Cars and Christian Schools: Time for Model A?
Henry Ford didn’t invent the automobile. Contrary to popular belief, he didn’t invent the moving assembly line process either. What Henry Ford did was unite those two inventions to create the Model T, an affordable, practical automobile that satisfied a burgeoning public demand.
“Success,” it is said, “breeds success,” and soon competitors arose who imitated the methods and strategies of the Ford Motor Company. Offering different styles, features, and capabilities, they reduced Ford’s market dominance—even drawing away some of Ford’s earlier customers. These competitor’s products weren’t necessarily better; sometimes they were simply better suited to the tastes or needs of certain customers.
With its market share dwindling, the company belatedly took action, eventually emerging from its engineering & design studios with the Model A, a more advanced successor to the venerable “Tin Lizzie.” Once again, sales surged.
The period of years from roughly 1965 to 1990 is sometimes considered a sort of “Golden Age” for evangelical Christian schools in the United States. It is said that for a time new schools were opening at the rate of “two a day.”
These schools were not archetypes; they followed in the faithful footsteps of hundreds of existing Christian schools, many of which were already decades old. In Minnesota, for example, today there are six Christian schools that were founded between 1901 and 1917. These include Minnehaha Academy, the state’s largest, which celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2013.
Although not the earliest, the Christian schools founded during the Golden Age, much like Ford’s Model T, caught a broad wave of public demand. The 1962 and 1963 United States Supreme Court decisions banning sponsored prayer and devotional Bible reading in public schools jarred many Christians. Secularism appeared to infiltrate academic subjects once thought nearly sacrosanct. Forms of student rebellion previously confined mainly to university and college campuses began to occur with dismaying regularity at public secondary schools. In loco parentis, the tacit societal tenet which can permit faculty members to exercise de facto parental authority over students during school hours, on and sometimes off school property, was for all intents and purposes rescinded at public schools—a victim of both changing social mores and successful court challenges.
Into this fray arrived these new Christian schools, with their shared purpose of providing additional educational alternatives rooted firmly in God’s word. An old adage observes, “A rising tide lifts all boats,” and amid the flurry of new school openings, enrollments rose among the longer-established Christian schools as well.
Dr. David Doran, of the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, has written of the “fad stage” of the Christian schooling movement, an era “when every church seemed to conclude that it must have its own school.” As can be expected, many of these schools no longer exist. Nonetheless, this initial surge paved the way for further competition to enter the market.
Accelerated Christian Education (A.C.E.) was established as a form of Christian schooling which is by design less costly to operate. Students are largely self-taught in modified classrooms staffed not by teachers, but by proctors who are usually known as “monitors” or “supervisors.” This style of schooling has its proponents. Over the years, some traditional classroom Christian schools have converted to the A.C.E. method, and vice versa. Overall, A.C.E. enrollment has never been more than a fraction of what its founders imagined.
Another, newer style of Christian schooling takes almost exactly the opposite approach from Accelerated Christian Education. Classical Christian education is a teaching-intensive style of schooling which structures its curriculum on the model of the Trivium, with its subject areas of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. This niche movement within Christian schooling began subsequent to the Golden Age, with its main organization, the Association of Classical and Christian Schools (ACCS), founded in 1993. It has shown steady growth, with over 38,000 students currently enrolled in its member schools.
Quietly gaining even greater momentum, however, has been a numerically much more formidable competitor to traditional Christian schooling. It not only does away with a school’s teachers, it does away with the school itself. This competitor is sometimes spoken of in certain circles like it is an opponent of Christian schooling. It is not; it is another style of Christian schooling. In size, this colossus dwarfs both A.C.E. and the ACCS combined. It is known as “Christian homeschooling.”
Meanwhile, many Christian schools founded during the Golden Age are now in critical need of their “Model A.”
Eventually, sales of Ford’s Model A began to decline, like those of the Model T before it. It was once again time for a product-line reinvention, to keep pace with morphing public demand. And every few years an automaker—sometimes Ford itself—would introduce a feature that at first seemed like a nice, but unnecessary, luxury but which quickly had to be adopted by all, as customers widely deemed it a virtual necessity. Automatic transmissions, air conditioning, and power steering are examples. Any automaker reluctant to provide these innovations was sure to experience a steady drop in sales.
Christian schools are not exempt from the whims of marketplace competition. Enrollments can wax and wane due to multiple factors, including prevailing economic conditions and a school’s perceived value and benefits relative to other schooling options. Nevertheless, some Christian schools operate as if common parental concerns such as comprehensive curriculums or valid accreditation are of less importance than other vital concerns such as nurturing the spiritual development of students or providing moral instruction.
Such latter concerns are clearly essential within a Christian school, but they alone should not be a school’s raison d’être (reason for existence). There isn’t a zero-sum, either/or equation weighing spiritual and moral concerns versus academic and other concerns.
In spite of that, this conflict is sometimes clearly seen in the educational philosophies of a small minority of Christian schools. Without giving overly specific examples, why would a school feel compelled to state that it is better for its students to learn how to live than how to make a living? Does this school believe that a Christian education cannot deliver both? Or what purpose is served by a school declaring that its desired spiritual outcomes for its students are institutionally a higher priority than is student academic achievement? Does providing a Christian education necessitate making such a choice?
More commonly, this false dichotomy is seen more obliquely, in that the handbooks, websites, or promotional materials of some schools may provide a wealth of information regarding the school’s spiritual emphasis and focus, but scant information regarding its academics. For example, one Christian school speaks of its goals for its graduates—all three of which are spiritual in nature. If academic achievement is an important consideration in the development of this school’s students, neither their website nor their literature provides much of an indication.
Perhaps you are thinking, “Why does this matter?”
It matters because there is a large constituency of Christian parents who would like their children to receive both a thoroughly Christian and a rigorously academic (emphasis on both words) education, and who don’t see any inherent conflict between these two objectives. In fact, they view these objectives as being scripturally complementary.
Yet these parents are also aware that God has initiated only two institutions, the church and the home, both of which are charged with the spiritual and moral instruction of children. Christian schooling (in the modern sense) is an oftentimes desirable extension of these two timeless institutions, but is itself not scripturally mandated. (If it were, then the church was incredibly lax in its duties for its first nineteen centuries of existence.)
As long as the church and the home are performing their respective biblical functions, such parents view academic instruction as a distinct, separable element; one to be accomplished wherever it gets done “best.” In the eyes of such parents, even the apparent relegation of academics to second-class status by a Christian school can result in the effective dismissal of that school as a potential option for their child’s education—whether in favor of another Christian school, another type of private school, Christian homeschooling, a charter school (where available), or public schooling.
This is a key reason why it is vital that Christian schools distinguish themselves, and be more than simply “not the public schools.”
(Part 2 coming soon.)
Larry Nelson is a graduate of “an exemplary Christian school,” holds a BA in history from the University of Minnesota and has been employed in banking for over twenty-two years. He is a member of a Baptist church in the Minneapolis St. Paul area.
- 4 views
One of the original distinguishing factors for many Christian schools was segregation. That definitely accounted for much of the impetus in the 50s and 60s.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I happen to know the author. He is a professional at a major financial institution. He also heads the alumni association of his alma mater. More to come.
Definitely timely and needful to consider
to the rest of the article.
We deal with parents who don’t want their kids to be in the secular school system, but need to keep costs down. Often they don’t feel like they have the means to send kids to Christian school, but don’t feel like they can teach them by themselves.
[Steve Newman]Steve,to the rest of the article.
We deal with parents who don’t want their kids to be in the secular school system, but need to keep costs down. Often they don’t feel like they have the means to send kids to Christian school, but don’t feel like they can teach them by themselves.
They are almost always wrong on both counts. Any parent with a high school diploma can teach their kids through at least middle school without any outside assistance. Costs are entirely relative. I meet single income families all the time raising schooling their own children on little more than what the government calls poverty level income without depriving the family of any necessities or many luxuries. The income problem is much more often a question of priority than necessity.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
“One of the original distinguishing factors for many Christian schools was segregation”
segregation from Dictionary.com
“the act or practice of segregating.”
segregating
“to separate or set apart from others or from the main body or group; isolate:”
It is my goal and intention to segregate my children from the secular humanist indoctrination of the progressive left.
You seem to make it sound as though segregation is a bad thing?
Ideally parents would send their children to Christian school because they want their children to be instilled with Christian values AND to receive a top quality education from Christian teachers who have themselves been equipped to teach.
But sometimes it’s only because they don’t want their children in the government’s school system. (More than twenty years ago Christian college leader predicted that we would see the day where a lot of Christian schools would simply become private schools with little Christian emphasis.)
Sometimes it’s because they want a quality education and they’re willing to tolerate the Christian atmosphere. While there are some Christian schools that have qualified faculty providing quality academics, there are many whose faculty lack any meaningful credentials.
In my 30 plus years in Christian education, I’ve seen it all. The Christian school movement today is on the decline. Meanwhile the Christian homeschooling movement is growing, populated by parents who have been motivated by a number of factors:
-They’ have discovered the network of support that is available to them
-They have discovered that some Christian schools have the same problems that the government schools have
-They have determined that the cost of Christian education didn’t match the quality provided
-And they are convinced the responsibility for teaching their children belongs to them and not the church, school or state.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
If that is your goal, fine. However, I think the segregation referred to in the quoted post is in reference to the racial and ethnic segregation legally mandated in various states. Such segregation was brought to a halt by Brown v Board of Education.
[farmer Tom N] SNIP
It is my goal and intention to segregate my children from the secular humanist indoctrination of the progressive left.
You seem to make it sound as though segregation is a bad thing?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[farmer Tom N]“One of the original distinguishing factors for many Christian schools was segregation”
segregation from Dictionary.com
“the act or practice of segregating.”
segregating
“to separate or set apart from others or from the main body or group; isolate:”
It is my goal and intention to segregate my children from the secular humanist indoctrination of the progressive left.
You seem to make it sound as though segregation is a bad thing?
I have to wonder… Do you really not know that he is talking about racial segregation which by the way is indeed a bad thing? And yes, the conservative side of Christianity was slower at rejecting racism and segregation. So I suspect Charlie is right that good Christian parents indeed were motivated to send their white kids to Christian schools to keep them away from black kids. Actually, my personal experience leads me to believe he is right.
[Chip Van Emmerik][Steve Newman]Steve,to the rest of the article.
We deal with parents who don’t want their kids to be in the secular school system, but need to keep costs down. Often they don’t feel like they have the means to send kids to Christian school, but don’t feel like they can teach them by themselves.
They are almost always wrong on both counts. Any parent with a high school diploma can teach their kids through at least middle school without any outside assistance. Costs are entirely relative. I meet single income families all the time raising schooling their own children on little more than what the government calls poverty level income without depriving the family of any necessities or many luxuries. The income problem is much more often a question of priority than necessity.
Chip, I do agree with you that it can be done and is done as a sacrifice. My wife and I homeschool our 4 boys. We do this for a couple of reasons: One, there isn’t any Christian school alternatives in our area we are comfortable with; and two, the ones around are too pricey for us. I’m a pastor of a small work, I work 3 days a week, my wife works some also. We have teen kids who will be starting college and we are helping them save for that. We can’t afford Christian school, but we can afford home school. It is not “sacrificing more” that we need at this point, but a different, more affordable, school model that we need. With the amount of technology available, we would think there would be less need for paid staff to run things and then costs could be kept down.
Steve,
We also homeschool our 3 children, first begun while I was pastoring bivocationally as well. My current situation is similar to yours, though I am not currently in vocational ministry (I teach middle school history right now). I would only add that I may put things in a different priority order than you seemed to. I think homeschool is the best option and we do well to encourage parents to pursue that option first. Christian day school would be a second option in my paradigm, and the day school will never be as inexpensive as homeschooling (unless you are going to factor in a second income maybe). Frankly, I would discourage Christian parents from exercising the public school option except in some extreme cases. I would not call it a universally sinful option, though I do believe it is a sinful option (between them and God) for some people who are making excuses for misguided priorities.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
in a Christian school (from 1978-1984) was that it was racially integrated (there were Hispanic, Asian, and African-American students), but attempted to segregate kids from harmful and objectionable elements of ‘the world’. There was too much emphasis on ‘moral instruction’ and not enough on challenging students academically.
It often felt more like Christian rehab than school, what with all the dire warnings against sex, drugs, and Barry Manilow.
[Chip Van Emmerik]Steve,
We also homeschool our 3 children, first begun while I was pastoring bivocationally as well. My current situation is similar to yours, though I am not currently in vocational ministry (I teach middle school history right now). I would only add that I may put things in a different priority order than you seemed to. I think homeschool is the best option and we do well to encourage parents to pursue that option first. Christian day school would be a second option in my paradigm, and the day school will never be as inexpensive as homeschooling (unless you are going to factor in a second income maybe). Frankly, I would discourage Christian parents from exercising the public school option except in some extreme cases. I would not call it a universally sinful option, though I do believe it is a sinful option (between them and God) for some people who are making excuses for misguided priorities.
I think we are in agreement and I do believe home school is better in general. I was just following with the theme of Christian schools, etc.
[Susan R]in a Christian school (from 1978-1984) was that it was racially integrated (there were Hispanic, Asian, and African-American students), but attempted to segregate kids from harmful and objectionable elements of ‘the world’. There was too much emphasis on ‘moral instruction’ and not enough on challenging students academically.
It often felt more like Christian rehab than school, what with all the dire warnings against sex, drugs, and Barry Manilow.
Barry Manilow is pretty dangerous! :)
I have to wonder… Do you really not know that he is talking about racial segregation which by the way is indeed a bad thing?
I assumed nothing! Therefore I wanted a clarification of which kind of segregation he was referring?
Since segregation is not always bad, and is in fact sometimes a good thing, simply making an open ended statement that ,
“One of the original distinguishing factors for many Christian schools was segregation” leaves me no option but to ask?
I’m personally in favor of more segregation rather than less. I want to see Christians set themselves apart from the world in their lifestyle, their dress, their education, their churches and school choices. The way I see it those are good things. So when a statement is made which implies that segregation is a bad thing, (and it was only implied) my response is to remind all of us that segregation is not always bad.
Did some Christians/churches segregate themselves based on skin tones. Yes, Yes they did. Both black and white, and the Korean Methodist Church I drive by regularly. Is that a bad thing. I don’t know?
Does Christ love all the people, red and yellow, black and white, ginger and brunette? Yes, Yes He does.
So again the question is, is it a bad thing if some parents choose to educate their children with individuals of the same color, culture and traditions? I don’t know the answer to that. But, I do know that just because someone practiced segregation, does not necessarily mean they did it for reasons of race.
So I asked a question, to find out what the comment was meant to imply.
Discussion