., C.S.C. (Trans.) Excerpts form Basil Anthony Moreau’s Christian Education. Published by the South-West Province of Brothers. In Dzieken, T.A., C.S.C. (2001). A Holy Cross Scrapbook: Educating Hearts and Minds (pp. IIa1-IIa24). Notre Dame, IN: Holy Cross Educational Ministries.
Hunt, T. C., Joseph, E.A.., & Nuzzi, R.J. (Eds.). (2002). Catholic schools still make a difference: Ten years of research 1991-2000. Washington, DC: NCEA (National Catholic Educational Association).
Hunt, T. C., Joseph, E. A., & Nuzzi, R. J. (Eds.). (2004a). Catholic Schools in the United States: An encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Hunt, T. C., Joseph, E. A., & Nuzzi, R. J. (Eds.). (2004b). Handbook of research on Catholic education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hunt, T. C., Oldenski, T. E., & Wallace, T. J. (Eds.). (2000). Catholic school leadership: An invitation to lead. London: Falmer Press.
Kennelly, K. M., C.S.J. (2003). Leadership of women religious. In J. Augenstein, C.J. Kauffman, & R.J. Wister (Eds.), One hundred years of Catholic education: Historical essays in honor of the centennial of the National Catholic Educational Association (pp. 73-87). Washington, DC: NCEA.
Klein, S. S., Ortman, P. E., Campbell, P., Greenberg, S., Hollingsworth, S., Jacobs, J., et al. (1994). Continuing the journey toward gender equity. Educational Researcher, 23, 8, 13-21.
200
Lasser, C. (Ed.). (1987). Educating men and women together: Coeducation in a changing world. Urbana and Chicago: The University of Illinois Press in conjunction with Oberlin College.
Lee, V., Bryk, A., and Smith, J. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171-267.
LePore, P. C. and Warren, J. R. (1997). A comparison of single-sex and coeducational Catholic secondary schooling: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 3, 485-511.
Lesko, N. (1988). Symbolizing society: Stories, rites and structures in a Catholic high school. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Lynch, W. (1972, April 20). Bishop OKs new St. V-St. Mary’s. The Akron Beacon Journal.
Marsh, H. W., Smith, I.D., March, M., & Owens, L. (1988). The transition from single- sex to coeducational high schools: effects on multiple dimensions osf self- concept and on academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 2, 237-269.
Mael, F. A. (1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development. Review of Educational Research, 68, 2, 101-129.
McBane, R. (1968, July 18). Ballard, Whiddon calm but firm. The Akron Beacon Journal, pp. A1-A2.
McCarthy, M. C. (1990). The anchor and the wind: A profile of Sacred Heart Schools in the U.S. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9032449).
Meloy, J. M. (1994). Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by doing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as Myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 2.
Montes, G. (2003). Who attends Catholic schools in the United States? Evidence from the National Household Education Survey, 2001. Momentum, 34, 4, 24-29.
201
Newman, I., Benz, C. R., Weis, D., & McNeil, K. (1997). Theses and dissertations: A guide to writing in the social and physical sciences. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Ouchi, W. & Johnson, J. (1978). Types of organizational control and their relationship to emotional well being. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 293-317.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pilla, A.M. (1995). The church in the city. Cleveland: Diocese of Cleveland.
Pope Pius XI. (1929). Divini illius magistri (Encyclical on Christian Education). Retrieved July 8, 2005, from http.//www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html
Rowan, B. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 259-279.
Rowe, D. (2003). A straight-talking guide to running a school: For presidents, heads of schools and boards of Catholic elementary and high schools. Washington, DC: NCEA.
Sadker, M., Sadker, D., and Klein, S. (1991). The issue of gender in elementary and secondary education. Review of Research in Education, 17, 269-334.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Scott, R. W. (2001). Institutions and organizations. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Secretary’s Commission on Opportunities in Athletics. (2005). Executive Summary. In Simon, R. J. (Ed.). Sporting equality: Title IX thirty years later. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, community, and personal meaning in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Simon, R. J. (Ed.). (2005). Sporting equality: Title IX thirty years later. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Stack, G. (1997). A history of St. Michael’s. Dissertation Abstract International. (UMI No. 9812131).
202
Steinfels, M. (2003). Catholic education and American culture. Momentum, 34, 3, 13- 18.
Stimpson, C. R. (1987). New consciousness, old institutions, and the need for reconciliation. In Lasser, C. (Ed.). Educating men and women together: Coeducation in a changing world. Urbana and Chicago: The University of Illinois Press in conjunction with Oberlin College.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
To Teach as Jesus did: A pastoral message on Catholic education. (1972). Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Context of American Catholic Education. (2004). Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association.
The Visor (Hoban’s student newspaper). (1972-1974). Akron: Archbishop Hoban High School.
Tyack, D. & Hansot, E. (1988). Silence and policy talk: Historical puzzles about gender and education. Educational Researcher, 17, 3, 33-41.
Tyack, D. & Hansot, E. (1992). Learning together: A history of coeducation in American public schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tyack, D. & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 3, 453-479.
USCC (United States Catholic Conference). (1999). Excerpts from: Sharing Catholic social teaching, challenges and directions. Washington, DC: USCC.
Vance, W. (1968, July 24). They had six hours to move. The Akron Beacon Journal, pp. A1-A2.
Volunteers rush to help 42 nabbed in trouble area. (1968, July 18). The Akron Beacon Journal, p. A2.
Walch, T. (1996). Parish school: American Catholic parochial education from colonial times to the present. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company.
Wirth, E. (2003). Effective Catholic high school public relations: A book of cases. Washington, DC: NCEA.
203
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and method. ( 3rd ed.). Applied Social Research methods Series, volume 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Youniss, J. & Convey, J. (Eds.). (2000). Catholic schools at the crossroads: Survival and transformation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Youniss, J., Convey, J., & McLellan, J. (Eds.). (2000). The Catholic character of Catholic schools. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
UNPUBLISHED REFERENCES
Files in the Archives of the Diocese of Cleveland, Chancery, Cleveland, OH.
Files in the Archives of the Midwest Province of the Brothers of Holy Cross, Provincial Administration Building, Notre Dame, IN.
Files of Ms. Sally Riede containing minutes, etc. from her work on the Akron Regional Board of Catholic Education and on the Board of Education of the Diocese of Cleveland, Akron, OH.
Files pertaining to this time period and related subjects at Archbishop Hoban High School, Akron, OH.
204
APPENDICES
205
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL LETTER
206
APPENDIX B LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS, APPROVED BY IRB
207
APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANT ACCEPTANCE FORM
Acceptance Form for Participation in Dissertation Research for Mary Anne Beiting at the University of Akron
Please complete this information and return it to Mary Anne Beiting at Archbishop Hoban High School 1 Holy Cross Blvd. Akron, OH 44306 FAX: 330.773.9100 E-mail: [email protected] 330.773.0541 (work) or 330.592.2955 (cell)
Your name______
The best way to contact you, and the contact information:
Please check the boxes next to the responses(s) that are most appropriate for you: I prefer not to participate in this research. I consent to participate in this research process. o I give permission for the researcher to identify me and to quote me in the written report of this research. If I am identified or quoted, I understand that the researcher will provide me with a written copy of the research for me to approve prior to publication of the research. o I understand that my participation in this research is voluntary and that I may discontinue participation at any time, without penalty or loss of benefits.
I have read the information provided above and all of my questions have been answered. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
______Participant Signature Date 208
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Interview Questions for Dissertation Research for Mary Anne Beiting A Case Study of Archbishop Hoban High School: How an Organization Responds to a Critical Incident
Introduction and instructions for participants:
The purpose of this research is to address two research questions:
1. As an organization, how has Archbishop Hoban High School responded to change, especially in the case of a critical incident, the move to coeducation in 1973? 2. What aspects of the social context in which Archbishop Hoban High School existed in the 1970s influenced the critical incident of becoming co- educational?
Your participation in this interview/survey is voluntary. You will receive no personal benefit from participating, nor are there significant risks to you. However, you may discontinue participation at any time, without penalty or loss of benefits. Because I want to create a valid and accurate description of the history of Hoban’s decision to become co-educational, participants’ identities will not be confidential. If I were to quote you or name you directly in the research document, I will supply you with a copy of the written report for you to verify prior to its publication.
1) What is your name? 2) What is your contact information? (Address, phone number, email address) 3) What was your relationship with Archbishop Hoban High School in the early 1970s when there were discussions about whether the school should become co- educational? 4) Why were there discussions taking place about whether Hoban should become co-educational? 5) Were there structures in place at Hoban that impacted the decision whether or not Hoban should become co-educational? Structures include goals, specialized roles and formal relationships.
209
6) Were there human resource reasons at Hoban that impacted the decision whether or not Hoban should become co-educational 7) Were there political reasons at Hoban that impacted the decision whether or not Hoban should become co-educational? 8) Were there symbolic reasons at Hoban that impacted the decision whether or not Hoban should become co-educational? 9) Were there influences from the Catholic Church that impacted the decision whether or not Hoban should become co-educational: from the Diocese of Cleveland, within Akron, within the Congregation of Holy Cross, or within the Catholic Church as a whole? 10) Were there societal influences that impacted why Hoban considered going co- educational? 11) What was the timeline on the decision to become co-educational—decision not to merge followed by 1973 becoming co-educational? What proximal decisions were made in this process? 12) What would you consider the most important facts surrounding each of these incidents in Hoban’s history? 13) What was the impact on Archbishop Hoban High School of the decision to become co-educational? 14) May I contact you for more information? ______Yes ______No
Additional instructions for e-mail or written surveys: Please answer each question as thoroughly as you can. Please feel free to write your answers on other paper and attach those papers to this survey. You may e-mail responses to me at [email protected]. Please be sure to include the question with any answers you provide.
210
APPENDIX E PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH, DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND
211
APPENDIX F
PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH, BROTHERS OF HOLY CROSS
212
APPENDIX G
PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH, ARCHBISHOP HOBAN HIGH SCHOOL
213
APPENDIX H PERMISSION TO USE PERSONAL FILES OF SALLY RIEDE
214