___________________________________________________________________
February 9, 2014
Very Reverend Gene Szarek, C.R., Provincial Superior
Dr. Kelly Jones, President
Dr. James Quaid, Principal
(sent by e-mail only)
Dear Provincial Superior Szarek, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Quaid:
I. INTRODUCTION
Thank you all very much for your service to Gordon Tech. For your
information, I recently sent a much shorter variation of this letter to the
Gordon Tech Rebranding Task Force. I am expanding here on some of the topics I
mentioned in that earlier letter and am respectfully offering some new subjects
for your consideration.
Your leadership is critical to the ongoing success and future of our
beloved school, so I thank you for that leadership and encourage you please to
consider Gordon’s rich history of providing solid college preparatory and
business and technical education as you look toward the position that Gordon
Tech will occupy in Chicago Catholic secondary education in the twenty-first
century and beyond.
II. PERSONAL GREETING AND BACKGROUND
My name is Steven Imparl and I graduated from Gordon Tech in 1981. It
is hard to summarize my four years at GT in a few lines, but let me tell you
that I ran on the Rams freshman cross-country team, played 3 intramural sports
(basketball, bowling, and boxing), was active in 2 foreign language clubs (French and German), participated in several
other extracurricular activities including Student Council, worked part-time
during the school year and summers to help pay expenses related to my secondary
education, volunteered at Grace Convalescent Home while studying under the
direction of Fr. Greg Helminski, C.R. in the Christian Service course in
Religious Education, was active in liturgical music activities and performance
in classical guitar and small chamber ensembles, managed to graduate with a GPA
of 3.91/4.00, was named an Illinois State Scholar, and was awarded an Arthur J.
Schmitt Scholarship at DePaul University (which was then DePaul’s most
prestigious undergraduate academic scholarship). I mention all of this, not to
try to impress you, but to tell you a few things about me and tell you why GT and
its name are so important to me. Indeed, my roots at GT and DePaul run very
deep and I am humbled by and most grateful for them, and very thankful to my
parents for their vision, values, and sacrifices as they made a Gordon Tech
education available to me. That education prepared me extremely well for my
post-high school studies and for my career as a lawyer, writer, and businessman.
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GORDON NAME: REBRANDING
IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH RENAMING
I did not have the opportunity to attend the Rebranding Task Force
meeting on January 29, 2014. Therefore, I am writing to you to tell you that
the Gordon Tech name is very important to me and to many of my fellow alumni,
as you heard in person at that meeting.
I am confident that retaining the name of “Gordon Tech” can be an
integral component of any rebranding effort for the school. The name of Very
Reverend Francis Gordon, C.R. is inextricably bound to our past, present, and
future. Perhaps the informal, but still unsettling, suggestions that we change
our school’s name are rooted in a lack of genuine understanding of our
heritage. Do we know enough about Father Francis Gordon? Do we think enough
about Father Francis Gordon? And, perhaps most importantly, do we talk, write,
and share enough about Father Francis Gordon?
In the spirit of cooperation and working together with our school’s
alumni, I would like to take a can-do attitude to the issue of potentially
renaming GT. To help that effort, I pose to you the following question in good
faith:
What will it take to
keep the name “Gordon Tech” (or even the simpler “Gordon”) in our school’s name
as we move into concrete rebranding and more expansive visions for our school’s
future?
Rebranding our school is not synonymous with renaming it, and there
seems to be no reason to abandon our name merely to address some areas for
improvement that exist in our school. To offer just one example of why that is
so, if there is a perception that some of our laboratories in the physical
sciences are “dated,” then surely changing our name from “Gordon Tech College
Prep” to, just hypothetically speaking, “DePaul College Prep” is not going to
improve the quality of our physical sciences labs. Upgrading the labs and
trumpeting those improvements will change that negative perception and reality.
Why can we not remain Gordon Tech and update our facilities substantially,
especially with the very large monetary and other resources to which our Gordon
Tech community is now being introduced?
There are many ways to “rebrand” our school, and I do not believe
renaming Gordon Tech is either necessary or appropriate. I am deeply concerned
that a renaming of our school could merely enshrine in the school’s name in
perpetuity the name of just one of the partners in the “academic partnership”
between Gordon Tech and DePaul University. That “academic partnership” has
already been publicized very well, so I am wondering what a change of the
school’s name would accomplish for Gordon Tech.
IV. THINKING MORE DEEPLY ABOUT THE SURVEY
I am told that at the meeting on January 29, 2014, the results of a
survey were presented, in summary form, which suggested that the name of Gordon
Tech was not viewed favorably by the public. (A page on Gordon Tech’s Web
site states, “GT/DePaul Partnership Survey --Check back here for survey results
and updates soon!” However, as of the date of this letter—February 9, 2014—no
survey results or updates have yet been posted.) In light of some of the alumni
accounts of the January 29 meeting and with all due respect to the presenters
and conductors of that survey, I invite you to take another look at the survey,
asking all of the following questions:
1. Who conducted the survey?
2. Who paid the costs of
conducting the survey and tabulating the results?
3. What are the qualifications
of the persons or firm who conducted the survey?
4. Did the surveyors have an
interest in the outcome of the survey? If so, could that interest have
influenced the survey’s results?
5. What was the size of the
survey’s sample?
6. How were respondents to the
survey selected?
7. Out of the possible pool of
respondents, how many were selected for the survey and how many were rejected?
8. What were the exact wordings
of the questions posed to the respondents?
9. What was the methodology of
the survey?
10. Which survey responses were
rejected?
11. What is the margin of error
of the survey’s results?
12. Do the survey results accurately
support the conclusions offered as their summary?
13. How much confidence do you
have in this survey, its methodology, and its results? Enough confidence to
rely on this survey as the basis for changing the name of our school from that of
our patron, the Very Reverend Francis Gordon, C.R., to something else?
I realize that these are pointed questions and that considering them
fully will likely require at least some examination of the survey’s raw data. I
ask these questions, not to be disrespectful of the surveyors who likely
donated a considerable amount of uncompensated time to the survey, but to
better understand the survey and to share with you questions that other alumni are
asking.
V. DEPAUL UNIVERSITY’S PREVIOUS EFFORTS IN THE COLLEGE
PREPARATORY REALM AND CONNECTION TO GORDON TECH
It is worth remembering that DePaul University, at which I earned two
degrees—a baccalaureate and a doctorate—is not a newcomer in the area of
secondary, college-preparatory education. DePaul University previously
sponsored the well-regarded DePaul University Academy, a secondary Catholic
high school for boys in Chicago that closed in 1968. Interestingly enough, I
first learned about DePaul Academy as an undergraduate DePaul student by
looking at some of the Academy’s yearbooks that are part of the DePaul
University library’s collection at the Lincoln Park Campus (now housed in the
John T. Richardson, C.M. Library).
Earlier this week, I was speaking with one of my Brother Knights in the
Knights of Columbus (University Council, No. 1687) about his experiences at
DePaul Academy. I enjoyed hearing the stories of DePaul Academy’s glory days as
an academic and athletic powerhouse. Those tales gave living words to the
various yearbook photos I had seen as an undergraduate student at DePaul
University. Indeed, and to my great thrill and pride, my Brother Knight told me
where DePaul Academy’s finest students and athletes transferred when their
school closed in 1968: to Gordon Tech!
That is our heritage, but there is no reason for it to be limited to
our past; with the right assistance, at this critical stage of our school’s
development, we can continue our status as the Catholic high school of choice
in Chicago.
VI. THINKING BIG: HOW DEPAUL UNIVERSITY AND THE PHILIP
H. CORBOY FOUNDATION CAN HELP US
The two largest partners for our success, in terms of economic
resources, as we make Gordon Tech the
Catholic high school of choice for Chicago students from all backgrounds are
DePaul University and The Philip H. Corboy Foundation.
I am inviting you to consider a $5 million campaign to rebrand,
upgrade, and position Gordon Tech College Prep as a comprehensive, thoroughly
updated, Catholic high school for the next fifty years. The $5 million would
come into Gordon Tech through donations of $2.5 million each from DePaul
University and The Philip H. Corboy Foundation with no renaming rights of Gordon Tech provided to either donor. A
five-year campaign would seek $500,000 each year from each of those two donors,
with $500,000 from each donor for the first year, with those grants being
renewable for each of four consecutive years upon Gordon Tech’s achievement of
measurable, attainable milestones that would be agreed upon by Gordon Tech and
each donor.
While this letter is not intended to present a comprehensive plan for requesting
or managing such grants, I would like to share with you some of my ideas for
using such resources which include the following:
·
Minimizing annual tuition increases over the
next five years to make a Gordon Tech education more accessible to more students,
including current GT students;
·
Increasing enrollment at Gordon Tech to the
school’s target enrollment of
more than 1,000 students;
·
Upgrading GT’s educational facilities and
programs in the physical sciences (anatomy and physiology, biology, chemistry,
and physics), information technology and computer sciences, and “Engineering
Technology” (as the term is used in GT’s 2013-14
Course Selection Guide) to equal
or exceed national standards promulgated by secondary school educators or
comparable organizations in those academic disciplines;
·
Expanding the “Engineering Technology” program
to provide more opportunities for study for students who pursue four-year
university degrees and post-graduate education and for those students who eventually
choose to follow a different career path than one that involves study at a
four-year college or university. Such an expansion could include new or
additional courses in the following areas of study:
o
Automotive technology (including more course
offerings that would lead to Gordon Tech’s certification by organizations such
as the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (NIASE) and the
National Automotive Technicians Education Foundation (NATEF));
o
Computer software specialists, such as
certification in software like the various components of Microsoft Office®;
o
Culinary arts;
o
Early childhood education;
o
Engineering (such as architecture, digital
design, engineering design, manufacturing, and principles of engineering—as an
example, please consider the work of Project Lead
the Way on STEM curricula);
o
Healthcare careers:
- Certified nurse assistant;
- Pharmacy technician;
o
Public safety (fire, police, and emergency
medical services); and
o
Wood technology.
·
Improving our students’ preparation for the
Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate examinations;
·
Enhancing course offerings in Religious Studies to
include new courses such as:
o
Ethical issues in business, the professions,
engineering technology, and the physical and social sciences;
o
Detailed, semester-length study of the seven
sacraments (as a group, and individually if and as deemed appropriate);
o
Roman Catholic social teaching, including study
of primary source documents such as the relevant documents of the Second
Vatican Council, social teachings of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, and papal encyclical letters, including, not limited to the following:
- Rerum
Novarum;
- Pacem in
Terris;
- Humanae
Vitae;
- Populorum
Progressio;
- Laborem
Exercens;
- Evangelium
Vitae;
- Caritas in
Veritate; and
- Lumen
Fidei;
o
Vocation (marriage, priesthood and religious
life, singlehood), family, and church teaching on sexuality and the biblical,
historical, philosophical, and theological bases for that teaching;
·
Improving financial aid and scholarships for all
students, with a primary focus on economically-disadvantaged students and
students with disabilities;
·
Reinstating Gordon’s intramural sports program
to allow more students to participate in sports, to enhance physical fitness and
encourage a lifestyle that includes substantial recreational physical
activities, to complement students’ learning in physical education courses (referred
to as “Kinetic Wellness” in GT’s 2013-14
Course Selection Guide), and to
help students learn the many positive values one can learn through athletic
events, including teamwork, the importance of practice and preparation, the
value of competitiveness, and the virtues of good sportsmanship;
·
Publicizing the improvements Gordon is making to
its curriculum and facilities regularly through print, radio, television, and
Internet-based social media, as well as in targeted mailings to schools whose
graduates comprise or may comprise GT’s student body; and
·
Developing a heritage program that will study
the life and legacy of Father Francis Gordon and the Congregation of the
Resurrection as innovators in Catholic education (as well as the Congregation’s
other apostolates) and publishing the results of that research in various media
(and submitting them for inclusion in library collections) and spreading
knowledge of them in public presentations that expand the awareness of Father
Gordon’s and the Congregation’s work.
VII. THE STUDENTS GORDON TECH SERVES
Since the early 1990s, the term “diversity” has been very much in
vogue. However, I have always been somewhat troubled that however
well-intentioned efforts to achieve the sometimes elusive goal of “diversity”
may be, they often fail miserably to account for two groups: the economically
disadvantaged and persons with disabilities. It is my hope that Gordon Tech
will not lose the spirit of generosity and compassion that has been at the
roots of the Congregation of the Resurrection since its founding and become
simply a so-called “elite” school that attracts its students from groups that
are already largely privileged in our society.
VIII. THE OPEN DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LETTER
I am sharing this open letter to several groups on Facebook and
LinkedIn and to selected alumni to generate some discussion and solicit ideas
that we can submit to you for your consideration. I will similarly share your
reply to this letter, unless you ask me not to disclose any or certain parts of
it. However, please understand my purpose in using the open letter format is to
simplify things and eliminate the need for hundreds of alumni contacting you
with the same questions and concerns.
IX. CONCLUSION
Thanks again for your time. If it is not too much trouble, please
convey my thanks to the Resurrectionist fathers and brothers who sponsor Gordon
Tech. I look forward to sharing a bright future for our beloved Gordon Tech and
would welcome your reply and news about the rebranding project.
Very best regards,
Steven Damian Imparl
Gordon Tech Class of 1981 (and academic letterman)
Bachelor of Science, With High
Honor and Arthur J. Schmitt Scholar (computer science), DePaul University,
1985
Juris Doctor (law), Dean’s Scholar, DePaul University, 1992
[phone number removed]
