The principle, adopted in 1956 and reaffirmed when the present reconsideration of consolidation of local Christian Schools was begun in November of 1963, still stands. It states that “the only justification for any change from our existing pattern (of school organization) would be furnished by the hope that the new arrangement would provide a better level of education for all students of the community.” The mandate given to the Subcommittee on Curriculum Study was to evaluate the impact that a merger or consolidation of Christian schools would have upon the curricula of the schools and on the educational program available for each student. In particular, the committee was to study the observations of the team from the University of Michigan with a view towards improvement of the curriculum.

Evaluating the impact that consolidation would have on the curriculum demands both a descriptive study of the existing educational programs and a considered judgment as to what an ideal curriculum should be. The committee has not made an exhaustive study in the curriculum of each subject area, in each grade, in each school from kindergarten through grade twelve. Such an exhaustive curriculum study could not possibly be done by so small a representative committee in the period of time provided in the mandate to the committee. This committee, therefore, addressed itself to the observations and the conclusions as stated in the University of Michigan report and listed below. The following statements summarize the conclusions of the subcommittee:

1. “Great variance between schools in the kind of experiences within a framework of similar subject areas” (3a – U.M. report).

It is agreed there is truth to this observation. The Christian Schools have never prepared a list of formal learning experiences each child ought to have. We depend, for thorough academic teaching, upon our teachers who have a common heritage of religious background, Calvinistic education, and personal zeal. The case of the academic adjustment a child experiences as he enters another school indicates the basic similarity of our curricula. The observable differences in academic preparation of the high school students fail to identify local feeder schools and tend to refute the conclusion of “great variance between schools.” The variances which are observed are not due so much to curriculum difference as it is to individual differences among students themselves. Further, the committee is not convinced that consolidation of the schools would dictate or create a system of similar experiences within similar classrooms.

2. “Strong reliance upon textbook for curriculum design” (3b – U.M.). “General agreement on the scope of the curriculum without formal adoption, but lacks guidelines for sequence and continuity” (3c – U.M.).

“No current local teacher guides based upon broad aims or objectives to give unified direction to the curriculum leading toward a mutual goal, the high school” (3d – U.M.).

“Only two schools have active standing curriculum study committees working for continual improvements (3h – U.M.).

The visiting team evidently did not examine the publications of the National Union of Christian Schools. In them the curriculum deSign, guidelines, sequence, continuity and goals are listed in detail and they are available to all. It may be that these guidelines are not acceptable to the visiting team since these are broader in application than the schools under study. The visiting team seems not to have understood the uniqueness of our common heritage.

Although there is no formal adoption of these guidelines, there is general acceptance of them. In addition to these, curriculum study committees under the Administrators’ Council have prepared or are preparing curricular guidelines in music, junior high science, elementary science, junior high English, geography and physical education.

The effect of consolidation may lend impetus in this area of unity of curriculum.

3. “No attention has been given to guidance at the elementary level except one remedial reading teacher in one school” (3f – U.M.).

When we address our thoughts to guidance in the elementary school, the difference between the philosophies of the public and the Christian schools is again evident. The committee is agreed that the most effective guidance in an elementary school, having self-contained classrooms, is given by the classroom teacher. Our people tend to reject the concept of a full-time guidance worker in an elementary school, and they judge that this service can be performed adequately by the present personnel. Consolidation is not likely to change the attitude of our constituents about guidance.

4. “Mostly uniform learning for all children in a class, little help for individual differences except in grouping practices” (3g – U.M.).

This seems to be a categorical judgment without supporting evidence. The classroom teacher is the key person in this situation, and the committee is of the opinion that consideration is given to individual differences in our Christian schools. The theory of meeting all individual differences is accepted as ideal, but rarely if ever achieved in any school. It is doubtful whether the consolidation of our Christian schools will accelerate Our progress in meeting these needs.

5. “The need to broaden curriculum opportunities (exists) in grade…K–6 and 7–9 with particular emphasis on arts and crafts, instrumental music, guidance, physical education, and practical arts. (D4 – U.M.)

The members of this committee have taken note of the alleged shortcomings in the Christian School curriculum as pointed out by the visiting team from the University of Michigan. We question whether all these are indeed deficiencies. Many of these are in the non-academic area and are not over-sights on the part of our constituency but the results of value judgments by our school societies.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Curriculum Deficiences

The sub-committee on curriculum recognizes that the curriculum in the Christian schools can be expanded in certain areas, particularly in the junior high, by the addition of certain courses. The denial of these courses, until now, has not been a matter of neglect nor of disinterest but has been one of preference and priority using available facilities and resources. The consolidation of local Christian schools facilities and resources may make possible improvements in our curriculum which are not now feasible.

2. Curriculum Uniformity

We acknowledge the desirability of a common curriculum program, but we question whether consolidation would effect such a program. It is possible that through consolidation we may more quickly achieve improved educational articulation—on paper, at least. But it takes years to develop similar philosophical and psychological views of curriculum even within a given staff; therefore, let us not beguile ourselves into thinking that a program on paper means a change in the classroom. Real curriculum change cannot be imposed. Moreover, since teachers, pupils, and communities vary, differences will exist, but these variations do not deny the adoption of a common curriculum.

3. Curriculum Improvement

Approved curriculum revisions and refinements are now available in our present system; however, our problem is one of implementation in an organizational structure which has failed to provide an agency to put into effect such approved programs. Consolidation by itself offers no guarantee of curriculum revision, curriculum uniformity, or improved curriculum articulation, but it does offer the organizational structure within which these goals can be accomplished. However, the committee feels that these goals can also be accomplished by increased cooperation among our schools through the improvement and strengthening of our present organizational structure.

This committee is of the opinion that the curriculum in the classroom will not be affected greatly by consolidation. The case for consolidation will have to be made on the basis of organizational advantages or some other basis more tenable than the hope of curriculum improvement.

Roy Bultman, Committee Chairman; Gilbert Besselon; Harvey Ribbens; Steve Vander Weele; Dorothy Westra

Centralization seems to be the cry in today’s world. This is heard also in the educational arena. In recent months the supporters of the parentally-owned and operated Christian schools in Grand Rapids, Mich., were suddenly confronted with this issue. Although by no means averse to greater cooperation and even some forms of centralization, several contributors to TORCH AND TRUMPET are disturbed by the methods and arguments used by the advocates of centralization. Much more is at stake than curricular unity and administrative efficiency. Will the parents in such a large centralized school system really be able to participate effectively in the discharge of their covenantal responsibilities to their children and to God?

This issue is not a purely local one. Hence some articles will appear in forthcoming issues on it. In the article herewith presented we find a “Report” presented on December 11, 1964, by a subcommittee appointed to deal with the curriculum (subject material) presented in these schools. They present their answer to charges leveled against the schools by a team from the University of Michigan. The significance of this report is to be found especially in its clear affirmation that truly Christian schools are unique in educational approach, subject matter and methodology; therefore they should not be judged simply by standards set by leaders in the field of public schools education.