Journal of Catholic Education

Volume 18 | Issue 2 Article 3

March 2015

Critical Theory and Catholic Social Teaching: A

Research Framework for Catholic Schools
Jill Bradley-Levine
University of Indianapolis, [email protected]

Kari A. Carr
Indiana University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ce

Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, Curriculum and
Instruction Commons, Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, Educational
Leadership Commons, Higher Education Commons, Other Education Commons, and the Teacher
Education and Professional Development Commons

Recommended Citation
Bradley-Levine, J., & Carr, K. A. (2015). Critical Theory and Catholic Social Teaching: A Research Framework for Catholic Schools.
Journal of Catholic Education, 18 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/joce.1802032015

This Article is brought to you for free with open access by the School of Education at Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola
Law School. It has been accepted for publication in Journal of Catholic Education by the journal's editorial board and has been published on the web by
an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information about Digital
Commons, please contact [email protected]. To contact the editorial board of Journal of Catholic Education, please email
[email protected].
 Critical Theory and CST 27

Critical Theory and Catholic Social Teaching: A Research

Framework for Catholic Schools
Jill Bradley-Levine, University of Indianapolis
Kari A. Carr, Indiana University

In this article, the authors share findings from an ethnographic study drawn from
an evaluation of an after-school program directed by a Catholic diocese to meet the
educational needs of children attending urban Catholic schools. The authors used
critical research methods within the context of Catholic social teaching (CST) as a
theoretical framework for the data presented in this article. Two themes emerged
during this data collection and analysis. The first theme, student interactions, de-
scribes the helpful ways that students engaged with each other during the after-
school program, and also the manner in which students exhibited a need for greater
supports. The second theme, staff-student and staff-families interactions, explains
how staff members connected with students in the after-school program, and their
families and experiences. The focus on relationships emerged as an explicit connec-
tion to the CST themes of care, solidarity, and community within the after-school
program sites. These findings have implications for researchers and educators work-
ing in Catholic and/or urban schools, or their respective after-school programs.

Keywords
critical theory, Catholic Social Teaching, urban schools, Catholic schools,
after-school programs

I
n this article, we demonstrate the application of critical research methods
in the context of our Catholic worldview. The case we share focuses on
our evaluation of an after-school program directed by a Catholic diocese.
The diocese established this after-school program to meet the educational
needs of children attending low-performing and high-poverty Catholic
schools that were part of an urban consortium of Catholic schools. The
diocese financially supported these schools as part of its social justice mission.
We felt it appropriate to apply critical research methods within the context of
Catholic social teaching (CST) as a theoretical framework for the study. This

Journal of Catholic Education, Vol. 18, No.2, March 2015, 27-43. This article is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 International License.
doi: 10.15365/joce.1802032015
28 Journal of Catholic Education / March 2015

framework provided us an opportunity to analyze the ways that the program

addressed the diocese’s overarching social justice mission.
The evaluation research was funded through the 21st Community Learn-
ing Centers (21st CCLC) Grant, the largest federal grantor of after-school
programs in the nation. An external evaluation of program operations and
outcomes is required for all 21st CCLC awardees, one of whom was the
urban consortium of Catholic schools we studied. The complete set of find-
ings from this after-school program evaluation is larger than the intent of
this article. Any readers interested in these findings are encouraged to contact
the authors. This article, rather, exhibits critical research methods applied
in the context of a Catholic worldview and the research taking place within
the after-school program situated at a network of diverse urban Catholic
elementary schools.
To begin, our critical worldview is informed by our experiences teaching
in urban schools, attending the same graduate program in education, and
identifying as Catholics. Further, because we feel that a just and equitable
society (particularly in urban schools) has not yet been reached, our posi-
tion in seeking opportunities to actively work for social justice in schools and
within our communities has been and continues to be influenced by the faith
tradition we claim. Cochran-Smith and colleagues (2000) retold the evolu-
tions of their own understandings of social justice in education, relating that
many life and world events contributed to their identities as researchers and
educators for social justice. We have likewise been influenced by several expe-
riences including our own backgrounds in education and the social teachings
of the Catholic Church, in particular, the emphasis of this article.
We positioned our beliefs about social justice and education in the overall
research framework when studying the Catholic schools’ after-school pro-
gram. Our backgrounds as former urban teachers allowed us to build rapport
with staff/students and to understand the values underlying the after-school
program components. This awareness had been at the forefront of our work
with the diocese, and allowed us to reflect on our role as researchers through-
out our partnerships in the research process. One aim included our effort to
“search for knowledge” throughout the data collection and reporting in order
to better “serve humanity” via the children, families, and staff involved ( John
Paul II, 1990).
 Critical Theory and CST 29

Theoretical Framework
Many researchers employ critical theory as a theoretical orientation—or
“map”—that aids the researcher in approaching her work. This position calls
on the researcher to design studies that are both sensitive to power imbalanc-
es, and that help “empower human beings to transcend constraints” through
“dialogic and dialectical methodology” (Creswell, 2007, p. 27; Guba & Lincoln,
1994, p. 110). A thoughtfully designed critical study ensures that the perspec-
tives of both parties are intentionally oriented toward the specific end of re-
examining issues of power. According to Kincheloe and McLaren (2003):

A critical social theory is concerned in particular with issues of power

and justice and the ways that the economy, matters of race, class, and
gender, ideologies, discourses, education, religion and other social in-
stitutions, and cultural dynamics interact to construct a social system.
(pp. 436–437)

In addition, a dialectic methodology requires a back-and-forth interaction

between the researcher and the participants, in which both parties are sensi-
tive to the other and the personhood that each brings to the project.
The call to work for social justice embedded in critical theory aligns with
a similar vocation rooted in Catholic social teaching (CST). The Catholic
person must not only work to alter the circumstances of individuals, but also
strive for institutional change (Roman & Baybado, 2008). As such, those who
work within institutions, such as education researchers, are called to work
for systemic changes that will create more just institutions. According to the
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, “Social institutions do not
of themselves guarantee, as if automatically, the common good; the internal
‘renewal of the Christian spirit’ must precede the commitment to improve soci-
ety” (Pontifical Council, 2004, p. 240). Thus, individuals cannot rely on insti-
tutions such as schools to promote justice simply because they are organized
or supported by the Church or the state. Instead, just institutions can only
exist when individuals with ethical or moral motivations are acting within
them. This commitment represents a reliance on agency, whereby individuals
have the ability and the obligation to work for justice, and is similar to that
found among critical researchers.
Both critical theory and CST focus on the distribution of power. Critical
theory requires “enlightenment” and “emancipation,” whereby power rela-
30 Journal of Catholic Education / March 2015

tions are studied to determine which individuals or groups are advantaged

and which are disadvantaged, and oppressive authorities are uncovered to
allow struggling groups to form the “decisions that crucially affect their lives”
(Kincheloe & McLaren, 2003, p. 437). In other words, critical theory requires
researchers to take an active role in reconstructing the power relationships
present among all stakeholders within and around places of social enact-
ment. Likewise, CST calls upon Catholics to act alongside the oppressed in
an effort to end repressive situations and structures. The earliest foundations
of CST appear in the Old Testament where God guides the Israelites out of
slavery in Egypt. Hearing the prayers of the oppressed, He acts to protect
their interests including their liberty and right to earn a just wage (Roman &
Baybado, 2008). In this Biblical example, we see an emphasis on the connect-
edness of individuals through which one person’s actions have the potential
to affect others in positive or negative ways, and where individuals have a
responsibility to respond to the needs of others—especially those who have
been marginalized by oppressive situations, institutions, policies, histories,
and so forth.
CST for the modern world was developed through encyclicals and letters
written by the popes. These focused on a global world in which the human
condition is shared rather than a world in which only a few hold power and
privilege (Roman & Baybado, 2008). Several current themes of CST describe
the responsibilities of researchers engaged in critical research. For example,
teachings on maintaining the dignity of life state that “people are more
important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether
it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person” (United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops, n.d.). Another example is found
within the call to care for family and community, which recognizes that “how
we organize our society in economics and politics, in law and policy directly
affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community”
(United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, n.d.). Both of these themes
are supported through individual and Church work that preserve human
rights and protect the poor and vulnerable, including children. They distinctly
oblige Catholics to seek equity and justice in our world.
Critical theory and CST also focus on communalism. Critical theorists
view reality, and the knowledge that reality produces, as politically, socially,
and historically shaped (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Objective knowledge is
exchanged for subjective modes of interpretation of events. That is, the stance
critical theorists take is never neutral; it is always dependent upon the rela-
 Critical Theory and CST 31

tionship among investigator, the participants, and the environment. Within

this subjective view of reality, the researcher and the participants of research
are constantly in dialogue, constructing meaning through dialectical interac-
tions in which the values and backgrounds of each party are mediated among
the research contexts (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). There is a desire, then, to bring
together the researcher with the researched, and to place a set of responsi-
bilities on the shoulders of those conducting critical research to honor the
experiences found. The researcher must also seek ways to retell and repre-
sent findings that are aligned with the purpose of achieving a sense of social
justice, and within it overcoming aspects of inequality. These responsibilities
are supported by the CST theme of working toward human solidarity, or the
unity of the human community. Solidarity emphasizes cohesion and collabo-
ration among all people regardless of “national, racial, ethnic, economic, and
ideological differences” and requires that people seek peace by working for
justice (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, n.d). Further, CST
emphasizes the need for individuals to work in solidarity to resolve social
issues and to take responsibility for one another’s well being. The Catechism
of the Catholic Church (1994, 1997) states that “socio-economic problems can
be resolved only with the help of all forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor
among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves,
between employers and employees,” for example (p. 524). Hines (2001) de-
scribed the justice that is achieved through solidarity as commutative justice:
justice that regulates relationships between individuals.
In summary, research utilizing critical theory must attend to opportunities
to reduce inequality. It also requires a sense of responsibility on the part of
the researcher to join with the researched to inform and alter current situ-
ations. In the unification of the search for knowledge and truth in terms of
God’s revelation of Himself through research and education, and the ap-
plication of this knowledge in service to the human community ( John Paul
II, 1990), we find the integration of CST with critical research compatible.
Moreover, critical theory is to be utilized as a map to aid the researcher in
designing the work they do (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002). Similarly, the
themes of CST reveal a commitment to struggling with local injustices in
one’s own community in ways that preserve human rights and protect the
poor and vulnerable. This impartiality toward the most vulnerable among
us aligns with the critical research mission to bring voice to those who have
been silenced, and to pursue the critical “enlightenment” and “emancipation”
discussed above. Gaudium et Spes (Pope Paul VI, 1965) also calls attention
32 Journal of Catholic Education / March 2015

to working for justice among the most vulnerable. The encyclical identifies
that “differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral
aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution
of wealth” (#24). Because these are not dispensed equally, some people must
contribute more than others in order to achieve a society that is socially just.

Study Design
We followed a critical ethnography design for the qualitative data re-
ported in this article, which was part of the evaluation of the diocese’s after-
school program. This approach is grounded in critical theory, and therefore
is the most suitable methodological approach considering our theoretical
framework (Carspecken, 1996). According to Carspecken (1996), critical the-
orists “share a concern with social theory and some of the basic issues it has
struggled with since the nineteenth century,” including “the nature of social
structure, power, culture, and human agency” (p. 3). The following research
question guided our collection and analysis of the qualitative data: How do
students, families, and staff experience the after-school program both posi-
tively and negatively?
Sites
The after-school program we studied was located at seven urban Catholic
schools. The program and schools themselves were directed by the diocese
as part of an urban schools consortium. At four of the schools, nearly 90%
of students were from non-White ethnic/racial backgrounds, and over two-
thirds of the students at each of these schools qualified for the federal free
and reduced-price meals/milk program. On state standardized assessments,
these four schools had rarely achieved passing rates above the state average
for the five academic years preceding this study. The other three schools had a
majority population of White students (or were more equally represented by
different racial/ethnic backgrounds of students) and similar or slightly lower
percentages of students qualifying for the free and reduced-price meals/milk
program. They had also achieved passing rates equal to or greater than the
state average on the state standardized assessment multiple times in the five
academic years preceding this study. See Table 1, below, for a summary of all
seven schools that participated in the after-school program.
 Critical Theory and CST 33

Table 1

Achievement and Demographic Data by School

Student Ethnicity Free-Reduced Lunch % Passing the State Standard-
School Name (2008–2009) (2008–2009) ized Test (School Year)
School A 60% White 52% Free 75.8* (08–09)
2% Black 13% Reduced 81.8* (07–08)
29% Hispanic 35% Paid 76.6* (06–07)
8% Multiracial
1% Asian 84.2* (05–06)

School B 0% White 68% Free 45.5 (08–09)

95% Black 10% Reduced 55.9 (07–08)
0% Hispanic 22% Paid 54.8 (06–07)
5% Multiracial 65.2 (05–06)
0% Asian 58.3 (04–05)

School C 64% White 72% Free 65.9 (08–09)

11% Black 10% Reduced 79.6* (07–08)
15% Hispanic 17% Paid 82.7* (06–07)
10% Multiracial 72.0 (05–06)
0% Asian 65.0 (04–05)

School D 1% White 48% Free 53.3(08–09)

96% Black 23% Reduced 52.2 (07–08)
1% Hispanic 29% Paid 47.0 (06–07)
1% Multiracial 40.9 (05–06)
0% Asian 62.5 (04–05)

School E 6% White 86% Free 55.0 (08–09)

3% Black 6% Reduced 45.0 (07–08)
88% Hispanic 7% Paid 55.0 (06–07)
2% Multiracial 60.0 (05–06)
1% Asian 44.7 (04–05)

School F 43% White 30% Free 87.5* (08–09)

39% Black 5% Reduced 86.4* (07–08)
4% Hispanic 65% Paid 84.7* (06–07)
14% Multiracial 71.9 (05–06)
0% Asian 59.8 (04–05)

School G 3% White 90% Free 53.3 (08–09)

3% Black 8% Reduced 48.8 (07–08)
92% Hispanic 3% Paid 38.9 (06–07)
3% Multiracial 56.0 (05–06)
0% Asian 56.3 (04–05)

Note. * Indicates state standardized test scores are above state average for that
school year.
34 Journal of Catholic Education / March 2015

Data Collection Methods

We collected qualitative data concerning program implementation and
staff and students’ experiential views. Data began with observations of the
after-school program at each of the seven schools. Next, we conducted eight
in-depth interviews with the seven site directors and the diocesan program
director. Finally, we conducted focus group discussions with parents from
each program site.
Observations. We conducted program observations over 35 weeks for a
total of 10 to 11 observations at each site. Each observation lasted approxi-
mately two to three hours for approximately 200 hours of observation. We
took copious notes while observing program delivery and participant inter-
actions, and generated extensive field texts. These field texts represented a
description of exactly what we observed along with a parallel interpretive
summary of participant experiences within each component. At the end of
each month, we reviewed the field texts to identify common themes.
For the first two months of the program, we followed a hands-off, eyes-
on approach, and generally did not actively participate in the after-school
program. During this time, we carefully observed the program multiple times
without being intrusive. But during month three, we adopted a participant-
observer approach (Creswell, 2007). A participant-observer follows a con-
tinuum from complete integration within the ethnographic paradigm to
observer-as-participant only in certain aspects of the research (Atkinson &
Hammersly, 1994). We began to assist students with homework, as needed.
Additionally, we interacted informally with program participants. The open-
ness with which we visited sites and took part in programming allowed us to
comfortably move throughout the buildings on our own, help students with
homework, comment on their creations in art class, and even play games with
them during fitness time. Through these opportunities, we were also able
to engage in dialogue concerning staff members’ perceptions and to discuss
ideas for the after-school program.
Interviews and focus group discussions. The framework we used for
observations carried over to interviews and focus group discussions, and
through our use of a semistructured set of questions, which allowed staff
and parents to take the lead regarding what they wanted to discuss. We
conducted interviews with the director at each site and the program director
toward the end of our observations. These interviews lasted approximately 30
to 45 minutes. Sample prompts included, “What is going really well this year
 Critical Theory and CST 35

in the after-school program?, How have students responded to the program?”

and, “How have the students’ families supported the program?” We audio-
recorded these interviews and transcribed them verbatim.
We also conducted focus group discussions with small groups of parents
from every program site. Each discussion included between three and eight
parents. We asked site directors to help us recruit parents to participate in
discussions. This may have posed a problem in that site directors could have
selected only the most positive or supportive parents to participate. However,
we noticed that participating parents expressed both positive and negative
perspectives about the program. In addition, several site directors told us
directly that they had asked parents to participate who they knew would
offer both positive and critical information because site directors wanted
honest feedback for program improvement. At sites where Spanish was the
native language of some or all of the parents, one of us served as translator.
Each focus group discussion lasted approximately 45 to 60 minutes. Sample
prompts included, “What are your favorite parts of the program?, What
parts of the program would you like to see changed?, Why does your child or
children attend the program? and, What do you hope your child will get out
of the program?” We audio-recorded these discussions, and transcribed them
verbatim.

Data Analysis
In addition to reading over data during the data collection process, once
we collected all of our data, we read the observation notes and interview or
focus group discussion transcripts independently. Then we applied codes rep-
resenting the sentiment of each paragraph or data cluster and/or developed
codes identifying patterns within the data. As a team, we met to discuss the
relationships among the codes, to compare memos, and to combine similar
codes and memos into broader patterns or themes. Next, we returned to
the original data sources to identify representative examples from observa-
tions and quotations from interviews or focus group discussions. Finally, we
conducted negative case analysis to check for inconsistencies across the data
(Carspecken, 1996).
In addition, we employed several validity techniques, primarily triangula-
tion through the multiple data sources, but additionally, we had the codes
and conclusions reviewed by peers outside of the research team to make
sure our conclusions were valid and unbiased. On occasion, we encountered
36 Journal of Catholic Education / March 2015

problems surrounding analysis and the “lack of agreement on the meaning

of experiences” (Acker, Barry, & Esseveld, 1996, p. 71). We felt strongly about
sharing our written work with the after-school program director prior to
finalizing our findings. These member checks (Creswell, 2007) carried over to
site staff as well. We wanted to ensure that our interpretations were valid in
the eyes of our research partners and did not overlook something significant.
However, in some of these attempts to share our writing, a disagreement
emerged surrounding the meaning of what we saw. Our definitions diverged
from those held by site staff. Yet, because CST and critical theory called us to
advocate for improved education for students in urban sites, we most often
sided with our interpretations because, in one example, we had recommended
improvements in programming for the low-achieving students attending the
after-school program. Thus, some contradictions arose between achieving a
completely horizontal research relationship and advocating for social justice
for program participants. Yet, through discussions, sharing, and honoring one
another’s perspective, we moved forward (alongside the after-school program
leaders and staff ) in the research reporting and in helping translate findings
into program improvements.

Findings
Two themes—both focusing on relationships—emerged during qualita-
tive data collection and analysis procedures. The first theme, student inter-
actions, describes the helpful ways that students engaged with each other
during the after-school program, and also the way that students exhibited a
need for greater behavior supports. The second theme, staff-student and staff-
families interactions, explains how staff members connected with students in
the after-school program, and their families and carers. The focus on relation-
ships emerged as an explicit connection to care, solidarity, and community
within the after-school program sites.
Student Interactions
Students influenced each other to act in both positive and negative ways.
Interactions were often formulated around family relationships and cultural
background. For example, brothers and sisters helped each other when they
attended programs at sites that mixed the grade levels. In addition, at sites
with special populations, such as many children who were native Spanish
speakers, Latino children of all ages often helped each other with homework
 Critical Theory and CST 37

and other activities. Students, as a whole, also exhibited behaviors typical of

children and adolescents, including participation in playful teasing of each
other, as well as some fighting or arguing with each other. However, fighting
was observed less often than were helping behaviors or playful teasing.
Helping behaviors. Students often helped each other. They helped with
homework, and cooperated to accomplish tasks such as passing out snacks
or picking up games, toys, and books. In addition, children exhibited helpful
behaviors toward all others—not just those who were most like themselves.
For example, although Spanish-speaking children often spoke Spanish to
each other, they did not use language to exclude non-Spanish-speaking
students. It was clear that the children were used to working together and
supporting each other within the school environment. Parents also noticed
these supportive behaviors. During a focus group discussion, a parent offered
the following:

It is a real nice sense of family here. I really like that. I think these kids
watch out for each other and I think that is important. I’m sure they
have the usual problems but I think for the most part this is really a
good place for children.

There were also several examples of students being affectionate toward

each other. For example, one girl hugged several other students—both boys
and girls—before she went home for the day. Another girl kissed a younger
student on the forehead before she left with her parent. Other children held
hands or sat closely as they talked or worked together. In a number of cases,
these interactions were the effect of a close relationship, such as a sibling or
cousin. One site director said in her interview that she has “seen some re-
ally sweet moments when older kids are showing real care for younger kids.”
Another site director said, “They are kind to each other.” A third site director
noted that it makes her proud to see the older kids at her site helping the
younger kids with their homework and reading. She said:

It’s just so neat to see even if it is like a first grader or a second grader
wanting to read to a pre-schooler. They really enjoy that, and some of
the older kids will help the younger kids, too. That makes you proud
because they are in that helping role.
38 Journal of Catholic Education / March 2015

Evidence of a need for greater behavior support. Students were also

observed influencing each other to engage in less positive behaviors, indicat-
ing a need for more supportive programming addressing students’ relation-
ships with one another. Most of these behaviors were merely disruptive. For
example, students might shout out, act silly, or talk when they were supposed
to be working. However, on rare occasions, students’ unhelpful behaviors
were unrestrained and resulted in dangerous or cruel behavior. For example, a
group of boys started throwing pencils at each other when the staff member
was helping another student. Another example included student dialogue.
One boy asked, “What is español?” and a girl replied, “Spanish, you moron.”
There were a few examples of physical fighting between students during
the after-school program. For example, students pushed, kicked, and punched
other students. Some of these fights resulted from a tendency to playfully
tease or make fun of each other. In one such case, two cousins were joking
with each other, but as the insults became more personal, the girls became
more upset and eventually slapped each other. However, these behaviors were
not observed often.

Staff-Student and Staff-Families Interactions

Teachers, parents of former and current students, administrators, parish-
ioners, social workers, classroom assistants, and high school volunteers staffed
the after-school program. All of these individuals showed that they cared
about students in some way. In addition, they built valuable relationships
with families.
Staff and student relationships. Staff members worked positively with
students and their families. Staff were very caring toward students. For ex-
ample, they complimented students’ work, asked how students were feeling,
and encouraged students to try harder. Staff also had high expectations for
students. As one site director explained:

What I want them to know is that we love and care for them. We are
not going to allow them to be disrespectful and rude. We want to help
them. We want the best for them and we want them to succeed in the
future.

Parents indicated that they appreciate when expectations are clear and
consistent. Although there were times when staff members were inconsistent
with their enforcement of expectations, in most cases, staff addressed behav-
 Critical Theory and CST 39

iors, had clear expectations, and followed through with consequences ap-
propriate to the students’ actions. For example, one site director reported that
her staff communicates very effectively to parents about how their children
are doing in the after-school program. She believed that such exchanges built
trust between the staff and parents. Consistent expectations resulted in fewer
instances of negative behaviors at most sites. A few staff members avoided
situations requiring intervention and behavior corrections, which resulted
in the recurrence of negative behaviors. For example, after observing that a
group of boys sitting on the floor were distracting each other and not getting
much homework done, a teacher asked them several times if they thought
they should move to a table. The boys continually said they did not think
they should. Because she gave them a choice rather than an instruction, they
were allowed to continue to distract not only each other, but also the other
students in the room.
Staff and family interactions. Many positive interactions occurred be-
tween staff and family members during the sign-out process. At most sites,
communication between parents and staff was efficient, secure, and beneficial.
For example, a site director said:

[Parents] know we know what is going on with the child, with home-
work. They know we know what is going on in the classroom. They
know that we will have those children complete their homework. If
there is anything extra that needs to be done, it will be. Many of the
teachers tell us if they need some class work completed. Parents value
that.

Another site director said that the after-school program provides a bridge
between school and home, saying:

It connects the families with the school and that is what we want. We
want to make sure they know what is going on here. We want to make
sure they have good communications with the teachers also. Every-
thing is done to help the students.

Parents expressed similar opinions; for example, one parent said:

They care and almost in some cases they even check after your child
more than you do at times on certain parts of the school day. It’s very
much an extension of the school day and we are all in this together.
40 Journal of Catholic Education / March 2015

Conversely, a few site directors said that they did not think the after-
school program served as a bridge between school and home. For example,
one site director said, “Usually the parents just directly communicate with the
teachers.”
Interactions between the staff and families were personal and comfortable.
For example, at several sites, parents often stayed for a few moments to talk
to the staff members. One site director observed that parents “come in and
they will sit and play for a while sometimes instead of just leaving right away.
They will stay around and play a game.” The students showed signs of prefer-
ence and enjoyment while at the program, and family members expressed
appreciation and friendship. During a focus group discussion, one parent said,
“I really like the fact that they encourage our children to respect themselves
and others. They have a genuine love to teach children.” Another parent said,
“I feel like it is my house or something. I feel comfortable.”

Discussion and Implications

The emphasis on interactions and relationships among students, staff,
and families emerged as a strong finding during the larger evaluation we
conducted of the after-school program. One of the goals for 21st CCLC
programming included increasing family involvement in schools. Though
this goal was left to individual programs to construct their own definition of
involvement, we noticed that the diocesan after-school program made care
for students and their families a priority. This article’s focus on this finding
connects to the broader application of CST to our research. We now discuss
our findings as they connected to CST and critical research.
The relationships among children in the after-school program demon-
strated an emphasis on a shared human condition, something that Roman
and Baybado (2008) wrote about when discussing CST for the modern world.
In the efforts of older children to care for younger children, we observed a
strong sense of value for the “other” and the dignity of all people. Even when
older children had opportunities to assert power over the young, they opted
to challenge power dynamics by showing care and love more often than not.
Those few moments when children were unkind served as evidence that there
was still a need for guidance and training from the adults. Children needed
not only to see care for others modeled by the adults around them, but also
to be coached in how to steer the distribution of power toward more egalitar-
ian and less oppressive interactions (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2003).
 Critical Theory and CST 41

Staff and family members demonstrated caring for one another, and for
the children. Their interactions modeled the CST that “people are more
important than things” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, n.d.).
Staff showed deep care for students as they complimented and encouraged
them, and invited them to share their true selves. Family members noticed
this dynamic, and chose to linger at the after-school program with their chil-
dren and with staff in order to build relationships and to nurture connections.
Thus, caring interactions that respected the dignity of all people established a
more egalitarian environment within the after-school program.
As researchers, we benefited from the space created by program staff,
students, and families because we, too, were invited to engage in dialogue as
part of the community (Creswell, 2007; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Our conver-
sations within this community allowed us to not only collect extensive data,
but also “strive for institutional change” when appropriate (Roman & Bay-
bado, 2008). For example, we were comfortable offering suggestions for how
family members could be more deeply engaged in the design of the program,
and ways that staff might benefit from further professional development. As
Catholics, we experienced a renewal of spirit and purpose through our ob-
servation of CST in action within the after-school program. We experienced
first-hand that individuals with ethical and moral motivations—despite their
human failings—can, indeed, work toward creating just institutions (Pontifi-
cal Council, 2004).
What these findings mean for the work we do is to encourage research-
ers and educators to explore how CST and critical theory complement each
other for the purpose of fostering social justice within Catholic schools. CST
provides a common language and unified purpose for those working within
Catholic schools. CST, as a theoretical framework, allowed us to focus on
ensuring that all students had the ability to feel accepted and a part of their
school communities. Moreover, the CST preferential option for the poor
calls us to expend more resources on those schools with higher percentages of
students that come from poor and low-income families, such as the schools
in this study. It incites us to advocate for these students and their families,
and in particular, pushes us to conduct our research in a critical manner that
questions why inequalities in urban Catholic schools exist at all and to call
attention to ways that the schools are directing students’ emotional or social
needs.
Furthermore, because CST emphasizes that the human condition and
“the capacity of individuals to grow in community” are directly influenced
42 Journal of Catholic Education / March 2015

by “law and policy” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, n.d.),

we are drawn to research opportunities whose results might advance policy
for the improvement of the lives of those with whom we conduct research.
We find it important to highlight the connection between critical theory
and CST within educational research because in schools we are increasingly
facing situations that call for action, and CST offers us a framework to act.
Some of these situations include urban schools characterized by increasing
percentages of minority students, high teacher turnover, low quality build-
ings, and sanctions, which, through recent reversals of the Brown ruling, and
enactments of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, will remain without
recourse (Eckes, 2004; Kozol, 2005; Orfield, 2001). Catholic schools are often
located in cities and close to urban public schools. We hope a framework
like CST within the context of critical theory can motivate researchers and
educators (perhaps in particular those with a Catholic faith background) in
urban locations to reflect and to take action for social justice.

References
Acker, J., Barry, K., & Esseveld, J. (1996). Objectivity and truth: Problems doing feminist
research. In H. Gottfried (Ed.), Feminism and social change: Bridging theory and practice
(pp. 60–87). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248-261). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical
guide. New York: Routledge.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994, 1997). New York: Doubleday.
Cochran-Smith, M., Albert, L., Dimattia, P., Freedman, S., Jackson, R., Mooney, J., . .Zollers,
N. (2000). Seeking social justice: A teacher education faculty’s self-study. In F. T.
Sherman & W. R. Torbert (Eds.), Transforming social inquiry, transforming social action:
New paradigms for crossing the theory/practice divide in universities and communities (pp.
135–160). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among fivetraditions
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eckes, S. E. (2004). The 50th anniversary of Brown: Is there any reason to celebrate? Equity
and Excellence in Education, 37, 219–226. doi: 10.1080/10665680490491038
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105–117). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hines, D. R. (2001). Responses to 101 questions on Catholic social teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press.
 Critical Theory and CST 43

John Paul II. (1990). Apostolic Constitution of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II on Catholic
universities. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_
constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.
In Y. Zou & E. T. Trueba (Eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the
study of education (pp. 87–138). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2003). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.
433–488). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New
York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Orfield, G. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University, Civil Rights Project.
Paul VI. (1965). Pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world: Gaudium et
spes. Alexandria, VA: Pauline Books & Media.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the social doctrine of the
Church. Vatican: Librerea Editrice Vaticana.
Roman, D. B., & Baybado, P. A. (2008). Theological constants of justice in Catholic social
teaching. Philippiniana Sacra, XLIII(127), 83–98.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (n.d.). Themes of Catholic social teaching.
Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-
social-teaching/themes-of-catholic-social-teaching.cfm

Jill Bradley-Levine is director of research at the Center of Excellence in Leadership

of Learning at the University of Indianapolis. She can be reached at jbradley-
[email protected]

Kari Carr recently earned her doctor of philosophy in Educational Leadership

and Policy Studies from Indiana University. She is an administrator at an urban
faith-based school in Indianapolis and can be reached at [email protected].