Education Reflections: Challenges for a Christian School Community

I write this post as a reflection on my recent work in a Christian school community. Being involved in such a close knit environment, and comparing it with my many years of teaching in the public sector, led me to consider what it was that made a Christian school community so different. And what were the implications of that difference on the lives and relationships within the community. I begin my reflection with the story of Guy Doud, US Teacher of the Year, but move from there to explore what we mean by stakeholders, community and very briefly some of the challenges that Christian school communities face and will need to find answers to in these next few years, if they are to survive being different and not bowing to the pressures to conform to the ever growing ‘business’ mentality.

Introduction

Guy Doud, at one time US Teacher of the Year, is a Christian educator in the public school system in the US. In the recording of his speech for Focus on the Family, he mentions as part of his story, an Asian professor who taught him at university. Doud recalls that the professor’s simple motivational activity at the start of the year was to say to the students, “Sometimes, me flunk [fail] whole class!”

When I first read this comment, I found it amusing, but yet also objectionable and unpalatable. For despite the amusing and perhaps effective motivating characteristic of Doud’s university lecturer, his technique was far removed from a biblically authentic model of student-teacher relationships, which is one of the most important relationships that develop in the Christian school community. Doud’s humorously states he has borrowed that technique, but what becomes clear from Doud’s story is that he has adopted a Christian education paradigm reflected in a unique blend of sharing truth in a context of a warm, trusting, accountable, mentoring relationship between teacher and student.

Doud’s story is based on just one of many bilateral relationships that exist in the school community, that of teacher–student (there are many others, parent-teacher, teacher-senior management, and so on). Although schools as such receive little mention in the Bible, the subject of relationships in general, and teacher–student relationships in particular, receive strategic attention. Jesus (in Luke 6:39-41) reminds us that teachers, when they have done their very best will have shaped their students in their own image. Furthermore, if the teachers are ignorant or blind in a certain area or perspective, then their students will be blind in that area also, a sobering thought! Doud in the second half of his story quotes Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:2, “Your very lives are a letter that anyone can read by just looking at you” (The Message). Paul’s identification of good teaching (in 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12) with characteristics of mothers and fathers is a reminder that good teachers are not just conveying information. They carry out their task by being involved in the lives of their students in a caring, self-giving manner.

It is sobering to reflect on what that means in the context of the relationships which exist in the Christian School Community. What is the impact of these verses for the relationships we share with those with whom we come into daily contact? Our students, other teachers, the admin staff, and any others we connect with on a daily basis, within the school community, those now often called our ‘stakeholder’.

Perhaps a good place to start to unpack what these relationships mean, in fact, what we mean by school community is with an exploration of the question, who are the “stakeholders” in Christian education? I want to investigate this concept taken from the business literature, yet all to often used, and see how it relates to the concept of community in Christian education. What does it mean to be a teacher in a Christian school and how does the term stakeholder ‘fit’ with a developing view of community. Maybe it doesn’t, and Christians need to come up with a term that better reflects what we do!

I also want to look briefly at some of the challenges to community – an important idea to explore as part of this topic, recognizing some of these challenges may help us identify ways of overcoming them.

Stakeholders

I will begin by developing an understanding of what the term stakeholder means. It is a term that is loosely thrown around in education, but may mean different things to different people. The term is drawn from business, in particular stakeholder theory as first defined by Edward Freeman (1984) and referred to those who in the corporate world “really counted”, the shareholders who had invested funds in to the business.

However, as is always the case, the theory has moved on from this first attempt at defining, and with regards to the business world has broadened considerably. Donaldson and Preston (1995) argue that stakeholders should include those to who the corporation has a moral obligation, whilst Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) define stakeholders in terms of those who wield power over the corporation, those who have the ability to impose its will on the corporation. In the corporate world the primary stakeholders are the shareholders, but this has broadened over time, through usage and by law, to include employees, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders such as the economy of a community and any societal interests (Gillespie & Lucas, 2012).

The language of business infiltrates many areas of our schools (Gross & Godwin, 2005). But stakeholder theory is a theory of the corporation and many would argue that the Christian school is not a corporation! Yet we see the influence of the business language everywhere, the parent/student becomes the ‘customer’ or ‘client’, and schools report annually to the Board and the ‘shareholders’, the members of the association, to whom they are financially accountable. Many Australian Christian schools are in fact run financially as not-for-profits, and there are legal and reporting requirements attached to such a designation.

However, that is not the point of blog post!^{^[1]} What is interesting is that as a result of these changes in our approach and language, we are also changing the way we approach our ‘stakeholders’, our relationship with them is changing as a result. We see parents dropping children off, no longer involved in the school community. We see barriers to entry at the administration desk, so that parents can no longer freely enter the premises. And there are good and real reasons for doing these things. However, taking all this into account, let’s ask the question, should we be considering these members of our school community as our ‘stakeholders, and what are the implications of that on the relationship we share with them. But before we can continue with that question, I want to continue by coming up with a way of looking at the word community.

Definitions and Features of Community

“Community isn't a property, nor is it a territory to be separated and defended against those who do not belong to it. Rather, it is a void, a debt, a gift to the other that also reminds us of our constitutive alterity with respect to ourselves.” (Esposito, 2009)

I love this quote from Esposito, on what community is or is not, because it reflects the word back onto us with regards to the other. The word community is frequently used in contemporary western culture. From the business office to the football team, people are urged to recognise that they live and work in community, and yet we are more individualistic in the 21st century than in most centuries before us. Teachers are encouraged to consider schools as learning communities where collegiality is important (Blake, 2007). But our governments set us up as competitors against each other. And we encourage students to consider themselves as part of the broader school community to increase their sense of belonging (Fennema, 2006), but we encourage them to compete against each other for results. So what do we actually mean when we use this term? And how can we in the Christian school bring it back to this meaning.

The term community has a contested meaning with a changing definition over time (Esposito, 2009). Ancient bible texts do not include the term directly^{^[2]}, as the Greek word koinonia, often translated as community in modern versions of the bible, and which contributes to our understanding of the modern word ‘community’, is not the same (see Esposito, 2009, for a thorough explanation of the term). Koinonia literally means ‘joint participation’ and was traditionally translated as fellowship (Philippians 1:5), partnership (Luke 5:10) or even communion (1 Corinthians 10:16) (Pope, 2004). Sichling (2008), and indeed many dictionaries, rightly trace the meaning back to the Latin word commūnitās, meaning ‘common’.

Sichling (2008) traces the definition of the common usage of the word community back to the 14^th Century, where community was based on the organised society and was not at all about the relational; in fact the meaning drew on the notion of the common people, the lowest rank of society. This has important implications for our thinking about community in the Christian school, when we draw on our modern understanding of this word. In fact, the relational aspects of community do not become embedded into the definition and application of the term till sometime between the 17^th and 19^th Centuries. It is the contemporary meaning, according to Sichling, that includes relational qualities, such as connectedness or having a shared common interest or concern, whilst being rooted in a place. This term provides for group identification and the ability for collective action whilst being self regulating and exhibiting social control over its members.

Smith (2013) brings out some further nuances to this contemporary definition, let’s look at these a little closer as they have a significance for our thinking about what it means to have community. He begins with the idea of value, which “bring[s] together a number of elements, for example, solidarity, commitment, mutuality and trust” (p. 2 of printout), entwined with 3 sets of variables, place, interest and communion. I love that he brings this back to communion, the communion of the Christian with Christ. This represents an echo of the biblical meaning of koinonia – as demonstrated in John’s gospel, particularly in chapters 14-15. In these chapters Jesus fully describes the relationship of the Trinity, and His intent in them “is to reproduce among His people on earth a fellowship or communion that is like the oneness with the Trinity” (Greene, 2003, p. 262). Consider for a moment what this would mean for the relationships teachers share with their students, with their fellow teachers, with the administration? Those who come together within the notion of ‘place’, that is the school. This construct of value has tremendous implications for the relationship between the teacher and the student, particularly in a Christian school.

I also want to briefly reflect on the notion of attachment and belonging, which he highlights at the intersection of place and interest, fostered within community. What does this mean for those who attend our schools who have been alienated from the community or those who are a stranger to it? We know what the bible teaches us about the stranger (e.g. Exodus 22:21 and Leviticus 19:10) – but what does that mean in the context of the Christian school community? Smith picks up on this idea of connection in the second of his 3 sections which follow, ‘community as network’. An important aspect as studying the networks, or how people connect into the community, can show us those who are outside of the community, wether deliberately or because of oversight. Or perhaps because they occur at the end of a community, beyond its boundaries?

Smith (2013) asks this important question, where does one community end and another begin? A criticism often made of Christian schools is that they trespass on the church’s domain (Dickens, 2006). At other times, it is argued that the Christian school is an ‘extension’ of the family – what does this mean? And what are the implications? These are difficult questions, and I do not have time to delve into them here, but they are worth reflecting on.

Smith then goes on to explore community as value, our norms and habits, because “to judge the quality of life within a particular community we need to explore what shared expectations there are about the way people should behave – and whether different individuals take these on” (p. 5 of printout). I leave you to read the qualities he lists as important in making up community value – and make connections between these and those in your notion of community.

Finally, Smith explores why fostering community is important in education and finishes with a list of some further readings – these are somewhat dated, but none the less interesting.

We come then to an understanding that community is about place and a common purpose for the group, but also about value, lived out in the trust that we share in each other. It is about ourselves in relationship with the other, we cannot be a community by ourselves, it must be with others with who we have connections over a shared and common interest. And it is about belonging.

Challenges in Community

What will have become evident from the readings quoted in this blog post and listed at the end is that there are a number of challenges in establishing and continuing with community. Just briefly, these include individualisation – the focus on the individual rather than the group as people seek the fulfilment of their own self interest (Isaiah 53:6); a business mindset – the market forces of competition and choice can work against notions of community; and exclusionary behaviours – by encouraging oppressive and narrowing norms that may define the strict boundaries of the community, working against the values identified by Smith (2013) of tolerance, reciprocity and trust.

Conclusion

I have come to the end of this quite lengthy peroration; however, I have covered some important concepts that bear thinking about within a Christian School context. In my reflection I have tried to briefly get you thinking about who are the stakeholders in your community and whether or not we should we be using that term! I have looked at aspects that go to make up the contemporary community, such as the relational qualities of connectedness, having a shared common interest or concern, whilst being rooted in a place, yet having boundaries that both include but also exclude. And I have also, very briefly, begun to grapple with some of the challenges associated with community.

If you have read to the end of this reflection, I challenge you to consider your school community, whether you are a parent, teacher, student, or administrator. I would love to hear your comments, thoughts, or even suggestions for another term than stakeholder?

References:

Blake, C. (2007). Teaching in a Christian school: New teacher induction unit (3rd ed.). Agnes Banks, NSW: National Institute for Christian Education.

Gross, K., & Godwin, P. (2005). Education's Many Stakeholders. University Business September. Retrieved from http://www.universitybusiness.com/article/educations-many-stakeholders.
Dickens, K. (2006). Church and the Christian school. In R. Edlin & J. Ireland (Eds.), Engaging the culture: Christians at work in education. Blacktown, NSW: National Institute for Christian Education.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications, Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.

Doud, G. (2011), Focus on the Family: Teacher of the Year (Part 1), Recorded 29/08/2011; http://www.focusonthefamily.com/popups/media_player.aspx?MediaId={7603E9EA-C5E5-42B3-BD01-7DD81018BBB1}; accessed 25 June, 2013
Esposito, R. (2009). Communitas. The Origin and Destiny of Community. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Fennema, J. (2006). Transforming education: Students. In R. Edlin & J. Ireland (Eds.), Engaging the culture: Christians at work in education. Blacktown, NSW: National Institute for Christian Education.

Greene, A. E. (2003). Community in the Christian school. In Reclaiming the future: A transforming vision (pp. 261–267). Colorado Springs, CO: Purposeful Design.
Gillespie, T., & Lucas, T. (2012). Blurring the Boundaries: Emerging Legal Forms for Hybrid Organizations—Implications for Christian Social Entrepreneurs. The Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 15(1), 11-28.

Mitchell, R., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–886.

Pope, K. (2004). 'Fellowship in the Gospel': A Study of the Greek Word Koinonia. Biblical Insights, 4(7), 4-5.

Sichling, F. (2008). Community. Social Work & Society, 6(1), 108-111.

Smith, M. K. (2013). Community. Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from http://infed.org/mobi/community/

[1] This is a growing area of study, for those interested in reading more on this issue I suggest delving into the pages of the The Journal of Biblical Integration in Business as a starting place.

Education Reflections

Wednesday, 4 June 2014

Challenges for a Christian School Community