It’s Not so Easy

Guest article: Mark Kennedy, ACSI Canada

Soviet dissident and author Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote this about a

fellow prisoner in the Soviet gulag during the Russian Communist era:

“Before the war Anatoly Vasilyevich had graduated from a teachers’

college, where he had specialized in literature.  Like me, he now had about

three years left before his “release” to a place of banishment.  His only

training was as a teacher of literature in schools.  It seemed rather

improbable that ex-prisoners like us would be allowed into schools.

But if we were---what then?

“I won’t put lies into children’s heads!  I shall tell the children the truth

about God and the life of the Spirit.”

“But they’ll take you away after the first lesson.”

Vasilyevich lowered his head and answered quietly: “Let them.”

I couldn’t help wondering ‘what if every evangelical Christian teacher in secular schools in Ontario and the Maritimes decided to follow Vasilyevich’s example? What if they committed to tell their students the greatest and most important good news all on the same day, irrespective of consequences?’ Unlike Vasilyevich, they wouldn’t be put in jail, not in our pseudo-tolerant culture. But I doubt if their unions would defend them from being fired or put on probation and severely reprimanded. Of course it’s easy for us to raise that scenario from the relative safety of Christian schooling. Our jobs are not at risk when we share all of God’s truth with our students. We aren’t hazarding the loss of generous salaries and comfortable lifestyles by expressing our faith at school. Christian teachers in secular schools would need extraordinary courage and faith to follow Vasilyevich’s example. In the real world, courage isn’t all that common. 

And what about us in Christian schooling? What would we do if our jobs and even our schools’ existence depended upon us teaching values that we know are false – like say, affirming the homosexual lifestyle? Most of us know that’s not out of the question in Ontario at least in the not-so-distant future. Although at present we have constitutional protection to teach our values, how would we react to the leverage of, for example, new elementary and high school provincial accreditation standards and even the possibility of provincial government funding? ‘Your school will be accredited/certified/funded only if you teach  ……….,…’

“We would never abandon our convictions for those things!” I can imagine us  saying. But talk is cheap. That statement is uncomfortably like Peter’s promise to Jesus prior to the rooster’s convicting crow.

The voice of uneasy compromise tells us, “Well at least we would still be able to present the gospel message, so our students can be saved.” But what does that do to our Christian integrity? And that would just be the beginning of the compromise, with many more to come down the road. Accepting compromises is a bit like eating potato chips. It’s hard to stop at just one.

 Courageous actions are a lot more difficult than courageous words, especially if the consequences of those actions might threaten our personal security. In the past few months I’ve been praying for the Lord to give us in Christian schooling, and me specifically, real courage in the face of opposition from an increasingly antagonistic media and culture- Anatoly Vasilyevich’s kind of courage.

Mark

Are Christian Schools Elitist?

Guest Article: Mark Kennedy, ACSI Canada

“Why, that’s like charging people for God!!” That’s what one outraged lady said when I told her families at our school had to pay tuition. It’s not an uncommon sentiment with those who believe that public school education is free or with people who cling to the pseudo-Christian philosophical canard, ‘If it’s cheap and easy it must be from God.”

More reflective thinkers would realize that, apart from tuition, there aren’t a lot of financial resources out there with which Christian schools can pay bills and salaries. So we have to charge tuition, whether we like it or not. It isn’t that we’re trying to limit enrollments to the economically advantaged or that we’re fending off the ‘hoi-polloi’ by pricing our schools beyond their reach. Most Christian school people aren’t elitists. But we do want first rate teachers and outstanding, God-honouring school programmes. And those things cost.

Setting Tuition

 Over my past 35 years in Christian school leadership I’ve learned some worthwhile things, more than a few of them I learned the hard way. Take the business of setting tuition.

I used to think that Christian schools should set their tuition as low as possible so we could be accessible to just about any family. It was a charitable thought and, since I was an audacious, rather than sagacious, administrator, that’s just what I did at our school.  The results were disturbing.

Lower income families didn’t flock to the school. The percentage of families not returning from one year to the next remained about the same. And, because of inflation, each year we had less money to pay teachers and improve programmes. So ill-paid staff and a few committed parents inevitably found themselves under enormous pressure to do more and more fundraising. It wasn’t fundraising for new equipment or buildings – the kind of projects that can unify and enliven a school community.  It was ‘bailing bucket’ fundraising, ‘please keep us from sinking’ fundraising, ‘here we are on the brink of disaster once again’ fundraising. And it wore us all out.

Not only that, but our modest tuition didn’t curry much favour outside the school community either –where, in most people’s thinking, low cost equals low value. It’s a standard North American message about any product or service: quality costs.

And wealthy folk who could have made substantial donations to ministries like ours, never did. That’s because financially successful people, especially people from the business community, reach their position through careful planning – which includes appropriately pricing their products and services. They set their prices to be comfortably higher than their operating costs, their income to exceed expenses and they look for the same from any ministries they might consider supporting. People don’t give generously to schools that are annually on the verge of extinction.

That should speak to us. In the interest of providing an effective ministry for our students and reasonable salaries for teachers we need to set tuition high enough to comfortably exceed operating costs. The prospect of doing that is pretty daunting for principals and board members. What if families pull out?! What if we go broke and have to close?!!! In the past 10 years I’ve seen a fair number of Christian schools close in our region –too many. Most of them died with agonizing slowness, trying to keep their tuition ‘as low as possible to make the school financially accessible to working families.’ They would have at least had a chance to survive if they’d set their tuition high enough to more than pay their expenses.

Raising tuition to an appropriate level can be done without creating a disaster. Here are 5 steps to accomplishing that goal:

1. Calculate what tuition income you would need to pay your expenses with at least a 10% surplus.
2. Educate school families in the concept that Christian schooling is a shared sacrifice.  Parents aren’t the only people who pay for their children’s Christian education. Most of our teachers and principals are making huge financial sacrifices too. They choose to earn salaries 25% to 50% less than they could earn in public education so they can teach God’s truth freely to their students thereby equipping those students well for life. And our board members work for free! Maybe that’s the way it should be. Sacrificing to bless others, especially our own families, isn’t something strange for Christians. According to Jesus it is central to our faith.

“If anyone would come after me he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Mark 8:34

Christian school leaders have the daunting financial responsibility of making that ‘shared sacrifice’ equitable for parents and school staff as well.

1. Educate parents in the relationship between tuition income and the ability to enhance programmes and improve equipment and facilities.
2. ‘Grandfather’ current families by raising tuition to the ideal level in consistent annual increments over a defined number of years (5 or less).
3. For new families, have a higher tuition rate to begin with.

But if we keep tuition low won’t the Lord’s miraculously provide to meet our financial needs? It does happen, especially in places like Haiti. I’ve seen it. The Lord sometimes provides for the poorest of his people in astounding ways. He does that in North America too but it doesn’t seem to be as common here. It seems that, in Canada, one of the wealthiest nations in all history, God treats Christian school leaders like toddlers learning to walk. In our first few years he intervenes on our behalf, figuratively holding us up when in our financial innocence or naivety we trip up.  But as we mature he seems to expect us to maintain our balance by applying biblical wisdom, guidance from others and lessons from our own experiences. And sometimes he allows us to stumble painfully so in the long run we can learn to stand.

What about our responsibility to “widows and orphans”? Both the Old and New Testament tell believers to care for ‘widows and the orphans’. For us in Christian schools, that means we have a responsibility to help families that share our beliefs but can’t afford our tuition.  Some schools address that responsibility by filling empty classroom seats with students from families that can only pay a fraction of the tuition. That’s a sensible short term plan with a serious long term flaw. It gives everyone the illusion that the school is doing well. After all, look at all the students! The reality may be that a lot of the students are on some sort of unfunded, reduced tuition plan and that the school is struggling with a steadily increasing deficit. Inviting low income families into a financially troubled school eventually becomes a bit like inviting struggling swimmers onto a sinking ship – not a good long term solution for the swimmers or the ship’s passengers. It is far better for a school to direct part of its fundraising efforts to a scholarship/tuition assistance programme. People like to give to that sort of thing. The goal is to eventually limit bursaries to the amount of real money in the tuition assistance fund.

When it comes to providing for needy people, maybe we should borrow a philosophy from the airline industry. The pre-flight safety instructions always say, “In the event of an emergency, make sure to put on your own oxygen mask first, before you attempt to help others.” They’re not advising a ‘me first’ selfishness, they’re simply saying you need stability in order to help others effectively. I think that’s what Paul meant in Hebrews 12:12,

“Therefore strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. Make level the paths for your feet so that the lame may not be disabled, but healed.”

A few months ago I got a phone call from a fellow Upper Canada College ‘old boy’. After trying unsuccessfully to pry support out of me, he passed on some fascinating information. It seems that at Upper Canada College, where tuition starts at $28,000 and there’s a huge student waiting list, 25% of the tuition, (“only 25%” he said), comes from bursary funds donated by people like me. “We want to increase that percentage,” he explained, “because in the States the average ‘elite’ school receives 45% of tuition from donated bursaries!”

Now I’m not suggesting that our schools take on the airs or the tuition rates of elite private schools. But we could at least follow their example by making sure tuition more than covers operating costs and by raising bursary/tuition assistance funds to support lower income families. And there’s nothing elitist about that!

Keeping the Faith when Transitioning from Christian High School to Secular College

Guest Author: Linda Forshaw

Linda Forshaw is a Business Information Systems graduate from Lancaster University in the UK. A frequent contributor to college review site Degree Jungle.com, she is a full time writer and blogger specializing in education, social media, and entrepreneurship. Contact her on Twitter @seelindaplay

Keeping the Faith when Transitioning from Christian High School to Secular College

With such a diverse range of college and university options available to high school seniors, choosing which institution to attend can be daunting at best. When the desire to maintain a faith in Christianity is added into the mix alongside such factors as cost, location, and career prospects, the choice can often become bewildering. 

Many faithful students will automatically believe that their most attractive option will be to attend a private Christian college or university, automatically discounting all other options as unrealistic or simply not for them. The importance of staying in the fold of a college where religion is at the core of teaching is a viewpoint that can be seen to be supported by the likes of Abby Nye, whose book “Fish Out of Water: Surviving and Thriving as a Christian on a Secular Campus” suggests that students for whom faith plays a major part in their lives will be under some sort of liberalist assault from day one. Still other surveys, and what is considered “conventional wisdom,” appear to prophesize that significant numbers of high school Christians have ceased active practice of their faith by the end of college. 

As with any opinion, there is always a counter argument; in this case it is perhaps best provided in an article entitled Finding Jesus at College (The Chronicle Review, March 7, 2010). As a result of his study of students of Christian faith in the Netherlands, author Edward Dutton believes that a college environment where everyone holds similar views such as at Bible college or other religious school is not necessarily conducive to keeping faith alive. Dutton also points to the work of Phillip Hammond and James Hunter whose own research led them to the conclusion that students of a Christian faith who attend a secular institution tend to leave those institutions with a stronger faith than when they started. 

It does seem that unless a student is particularly drawn to a religion-centric institution, their options pertaining to higher education are just as broad as their peers who choose not to walk a faithful path. It’s not as if Christian students head off to secular college and instantly dive headlong into a world where sexual promiscuity, alcohol and drugs are the only paths to take. On the contrary, support for students attempting the transition between a Christian high school and a secular education is widespread and easily accessible.

Resources for Christian students in secular education

 - Faith at State: A Handbook for Christians at Secular Universities (Rick Kennedy, 1995)
 - How to Stay Christian in College (J. Budziszewski, 2004)
 - Live Above (Online Christian community)
 - InterVarsity(Evangelical Campus Mission)
 - Emerging Scholars Blog (Program of the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship)
 - Youth Transition Network(Nonprofit organizations aimed at decreasing the loss of youth from the church)

Tests and temptations are a natural part of life for everyone; Christian or otherwise. How the faithful student addresses such challenges will make all the difference.

How to Make Your "Pig" Fly

How to Make Your "Pig" Fly

Pig fly.jpg

By Dr. Barrett Mosbacker

Have you ever had an idea for the future of your school but others aren't buying it?  I hope so.  Leaders who are leading and not merely managing focus on the future, asking "what should we be doing to prepare our students for their futures, not our present?"  Leaders do not maintain the status quo, they create a new normal.

Thinking carefully about what is and what might be requires attention to the present and to emerging trends.  It requires an open and agile mind.  It requires the ability to hold fast to our first principles and worthy traditions while having the courage to innovate.  Harvard Business School Dean Nitin Nohria recently challenged faculty and alumni to embrace both tradition and innovation:

We must have the conviction to hold fast to the many traditions that have defined us for so many years: the case method, our residential campus, our focus on a transformational learning experience. At the same time, we must have the courage to innovate. Because today's traditions were, in fact, innovations in their time.1

Your idea may look like an eagle to you.  To others it may look like a pig.  What do you when you are having a hard time getting the "pig" aloft, when you "pig" is stuck on the runway?  What do you do when others do not embrace your ideas for change?  

Here are a few practical suggestions that will help you maintain your vision while bringing others along.   I have borrowed some of these ideas (in quotations) from Krippendorff's excellent article "How To Stick With It When Your Ideas Are Ahead Of Their Time." 2

• Be prayerful.  One of my favorite verses is Proverbs 16:9: "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps."   We should plan and work hard to see our plans realized but God is sovereign.  He may redirect us to an entirely different end or may direct us to the same end but along a different and unexpected path.

• Guard your motive.  Be sure that your motive is holy.  We must remember that we were created for one primary purpose, to glorify God.  Everything else, no matter how worthy, is secondary.  Make sure that your ideas are not about you or your school but rather how others may "see your good works and glorify your father in heaven." (Matt. 5:16)

• Listen.  Not all of our ideas are good.  Good ideas often need modification.  Even if our ideas are excellent, we need to listen as a matter of respect to others and to understand their fears and concerns.  One of Steven Covey's Habits of Highly Successful People is to "seek first to understand and then to be understood."  This is a derivative of the biblical injunction, "be quick to hear and slow to speak."

• Keep it simple. "Usually when an innovator sees the world is going to change, the logic behind the change is obvious … The world changes all the time. It’s easy to see it is going to happen. What distinguishes innovators from the rest of us is not that they see farther into the future; it’s that they take action. While “experts” bring up complicated logic to explain why things will not unfold as the innovator thinks, the innovator just starts moving. Jeff Bezos saw that the Internet was going to change retail, so he left his job at the high-tech investment bank D.E. Shaw, and started selling books online … So don’t over think...outthink. When your logic is complicated it means you don’t understand. Think until your logic becomes simple, then act."

• Keep believing. "Remember that an innovative vision is usually inconsistent with prevailing logic and beliefs (otherwise it is probably not that innovative). It may be inconsistent with practices and rules … Steve Jobs, for example, knew it just made sense for record labels to distribute content digitally, so the iPod and iTunes became the natural net to capture this future." It seems so obvious now, now that digital music is common. But it was not obvious before Steve Jobs pushed ahead with innovation. It takes time for other to catch up. Many "will not get it" until after the fact. So, don't give up-keep believing, keep pushing forward. "Albert Einstein once said, “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” Great innovators stay with their visions longer while others get distracted or disillusioned."

Do you have any "pigs" sitting on the runway?  They can fly!  It just takes prayer, humility, handwork, and patience.  Don't give up--keep innovating.  Our students' futures depend on it!

References

1. Nohria, N. (2012, January 1). Priorities. hbs.edu. Boston. Retrieved October 27, 2012, from http://www.hbs.edu/dean/priorities/

2. Krippendorff, K. (2012, May 31). How to stick with it when your ideas are ahead of their time. fastcompany.com. Retrieved October 27, 2012, from http://www.fastcompany.com/1838871/how-stick-it-when-your-ideas-are-ahead-their-time

Bullying's Raw Materials

Guest post by Paul Couglin, The Protectors.

Letter of Endorsement (Larry Taylor, Prestonwood Christian Academy)

Bullying's Raw Materials

Within the freedom-from-bullying community, traditional thinking had it that after high school you were usually safe from high-school-like bullying. Yet more and more tragic stories from colleges across the globe are telling us that bullying is likely increasing even past high school--an alarming indicator.  [http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/1107/1224326238140.html.] Why such longevity for this intentional form of abuse and anti-social behavior compared to just 10 years ago? Because the raw materials needed to produce bullying are more plentiful than before, and these materials are often not what many of us think, making our response ineffective. For example, too many in education still cling to the now discredited belief that Bullies have low self-esteem, among related myths. Here is a list of bullying's major components, which have far more to do with adult culture than school culture:  

• Arrogance: Along with unprecedented material wealth has unfortunately come the belief that the person with the most stuff not only wins--he or she is more important and valuable than others. For proof, consider how bullying's rise coincides more with our economic boom years than recent recession years.  
• Hubris: When surveyed, American high school-aged children score the highest in personal confidence when compared to students from other countries. But they rank 18th in test scores and academic performance. We're Number One! in thinking we're number-one anyway. That's not healthy confidence--that's delusional hubris, which is excessive self-confidence, conceit and haughtiness. The sages of old warned against such thinking, and we would do well to open our ears to heed these old truths again.  
• Jealousy & Envy: his tag team of discontent within a person's soul goes to the core of much bullying behavior. Unfortunately for us, who even talks about such negative and corrupting emotions? We better if we're serious about diminishing bullying. Jealousy relates more to loss, anger and resentment due to relationships, and is more likely to lead girls to lie, gossip and extort, than boys. Envy, resentment of another due to what they possess (such as status, clothing, boyfriend, girlfriend), compels people to commit abuse and related cruelty that they wouldn't commit otherwise. Narcissists often bully, and the narcissistic personality is prone toward envy. Worse, to secure a sense of superiority in the face of another's ability, bullying narcissists often use contempt as a means to diminish the other person. 
• Disdain & Contempt: Not only do a growing number of students believe they are more valuable and important than others, more and more are looking down their noses at others, believing (though we don't come out and actually say so) that others are not worthy of consideration or respect. As history is quick to remind us, some of the worst human atrocities begin with an unjustified belief in superiority over others. This helps us understand why physically and mentally challenged children are often among the most bullied. Hitler and his henchmen had them murdered, and bullies are trying to take their life in other ways today.
• Immaturity: Failure to launch--the inability of a frightening number of youth to become independent adults--isn't funny anymore. It's a serious social crisis wherein people behave in petulant ways that 10-15 years ago would have caused shock and disbelief. "That's so high school," an expression that reminds us that people usually outgrow immature behavior such as bullying someone due to how they walk and talk, is now being used to describe behavior well into a person's 20s and even 30s. To be immature is to be inevitably self-centered, self-consumed, and self-interested--breeding cells for bullying. We're expected to move past these hurdles and into adulthood and pro-social behavior. This isn't happening like it used to, and we are paying a very large price with prolonged bullying being just one of them. 
• Incivility: From most any reality TV show to just about any election above local dog catcher, our nation has become increasingly uncivil. We no longer agree to disagree agreeably to the degree we used to. Worse, crass behavior that would have caused shame decades ago is now exalted through mediums such as reality TV to the point that being a bully today can mean fame as well as fortune. Time for a national referendum on reality TV? Absolutely.  
• Fallout from the Self-Esteem Movement: A bomb went off in our culture about 30 to 40 years ago, and we are still suffering from its mutating radiation. Most of us know someone whose parents reared them to think that they are really special. Now we get to suffer the consequences of their bullying behavior. Narcissism is the unintended love child of society's union with pop psychology's panacea to society's ills: low self-esteem. For years, we've been giving the patient the wrong medicine. Your average Bully needs more humility, not more self-importance. Instead of writing poems about how special their Inner Butterfly really is, our children need to meditate on the truth that everyone is special and important.
• Shame-Free Culture: What happened to good old-fashioned and healthy (yes, healthy) shame? This negative emotion can point us back to a True North, a right form of conduct. It can help us grow in maturity by making amends for anti-social and life-diminishing behavior. It's required to repair relationships due to inevitable tearing, much the way Vitamin E helps wounds heal.
• Loss of Evil: Bullying isn't merely unfortunate, inevitable, concerning and so on--in prolonged and intense cases it's actually evil, which is among the most antiquated beliefs and words today. Fundamentally, this unique expression of evil stems from what Dante described as "cupiditas." For Dante and other Middle Ages thinkers and philosophers, the sins that spring from that root are the most extreme, or "sins of the wolf." This spiritual condition is the worst of all, in that whatever exists outside oneself has worth only as it can be exploited or consumed by one's self. People aren't people to those ensnared by cupiditas. They are commodities, meant to be consumed, exploited and even ravaged the way a wolf treats its prey and the way Bullies treat Targets. Remind you of anyone you know? Remarkably, such people tend to think that they are very moral. I have known three people ensnared by cupiditas. All have stellar church attendance and do not swear. Hitler was opposed to drinking, swearing, premarital sex, and so on. By drifting from a fundamental understanding of evil, we have drifted from a fundamental strategy to oppose and if possible transform it, leaving us with various expressions of appeasement, which are historically anemic and dangerous. As a society, we are going into battle against bullying with the wrong weapons.
• Cowardice: Most Bystanders know and feel that bullying is wrong. They usually don't need an adult to tell them. But what they need help with is overcoming a common vice, or as the Bible lists it, a sin (Rev. 21:8): Cowardice. Our children, daily, are succumbing to this vice and sin when they have the power to act and help a Target, but they don't because they listened to fear more than doing the right thing afraid. The Greek word for manliness, andreia, is the same word that represents the virtue of the warrior--bravery and courage. When you think of what it means to be manly today, do these two words come to mind? Can we say with a straight face that courage is on the rise? More likely, it's convenient opposite has grown in popularity, which is tragic since male athletes often set the moral thermostat in schools.        

Bullying will get better, but only in pockets of resistance. Let us help you. For proven solutions, go to: www.theprotectors.org

How do I get the most out my HS teacher evaluations?

A School Success Excellence grade.jpg

A - Ask your students!

Guest post by Dr. David Balik

I’ll never forget when one of my doctoral professors warned us as a cohort that we’d better have a dissertation topic that we’re really interested in, so that when “the going gets tough” and we’re grinding our way through the writing and the research, the level of interest and excitement we have towards our subject matter will carry the day, and help keep us going. After ditching my first topic because it didn’t meet the aforementioned litmus test, I continued to search for a meaningful topic that would actually add something to the over-all “conversation” in education today. I soon realized that it was right under my nose!

Three years ago, along with the support and guidance of my Superintendent (Dr. Barrett Mosbacker), I developed a “Student Feedback Survey” that we determined would be carefully incorporated into our Faculty evaluation process, at the high school level. Part of this decision was driven by my reading and research on teacher evaluations, and their relative uselessness where instructional improvement and student learning were concerned. Case in point: the Department of Education recently released data that shows 96.8 percent of teachers and 93.8 percent of principals evaluated received satisfactory or “proficient” ratings. While most teachers and principals across the country received a state 'satisfactory' rating, officials – including the Secretary of Education - say that means there's something wrong with the evaluation system used to rate them. One spokesman said, “It is very difficult for me to rationalize how a state can have virtually 100 percent of educators evaluated as satisfactory when, based on the statewide assessment, one-in-four students are scoring below proficient in reading, and one-in-three are scoring below proficient in math.” What’s more disturbing, based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), more than half of our 4th and 8th grade students are scoring below proficient in math and reading. I believe these results are a clear indication that our current evaluation system is in major need of change. Herein lies the problem.... across much of the United States, the system of teacher evaluation is old and outdated, and does not accurately assess or evaluate teachers in such a way as to truly promote better instruction and improved student learning.

Teacher ratings are most commonly associated with student evaluations at the college or university level. Student evaluations can be used in both formative and summative systems (Peterson, 2000). That distinction is critically important because the two goals require different techniques and personnel. Student evaluations are formative when their purpose is to help teachers improve and enhance their skills. This seems to work especially well when used during a semester to determine what practices are working well and which are not, to pinpoint needed changes, and to guide those changes. Student evaluations are summative when they are used to assess the overall effectiveness of an instructor, particularly for tenure and/or promotion decisions.

The use of student rating evaluations in assessing teacher performance has received considerable attention in the literature for many years. They began in the 1920s, when Harvard students published assessments of their professors’ effectiveness. The first published form for collecting student ratings, the Purdue rating scale of instruction, was released in 1926.

Important, useful, and reliable data about teacher performance can be obtained through student feedback. Students are good sources of information because they are the objects of the instruction, have closely and recently observed a number of teachers, have the subjective bias of students, and benefit directly from good teaching.

According to Peterson (2000), “seventy years of empirical research on teacher evaluation shows that current practices do not improve teachers or accurately tell what happens in classrooms. Administrator reports do not increase good teachers’ confidence or reassure the public about teacher quality” (p. 18). Peterson (2000) goes on to assert that teacher evaluation as presently practiced does not identify innovative teaching so that it can be adopted by other teachers. Despite these obvious and long-standing problems, many schools continue to rely on principal reports.

Common sense suggests that the most effective form of student evaluation for formative purposes would include ongoing assessment combined with teacher response over the course of a semester or year. There are several studies that explored the impact of student feedback with consultation on teacher performance, student attitudes, and student learning. For instance, two different meta-analyses conducted by Cohen and L’Hommedieu, Menges, and Brinko (1990) indicate that teachers who received mid-term student ratings feedback and peer or administrative consultation showed significant improvement in teaching effectiveness. In a more recent study (Hampton & Reiser, 2004), final student rating results revealed significant differences in favor of the assessment/feedback/assessment model on teaching practices, ratings of teaching effectiveness, and student motivation. Similarly, a study conducted indicated that feedback with consultation provided statistically significant changes in the overall effectiveness of instructors.

Research also shows that students of teachers who received feedback and consultation demonstrated more positive attitudes than students whose teachers did not receive feedback and consultation (Hampton & Reiser, 2004). They found that teachers receiving student feedback and consultation had higher ratings from their students in relation to how interesting their subject area was thought to be. In another study at a large university that addressed the ratings of 263 teachers, different treatment groups showed significant differences in personal interest towards courses. Furthermore, teachers in the feedback and consultation group were rated higher according to the overall value of the course.

Today, student evaluation is being promoted by the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and led by more than a dozen organizations, including Dartmouth, Harvard, Stanford, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and University of Washington, Educational Testing Service, RAND Corporation, the National Math and Science Initiative, the New Teacher Center, Cambridge Education, Teachscape, Westat, and the Danielson Group.

            Partnering with nearly 3,000 volunteer teachers in six school districts around the country, the MET Project is based on three simple premises:

1.when feasible, an evaluation should include students’ achievement gains,

2.any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations, student feedback) should be demonstrably related to student achievement gains, and

3.most importantly, the measure should include feedback on specific practices that can support professional development.

Launched in 2009, the preliminary findings of the MET project stated

any measure of teacher effectiveness should support the continued growth of teachers, by providing actionable data on specific strengths and weaknesses. Even if value-added measures are valid measures of a teacher’s impact on student learning, they provide little guidance to teachers (or their supervisors) on what they need to do to improve. Therefore, the goal is to identify a package of measures, including student feedback and classroom observations, which would not only help identify effective teaching, but also point all teachers to the areas where they need to become more effective teachers themselves. (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2011, p. 5)

            Students in the MET classrooms were asked to report their perceptions of the classroom instructional environment. The Tripod survey, developed by Harvard researcher Ron Ferguson and administered by Cambridge Education, assesses the extent to which students experience the classroom environment as engaging, demanding, and supportive of their intellectual growth. The survey asks students in each of the MET classrooms if they agree or disagree with a variety of statements, including “My teacher knows when the class understands, and when we do not”; “My teacher has several good ways to explain each topic that we cover in this class”; and “When I turn in my work, my teacher gives me useful feedback that helps me improve.” 

            The goal is for students to give feedback on specific aspects of a teacher’s practice, so that teachers can improve their use of class time, the quality of the comments they give on homework, their pedagogical practices, and their relationships with their students.

            Despite the work of the MET project, the vast majority of the research on student evaluations has been done at the college and university level. Even so, research on the impact of midterm feedback to instructors is almost nonexistent (Mertler, 1996). In an exhaustive literature review of these studies, Finley and Crawley (1993) found that about 80% of studies concern higher education. Less research has been done at the high school level (Peterson, 2000; Smith & Brown, 1976; Traugh & Duell, 1980), and even less real application of this method occurs in high schools (Levin, 1979). Hanna, Hoyt, and Aubrecth (1983) stated that student evaluations at the high school level have been largely neglected. That is why initiatives like the MET Project, and this study are critical to research of high school students.

Teacher evaluation is an integral component of a teacher’s professional career. Nevo noted that evaluations are usually perceived as a means to control, motivate, and hold accountable teachers, including firing them for poor performance. He also concluded that evaluations have the reputation of being harmful rather than helpful to teachers.

            Current evaluation methods are seriously flawed. The system relies often on untrained evaluators lacking time, expertise, and resources needed to accomplish the task. Most current teacher evaluations serve only a summative function and thus have little effect on professional development. Many researchers recommend methods providing better feedback to meet this formative function.

            Student evaluations are not the only basis for instructional improvement, but they are a cost-effective, readily available technique that provides a unique perspective–that of the education consumer. As Cashin mentioned “… extensive review of literature indicates that in general student ratings tend to be statistically reliable, valid, relatively free of bias, and useful, probably more so than any other form of data used for teacher evaluations”. Therefore, when properly constructed and administered, student ratings can provide valid and reliable data for both formative and summative purposes.

            Teachers exposed to student feedback should understand how it can provide a valuable and useful review of their present practices, and a basis for modifying those practices to improve instruction. 

When Schools Go to War

Guest Article by John C. Littleford , Senior Partner, Littleford and Associates

When Schools Go to War

Recently, a client sent this Consultant the following note. 

“Gentlemen:

Over the last several days, we have learned that certain “concerned” members have organized a group with the intention of removing some or all of the Board. We have further learned that this group has sought members’ signatures to call a General Meeting, the sole purpose of which is to remove the Board. The formal removal of a Board is a method used when board members or the Board as a whole have committed egregious acts, failed to fulfill duties or have fallen into a conflict of interest.  Clearly, none of these are the case.

Though the Board has achieved many successes this year, especially in the areas of finance, fiscal management, control and governance, it continues to be plagued by the effects of seemingly unpopular policy changes in the dining room.   Perhaps we changed too much too quickly, and should have communicated the vision more effectively. But, I assure you we forged ahead with the best of intentions.  Though I believe we did an exceptional job delivering our mission statement, it appears it is no longer an accurate statement of our purpose.

The “Concerned Members” say it themselves: “no problem with the core operation.”

Unfortunately, these feelings have been further fueled with gossip, rumored terminations, misinformation, and accusations of micro managing. Though we could refute every allegation, what would we achieve?  Members have likely heard enough and just want not be mired in a political debate. 

A General Meeting to remove the board is an extreme remedy to deal with this matter. No one has done anything egregious. So, to avoid an otherwise divisive and confrontational General Meeting, and in the best interests of all, I hereby tender my resignation.” 

What School is this? It is actually a Country Club Manager responding to the events noted above. But this Consultant has seen similar letters throughout the world coming from heads of schools to their boards, and often responding to “concerned parents” or “concerned alumni” or “concerned faculty.” 

A few years ago, these kinds of “concerned” notes might appear on the bulletin board of the faculty work room, but increasingly they appear on the Internet, in blogs, some of which are vicious in tone. Or they may appear simply as an e mail “blast” to the entire board or entire parent/alumni community. I have seen one on the inside community page of a local newspaper where disgruntled teachers took out an ad to attack the administration and board.

Lessons Learned

There are messages in the letter above that have equal relevance to schools as well as other organizations, profit or nonprofit. 

The “concerned” members’ tactic is an old one. Often the “concerned” parties do not sign their names so we cannot ascertain whether there is a strong movement afoot or there are simply one or a few disgruntled individuals.

The “General Meeting” reminds this Consultant of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) that takes place in many schools in Canada and worldwide.  These can be simple, sparsely attended sessions, which is actually a good thing.  A crowded “annual AGM usually means trouble as some angry group of parents and/or staff is attending for the purpose of berating or overthrowing the board or school leadership.

Managing constituent relations is a key responsibility of school and other nonprofit leaders and their boards.  Not managing them well leaves to frequent board turbulence which spills over to the school or the nonprofit.  The same holds true for the leadership of for profit companies.

The comments about pace of change in the letter above are key and on target. Many new heads are fired early in their tenure because they change even the seemingly most minor procedures or policies too quickly, often at the board’s insistence.  When the new head has not yet built up enough “political capital” to institute some basic and often needed changes, the rank and file faculty will become riled, feeling that the new leader does not understand the mission, culture or traditions. The comments from the manager above about healthy governance and a healthy fiscal structure can mean little to those most attached to “the way we have always done this.” 

One new Head of School arrived to find a mascot that in his mind was a throwback to an earlier time and symbolic of historic rivalries. In even suggesting a change or the thought of one, she ignited a firestorm. Her good intentions were not respected and she was criticized for being an outsider who did not understand the local culture.  

The letter above illustrates two out of the three reasons that heads/directors are “fired”:  managing the type and pace of change poorly (even if the board demands the change); and becoming the “scapegoat” in an incident that simply takes over the life of the school or entity.  The third reason (and the most common one) is a lack of institutional memory on boards due to frequent turnover of trustees which could have played a role in the case above as well.

How to Avoid the “War”

Schools go to war with themselves, when the well intentioned highly emotional board members or constituents, who cannot listen openly to another usually broader point of view, wreak havoc. In our previous Newsletter, entitled “Who Fires the Head” we talked about a case of a long term Chair and Head. The head was in danger after the Chair was forced out in a skillfully orchestrated coup d’état.  The person who engineered that result has now resigned from the Board, leaving the Board a healthier place and the Head with possibly a longer tenure. That board member had often manipulated parent opinion to further his own goals which I am sure he felt were aligned with the best interest of the School. 

Annual sessions on board governance can help avoid these problems. Many schools assume that they only need governance training if they are in trouble and that “generative” think is the next new horizon in board governance. In this Consultant’s experience governance training for all boards needs to be annual and “generative” thinking on the highest strategic level can only occur when boards are truly wise enough and mature enough to rise above the petty issues that so often challenge our schools and boards. Even the oldest, wealthiest schools with some of the most powerful board members fall into these traps of not knowing how to manage constituent unrest or perceived unrest. 

Here is one final piece of advice: always have at least one to three CEO’s of publicly held companies on your board. They tend to have the training to see the larger picture and have a more long term strategic vision. Most of our boards are dominated by good hearted, well intentioned and successful lawyers, financiers, accountants, marketing and HR people, but they do not have even one CEO of a large publicly held company. This speaks again to the key role of the committee on trustees/policy committee, which is the most important committee of any board (and includes the functions of board development and nominations as part of its role). 

Guest Article by John C. Littleford , Senior Partner, Littleford and Associates

When Schools Go to War

Recently, a client sent this Consultant the following note. 

“Gentlemen:

Over the last several days, we have learned that certain “concerned” members have organized a group with the intention of removing some or all of the Board. We have further learned that this group has sought members’ signatures to call a General Meeting, the sole purpose of which is to remove the Board. The formal removal of a Board is a method used when board members or the Board as a whole have committed egregious acts, failed to fulfill duties or have fallen into a conflict of interest.  Clearly, none of these are the case.

Though the Board has achieved many successes this year, especially in the areas of finance, fiscal management, control and governance, it continues to be plagued by the effects of seemingly unpopular policy changes in the dining room.   Perhaps we changed too much too quickly, and should have communicated the vision more effectively. But, I assure you we forged ahead with the best of intentions.  Though I believe we did an exceptional job delivering our mission statement, it appears it is no longer an accurate statement of our purpose.

The “Concerned Members” say it themselves: “no problem with the core operation.”

Unfortunately, these feelings have been further fueled with gossip, rumored terminations, misinformation, and accusations of micro managing. Though we could refute every allegation, what would we achieve?  Members have likely heard enough and just want not be mired in a political debate. 

A General Meeting to remove the board is an extreme remedy to deal with this matter. No one has done anything egregious. So, to avoid an otherwise divisive and confrontational General Meeting, and in the best interests of all, I hereby tender my resignation.” 

What School is this? It is actually a Country Club Manager responding to the events noted above. But this Consultant has seen similar letters throughout the world coming from heads of schools to their boards, and often responding to “concerned parents” or “concerned alumni” or “concerned faculty.” 

A few years ago, these kinds of “concerned” notes might appear on the bulletin board of the faculty work room, but increasingly they appear on the Internet, in blogs, some of which are vicious in tone. Or they may appear simply as an e mail “blast” to the entire board or entire parent/alumni community. I have seen one on the inside community page of a local newspaper where disgruntled teachers took out an ad to attack the administration and board.

Lessons Learned

There are messages in the letter above that have equal relevance to schools as well as other organizations, profit or nonprofit. 

The “concerned” members’ tactic is an old one. Often the “concerned” parties do not sign their names so we cannot ascertain whether there is a strong movement afoot or there are simply one or a few disgruntled individuals.

The “General Meeting” reminds this Consultant of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) that takes place in many schools in Canada and worldwide.  These can be simple, sparsely attended sessions, which is actually a good thing.  A crowded “annual AGM usually means trouble as some angry group of parents and/or staff is attending for the purpose of berating or overthrowing the board or school leadership.

Managing constituent relations is a key responsibility of school and other nonprofit leaders and their boards.  Not managing them well leaves to frequent board turbulence which spills over to the school or the nonprofit.  The same holds true for the leadership of for profit companies.

The comments about pace of change in the letter above are key and on target. Many new heads are fired early in their tenure because they change even the seemingly most minor procedures or policies too quickly, often at the board’s insistence.  When the new head has not yet built up enough “political capital” to institute some basic and often needed changes, the rank and file faculty will become riled, feeling that the new leader does not understand the mission, culture or traditions. The comments from the manager above about healthy governance and a healthy fiscal structure can mean little to those most attached to “the way we have always done this.” 

One new Head of School arrived to find a mascot that in his mind was a throwback to an earlier time and symbolic of historic rivalries. In even suggesting a change or the thought of one, she ignited a firestorm. Her good intentions were not respected and she was criticized for being an outsider who did not understand the local culture.  

The letter above illustrates two out of the three reasons that heads/directors are “fired”:  managing the type and pace of change poorly (even if the board demands the change); and becoming the “scapegoat” in an incident that simply takes over the life of the school or entity.  The third reason (and the most common one) is a lack of institutional memory on boards due to frequent turnover of trustees which could have played a role in the case above as well.

How to Avoid the “War”

Schools go to war with themselves, when the well intentioned highly emotional board members or constituents, who cannot listen openly to another usually broader point of view, wreak havoc. In our previous Newsletter, entitled “Who Fires the Head” we talked about a case of a long term Chair and Head. The head was in danger after the Chair was forced out in a skillfully orchestrated coup d’état.  The person who engineered that result has now resigned from the Board, leaving the Board a healthier place and the Head with possibly a longer tenure. That board member had often manipulated parent opinion to further his own goals which I am sure he felt were aligned with the best interest of the School. 

Annual sessions on board governance can help avoid these problems. Many schools assume that they only need governance training if they are in trouble and that “generative” think is the next new horizon in board governance. In this Consultant’s experience governance training for all boards needs to be annual and “generative” thinking on the highest strategic level can only occur when boards are truly wise enough and mature enough to rise above the petty issues that so often challenge our schools and boards. Even the oldest, wealthiest schools with some of the most powerful board members fall into these traps of not knowing how to manage constituent unrest or perceived unrest. 

Here is one final piece of advice: always have at least one to three CEO’s of publicly held companies on your board. They tend to have the training to see the larger picture and have a more long term strategic vision. Most of our boards are dominated by good hearted, well intentioned and successful lawyers, financiers, accountants, marketing and HR people, but they do not have even one CEO of a large publicly held company. This speaks again to the key role of the committee on trustees/policy committee, which is the most important committee of any board (and includes the functions of board development and nominations as part of its role). 

Computer Labs and Labrador Ducks

Computer Labs and Labrador Ducks

Guest Post by Mr. Mark Kennedy, ACSI Canada

They’re extinct now, Labrador Ducks. And they hold the dubious distinction of being the first North American species on record to disappear from the continent, beating out the passenger pigeon by some 36 years. It wasn’t that they were over hunted. They tasted bad so weren’t worth shooting. It appears that they simply couldn’t adapt to the changing environment around them.

School computer labs may be heading in the same direction because of the changing technological environment in education. For many students, the things we’ve been teaching in those labs are redundant. Students already know them and are sometimes way ahead of us. The adaption that is most appropriate for schools serving a tech savvy generation is integrating technology into every subject. It isn’t just a matter of giving a laptop, or notebook or tablet to every student, although that would be a good start. It’s about training, or in some cases, retraining our teachers to make the most effective use of technology in order to improve student learning and raise the quality of Christian school education.

I don’t think technological change in education is going to disappear any time soon. But if we don’t learn to adapt to it our schools just might. Sort of like the Labrador Duck.

How to Enhance Teaching and Learning at No Extra Cost

By Dr. Barrett Mosbacker

Change is hard, even dangerous.   Attempts to change the behavior of others or an organization's deeply entrenched practices will run headlong into active and passive resistance, if not outright hostility.

Acutely aware of the difficulty but confident in the rightness of the cause, we embarked on changing the school's traditional schedule.

This was no small undertaking.  The schedule had been in place since the school's founding.  Various school constituencies had a stake in the current schedule.  The prevailing consensus was, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it."  And arguably, it was not broken; "We were doing just fine, thank you very much."  Classes were full.  Faculty and student retention rates routinely stood at 94-95%.  We had a 100% college admission rate.  The senior class was routinely awarded millions of dollars in college scholarships and our ACT/SAT scores were high and rising across all tested disciplines.  Complicating the problem was a lurking skepticism about school "reform."  In the U.S., too many educational fads had come and gone, creating a "this too shall pass" cynicism.  This was particularly true concerning "block scheduling," which carried with it negative connotations, mostly deserved.

So why mess with a good thing?  Because, as Jim Collin's points out, "Good is the enemy of great."  We were good but we were convinced we could do better.  The choice before us was clear; we could rest competent and content or press toward our goal of creating a Christ-honoring world-class program that propelled teachers and students to higher levels of achievement.  We chose the latter.

I am happy, and frankly relieved, to share that the new schedule has exceeded our expectations.  It is an Extended Period (EP) schedule, not a block schedule.  This is an important distinction.

What Is an Extended Period Schedule?

The Extended Period Schedule is a hybrid of a traditional schedule with features of block scheduling, but without the drawbacks.  Teachers start at 7:30 each day.  This new schedule has three components:

• Traditional seven period days on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays

• Two days of Extended Period Instruction (EPI) and

• A late start on Thursdays.

Monday  (traditional schedule)                 8:00 a.m.     3:00

Tuesday  (traditional schedule)                 8:00 a.m.     3:00

Wednesday  (EPI)                                           8:00 a.m.     3:00

Thursday late start & (EPI)                         9:00 a.m.      3:00

Friday  (traditional schedule)                    8:00 a.m.      3:00

Why the Change Was Made

We changed the schedule to provide students with more hands-on, active, engaging, and collaborative learning opportunities.  Extended periods provide more time for practicing writing and editing skills (essential for college success), for interactive science labs, for learning how to work on collaborative projects (also an essential skill for college and work), and for integrating technology into teaching and learning.  Extended periods provide time for more variety, more creative instruction, and more practice resulting in richer learning experiences and deeper learning.  In short, extended periods enhance teaching and learning by giving teachers and students time to think, not merely digest information.  Students move about and work in teams.  And, as our Learning Unleashed program (1:1 computing iPad program) is rolled out, students move from learning to use technology to using technology to learn.

The Extended Period Schedule also includes a late start Thursday.  The Thursday late start provides time to train teachers to work in teams to create integrated, creative, and engaging lessons that include the appropriate use of technology.  Teachers are also engaged in technology and pedagogical training on Thursday mornings.  The late start on Thursday also provides extra time for students to complete homework assignments, work on projects, and study for exams.

How the Change Was Made

Change is hard but not impossible.  To increase the likelihood of success and to ensure that the change was systemic and enduring but not cosmetic, we implemented a four-pronged strategy: Education, Communication, Training, and Accountability.

Education

Our first task was to break through a comfortable mindset rooted in academic and geographic isolation.  Too often administrators and teachers are isolated from developments in the world.  This is particularly problematic for Christian schools where staff and students can be culturally isolated, existing in a marginalized Christian bubble.  We may catch a glimpse of world affairs through the news but understanding the deeper implications for our students requires more information and deeper analysis.  It requires constant exposure gleaned by "being in the world."

We began several years ago to heighten the awareness of our faculty about how the world has changed and the implications of those changes for our students.  We demonstrated through reviewing international test scores, movies such as Two Million Minutes and quotes from leading industrialists, technologists, and economists that our students now compete against the best students in the best schools anywhere in the world.   Here is but one example:

 With the ability to make anything anywhere in the world and sell it anywhere else in the world, business firms can ‘cherry pick’ the skilled...wherever they exist in the world. Some third world countries are now making massive investment in basic education. American firms don’t have to hire an American high school graduate if that graduate is not world-class. His or her educational defects are not their problem. Investing to give the necessary market skills to a well-educated Chinese high school graduate may well look like a much more attractive investment (less costly) than having to retrain...a poorly trained American high school graduate.1  (Neef, 1998)

This was not a one time presentation. Multiple presentations in a variety of venues were made over several years.  This "set the table" or "set the mindset" for further discussion.

Communication

Communication was sustained, accurate, and careful.  The communication that occurred over several years was intentional and followed a logical path.  The communication did not start with the end in mind (e.g., Extended Periods), it began with deepening understanding of the fundamentals of Christian education, the place of the Christian school in culture, a deeper understanding of what it means to think Christianly, the shifting context in which our school operates (a globalized, technological, always connected world), an increasingly diverse and competitive educational marketplace (traditional public schools, charter schools, private schools, Christian schools, homeschooling, and online schools), the rise of Asia, and the fall of the U.S. from the top-tier of academic performance relative to the rest of the world to the middle or lower tier relative to the industrialized world.

Language was also important.  We made a decisive distinction between being "world-class" and being “worldly.”  We differentiated between being excellent and being elitist.  And, we used terminology that was accurate yet benign.  For example, we realized early that many of our teachers and parents would confuse our new schedule with block scheduling.  Although the EP schedule had a few elements common with a block schedule, it was not a block in the traditional sense.  It was also more than a traditional schedule.  What to call it was the question.  Although not creative, we choose to call it an "Extended Period" Schedule because that is what it is; it extends the period from approximately 50 minutes to nearly 90 minutes, extending the time teachers have to engage students in deep learning and collaboration.  Language is important.  It must be accurate while avoiding negative connotations.  Because the language we use is important, it must be planned and intentional.

 Training and Accountability

Our greatest fear was that teachers would lecture to students for 90 minutes.  We knew that if that happened our students would be bored to death, our academic goals would be undercut, and our parents frustrated.

We also knew that habits die hard.  The only way to ensure that extended period teaching was more than an elongated lecture, we provided practical training coupled with constant supervision and accountability.  We began the training process two years ago by approaching the matter indirectly.  With a desire to improve student learning and anticipating an extended period schedule, we devoted two years of training to how the brain learns.  The training included books (e.g., How the Brain Learns and teacher written responses to the contents of what they read.  We also hired outside experts to train our teachers on the science of how the brain learns AND on how to teach based on this science.

In addition to this foundational training, we also hired four Christian professionals with extensive experience teaching in extended periods from two other Christian schools.  They spent two days with our teachers showing them how to create lesson plans and how to teach the effectively in extended periods.  This practical "hands-on" training was just "what the doctor ordered."  While the training on brain research laid the pedagogical foundation, this practical "how to" training is what finally created the "mind shift" we were looking for.  We noticed a discernible level of "buy in" and even enthusiasm after this training.  The theoretical was married with the practical and a new perspective on teaching was conceived. We started out with worldview, the goal of developing a world-class school, and the study of cognitive science and ended up with the creation of actionable lesson plans.  We moved from theory to practice, from presentation to application, from "this too shall pass" to "I can and want to do this."

Training, however, in the absence of accountability is a bit like throwing jello against the wall and hoping it sticks.  Notwithstanding initial enthusiasm, most of it slides off to the floor.  Training is the same way.  To put teachers through a day or even a week of presentations is unfair to them and does not change practice.  Practice changes practice.   This means that teachers must practice what they are being taught at the time they are being taught and from that point forward.  There is no going back.  The application of training to teaching is not an option, it is an expectation, a requirement.

This means that teachers must be held accountable to incorporate the training in the classroom.  The only way this can be done is through direct observation, the requirement of artifacts to demonstrate application, and through evaluations that measure consistent classroom application of training.  Anything short of these measures will result in minimal, spotty change, if any.  Without this level of accountability, we foster the "this too shall pass" attitude that plagues so many schools.

On the observation side, the junior and senior high principals and the Director of Curriculum and Instruction (DOCI) spend most of the day on Wednesdays and Thursdays reviewing EP lesson plans and observing every classroom.  They offer help and advice but also look for compliance. It has been said that "what gets measured gets done."  While we would love to think that everyone is intrinsically motivated to do what is asked, the truth is that all of us need accountability, administrators no less than teachers and students.  If something is worth investing time and money in, it is worth monitoring and evaluating.

The Cost

Some change can be expensive but most change costs very little in money but a great deal in thought, hard work, and even courage.  Aside from the purchase of books and honorariums for our trainers, there is little cost associated with our change to extended periods.  But, there is a potentially huge payoff in student engagement and learning.  Low cost combined with significant gains in the quality of teaching and learning creates a high Educational Return on Investment (EROI) and increased marginal value for our parents.  Everyone benefits.

The Results

Although it is too early to have data to measure the results, I can share that all of the anecdotal feedback from students, parents, principals, and teachers has been positive, in fact, more positive than we expected at this early stage.  This is a tribute to professional, gracious, and hardworking teachers who deeply care about students and about doing a superior job.  It is also attributable to extensive Education, Communication, Training, and Accountability.

Change is hard and risky but it is not impossible.  With vision, planning, and hard work, undergirded by prayerfulness and a love for staff and students, we can create change that changes the lives of our students.

What have you changed lately?

Reference: Neef, D. (1998). The knowledge economy. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Could We Have Been Nazis? Healing Cultural Blindness

Healing Cultural Blindness: A Christian School Mandate Guest Post by Mark Kennedy, ACSI Canada

“I counsel you to buy gold refined in the fire so you can become rich, and white clothes to wear so you can cover up your shameful nakedness and salve to put on your eyes so you can see.” (Rev. 3:18).

Nobody likes Nazis. Well, at least I didn’t in 1973 when I was a young teacher in a Toronto boys’ school. I’d seen most of the Hollywood war movies and knew for sure that Nazis were all gleefully and unrepentantly evil people. Who could possibly have any sympathy for them?

That’s why I was shocked.

“I was in the Hitler youth,” said our school nurse, a weary sadness clouding her kind eyes, “All the young people were. We just thought it was normal.”

Normal! How could that possibly be normal?’ I thought, but didn’t ask. I was too appalled.

The problem with statements like that is that they can start you thinking and I didn’t like some of my thoughts. What troubled me most were a couple of questions, ‘What would I be like if I had grown up in Nazi Germany?’ and, even more disturbing, ‘Under the same conditions could I have been one of them?

What if I had almost no exposure to North American ideals of freedom and virtue, let alone to the gospel message? In a totalitarian Nazi culture where every public expression was carefully censored and dissent violently suppressed I would have been ‘marinated', in that one worldview. And unless I had secret access to a different perspective, chances are I would have accepted the tenets of Hitler’s Nazism as ‘normal’ too. Like our school nurse I may well have been oblivious to any other ideas, blinded by my culture.

The scriptures are replete with examples of cultural blindness – that condition where people can’t or won’t recognize truth because of their loyalty to national or societal values. A case in point is the church that Jesus rebukes in the prosperous city state of Laodicea.

“You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.” Rev 3:16 & 17

The people of Laodicea had become prosperous in legitimate and even admirable ways. They built up a successful industry refining precious metals, they wove textiles of a quality second to none and they produced salve that cured certain types of blindness. Christians there didn’t just enjoy the fruit of the city’s prosperity, they absorbed its secular values. The Laodicean status quo was fine with them. They were blinded by the standards of the materialistic society around them and they weren’t interested in having their blindness healed.

It is no accident that Jesus chose to condemn the very things the Laodiceans cherished most; their wealth, textiles, and eye ointment.

“There are none so blind as those that will not see,” says Mathew Henry in his Commentaries. Our school nurse knew the kind of cultural blindness that is inevitable in a totalitarian society. But the cultural blindness of the Laodicean Christians was worse because they had the God’s illuminating truth in the Old Testament scriptures and apostolic teachings. But they chose not to see.

I wonder how contemporary North American Christianity will appear to students at the end of this 21st century—people who aren’t suffering from our particular strain of cultural blindness. What will they think of our Christian schools? Will they look at us and see ‘God‘s school system’ or will some of our schools appear to be mere defenders of an ideology that is chronically conservative unthinkingly religious, and assertively materialistic? Will they see by our actions (if not by our words) that we venerate the values of the secular business world around us without question, absorbing its priorities, sharing its definition of “the bottom line,” and seeking first the kingdom of gold in the fervent hope that what’s good for General Motors is good for Christian schools?

In this first decade of this millennium we in North American Christian schools still have a wonderful opportunity and privilege. We’re still allowed to teach the two things that can raise our students above contemporary North American values, including the values we may have wrongly venerated in the past. We can teach a Christian worldview and biblical discernment - and we had better teach them well! We had better prepare our students to examine our North American culture as well as our evangelical Christian subculture in the light of the unchanging Scriptures. After all we have a distinct advantage over the church members in Laodicea. For now at least North Americans have free access to the whole counsel of God‘s Word. We can use it to help cure our students of the blindness that so easily afflicts us all—to discern where we have been mirroring and even exalting the false virtues of the broader society just like the Church of Laodicea did. And if our students accept the cure maybe they will build a Christian community that is increasingly defined by scripture.

It won‘t be easy. For us and for the Church of Laodicea, cultural blindness is a serious disability compounded by our stubborn tendency to deny it exists.

Jesus once asked a blind man, “Do you want to be healed”? When it came to cultural blindness, the Church of Laodicea in effect said, “No thanks.” And that is probably why it doesn’t exist today. We had better help our Christian school students respond to Jesus question with a resounding “YES!!”