The Spirit of Criticality: How Catholic Institutions Can/Not Sustain Critical Educators in Urban Catholic Schools

• In Event: For Whom and to What Extent Are Catholic Schools Good?

Abstract

Civic learning is essential for American democracy. Nonetheless, civic education has long been neglected in American schools (Campbell, 2019). It is little surprise, then, that for two decades, most American students have not demonstrated proficiency in civic competencies, a trend that disproportionately impacts Students of Color (Lee et al., 2021).
Catholic schools may serve as an example of such quality civic education, as their students consistently exhibit higher incidence of civic knowledge, volunteerism, and skills than their peers in public schools, a phenomenon known as the “civic advantage” (Campbell, 2012). This is consistent with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, which missionally committed itself to civic education more than half a century ago, at Vatican II. “Civic and political education is today supremely necessary for the people, especially young people. Such education should be painstakingly provided, so that all citizens can make their contribution to the political community” (Paul VI, 1965, #75). Critical educators are particularly well suited to facilitate civic and political education (Author, 2023). Accordingly, drawing on findings from a qualitative portraiture study (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997) of three critical educators working in a network of urban, Catholic, secondary schools, this paper aims to identify the institutional and/or community factors that sustain or obstruct their critical teaching practice. In so doing, it will offer new insights into the ways that Catholic institutions (e.g., higher education, school networks, religious orders) shape critical educators, and by extension, the civic pedagogy they deliver.

The author draws on critical (Freire, 1970/1993; Giroux, 2003) and social reproduction theories (Bourdieu, 2016; Bowles & Gintis, 2016) to frame their study. Consistent with qualitative portraiture methodology (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997), the primary data for this study were a series of in-depth interviews with and ethnographic field observations of each teacher-participant. The author conducted multiple layers of qualitative analysis, including drafting an “anticipatory framework” (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997), which included a set of provisional codes (Saldaña, 2013); recording an “impressionistic record,” in which “emergent themes” were identified; and portrait construction (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997). Data triangulation and member-checking interviews, during which each teacher-participant was given the opportunity to provide feedback on their portrait, added to analytic trustworthiness.

The findings revealed critical educators in urban Catholic schools were strongly influenced by institutional and community factors, including school colleagues, school-community partners, education policy, and dimensions of school and corporate culture. Of particular relevance to Catholic education research, the author found the spiritual charism(s) of the founding religious order of each school played a significant role in shaping cultures in/hospitable to teacher-participants’ critical practice. Further, both participating in a communal, faith-based teacher-induction program and having a critical education mentor during teaching-practicum and early-career induction were shown to positively impact critical educators’ decision to stay teaching at urban Catholic schools.

Implications of these findings for administrators and teachers in Catholic schools, teacher educators, and religious institutions will be addressed (see Appendix A).

Author

• Kathleen M. Sellers, Duke University