«mm»,- W . H ”I I Illl', ..“LMJL§ rs, .Vh...‘ ‘ . ‘I V. l. I UH” I C‘mllhlltll‘ “|I- On I In .1 l .I I|‘ IV D .1‘ 0 1|! . h‘m‘fil 4 u . II! 10.x." (‘1‘- 11‘ . I! nvthroi . “Vii“. - “Ell. In a c Iv tl‘ . - ‘c 1:3“, q! .0 J)! :1 , 5‘ . III“. . Ivn .IIIIIIIIII‘. «I: {il- II. .Ilhl‘ lib.“ V ‘ I? :- .«A‘I‘a‘r‘ . rill I‘tl I. |\III 1“ fix t :3! u: tn; I (v.12! l.“ I‘ll“ I"! a 1‘0!an g .I\..II - L33 3. "Ur-Hf . Iii. % it «1% . ‘ll , S k i u . I. V n I. 3 1293 10783 2598 ‘ullllllllnlllfmllTillman:“ f . - kgqfimfl "13g, .9 a .,,. we fit .2:- 33.13% . r l‘( This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOL "DISTINCTIVES" AND HOW THEY ARE PUT INTO ACTION AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS presented by Paul VanKleek has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education cém 466%pr Major professor Date May 20, 1983 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from ” your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. “/3 “7&3: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOL "DISTINCTIVES" AND HOW THEY ARE PUT INTO ACTION AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS by Paul VanKleek A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1983 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOL "DISTINCTIVES" AND HOW THEY ARE PUT INTO ACTION AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS by Paul VanKleek This descriptive study focuses upon two research questions which are asked about the Christian school: What are the distinctives of a Christian school? How are these distinctives put into action? Perceptions of both teachers and administrators are investi- gated as a means of addressing these questions. Two interview instruments were designed which incorporated four components: curriculum, instruction, student policies and practices, and school climate. The six schools of the Grand Rapids Christian School Associa- tion provided the setting. The entire administrative staff of six was interviewed, as were twelve randomly selected teachers, two from each building. An item analysis was done on each of the interview responses. The findings indicated the existence of nine distinctives which were commonly perceived by the interviewees: (1) all school staff espouse a Christian view and interpretation of the world; (2) the teacher is the most significant figure in making the school Christian; (3) the specific role of each teacher is that of being a Christian model and servant; (4) the students are actively engaged in becoming Paul VanKleek responsible Christians; (5) the school environment is providing a place where students are being nurtured and prepared for adult life; (6) there prevails a commonly espoused Christian value system; (7) the schools are characterized as having a supportive open climate; (8) all staff hold to a common Christian orientation; and (9) the school is characterized as being goal-oriented. In addition, the interviewees perceived five ways in which distinctives are being put into action: (1) at those times when the teacher relates curriculum to teachings of the Christian faith; (2) at those times when curricular materials focus upon teachings of the Christian faith; (3) when the breadth of the curriculum allows the needs of the individual student to be met; (4) at those times when the teacher relates the curriculum to God‘s involvement in history; and (5) at those times when school staff demonstrates a proper sense of awe before God. The perceptions of both teachers and administrators were found to clearly emphasize the importance of the teacher. This perception, linked with the significant role played by the teacher, indicated that the human dimension was by far the most outstanding distinctive of the school. Christian educators have indicated that Christian school distinctives reside in curriculum design, teaching methodologies, and school governance. The data, however, strongly identified the human equation as the most significant factor within the Christian school. To my wife, Judy, and my sons, Kent and Terry, who have strongly supported me and helped me to keep my perspective while pursuing the completion of this study. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to his chairman, Dr. Charles Blackman, whose guidance, encouragement, and faithfulness aided the study, as well as contributing to my pro- fessional growth. Dr. Blackman's personal warmth and scholarship provided a significant role model for me. Appreciation is also expressed to the other members of my committee for their continual encouragement and advice: Dr. Ruth Useem, Dr. Larry Lezotte, and Dr. Ben Bohnhorst. They have con- tributed to the writer's personal growth as well as to the completion of the study. Thanks are also due to the people who have provided special insights helpful in the study: Dr. Donald Oppewal, Dr. Philip Elve, Mr. William Gritter, Dr. Ron Chadwick, and Dr. Gene Garrick. Their assistance made a special contribution. Finally, the writer would like to thank Miss Lynn Vanderwerf whose personal interest and skills helped to facilitate the initial preparation of the study, and to Mrs. Jo Grandstaff who prepared the final copy. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .............................................. Vi LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................... vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1 Background of the Problem ............................ 2 Statement of the Problem ............................. 6 Research Questions ................................. 6 Significance ....................................... 8 Purposes of the Study ................................ 9 Definition of Terms .................................. 10 _Limitations of the Study ............................. 11 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................... 14 Section I ............................................ 14 History of the Christian School Movement ........... 14 Christian Schools International .................... 16 Nondenominational Evangelical Christian Schools: Association of Christian Schools International ... 24 Section II ........................................... 38 The Importance of Educational Philosophy ........... 38 The Role of Educational Philosophy ................. 43 The Elements of Educational Philosophy ............. 48 Summary .............................................. 57 III. RESEARCH ............................................. 59 Research Methodology ................................. 59 Pilot Study .......................................... 67 Selection of Subjects ................................ 71 Instrumentation ...................................... 74 Data Collection and Recording ........................ 91 Data Processing and Analysis ......................... 93 Matrix Preparations ................................ 93 Data Processing .................................... 94 Development of the Analysis Questions .............. 95 iv Application of the Analysis Questions .............. Summary .............................................. IV. FINDINGS ............................................. Analysis Questions ................................... Set I: Distinctives ............................... 1A. What distinctives are perceived within each of the program components? ............ 18. Which of these distinctives appear to be related to those traditionally held by Calvinistic educators? ..................... 2. In what ways are the perceived distinctives found to compare between teachers and administrators? ............................ Set 11. Distinctives in Action ..................... 1. In what ways are distinctives perceived to be put into action in each of the program components? ................................ 2. In what ways are action oriented perceptions found to compare between teachers and administrators? ............................ Set 111. Overall Observations ....................... 1. What are those perceptions commonly held by both teachers and administrators which appear to identify distinctives that help serve to make the school system unique? .... 2. What generalizations might be suggested by the data which relate to the overall per- ceptions of how distinctives are put into action? .................................... Analysis ............................................. Summary ...... . ....................................... V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ................ Summary .............................................. Conclusions .......................................... Implications of Perceptions .......................... Reflections .......................................... Recommendations for Additional Research .............. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... APPENDICES ................................................. Page 95 103 104 105 105 105 114 122 128 128 134 142 142 145 149 150 151 151 157 159 161 165 166 171 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1 NACS Growth from 1967-1971 ............................ 36 3-1 Grand Rapids Christian School Association ............. 72 3-2 Distribution of Teacher Interviewees .................. 74 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Letters ............................................... 172 B. Tables ................................................ 177 C. Philosophy Statement .................................. 180 D. Pre-Pilot Instruments ................................. 188 E. Autobiographical Sketch ............................... 199 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A school's philosophy of education is basic to its program and to its future. The significance of this fundamental truism needs to be comprehended by all educators. Basic to any school is its philosophy as it represents the community which is served. Growing out of that philosophy of education are those various components of the school's program which are purposely planned to articulate that set of philo- sophical beliefs and assumptions. Establishing a school's philosophy and subsequently planning its program are paramount to good educational planning. In the last decade Americans have seen an unusual growth of interest in alternatives to public education. Educators within the growing non-public school sector have found it particularly challenging to respond to this demand for creative alternative schools. Neces- sarily foremost in their planning should be establishing the school's philosophy of education and seeing that it is articulated within the school's program. These two factors are basic elements which will affinn the education of a responsible citizenry. This would seem to be especially true as it relates to the growth of private Christian schools with the varied historical roots and philosophical distinctives represented. Once thought to be in a state of decline, the nation's private schools, particularly the non-Catholic parochial and Christian schools, are experiencing a resurgence in growth as the political climate in Washington and across the nation grows favorable to them. The earning power of the two-income family, government policies, religious fervor, philosophical differences, and the current interest in emphasizing the basics are some of the factors contributing to the success of this phenomenon. As the schools within the Christian school movement con- tinue to multiply, the onus of responsibility for their future rests largely upon the shoulders of those educators dealing with the pressures and interest groups that beseige them upon all sides. Background of the Problem Although the growth of non-public schools, particularly those of the non-Catholic parochial and Christian groups, appears to be a recent phenomenon, such schools have a rich history. Rowe, in an unpublished manuscript, has dealt at length with the origins and growth of what she calls "Protestant non-parochial elementary and secondary schools."1 Her observation is derived from tracing the historical development of both those schools established in the Refonn or Calvinist tradition and those schools having an inter- denominational heritage. Reaching as far back as Holland, schools in the Reform tradition became a natural complement to the Reform churches as they took root in early American communities. 1Kay D. Rowe, "The Christian Day School Movement in America: Origins and Growth of Protestant Non-Parochial Elementary and Secondary Schools" (Heritage Collection, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1978), p. 1. (Typewritten.) During those early years there emerged the rudimentary elements of what today is called the Christian school movement. Other non-Catholic denominations and church groups began to make the day school a part of their exercise of religious and educational freedom. TWO examples illustrative of such schools were those rooted in Lutheranism and Seventh Day Adventism. Youthful, yet vigorous in purpose, these schools continued to mature and to maintain their distinct religious beliefs and convictions. So strong in his convic- tion about education, Mr. W. J. Hackett, Vice-President of the Seventh Day Adventist General Conference in 1854, is quoted as having said, "The development of Christian education and the development of the Seventh Day Adventist Church are almost synonymous.“2 Although dis- tinctives separated these various non-Catholic groups, this shared fervor for education formed a common bond. During the 19405 still another group of schools became noticeably visible. While not disclaiming the religious impact of their predecessors nor claiming to be the exclusive representatives of the Christian religion, this rather fragmented scattering of schools became known simply as Christian schools. In contrast to the earlier examples of Christian non-Catholic parochial and denominational schools, these were usually generated by the vision of a single church or group of parents representing several churches. These emerging years might be described as being not only formative, but definitive in terms of theological and philosophical differences that began to 2W. J. Hackett, "One Man's Convictions on Christian Education," Journal of Adventist Education 13 (October-November 1970): 11. emerge. Not enjoying the clearly defined denominational lines of thought it became obvious that while many of these schools and school systems felt the need for some kind of association, the individualistic properties and philosophies of each were meant to be preserved. Running concomitantly with this grass roots movement during the 19305 and 19405 was the swing in public education toward what Blanchard calls "a complete secularization" which he contends had already started in the 18505.3 While this change was being hailed by some as the only logical direction that a non-sectarian public educa- tion system should take, others found themselves hard put to accept this apparent directional change. One response made by some families was to establish independent Christian schools, either church related or parent supported. Today much of the original fervor for Christian education that contends to be uniquely different, and philosophically distinct from the public school sector, not only still exists, but is enjoying new gains. While public school enrollment has declined by about a million students a year through the late 19705, private school enroll- ment has held steadily at more than five million students. Parents who have traditionally supported public education are, according to Maeroff, "shifting allegiances, searching for safer schools, havens from governmental interference where traditional values can be taught and youngsters can achieve on higher levels.“4 He adds that it is 3John F. Blanchard, "Education that is Christian," Christian Teacher 14 (May-June 1977): 3. 4"Private Schools Look to Bright Future," New York Times 4 January 1981, sec. 12, p. F12. significant that "the non-Catholic parochial and other private schools are by far the fastest growing group of non-public education while the Christian Fundamentalist schools are by far the fastest growing group of all."5 Typical of the growing number of this latter type of school, which may also be characterized as evangelical Christian schools, are those 1933 member schools and colleges of the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). This association is the result of a 1978 merger of the Western Association of Christian Schools, the Ohio Association of Christian Schools and the National Christian School Education Association. The ACSI currently claims a combined enrollment of 337,554 students and 1933 members schools.6 There needs to be a credible response to the apparent growing demand for this kind of alternative to public education. Once again, this charge rests upon the Christian school educator. Fundamental to the success of any Christian school is its philosophy of education which is foundational to the entire educational process. Its philosophical elements, particularly those which may be considered as the school's distinctives, become the very pillars of the system, while the school's program is where the distinctives are put into action. Succinctly put by Kite, Education must effect a marriage between those unlikely partners, committed educational philosophy and skillful planning considerations. Systematic planning, rather than 51bid. 6Association of Christian Schools International, 1983 Directory: ACSI (LaHabra: Association of Christian Schools Inter- national, 1983), p. vii. being suspect as a betrayer of our basic values, can be viewed as means to achieve educational goals compatible with our beliefs.7 With these precautions in mind, the wise Christian educator will not become the victim of a school system that is growing like the proverbial Topsy. Necessary time will be taken to ask the right questions, for clearly defining the ideology and beliefs unique to the setting, and to begin translating those values and beliefs into compatible experiences and outcomes. This need for laying a sure phil050phical foundation and for careful program planning may well be the most crucial issue facing the Christian school movement. Pressed upon by the tyranny of the urgent, piecemeal planning and shortcuts will become major temptations. The problematic nature of what a school body believes about education and how such beliefs may be activated within the school's program needs careful study and examina- tion. Statement of the Problen Research Qgestions The research problem to be investigated in this study is stated in the following questions: 1. What are the distinctives espoused by a Christian school system? 2. What are some of the ways those distinctives are put into action in the school program? 7R. Hayman Kite, "Planning Philosophically," ClearingHouse 53 (December 1979): 191. Educators in Christian schools would agree that education should play an important part in seeing to it that significant elements of the Christian religion come alive and provide the framework for planning educational activities in the school. Some educators within the present Christian school movement may believe that their particular school program already rests upon a respectable philosophical base and that its beliefs and distinctives are satisfactorily being played out in the progran. There may be, however, a sense of tension and even uncertainty which is to be expected when a great deal of time, energy, and money are being invested in the business of educating children. Such uncertainty may be suggested by numerous concerns that appear in the daily operation of many schools. Teachers are found expressing concern about students who lack excitement about learning, and who appear to remain unchallenged by social and world affairs. While facts are being memorized and recalled by these same students there remains an absence of vision for changing their world and setting one's life goals. Administrators entertain the notion that teachers are not carrying out school mandates and that instruction is taking the form of unchallenging lectures behind far too many classroom doors. Students say that they are being institutionalized rather than educated. They would contend that traditions, rather than contem- porary issues and contemporary answers, are being emphasized. Parents sending children to the school are concerned that certain religious and social issues relevant to the church and the home are being adequately addressed and whether or not their children are being suitably prepared for college. Such complaints and concerns may be symptomatic of a Christian school which has not laid the proper philosophic foundation and the educational outcomes desired or expected are not in fact being fully realized. Significance The benchmark of any Christian school is its capacity to articulate and to conceptualize its espoused uniquenesses within its philosophy of education and the implementation of those beliefs throughout its program. The research questions will focus upon both the perceived distinctives of one Christian school system's philosophy of education and upon the ways in which they are perceived to be put into action within that system's program. Raabe, in examining similar concerns, challenges Christian educators of Lutheran schools with a question that becomes universal in its application to those in all Christian schools. "Are we so well grounded in our philosophy and purpose that we can clearly explain how that permeates all instruction and activity in our school?"8 In his words, Christian educators need to be "working with our philosophy . . . the foundation on which everything else in our school is built."9 When educators begin to think at this level a Christian school is ready to decide what sorts of specific learning experiences children need to have. Such a school is able to decide, moreover, which school aims take priority over 8James L. Raabe, "Let's State our Christian Philosophy." The Lutheran Educator 19 (October 1978): 22. 9 Ibid. other school aims or at best help to focus upon those aims. Beversluis puts it this way: At this level of educational philosophy, a Christian school makes its implementing decisions: it translates its educa- tional understandings and commitments into its own kind of creative actions. At this frontier of the 'real world' of education, the school makes decisions about school governance and administration, about teaching methodologies and strategies, and about curriculum-~its overall pattern and its arrangement in graded courses of study.10 Thus it becomes important that the educator not only examine what the school believes about education, but how that school needs to translate those beliefs at the practical program level. Purposes of the Study The primary purpose of this study is to focus upon perceptions of the Grand Rapids Christian School Association's (GRCSA) professional staff concerning philosophy and the school progran. An introductory study will be made of the GRCSA philosophy of education statement. The professional staff of the GRCSA schools will be interviewed to determine what they perceive the distinctives of their school system to be and how those distinctives are being put into action in selected components of the school program. Those interviewed will be full-time teachers and administrators. In addition to the primary purpose of this study, it is hoped that a framework will be suggested in which other schools can examine 10N. H. Beversluis, "In Their Father's House: A Handbook of Christian Educational Philosophy" (Paper prepared for the Christian International Schools Task Force on the Future of Christian Education, Grand Rapids, Michigan, February 1982), p. 23. (Mimeographed.) 10 their perceptions regarding school distinctives and how they are being articulated in their respective programs. It is also hoped that the data collected may suggest a basis for possible evaluation related to the GRCSA schools themselves. The descriptive nature of the study should provide an indepth look at what the professional staff perceive about the schools and their programs in which they are deeply involved and to which they are ~committed. Definition of Terms The following terms will be used throughout this study: Christian School Movement (CSM): The activity related to the promotion and establishment of Christian elementary and secondary schools. Christian School: A non-public elementary or secondary school which espouses the principles and doctrines of the Christian religion. Distinctives: Key beliefs or assumptions which are found to be articulated in the educational philosophy of a school. Curriculum: The series of planned experiences that are intended to have educational consequences for one or more students. Instruction: The interactions between student and teacher in carrying out the series of planned experiences prescribed by the curriculum. 11 Student Policies and Practices: Those written and unwritten school policies and practices which help to govern and nurture the student's development. School Climate: The personality unique to a particular school. Sovereignty of God: The suprene rulership of God which is the fundamental principle in the Calvinistic view of life and the world. Sphere Sovereignty: The Calvinistic principle which places schools under the ownership, authority, and control of citizen-parent groups. Covenant: The Calvinistic principle which states the existence of an agreement relationship between God and Christians and their children wherein God blesses His people while they embrace Him and His blessings by faith. Special and General Revelation: The Calvinistic principle that God has revealed Himself to all mankind through two trustworthy sources of truth, namely, Holy Scripture and nature. Cultural Mandate: The Calvinistic principle which holds that the Christian life is one of community membership to be lived pro- ductively in contenporary society. Limitations of the Study The study is limited to the perceptions of those full-time professional staff of the GRCSA schools. Although administered by a parent association board independent of any one church or denomination, 12 the system's schools are rooted in the historical and philosophical heritage of Christian Reformed churches. These schools have played an important role in sustaining that heritage and continue to do so to this day. While it is suggested that these perceptions are applicable to this school population, this study is nevertheless a starting point for those interested in identifying perceptions of a similar nature in other school populations. One additional limitation is found in the fact that the data were collected and analyzed by one researcher. While this fact remains, every effort has been made to minimize bias and data con- tamination. Despite these limitations it is believed that the research framework suggested by this study will provide an instrument which may be adapted to other school populations. Summary and Overview It has been pointed out that a school needs to have a clearly defined philosophy of education. Educators from a Christian school system will be selected for the purpose of describing their percep- tions of school distinctives and how those distinctives are put into action in the school progran. In Chapter I, the background of the problem, statement of the problem, purposes of the study, definition of terms, and limitations of the study have been given. Chapter 11 contains a review of the literature for understand- ing the Christian school movement by reviewing the history of Christian Schools International (CSI) and the Association of Christian 13 Schools International (ACSI). The chapter also contains literature for understanding educational philosophy by reviewing the importance of having an educational philosophy, the role of philosophy, and the elements of philosophy. Chapter 111 includes the research methodology, pilot study, selection of subjects, instrumentation, data collection, data processing and analysis. Chapter IV contains each analysis question; relevant data in response to each analysis question; and an analysis statement based on these data or a selection of interview quotations which will illustrate the data. In Chapter V the summary, conclusions, implications, reflections, and recommendations for additional research are presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE There are two distinct emphases focused upon in this study: the Christian school's distinctives, and how these distinctives are put into action in the school program. School distinctives are important because they set forth the philosophical beliefs espoused by those in that school. How the distinctives are put into action becomes important in matters of school program planning and develop- ment. The backdrop against which these two emphases will be examined is that of the Christian school movement. Literature related to each of the two emphases will be described in two sections of this chapter. The description of the Christian school movement will include a brief history, characteristics, and trends. The review of litera- ture related to the two emphases will include the importance of having an educational philosophy, the role of philosophy, and the elements of philosophy. Section I History of the Christian School Movement The literature reviewed in this section will deal with two prominent national organizations of Christian schools: Christian 14 15 Schools International (CSI), and The Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). While other organizations active in the Christian school movement have been identified by Chadwick1 and others2 these two have played significantly longer roles in the historical development of the Christian school movement as it is known today. It will be seen that the CSI and ACSI (as they will be referred to in this study) represent those schools which are char- acterized as Christian while being distinguished from denominational or parochial schools. Rowe has indicated that member schools of both CSI and ACSI are “independent in financial and administrative organization, and autonomous in matters of doctrine, policy, and government."3 Furthermore, she points out that while these schools may be sponsored by a church, they are "not limited to a given parish . . . but accept students from many churches and denomina- tions."4 An additional distinguishing feature is that many are fpgregt controlled rather than church controlled."5 These features serve to distinguish the movement as it relates to CSI and ASCI 1Ronald T. Chadwick, Teaching_and Learning: An Integrated Approach to Christian Education (Old Tappen: Revell, 1982), p. 183. 2Ronald T. Chadwick, "Accelerated Christian Education-~A Philosophical Analysis," Christian Educators Journal 21 (December 1981-January 1982): 16. 3 Rowe, "The Christian Day School Movement in America . . . , 4 5 Ibid. Ibid. 16 schools from other denominational and parochial schools which have also played a part in the history of religious education in America. Christian Schools International It has been shown by Oppewal that the CSI as it is known today finds its roots in the Netherlands.6 Early dissenters in the Dutch Reformed Church withdrew from the established church in 1834 because of doctrinal differences. They also felt that "the schools under the supervision of the state church were becoming neutral in "7 matters of religion. This concern over doctrinal purity and oppo- sition to the church educational system continued to grow until in 1847 these dissenters emigrated to America.8 In 1847, the American version of the Calvinist school was established in Holland, Michigan, by Alberto Van Raalte.9 .Progress for this school was not without difficulty. Although much work had gone into transplanting the Calvinist vision in the New World, Van Raalte had "little success to get these early Calvinists to build and support schools."10 Much of this difficulty seemed to have been 6Donald Oppewal, The Roots of the Calvinistic Day School Movement, Calvin College Monograph Series (Grand Rapids: Calvin College, 1963), p. 11. 71bid. 8 9 Ibid. Ibid., p. 16. 10Ibid. 17 related to the "belief that the public schools in America were Christian enough. . . ."11 Rowe says that in 1857 the Christian Reformed Church was fbrmed in the new land.12 It was “primarily this Christian Reformed branch that undertook the founding and promoting of schools,"13 the first school already being in existence in Grand Rapids, Michigan. At that time the school with its enrollment of 100 was parochial as were the other Calvinist schools before 1900. The school was "com- mitted to no purpose other than perpetuation of the denomination and the Dutch language and heritage."14 Meanwhile in 1870-80 a Calvinistic revival took place in the Netherlands under Dr. Abraham Kuyper which made an impact upon Calvinist schools in America. "The movement was for the free Christian school, from both state and church domination and therefore linked more closely to the family. . . .“15 The immediate impact was felt in theological circles of the Netherlands, but eventually "numbers of professional educators, ministers, and laymen carried these ideas with them when they emigrated to America."16 This fact linked with the 11 12 Ibid. Rowe, "The Christian Day School Movement in America . . . , 13 14 Ibid. Ibid. 15Oppewal, The Roots of the Calvinistic School Movement, p. 12. 16 Rowe, "The Christian Day School Movement in America . . . , 18 generally accepted practice of having a school linked with every church17 led to liberalizing trends such as the adoption of English 18 as the main language. Perhaps it was in the basement of the Coldbrook Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan, that in 1890 "a course in d’lllg English was finally introduce and "children were required to have special permission from their parents in order to study the English language."20 In 1892 a minister in Grand Haven, Michigan, named Kuiper initiated a gathering of "the leaders of the Christian schools in western Michigan to a meeting to discuss their common problems"21 This meeting led to a union of Christian educators which was known as the Association of Christian Instruction on Reformed Principles."22 Their discussion and decisions led to a resolution that "a superior principle of school operation was by means of associations of parents rather than through the church."23 This same strong feeling against the parochial school concept was cited by the denominational paper of the day, De Wachter on June 22, 1892: "The Christian school must not 17C. B. Eavey, History of Christian Education (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), p. 199. 18Rowe, "The Christian Day School Movement in America . . . P. 4. 191bid. 20christian Home and School 32 (May 1954); 11. 4 ZlRowe’ "The Chri5tia" Day School Movement in America . . ." p. . 22Ibid. 23 Ibid. 19 be a child of the churches. . . . The Christian school requires a life sphere of its own, with its own rationale. . . ."24 The synod of the Christian Reformed Church in 1892 also adopted a resolution which favored the organization of a society for the promotion of Christian Reformed education. This break "directly affected only some twelve or fourteen schools then in existence,“25 but, says Oppewal, "all schools thereafter established were begun by societies of parents and not by the consisteries of churches."26 The schools had officially became parental rather than parochial. In 1920, Mark Fakkema, along with a number of educators who believed that "a number of persons together can move mountains,"27 established the union of Christian schools that later became known as the National Union of Christian Schools (NUCS). Within two years, 37 of a possible 82 schools became NUCS members.28 In that same year a booklet was issued by the NUCS entitled "A Survey of Our Free Christian Schools in America."29 The booklet identified common prob- lems, pioneered the way to subsequent yearbooks and spelled out the purpose of the NUCS: 24 pp. l8-l9. 25 26 Oppewal, The Roots of the Calvinistic School Movement, Ibid. Ibid. 27"CSI, An Idea Whose Time Had Come," Christian Home and School, March 1982, p. 2. 28John A. Vander Ark, "CSI, Idea to Reality," Christian Home and School, March 1982, p. 4. 29 Ibid. 20 aiding the cause of Christian Normal Training; encourgging the publication of literature of a pedagogical nature; raising the standard of education; improving the economic position of the teacher; aiding one another as schools become necessary; and supervising the individual schools.30 All but the last purpose became an integral part of the NUCS program for member schools. It has been suggested by Oppewal that a significant contribu- tion of NUCS has been the impact it has made upon what he calls "the continuing spirit of parochialism."31 Dr. Clarence Bouma, in expressing what appears to have been the official NUCS position in 1925, pointed out that the three Calvinistic Forms of Unity (Canons of Dort, Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession) are an inadequate foundation upon which to build schools. He said: The three Forms of Unity are not an adequate platform for our Christian school movement. They are ecclesiastical standards and as such I prize them highly, but they are not intended to be and should not be looked upon as an adequate platform for the Christian school movement.32 The NUCS took Bouma's statement seriously and, according to Oppewal, attempted "to establish a Christian school system free of the church . . . by its early plans to set up a Normal School for the training of teachers."33 The efforts to do 50 failed, however, and because of this there has subsequently been a failure to establish complete independence from the Christian Reform Church. 3°Ibid. 310ppewal, The Roots of the Calvinistic School Movement, p. 24. 32"Proceedings," National Union of Christian Schools Yearbook (Grand Rapids: National Union of Christian Schools, 1925), p. 121. 33Oppewal, The Roots of the Calvinistic School Movement, p. 25. 21 Thus in many ways the Christian Reform Church as an ecclesiastical institution continues to dominate the school many years after she officially renounced control of it. . . . At its best the present school movement exhibits both the spirit and purpose of the Kyperian tradition. . . .34 Rowe says that the 19305 constituted difficult years for the member schools of the NUCS. There was a noticeable drop in membership as parents were not able to maintain the financial requirements necessary to operate the schools.35 Vander Ark, in setting out to dispel any possible notions that this dip in activity demonstrated a retrogression, submits that "the severe testing of the 30's was a plus for the future."36 He explains by saying that the overall enrollment rose at the end of the decade and that there even were a few new schools that opened during that time.37 The 19405 ushered in the decade when the NUCS began to add Canadian member schools, the first being one located in Holland Marsh, Ontario, in 1942.38 The NUCS curriculum development program made particularly significant efforts to contribute instructional materials to the new member schools.39 A financial plan that updated 34Ibid. 35Rowe, "The Christian Day School Movement in America . . . ," p. 20. 36John A. Vander Ark, “Dipstick in History," The Banner 114 (March 1979): 18. 37Ibid. 33 39 Ibid. Ibid. 22 teacher salaries and provided a pension plan began in the 19405.40 Another development of the time was enlarging the NUCS staff to allow for additional writing, coordinating, and editing of educa- tional materials.41 Toward the end of the decade, one of its leaders, Dr. Mark Fakkema, was appointed to help give vision and leadership to yet another group of Christian educators who did not agree at all points with the NUCS. We are told that, Mr. Fakkema was particularly enamored with this avenue of service. As a means to help them he conceived of an overall organization that would embrace all private Christian schools not distinctly proceeding from parish authority.42 In 1947 in plenary session Dr. Fakkema presented this idea to the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). The NAE accepted the concept and the National Association of Christian Schools (NACS) was born.43 In the following section it will be shown that the National Association of Christian Schools (NACS) is one and the same as the present ACSI. This decision led to negotiations between the NUCS, the NACS, and Mr. Fakkema which resulted in his being loaned to the NACS to provide further leadership and organizational skills. After one year he accepted a permanent position with the NACS. "Thus,“ says Vander Ark, "in the 1940's the NUCS realized a new goal, namely, to use its influence outside of its traditional sphere."44 The NUCS 4OIbid., p. 19. 41Ibid. 42 43 44 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 23 continued to grow until on April 21, 1978, the name was changed to Christian Schools International (CSI).45 Thus it had become "an international serving agency for literally thousands of Christian day schools throughout North America."46 Today, CSI has fraternal rela- tionships with Reformed Christian schools in other nations including the Unie School en Evangelie in the Netherlands and the National Union of Christian Parent-Controlled Schools in Australia where 23 of their schools are affiliate members of 051.47 CSI is today an organization of over 300 schools which has been built by a community of Christian parents of the Reform persua- sion committed to a common goal, namely, Christian education for their children. In a day of growing interest in alternative education, it may be a forthcoming move by CSI to broaden its outreach and service capabilities to include those students whose parents claim the same common goal, but may not have the identical Calvinist heritage. As Hoekman has pointed out, there are some CSI schools already "where from one-third to one-half of the school population is comprised of non-Reformed children."48 It may be this dimension of growth and adaptability which Nederhood refers to when he says: 45 46Kenneth L. Swets, “CSI, The New Reality," Christian Home and School 60 (March 1982): 7. Chadwick, Teaching and Learning . . . , p. 158. 47"CSI, Broadening our Tent — Here . . . ," Christian Home and School 60 (March 1982): 21. 48Steven Hoekman, "The CSI I know: What is a CSI School?" Christian Home and School 60 (March 1982): 27. 24 This community [CSI parents] now has a pressing obligation to work with all diligence so that the day will soon come when all children of believing parents will have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of Christian education without penalty and without prejudice.49 Nondenominational Evangelical Christian Schools: Association of Christian Schools International The National Association of Christian Schools (NACS), later known as the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), has experienced a shorter history in the Christian school movement 50 and Rowe51 have indicated that than has the CSI. Vander Ark Dr. Mark Fakkema, while being associated with NUCS, was in 1947 assigned to assist the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). A number of churches and denominations with the NAE, while wishing to have an organization of Christian schools, did not wish to affiliate with NUCS. Under Fakkema's leadership, the NACS was born in 1947. Rowe suggests that the growth of interest in Christian schools in the 19405 and 505 affected both the NUCS and the NACS. This interest was "the product of a gradual secularization of American 52 society which profoundly affected the public schools.f Eavey indicates that there was at one time in the history of American 49Joei Nederhood, "The cs1 I Know: csx . . . We Need it Now!" Christian Home and School 60 (March 1928): 23. 50 John A. Vander Ark, "Dipstick in History." 51Rowe, "The Christian Day School Movement in America . . . ," p. 13. 521bid. 25 schools no such secularization. He declares that the history of Christian education in colonial America was one and the same as the history of the development of general education: "The two were inseparably united because the first settlers were mostly of the Protestant faith. . . ."53 Because these settlers held the common conviction that one's personal salvation was to be found in the Bible, each child was taught to read, "else he could not become acquainted with the Scriptures to gain the knowledge necessary for salvation and the living of the Christian life."54 Eavey continues by pointing out that while much of the education of children was carried on informally by the family, it was these same families who "gave serious attention to formal education of the young . . . to carry on the work of the church, establishing schools for accomplishing these ends."55 Thus it was the "New England Primer" which included Biblical admonitions to sinners, proverbs, the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, and prayers for children, which became the natural step to studying the Bible, the basis to practically all of the reading matter in colonial schools until 1750.56 The Middle Colonies, while still Protestant, were founded by a more heterogeneous group of settlers. Because of this broad representation of varied religious doctrines a common school was not 53Eavey, History of Christian Education, p. 189. 54 55 Ibid. Ibid., p. 190. 561bid., p. 196. 26 an acceptable concept and thus were developed parochial school systems. These groups (German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Quakers, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, German Lutherans, Moravians, Mennonites) were largely Protestant and commonly "stipulated the reading of the morning prayer . . . the Lord's ."57 We are told that "the Prayer . . . the singing of a psalm. . . Scriptures and theology were taught, daily worship was observed, and moral habits inculcated with the purpose of forming Christian character."58 Moehlman, in discussing this period, calls it "The American Protestant Age."59 He goes on by saying that these same sectarian colonial schools led to the present free school system, yet asserts that the First Amendment signaled the end of this Protestant control over American educational life.60 The American Protestant Age, with its sectarian educational impact, "begins with the communion service at Jamestown," he says, "and ends in principle with the adoption of Amendment 1."61 Although the adoption of the Bill of Rights appears to have made public education inevitable, Protestants still continued to supervise grammar schools. In fact, says Rowe, "well into the 19th 57Ibid., p. 199. 58 59Conrad Henry Moehlman, School and Church: The American 'Wgy (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1944), p. 3. 60 Ibid., p. 201. Ibid. Gllbid. 27 century churches often directed the process of education and local ministers concerned themselves with appointment of teachers. . . ."62 Upon discovering that such control of education was slipping and becoming impossible, "Protestantism proceeded to establish parochial schools and denominational academies and colleges. . . ."63 This was a period of transition. The tide of nationalism was beginning to run strong and proposals were made by many political and educational writers for the creation of a national system of education which would focus upon training a national citizenry. For the time being, however, such proposals were, says French, "much too revolutionary "64 This nationalistic and contrary to the established patterns. . . . period has been characterized by Eavey as a time of growing "sectarianism, intellectualism, and statism."65 It was a time when Protestant groups failed to make a continued substantial impact upon a growing populace. It was in this setting that Horace Mann of Massachusetts urged his argument that free public education is 66 necessary to society in a republic. It became commonplace after 1835 for states to enact laws against sectarianism in education. 62Rowe, "The Christian Day School Movement in America . . . , p. 15. 63Moehlman, School and Church: The American Way, p. 67. 64William M. French, America's Educational Tradition: An Interpretive History(Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1963), p. 277. 65Eavey, History of Christian Education, p. 306. 66French, America's Educational Tradition: An Interpretive History, p. 103. 28 One reaction by many Protestants to this moment in history was a renewal of interest in the Christian school concept. It was in the middle of the nineteenth century when this interest was demon- strated by the founding of a number of Christian schools. This growth, according to Eavey, was of short duration, however, largely because Protestants were content that "public schools were for the host part Christian to a considerable extent, and it seemed they would remain 50."67 Lynn adds that there were other reactions to the growing secularism. These reactions were the Protestant emphasis upon both the Sunday school concept and the weekday church school. The latter was found to be expressed by three varieties: the released time concept, shared-time, and the after school program.68 These combined efforts to respond to the overall discontent regarding the school situation amounted to little, and were considered by some to be nothing short of semi-professional efforts.69 The effects of the financial problems of the 19305 linked with these failing efforts have been summarized as follows: "The whole religious education movement--still something of a relative newcomer to the life of American Protestantism--felt the whiplash of retrenchment; church school budgets were lopped, and directors of religious education were often the first to be fired."70 This lack of momentum brought about, 67 68Robert W. Lynn, Protestant Strategies in Education (New York: Association Press, 1964), pp. 33-34. 69 Eavey, History of Christian Education, p. 318. Ibid. , p. 35. 7°Ibid. 29 for the most part, the disappearance of church-related schools and by 1920 nonpublic-school enrollment in elementary and secondary schools was only 7} percent of the total enrollment of all schools.71 The 1936 religious census of the United States enumerated thirty-one Protestant bodies engaged in education. The combined constituency of over thirty-one million enrolled only 275,643 students while the public schools enrolled over twenty-six million students.72 There were a number of legal concerns during these years which emphasized the tentative relationship between religion and education. One particular legal controversy in Oregon involving Christian schools arose in 1922. A bill challenging the existence of private schools was passed by the Legislature and approved in a vote of public referendum. Beck, in reviewing the case, states that the Lutheran Missouri Synod took an active part in a campaign to defeat the bill, protested its action, and carried on an extensive literature rebuttal. After the law was enacted, appeals were taken by the Catholic Society of the Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus and Mary and by the Hill Military Academy.73 The Circuit Court of Appeals in 1924 held the act unconstitutional and on appeal of the State of Oregon the United States Supreme Court, in 1924, upheld the District courts and declared the act unconstitutional.74 While this 71Eavey, History of Christian Education, p. 318. 72 73Walter H. Beck, Lutheran Elementary Schools in the United States (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965), p. 339. 74 Moehlman, School and Church: The American Way, p. 68. Ibid. 30 action took place in the midst of retrenchment years, Rowe believes that this court decision became pivotal in ushering in a period of renewed interest and growth in the Christian school movement.75 The period of 1945 onward has witnessed a marked growth of schools of nondenominational evangelical Christian persuasion. This period, says Rowe, parallels the period of economic recovery as well as the increase of criticism against the public schools.76 She goes on to suggest that an additional factor making an impact upon the growth of these schools was that of still other court decisions regarding prayer and Bible reading in public schools.77 Such court decisions may not necessarily have immediately altered actual practices in schools, but for a number of evangelical Christians they have "symbolized the final and complete departure of public educa- "78 Cook, in summarizing the impact of such legislation, said: tion. . . the state has a legitimate function in the education of its children. In carrying out this function through its public school system, it is fully entitled to delve into all phases of human knowledge and human history, including religion where religion constitutes an integral part of knowledge and history. . . . Therefore, the state, through its public school system, is not entitled to require or permit religious observance or any other act which has the effect of giving sponsorship or affirmative approval to a particular religion or to a religion in general.79 75Rowe, “The Christian Day School Movement in America . . . , p. 17. 761bid. 77Ibid. 78 79David M. Cook, "The Present Legal Situation," in America's Schools and Churches, ed. David W. Beggs III (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965), p. 36. Ibid., p. 18. 31 It is within this context that one finds the roots of the more current surge of interest and growth in Christian schools. In the light of this Chadwick has stated that, . . the most rapidly growing area in Christian education today is the expansion of the Christian school ministry. . . The Christian day-school movement has seen a phenomenal growth in the number and size of Christian schools, as well as the grades covered.80 When Dr. Mark Fakkema was asked on May 13, 1947 to take a leadership role in organizing what was to become the National Associa- tion of Christian Schools (NACS) it was with the blessing and in the good graces of the NUCS from which he came.81 The growing interest in establishing schools of the nondenominational evangelical type led Fakkema to observe in 1948 that it was “nothing short of spectacular. In gatherings, a favorable attitude toward the Christian day school can now be taken for granted."82 Shortly thereafter, Fakkema, as director of the NACS, initiated the writing of two promotional pamphlets: "Popular Objections to the Christian School," and "A Historical Survey of the Private School." The NACS Executive Committee soon began discussing Christian textbook publication. Soon thereafter, the NACS financial report showed that the young organiza- 83 tion had already established a sound fiscal base. Until the time 80 81Warren Sten Benson, "A History of the National Association of Christian Schools During the Period 1947-72'' (Ph.D. dissertation, Loyola University, 1979), pp. 46-50. Chadwick, Teaching and Learning . . . , p. 157. 821bid., p. 92. 831bid., p. 101. 32 of Fakkema's resignation in 1960, the NACS continued to grow. One hundred and eighty-nine schools became members of the NACS by that year.84 1 July 27, 1960, marked an end of an era. Until that time, Dr. Fakkema had been given almost carte blanche freedom in the Association's affairs, from 1947 to 1958. Much of the financing of the organization had become dependent upon the friends of the Director. The change of hands in leadership led to a period of tension and con- fusion due primarily to a more assertive NACS board and the financial demands of the growing organization.85 Although the Assistant to the Director, Mr. Donald Erickson, was asked to utilize his personal and professional skills, a temporary impasse between the Board and its outgoing Director did not seem to allow for the exercise of those skills. It was at this time that Dr. Charles Benton Eavey consented to become the Acting Director during the transition year 1960-61.86 During his administration an interesting report and analysis appeared in the May 1961 issue of the Christian Teacher, which had become the official publication of the NACS. This report by Walter Fremont on the grass roots health of the NACS was based upon a study of the Association schools. In that report Fremont cited the following: 84Ibid., p. 108. 85 86 Ibid., p. 111. Ibid., p. 112. 33 Five strengths of the responding Christian day schools: 1. 01 h (JON o o o o The average Christian day school has a pupil-teacher ratio of sixteen to one. 80% of the schools have complete cumulative records. 76% give intelligence tests and over 87% give achievement tests. 70% of the schools have a thorough public relations program. In 77% of the schools the board takes its rightful place in determining the broad policies. Five weaknesses: 1. The inadequate financial base of the majority of the schools makes it necessary to look to donations for adequate monies. The inadequate preparation of the Christian day school teachers is reflected in the fact that one-fifth of them do not have a bachelor's degree. The majority of schools have a formal grade standard concept as evidenced by their promotion and report card practices. Over 40% of the schools lack a good program of super- vision or in-service training. In the majority of schools, the teachers do not participate in the preparation of the budget.37 The NACS schools had apparently been growing in number, but the report indicated sufficient weaknesses of the organization to raise deep concern among its leaders. It was clearly time for educa- tional expertise to have its day. Benson observes that "upgrading of the quality of the education aspects of the enterprise had to be given priority. Fremont's critique alerted some to the weaknesses nationally of the Evangelical churches'attempts in the Christian day school field."88 Shortly thereafter the June 196l Christian Teacher 87 88 Ibid., PP. 114-115. Ibid. 34 announced that Dr. John F. Blanchard, Jr. would be the new Director of the ms.89 The NACS experienced a period of significant growth and stability under Dr. Blanchard from 1961-1972. Dr. Blanchard had these basic convictions that became his modus operandi: (1) the importance of maintaining the philosophical stance of his predecessor, Dr. Fakkema, (2) the conviction that the vitality of the Christian school movement depended upon a consistently positive, biblical thrust, and (3) the need to stimulate regional responsibility for Christian 90 school programs across the United States. His emphasis upon the Christian parent as the responsible party for the education of 91 children, the integration of Biblical principles and values into the curriculum,92 and the need for true professionals in the class- groom were but a few of those characteristics which addressed the needed educational expertise pointed out by Fremont's study. The Director's flexibility was demonstrated by his willingness to help both schools started and administered by churches and those started and administered by parent boards.93 The fiscal receipts of the Association increased from $10,000 per year in 1961 to $100,000 in 1972, thus easing the constant financial stress.94 A long range 89Ibid. 90 91 92 Ibid., pp. 124-125. Ibid., p. 122. Ibid., p. 134. 93 94 Ibid.,-pp. 138-139. Ibid., p. 144. 35 planning committee was assigned the task of self-evaluation for the Association as an effort to upgrade areas such as testing and the overall quality of member schools.95 Furthermore, a teacher's insurance for life, hospitalization, and major medical care was made available to those working in member schools.96 During these growth years under Dr. Blanchard, there was growing evidence of dissatisfaction with the Association's affilia- tion with the NAE: Benson points out that "several member schools did not renew membership and questions were being raised about NAE."97 One strong reason for this dissatisfaction was the recognized fact that the NAE Board of Administration "had never promoted NACS or S."98 Another area of encouraged its members to belong to NAC departure from the close ties with the NAE was due to the growing fear among NAC schools and their leaders that public money under any plan for private schools would lead to eventual limiting of their freedom. This official position led Dr. Blanchard in his October 5, 1970 NACS report to the NAE to state that "it is our deep conviction that public money under any plan will bring public controls!"99 95Ibid., pp. 159-161. 96Ibid., p. 168. 97Ibid., p. 164. 981bid. 99"Report to the National Association of Evangelicals Board of Administration" (Wheaton: National Association of Christian Schools, 1970), p. 1. (Mimeographed.) 36 This same report to the NAE also summarized the positive gains experienced by the Association: Interest in the NACS services to the Christian school movement continues to mount. Income for the year just ended was 38% above one year ago! New schools have joined the Association at the rate of more than one a week! Inquiries concerning the publication "How to Start a Christian School" have increased ten fold in the past five years.100 Another summary of NACS growth as found in the Association Board minutes of December 6, 1971 is presented in Table 2-1. It was at this same meeting that Dr. Blanchard introduced to the Association an organization called the Council for American Private Education (CAPE). This organization for promoting parental rights included Jewish, Roman Catholic and Protestant school agencies. Membership in CAPE was requested and approved, thus increasing NACS visibility among other private school organizations. TABLE 2-1.--NACS Growth from 1967-1971. Year USA Foreign Total 1967 224 ' 20 244 1968 236 24 260 1969 268 30 298 1970 297 48 345 1971 314 50 364 SOURCE: Warren Sten Benson,, "A History of the National Association of Christian Schools During the Period 1947-72" (Ph.D. dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago, 1975), p. 168. looIbid. 37 During the summer of 1972, Dr. Blanchard resigned the directorship of NACS and accepted the role of Superintendent of the Christian schools of Portland, Oregon.]01 Shortly before this decision was finalized it became even more evident that the relation- ship between NAE and NACS was steadily becoming more strained. The scope of the NACS schools was broader than that of the NAE. In addition, Christian school leaders were unhappy that the NAE had "made pronouncements in the field of public and private education which were in disagreement with many of the Christian school administrators across the country."102 Dr. Blanchard's resignation left a vigorous and growing Association facing what appeared to have grown beyond the scope and umbrella of the NAE. Dr. Roy Lowrie was then appointed the Director part-time of the Association. During his administration the NACS grew increas- ingly aware that the Christian school movement would not flourish unless the NACS became completely independent of the NAE. Gene Garrick has indicated that with the exception of only two or three, all Board members of the NACS resigned from the NAE affiliation and formed the National Christian School Education Association (NCSEA) in the summer of 1973. At that time, Gene Garrick was elected as President and Roy Lowrie was appointed as Executive Director.103 101 102 Ibid., p. 170. Ibid., p. 169. 103Gene Garrick to Paul VanKleek, 24 February 1983, Tabernacle Church of Norfolk, Norfolk. 38 In 1977 a merger was considered which would include the NCSEA, the Ohio Association of Christian Schools, and Western Association of Christian Schools. The leaders of the three organiza- tions were, according to Garrick, already meeting regularly at the National Institute of Christian School Administration at Grace College, Indiana.104 The identical aims and purposes of the ‘organizations led to the merger in 1978. The newly formed group became the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). Paul Kienel became the Executive Director and Roy Lowrie became the President. Members of the board of all three organizations became the members of the new board.105 Since the merger year the number of ACSI member schools has grown from 1051 in 1978-79 to 1933 in 1982-83. Student enrollment has grown to a total of 337,554 in 1982-83.106 Section II The Importance of Educational Philosophy The Christian school movement, along with some of its more important features, was described in the previous section. It has been observed that a critical difference between Christian schools and public schools is that of differing philosophies. At this 104 105 Ibid. Ibid. 106Association of Christian Schools International. 1983 Directory: ACSI, vii. 39 juncture it will be helpful to focus upon philosophy itself and its importance in the school program. Establishing a philosophy of education is crucial to those in education because philosophy is basic to the school's operation and program. Prior to any formal recognition of an existing philosophy of education is the fact of its existence. Jelinek, in an article, endeavors to put this into perspective by saying, "not all educators are philosophers, but all educators, no matter what their level of sophistication in philosophy, deal in one way or another with the enduring issues with which systematic philosophy ."107 Decisions and planning in the educational setting deals. . . rest upon the beliefs and assumptions espoused by teachers and school authorities. The consequences of these daily choices and plans cannot be taken lightly. Jelinick emphasizes this by adding: assumptions, left unexamined and unchanged, not only have consequences as of the moment, but consequences that extend as far into the future as the assumptions upon which they are built all thrive and endure.108 From this, one may gather that a philosophy of education does in fact exist in the educator's mind in some form or another even before given formal recognition. Rossi, in the same volume, continues this line of thought in his article, "Analytic Responsi- bility: Ours or Theirs.‘l His theme presupposes the existence of basic philosophic assumptions whenever educational researchers, test 107Far Western Philosophy of Education Society, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the Far Western Philosophy of Education Society (Temple, Arizona, 1973), p. 28. 1081bid. 4O theorists and curriculum developers congregate. "Test theory," states Rossi, "presupposes even more directly an understanding of many concepts and issues in the philosophy of science and how the philosopher goes about examining these matters."109 He later goes on to say that "since very many of the concepts and issues grei philosophical, it is the philosopher's responsibility to examine them."110 Since Rossi is most interested in the relation of philosophy to educational research and testing, he continues to outline three types of analysis which may be helpful in considering these kinds of issues. It is significant that the underlying premise of his work is the assumption that educational schemes, including testing and evaluation procedures and their interpretation, are found to be rooted in or at least rationalized by some kind of phi1050phic criteria. Work done by Dixon suggests that everyone who teaches has really no choice in the matter of whether or not he or she deals with philosophic issues. Each teacher, he claims, "is forced on occasion to reflect upon the process in which he or she is engaged."111 Furthermore, when such reflection becomes general in nature, philosophizing has already begun. Personal philosophy, whether one's view of the world, one's moral code or one's assumptions about the 109 110 Ibid., p. 108. Ibid., p. 109. 111Keith Dixon, ed., Philosophy of Education and the Curriculum (Elmsford: Pergamon Press, 1972), p. 4. 41 nature of man will make its impact upon teaching. "PhilOSOphy,“ adds Dixon, "is primarily analysis--but analysis of a particular type directed toward the answering of certain kinds of general questions and meeting certain kinds of challenges."112 Implicit with such forced reflections will be those questions related to the nature of knowledge, learning theory and the justification of subject matter, each of which can be found rooted in a philosophical issue. It does appear that one's philosophy of education does exist, whether in a rudimentary form or a sophisticated form and that it will make a substantial impact on planning and decision making. In view of this, what is the educator to do? In the introduction to Kilpatrick's Philosophy of Education, the burden of answering that question is thrust upon teachers, superintendents, and supervisors. It is their task, says Kilpatrick, to ask those questions which will clarify what is to be done in the school and for whom. In his words, one needs to ask "what should be the resulting philosophy of educa- tion in order to implement the chosen philosophy and realize the life for which it, the school, stands."113 Although Kilpatrick holds the educator responsible to ask the leading questions about philosophy, it has been suggested by Kite that the underlying motive for asking such questions is rooted in a deep sense of mission. Such a connotation suggests a moral responsibility. Kite points out that in a highly technological age 112Ibid., p. 5. 113William Heard Kilpatrick, Philosophy of Education (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963), p. 12. 42 with its compounded pressures and interest groups, schools are in danger of grasping immediate solutions to educational problems and demands. In emphasizing this situation he states, "philosophy may be minimized in the market places but it never has been more greatly needed in the field of education. Philosophy stands for wisdom and wisdom cannot be machine tooled."114 He continues by adding, "the first line of defense . . . is professional educators who are philosophically committed, educators whose get; are a consequence of held beliefs."115 Stellar, in considering yet another motive for dealing with educational philosophy, holds that it is in the best interests of the school's planning that such a philosophy of education be formalized and periodically reviewed by all in the system: "a 'good philosophy' which is continually cited, will prevent curriculum from becoming too narrow in terms of what children ought to have and what education is all about."116 This functional dimension of philosophy becomes so basic and essential to Stellar that he underlines his position by saying, "the process of creating, revising, or reintro- ducing an educational philosophy may be as significant to the improve- ment of the educational program as some curriculum projects."117 114Kite, "Planning Philosophically," p. 191- 115Ibid. 116Arthur Stellar, "Curriculum Development as Politics," Educational Leadership (November 1980): 162. 117 Ibid., p. 163. 43 In their article, "Phil050phy: Curriculum Source and Guide," Hamm and Henson expand the pragmatic function of the school's philosophy. They would hold that the philosophical bias of a school not only defines the nature of curriculum itself, . . it also conjectures the nature of curriculum design and development and the relationship between all subsets-- such as administrative theory, instructional theory, and learning theory--that undergird that large cognitive structure designated as education.118 Taken in conjunction with the observations of Kite and others, one is led to conclude that the existing philosophy of a school plays a most significant role in all the school sets forth to accomplish both in its day-to-day operation and in those projects that extend over longer periods of time. The Role of Educational Phil050phy It has been argued thus far that each school and each educator has a philosophy of education. Furthermore, the assumptions and beliefs inherent to that philosophy become the basis for decision making and program planning. To seriously question the existence of a residual philosophy runs contrary to the existence of those educa- tional questions which are addressed daily, many of which are found related to philosophic concerns and issues. In short, each educator is forced to grapple with philosophic questions which cannot be avoided. Not only has it been pointed out that there is a moral responsibility to confront these issues, but it becomes a matter of 118Russel L. Hamm and Kenneth T. Henson, "Philosophy: Curriculum Source and Guide," Contemporary Education 51 (Spring 1980): 147. 44 practicality and instrumental in the educational planning which is sustained and given direction by those belief's and their parameters. What then becomes the role of philosophy in education or more specifically decision making and program planning? Chamberlain and Loewen have addressed the question by pointing out that "institutions . are really qualitative entities. They are the organizational manifestations of what a given people considers to be of value, those ."119 This would then essential qualitative aspects of life. . . suggest that nearly all, if not all, activities of an institution are rooted in the belief system espoused by the institution. Thus the unique character of a school or its distinctiveness has led Chamber- lain and Loewen to conclude that "every institution exists to serve some definable constituency, and that each educational institution is "120 Taken at face value the distinctive for that constituency. educator is encouraged to believe that the philosophy espoused by a school serves to articulate and to give direction in transmitting the beliefs, themes, teachings, and values which are a vital part of the school's traditions and uniqueness. It has been demonstrated by those in school assessment that part of evaluation is determining the extent to which the educational program of a school is supportive and consistent with the espoused phil050phy. As part of the North Central Association's Evaluative 119Phiiip C. Chamberlain and Elenor M. Loewen, "The Use of Doctrine as a Means for Determining Institutional Distinctives,“ North Central Association Quarterly 56 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1981-82): 438. 12°Ibid., p. 439. 45 Criteria for the Evaluation of Secondary Schools, the role of philosophy is discussed. A positional statement is made in the section, "Philosophy and Objectives": The philosophy of a school is a framework of basic principles of education that expresses the staff's convictions of such essential points as the scope of the school's responsibility fer the education of youth, the nature of the educative process, the characteristics and needs of the students whom it seeks to serve, the content and methods of instruction, desirable types of student activities, and the outcomes to be attained.121 This framework would claim a high degree of ownership as it relates to the professional staff. It also suggests that the essence of the community served and the perceived needs of students be defined by the staff, and responded to in a highly professional way. A similar position is upheld by the National Study of School Evaluation, in its Elementary School Evaluative Criteria, that the significant role of the school's philosophy of education is that of giving direction and in providing a means of self-evaluation. The position indicated by the instrument focuses upon the fundamental principle that a school shall first of all determine what it believes in and what it is striving to accomplish. In the words of the Study, it becomes essential that a school faculty carefully consider its purposes and beliefs about the nature of a good educational program for its own particular students. On such a developed statement of beliefs, the school's program is planned, carried out, and evaluated. . . . Thus the school's philosophy and objectives become the yardstick by which 121Evaluative Criteria for the Evaluation of Secondary Schools (Arlington: National Study of School Evaluation, 1978), p. 29. 46 the visiting committee measures the school's progress toward TtS goals.1 2 The National Study of School Evaluation has again articulated its position in the Evaluative Criteria for Middle School/Junior High Sghggl. The "Philosophy and Goals" section in the instrument identi- fies that section as one which is basic to the entire evaluation process. "One of the fundamental principles," it is pointed out, "is that a school should be evaluated in terms of what it is striving to accomplish--its philosophy and goals. . . .“123 Furthermore, it states that "after the statements of philosophy and goals have been determined, each learning area should develop a set of objectives which is consistent with these statements."124 In retrospect, it would seem that the basic role of the school's educational philosophy is that of providing direction and to serve as an instrument of self- evaluation. It also appears that the essence of the statement is a major responsibility of those in the school who are most familiar with the need to be internally consistent and aware of the ever changing needs of the community and the students. Chadwick, speaking from a Christian school perspective, indicates that whatever the role of one's educational philosophy, it is basic to recognize that such a philosophy be based upon one's 122Elementary School Evaluative Criteria (Arlington: National Study of School Evaluation, 1980), p. 3. 123Middle School/Junior High School Evaluative Criteria (Arlington: National Study of School Evaluation, 1979), p. 37. 124 Ibid., p. 38. 47 "Christian world view or Weltanschuung . . . a Christian theistic "125 It is, to Chadwick, essential that the subsequent world view. philosophy of education then serves (1) to guide and govern the total teaching-learning process; (2) to effectively correlate the total educational process in the school; (3) to more wisely use the personnel, facilities and programs to achieve a more effective educational effort; and (4) to provide clear criteria for establishing the educational aims and to evaluate the educational results.126 It would seem, according to Chadwick, that the basic role becomes that of providing the overall direction sought by the school's pro- fessional staff and community and that the philosophy statement serves as an instrument of self-evaluation. Foundational to its formulation would be the determination and articulation of a world view which, it is presumed, represents the philosophical commitment of the school and its community. Beversluis sets out to define the role of educational philosophy in an unpublished document, "In Their Father's House: A Handbook of Christian Educational Philosophy.“ "Education,“ says Beversluis, "is religious because, intentionally or unintentionally, by its silences and by what is said, it unavoidably promotes a way of thinking and living. It promotes commitment, allegiance to a way "127 of life. He would suggest that the role of educational philosophy 125Chadwick, Teaching and Learning . - - . p. 39. 126Ibid., p. 40. 127Beversluis, "In Their Father's House: A Handbook of Christian Educational Phil050phy," p. 2. 48 therefore be that of transmitting a way of life or a philosophy of life. Later he confirms this by pointing out that a significant role is that of "transmitting to the young the most deeply cherished belief of the adult community."128 Since this is the case, his definition of educational philosophy, does in fact, underline its major role: "It [educational philOSOphy] is the organization of the school's basic faith commitments for the choosing and testing of its educational aims and practices."129 This definition then focuses upon the creation of an educational environment with its educational processes which serve to transmit the values of a given community and its educational aims while providing a means of self-evaluation. The Elements of Educational Philosophy It has been pointed out that the role of the school's philosophy of education essentially becomes that of being the official articulation of those beliefs and assumptions espoused by the body it represents. It also has been shown that it becomes the basis for self-evaluation while serving to transmit those beliefs espoused by both those working there and learning there. In that regard it may now be asked how concise or complex such a formal articulation should be. What might be the elements of such a statement? The Evaluative Criteria for the Evaluation of Secondary Schools addresses this question. The introductory statement to 128 129 Ibid., p. 5. Ibid. 49 "Guidelines for the Development of Statements of Philosophy and Objectives" states that the phil050phy is more than a statement of objectives or changes that the school seeks to achieve in the behavior or students. It is an expression of fundamental beliefs concerning the role of the school in society, its responsi- bility in providing educational opportunities, the nature of the educative processes, and the scope and relationships of services that are regarded as essential in attaining objectives.130 It is also suggested that the formulation of the statement be the product of responses to a number of pivotal questions concerning the direction, scope, and processes of the educational program. A limited number of such questions is suggested: 1. What are the central purposes of this school within its community? What are the responsibilities of the school to the community; of the community to the school? What are the common concerns of students, regardless of the differences among them? How does the school identify individual differences, abilities, and capacities, and how does it adjust methods, materials, and programs to foster individual development? What is a desirable relationship between student and student, student and teacher, teacher and administrator, administrator and community? How does the school identify the changes occurring in American society? How does it best equip students to understand and react to them now and in the future? What specific commitments has this school made for educating its students for a pluralistic society?131 131National Study of School Evaluation, The Evaluative Criteria for the Evaluation of Secondary Schools, p. 30. 131Ibid. 50 These questions are intended to be helpful in focusing on the areas which may need attention. Each school is given the flexibility to formulate a statement unique to its setting. In an earlier edition of the same instrument, the statement of phi1050phy is described as "a living mandate, constantly being exposed to reassessment and revision, constantly being changed to bring it into accord with changing circumstances both in the school and in society at large."132 While this may be true, the elements therein must be specific and comprehensive enough to "shape the program of the school: indeed, every aspect of that program, every proposed modification, must be related back to this basic statement to see that no violence is being done to the governing purposes of the school."133 The criteria governing the consciseness or complexity of the philosophy then become that which the school itself determines as its own parameters. The elements of such a statement would then seem to be determined by the school people concerning the purposes desired both as it relates to the educational environment and the educational process. Guiding principles for the formulation of a phil050phy are also outlined by the National Study of School Evaluation for the evaluation of elementary schools. A number of items are suggested. Content elements may be formulated by such items as found in the section, "Guiding Principles for a Statement of Philosophy." 132National Study of School Evaluation, The Evaluative Criteria for the Evaluation of Secondary Schools, 1960, p. 30. 133 Ibid. 10. 11. 12. 51 Relevance of the statement of philosophy to the larger purposes of the American democratic commitment. Attention to intellectual, democratic, moral, and social values basic to satisfying the needs of the individual and his culture. Recognition of individual differences. The special characteristics and unique needs of elementary school pupils. Concern for the nature of knowledge and for the nature of the learning process as they apply to learners and their total development. Consistency of philosophy with actual practice. Identification of the roles and relationships expected of the community, the pupil, the teacher, and the administration in the educational process of the school. The role of the elementary school program of the school district and the importance of articulation with the other elements of the overall educational program. The responsibility for making a determination as to a desirable balance among activities designed to develop the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. The relationship of the school to all other educational learning centers. The responsibility of the school toward social and economic change. The accountability of the school to the community it serves.134 A formulation process is discussed which would include a series of group discussions focusing on desirable philosophy and objects. Each individual is expected to contribute and all view- points considered. If a consensus or majority viewpoint can be 134National Study of School Evaluation, Elementary School Evaluative Criteria, p. 39. 52 reached, that should make the final stage all the easier. Since the process is to be the product of local participants and the outcome to express "the unique role of this particular elementary school in light "135 There are of special individual needs of the pupils it serves, no specified number of elements or components. The Evaluative Criteria for Middle School/Junior High School lists similar items as guiding principles for the formulation of a school philosophy. The participating school is encouraged not to be limited by the suggested items: 1. Relevance of the statement of philosophy to the larger purposes of American democracy. 2. Attention to intellectual, ethical, and social values basic to satisfying the needs of individuals and their culture. 3. Provision for individual differences and the special characteristics, needs, and dispositions of pre- and early adolescents in the local community. 4. Attention to the nature of knowledge and learning processes as they apply to learners and their total development. 5. Determination of a philosophy so conceived and so expressed that it is reality based and can be achieved in a practical sense. 6. Identification of the roles and interrelationships of the community, the student, the teacher, and the administration in the education process of the school. 7. Consideration of the unique position of the middle school and the junior high school educational program in the school district and the importance of articulation with the other elements of the overall educational program. 1351bid., p. 40. 53 8. Relationship of the school to other educational institutions and agencies in the community, such as colleges, libraries, museums, and recreational agencies. 9. Responsibility and participation of the school in the process of social change.1 5 It has been pointed out thus far by these proposed guidelines that the elements of a philosophy statement depend upon the judgment of those in the local setting and what the professional staff considers necessary to express the unique personality and values held by that body. It may be said again, for emphasis, that the statement becomes a matter of personal ownership by virtue of its authors. Others outside the public school sector have also suggested what the elements of a philosophy statement might be. DeJong attempts to address the question from a religious perspective. He states that, if a sense of direction and a sense of purpose is ever going to be around in our currently fluid and highly chaotic education-minded society, it should be undeniable by now that some basic questions must be asked and answered ..... 137 At first glance it would appear that DeJong would submit a basic list of concerns suggested for the educator to address, but it becomes apparent that he sees the need for a systematic and carefully set course of action as well. He points out that there is a logical sequence to be followed or a logical order in which the questions are 136National Study of School Evaluation, Middle School/Junior High School Evaluative Criteria, p. 39. 137Norman DeJong, Education in the Truth (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979), p. 61. 54 138 to be approached. He adds that "such sequencing of questions is essential to the fOrmulation of a worthwhile philosophy of educa- II139 "140 tion. This ordering is what he calls the "Philosophic Ladder which becomes the framework for the formulation of the school's statement of philosophy. He adds that while allowing for individual responses to differ, he does not suggest that his questions be significantly altered or changes made in their sequence if they are to achieve their intended purpose. DeJong's "Philosophical Ladder“ outlines these questions: 1. Basis or Authority: What is the basis upon which all our thinking rests? 2. Nature of Man: What is man? 3. Objectives or Goals: What are the goals, aims, and objectives that we desire for the students that experience that process that we call education? 4. Structural Organization: In what kind of structural setting and by what agent are you going to effect the changes that we have previously discussed and agreed upon? 5. Implementation: With what tools or implements, and by what methods are the agents in charge going to bring about these desired changes? 6. Evaluation: How well is the job being done?141 In still another attempt to put into perspective the formula- tion of a philosophy in the religious or Christian orientation, 1381bid. 1391bid. 1496id., p. 63. 141Ibid.. pp. 6l-62. 55 Chadwick outlines what he calls "The Distinctive Phi1050phy of 142 Christian Education." In focusing upon what he considered to be the elements of such a statement, he asks "what are the major loci or components that must be considered as one attempts to formulate a statement of his personal phil050phy of Christian education?"143 Because of his position which was stated earlier regarding the 144 Christian world view or Weltanschauung, it becomes essential that issues relevant to one's world view be dealt with at the very beginning of his suggested elements of a philosophy statement. Authority 1. The basic foundational presuppositions or assumptions upon which the whole educational philosophy will be built: Bibliology-Bible Theology-God Anthropology-Man Pneumatology-Holy Spirit Ecclesiology-Church Metaphysic-First Principles Epistemology-Knowledge Axiology-Values Teacher 2. The place of the teacher (education) in the potential learner. Pupil 3. The persons toward whom the educational activities are directed. 14ZChadwick, Teaching_gnd Learning . . . , p. 37. 143Ibid. 144 Ibid., p. 39. 56 Teaching-Learning Process 4. The process (psychology) or how persons involved in educational activities learn the things intended. (Basic assumptions about man and his relation to culture.) Curriculum and Organizational Patterns 5. The identification of structures and processes the teacher (educator) can employ to aid learning (curriculum). Objectives 6. The expected learning outcomes (product-goals and objectives). Correlation-Integration 7. The relationship of patterns and objectives of educational activities to the rest of life of those involved. (Development of a distinctive Christian world view thoroughly integrated with all of truth and all of life.) Correlation-Integration-Truth 5 (Biblical Truth and all other truth with life.) 4 Given a religious content and taking his definition of ‘educational philosophy, Beversluis also outlines a way to "map out the educational landscape."146 This mapping out process, as he puts it, becomes essentially a way of identifying the suggested elements of an educational philosophy. His way of formulating such a statement is to classify questions into groups or levels, to arrange those levels in the appropriate ascending order, and to search out the answers to those questions. In his outline, these levels would be followed by their respective questions. The levels are as follows: 145Ibid., p. 43. 146Beversluis, "In Their Father's House: A Handbook of Christian Educational Philosophy," p. 5. 57 Controlling Faith Commitments: Biblical World View Human Calling in the World: Obeying the Three Commands The Nature and Needs of Children Major Aims in Education 147 The Practices of Christian Education. 01$me 0 o o o 0 Summary There are two distinct emphases that are focused upon in this study: the Christian school's distinctives and how those distinctives are put into action in the school program. To provide a backdrop for the consideration of these emphases, the literature has been reviewed to help in understanding the Christian school movement in America. The literature has also aided in understanding the importance, the role, and the elements of educational philosophy. It was pointed out that one group of Christian schools, members of the organization Christian Schools International (CSI), has its roots in the Netherlands prior to colonial days. Upon emigrating to America, those educators of the Reform persuasion helped to pioneer what is known today as the Christian school move- ment. CSI schools, while being parent run schools, are largely Calvinistic in persuasion, but are enrolling growing numbers of students from non-Reform churches. A second group of Christian schools includes a number of parent run and church run or related schools. This organization has its roots in the 19405, and was known earlier as the National ‘ Association of Christian Schools (NACS). In 1978, the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) was formed due to a merger 1471bid.. pp. 7-30. 58 of three Christian school organizations. The ACSI continues to grow in numbers of membership schools and students. In both instances, the CSI and the ACSI, have emerged because of philosophical differences regarding education. These differences or distinctives, are philosophical in nature. The literature has shown that it is important that any school or educator realize that there is in effect a philosophy of education wherever the educational process is in effect. That philosophy attempts to address those broad questions related to life and education which that respective school and its community are asking. The role of the philosophy is that of setting the standard and providing direction for the school. In addition, the role provides a means of self-evaluation in terms of the internal consistency of what is believed and what is actually happening in the school. The elements of a philosophy of education are generally formulated by the school staff and the community. These elements are often articulated as a list of questions or a sequence of logical steps leading to a full blown articulation of the philosophy and those educational outcomes which impact the overall school program. CHAPTER III RESEARCH The procedures employed in implementing this study's research design will be the focus of Chapter III. Initially, there will be a description of the research methodology. The second section will describe the pilot study which preceded final refinement of the research instrument. Following sections will include the selection of research subjects, instrumentation, data collection and recording, processing and analysis of the data, and the study's limitations. A summary will conclude the chapter. Research Methodology The method used in this study will be that of descriptive research. The purposes of the study are: 1. To identify the philosophic distinctives espoused by a Christian school system which help to determine its uniqueness. 2. To identify ways in which the distinctives are set in action within four selected components of the school program: curriculum, instruction, student policies and practices, and the determination of school climate. 3. To develop a research framework which may be adopted and applied by schools as a means of identifying school distinctives and their articulation in the program. 59 60 4. To generate research data concerning relationships between educational philosophy and program planning. The initial phase of this study was to select a Christian school system which had articulated its philosophy of education in a written statement. The Grand Rapids Christian School Association (GRCSA) was selected. This Association of six Christian schools has a total 1982-83 enrollment of 3210 students and employs 151 full-time professional staff members. Although its oldest school building dates as far back as 1881, historically the Association itself dates back to a 1969 incorporation which brought together separate school associations. Each of the six GRCSA school campuses is presently governed by its respective neighborhood parent association which allows for a degree of campus autonomy while all six are under the same governing umbrella of the GRCSA Board. Since the Association is rooted in the Calvinistic traditions, it is a member of Christian Schools Inter- national (CSI). The GRCSA's formal statement of philosophy is entitled, "Philosophy of the Grand Rapids Christian School Association." This statement, dating back to the incorporation, has served as the formal expression of philosophical and theological distinctives which are presumed to set the Association schools apart from other schools and to provide their unique features. Initial contact was made with the Superintendent of the GRCSA on September 14, 1981. At a conference in his office the discussion focused on an explanation of such a study, why it was important, how it might generate data helpful to the GRCSA schools, and the plan to 61 use interviews as a way to collect in-depth data. Tentative per- mission was granted, contingent on the development of a credible research instrument, the refining of the study, and after a full discussion of the study with the administrative council of the GRCSA which consists of its six building principals. This beginning was followed by an informal visit during the months of October and November to each of the six campuses. This was to acquaint the researcher with each building principal and his responsibilities. This introduction was intended to familiarize both parties with each other and to help acquaint the researcher with the research setting itself. The initial study plans and interest in the Christian school's distinctives were also shared at that time. An October 12, 1981, meeting was held with the Superintendent to further discuss the study, its implications, selection of inter- viewees, and the educational philosophy of the GRCSA schools. A document entitled, “Christian Educational Philosophy: A Creedal Summary," by Dr. N. H. Beversluis was recommended for reading to assist in understanding and interpreting school philosophy. 'On October 9, 1981, a visit was made to the international headquarters of CSI, located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. As a means of better understanding the CSI philosophy of education and its responsibilities to member schools, such as the GRCSA schools, a conference was held with the Executive Director. During this meeting he discussed the trend toward CSI associate membership status for schools which are neither Reform or Fundamentalistic in doctrinal creed. There was also a short meeting with the CSI business manager. 62 The Curriculum Administrator discussed at length his role of coordinating all curriculum research and development and the specific plans of that department of CSI. During the course of this meeting there was a discussion regarding CSI plans to write and to develop the curriculum subjects which constitute the more vulnerable areas relating to Reform tradition and interpretation of history and science. Finally, there was a short discussion with the School and Government Relations Administrator. On October 16, 1981, a letter was sent to the Superintendent describing the study in detail. This information was shared by the Superintendent with the administrative council and a full discussion was held to clarify the study's intent and to answer questions expressed by the building principals. The CSI headquarters were revisited on November 9, l981, during which time an interview was held with the School and Government Relations Administrator, Dr. Philip Elve. The focus of this interview was to gather information relating to the 1969 incorporation of the six schools which make up the GRCSA. It had been Dr. Elve's responsibility to provide leadership for that incorporation and the formulation of the Association's present statement of educational philosophy. At that time, Dr. Elve served as the Superintendent of the newly incorporated Association for an interim period, during which time he was on leave of absence form his position at the National Union of Christian Schools (NUCS), which later became CSI. These eight schools became six campuses during this process and 63 several separate statements of educational philosophy were combined to form the present statement.1 It was decided at that time that each of the six buildings would retain some of the original autonomy by keeping a functioning parent association board for each school. GRCSA organizational unity needed for incorporation would be gained by having each of these boards represented on the major decision-making Association Board. The identity of each of the original philosophy statements was pre- served because each had a common Reform creedal foundation.2 The success of the incorporation became more apparent. In the first edition of the Grand Rapids Christian School Association Newsletter, April 1969, this historical incorporation was summarily applauded: For the first time in the history of the Grand Rapids Christian School System, tuition schedules have been equalized in five of the six school societies which voted last fall to consolidate under a single system. In addition, the Board of Trustees is striving to equalize salaries and fringe benefits. It is hoped that this will be accomplished in one or two years. Historically, our local Christian schools have maintained independence to a degree no longer considered practical educationally or financially. Consolidation was approved by the Societies of Christian High Schools, East Paris, Mayfield, Seymour Sylvan, and United Schools. Since that time, the task of organizing and implementing this decision has resulted in numerous meetings and many hours of work by representatives of the six societies on the Consolidated Board. 1Interview with Philip Elve, Christian Schools International, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 9 November l98l. 2Ibid. 64 Many of the organizational hurdles have been cleared and, although much work still remains, positive steps taken and decisions made can now be reported. Later in the Newsletter, an article entitled, "Consolidation Gets a 8+" reported the continuing optimism of those involved. "How is it going?" is a common question of those interested in but not a part of the Grand Rapids Christian School Association. Most of those involved in the operation of the Association schools would answer, "Just great!"; others would add, "Better than we expected it would." It would seem entirely fair in the light of the reactions of most who are vitally involved to say that consolidation deserves at least a 8+ for this marking period. . . . Just what are the satisfying aspects that give rise to this enthusiasm? It's not easy to describe a spirit, an attitude, or new-found vigor, but let's take a look at some of the obvious benefits that have been realized. The guiding principle that has surfaced repeatedly in the last half year has been "The best from each for the benefit of all." Any fear that board members, principals, or teachers would not work as hard or as well for the system as they would for the individual school has been dispelled. The desire to help each other and the concern for the common good has exceeded all expectations. The district boards find they do still have a vital role to play in the administration and improvement of the district school, but they also find that their good ideas and methods now have a far broader application. The Association board finds that tasks they could not possibly perform well on the district level are wholeheartedly accepted by the district boards, hence freeing the Association board for administrative structuring and policy forming roles. The idea of retaining and utilizing district boards in a meaningful way has worked well and the mutual sharing of viewpoints through Association standing committees is bringing about a new vitality. The boards have generally found that many fears regarding consolidation were unfounded and that some benefits that have come to pass were unforeseen.4 3"Grand Rapids Christian School Association News," Newsletter 1 (April l96l): 2. 4"Consolidation Gets a Bf,“ Newsletter l (November 1969): 1. 65 On December 29, 1981, there was a conference in the Super- intendent's office at which time consultation was held regarding the research interview format. A number of constructive suggestions were made by the Superintendent. These suggestions were later incor- porated into the first draft of the research interview format. This meeting also served to increase further understanding of the GRCSA, its professional staff, and the community it served. In June 1982, a letter was sent to the Superintendent with an update on the study's progress. At that writing a time was suggested for the forthcoming interviews to be held in the fall, after school was well under way. Upon the completion of the first draft of the interview instrument during the summer of 1982, a fall appointment was made with the Superintendent. Several points of clarification were suggested by him which would further enhance readability and the instrument's practicality. During the period of time from September 1981 to the fall of 1982, literature related to the Reform perspective of educational philosophy was read as a means to better understand the years of Calvinistic tradition and thought which are the heritage of the Association schools and foundational to their distinctives. Two con- ferences with Dr. Donald Oppewal, Professor of Education, Calvin College, stand out as being instrumental in drawing together the literature which described the creedal, doctrinal, and cultural dynamics which are part of this heritage. These two meetings took place in his office on the Calvin College campus in the fall of 1982. 66 During those meetings a number of topics were identified and dis- cused: the Calvinistic perspective of education, Reform scholars and authors who have influenced educational thought, fundamentalism and evangelical thinking on educational philosophy, the GRCSA philosophy statement in both general and specific terms, and its interpretation. Summarily stated, there have been and continue to be five philosophical/theological principles which seem to be para- mount in Calvinistic educational philosophy. These principles may be considered as those traditionally held distinctives which are presumed to have influenced the GRCSA statement of educational philosophy: The Covenant Sphere Sovereignty Special and General Revelation Cultural Mandate 5 Sovereignty of God A manuscript in preparation by Dr. Oppewal entitled, "Calvinistic Day Schools: Roots and Branches," was read and critiqued. This manu- script discussed the five traditional Calvinistic principles. These collegial discussions helped to develop a sensitivity to the history, traditions, and perceptions of those to be interviewed. A final meeting was convened in the fall of 1982 with the Superintendent at which time the final plans were laid for data collecting. It was concluded at that time that the selection of interviewees would be decided ultimately by the building principals, but in consultation with the interviewer. The interviewer would 5Interviews with Donald Oppewal, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, September 1982. 67 contact each principal for the purpose of developing the schedules, and preparing for the data collecting. It was understood that a pilot study would take place prior to a final refinement of the inter- view instrument. Pilot Study The first draft of the interview was constructed during the summer of 1982. During the first month of school, an informal meeting was convened which involved several elementary school teachers from a Lansing, Michigan, Christian school. Questions from the first draft were discussed and critiqued by those teachers. Two recom- mendations were made which helped in constructing most of the questions: (I) avoid excessive theoretical and philosophical termin- ology so that a minimum of direction and clarification is required on the respondent's part, and (2) consult with a party knowledgeable in Calvinistic educational philosophy who is independent of the GRCSA schools. As has already been indicated in the section on research methodology, two conferences were held during the fall of 1982 as a result of those recommendations with Dr. Donald Oppewal of Calvin College. Questions from the first draft were discussed, critiqued, and refined as a result of those consultations. Also, as pointed out earlier, a fall meeting with the Superintendent of the GRCSA schools, served further to refine those same questions. It was determined during this phase in the writing of the pilot instrument that two forms should be designed if both administrators and teachers were to become interviewer subjects. Two pilot forms were prepared to meet that need. 68 A pre-pilot testing was conducted in a Lutheran school. Although the school itself could not be considered as an evangelical non-denominational Christian school, it nonetheless was private and a parochial Christian school which identifies itself with the private schools of the Lansing area. The Administrator Form was used on September 27, 1982 with the school principal and the Teacher Form was used September 30, 1982 with an elementary teacher. Each interview was tape recorded. The only notes taken by the interviewer were related to corrections in the text which were needed, and recording suggestions, questions, and problems experienced during the interview. Several revisions were made as a result of suggestions submitted by those participants: (1) without compromising the original focus upon interviewee perceptions, efforts were made to make the questions still more direct, (2) further efforts were also made to clarify the terminology, (3) expanded definitions for "curriculum," "instruction," "student policies and practices," and "Climate," were developed which would, in the future, be placed in the hands of each interviewee, and (4) a black line drawing was prepared to assist in understanding the meaning of "distinctives“ which again would be placed in the hands of each interviewee. The pilot instrument draft was developed incor- porating these refinements. At that time it was suggested by the GRCSA Superintendent that the instrument be piloted at the school building which had a principal with an advanced degree. This principal would identify with the process and its demands upon both interviewer and the subjects. 69 Personal contact was made with him for the purpose of setting inter- view dates. October 21, 1982, became the target date for the pilot study. The principal participated using the pilot draft of the Administrator Format. Two experienced teachers were selected by the principal to interview using the pilot draft of the Teacher's Format. The teachers were selected on the basis of having had at least one year's teaching experience in the building and having a schedule which allowed the needed interview time. The pilot study procedure followed a systematic format: (1) the interviewer introduced himself and briefly explained the study, (2) directions and explanations were read to the interviewee, (3) the black line picture was handed to the interviewee and explained, (4) the tape recorder was turned on, (5) a definition sheet was handed to the interviewee, (6) the definition was read to the interviewee, and (7) the interview questions followed. As each new component was introduced a new definition sheet was handed to the interviewee. The texts of the two forms were basically similar and meant to address the same areas of concern. It was soon discovered, however, that while the teachers tended to be verbally at ease and articulate regarding curriculum and instruction, the administrator was more verbal and articulate regarding student policies and practices. Both teacher and administrator articulated the school climate questions with nearly the same capacity of freedom and ease. To facilitate the differences, the questions regarding curriculum and instruction were later refined to be somewhat more general in nature 70 in the Administrator Form. Sections regarding student policies and practices and school climate were refined somewhat, but remained basically the same. Timing did not appear to present a problem. Interviews tended to need from thirty to forty-five minutes each. It was observed that in the shorter interviews the interviewee often tended to “anticipate" questions which logically followed. Therefore, it was not always necessary to read each question and address each separately. Perhaps a significant point of concern was the interview environment. Although the setting generally was private, often it would be subject to peripheral noise distractions. These situations were not frequent, but required intense concentration and presented taping difficulties. These occasions did not present observable problems to the interviewee. One concern which had to be dealt with throughout the data collection was the personal interest the interviewer had in the subject. Unconsciously there was a tendency to veer slightly from the more objective concise reading of the text questions to clarifying sub-sets of questions to conversational level questions. Effort was made to remain somewhat aloof from this natural tendency while still creating an atmosphere of warmth and openness. Responses to the pilot study were generally given without significant anxiety. Respondents generally expressed no outward difficulty in knowing what was being asked for and in understanding the definitions. This was demonstrated by a general sense of ease 71 and occasionally going beyond the questions by offering examples and personal illustrations. Only minor changes were made in the text and procedure after the pilot study. This was due largely to the fact that the pre-pilot study had identified the weaknesses of the instrument. The pre-pilot experience also served to make the researcher sensitive to the people being interviewed and aware of his personal tendency toward informality. Selection of Subjects The GRCSA system of schools consists of six separate campuses situated within the Grand Rapids, Michigan, city limits. The six campuses are approximately fifteen minutes apart. They are described in Table 3-1 on the following page. There is a total of 151 full-time professional staff for the 1982-83 school year. Of that number there are 143 full-time teachers, seven building principals, and one assistant principal. This total of 151 full-time professional staff constitutes the population of this study. The section on research methodology has already indicated that the research interview would be utilized as the only means of collecting data. Mflfile the interview allows the researcher to gather in-depth perceptions, one disadvantage is in the restriction it places on the sample size. With one interviewer, it became impractical to collect data from each building on an equitable basis. Still another variable was that of the time needed per interview and the 72 .- .a .xuouumgwo mwmfiimwma chomumcgmpcm mpoonum cmwpmwgzo ”womaom Hmeees NH N N Nm oH m-a eHN HH NmmH eesHsm N H NH a e-a Noe NH HNaH eeeesem e H 3N oH a-a 3N3 NH HNNH aHeeHeo e H NH a a-a Nmm oH emaH xooeeHHHz eaHI eeHHmHeeu N HHVH em a NH-oH HoN NH ONmH aeHaem eeeem N H MN m m-a NNm HH mmmH eHeHesez-eeHmeeu xupaomd mpmgwucwsa aupaomm mgpcoz movagw mpcmuaum mgmasmz vocmno Hoosom ae_e-peea aeHH-HH=a eteom .eoHHeHeema< Heeeem eeHHmHeeu weHQam eeasu--.H-m NHm