Journal of Research on Christian Education, 20: 28–45, 2011

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC and Andrews University

ISSN: 1065-6219 print=1934-4945 online
DOI: 10.1080/10656219.2011.557564

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

ALBERT J. BOEREMA
Education Department, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA

This report describes a project conducted to determine the areas of research

required to support Christian schools as they carry out their task in a changing
world. The project was carried out through an email survey and phone interviews
of leaders of schools associated with two Christian school organizations—the
Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) and Christian Schools
International (CSI). The survey sample included school-based educators, univer-
sity professors, and education coordinators of the two Christian school support
organizations. The topic that received the most concern and response specific to
Christian schools is the integration of school mission and practice.

There is a rich world of research examining issues and providing

answers to a broad range of educational questions arising from
the North American school system. One segment of that edu-
cational world that has not been studied as extensively as the pub-
lic system is the sector of private schools. The Council for
American Private Education (CAPE) reported that more than 6
million students (11%) attend private schools in the U.S. (Council
for American Private Education, 2010). In Canada, the enrollment
varies among provinces, but on average is 6% of the student popu-
lation (Boerema, 2005). In the United States, the evangelical por-
tion of those 6 million students include 15.2% in conservative
Christian schools, 5.5% in Baptist schools, and 0.6% in Calvinist
schools. This purpose of this project was to outline a research
agenda to support evangelical faith-based schools as they continue
to serve both the families who chose to send their children to these
schools and the larger society.

Address correspondence to Albert J. Boerema, Education Department, Calvin College,

3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546. E-mail: ajb37@calvin.edu

28
 Research Agenda 29

This project focused on two groups of schools which rep-

resent the majority of evangelical schools, the Association of
Christian Schools International (ACSI) and Christian Schools
International (CSI). The ACSI has 4000 member schools in the
United States, enrolling approximately 618,000 students, as
well as schools outside of the United States. ACSI schools enroll
1% of American students and approximately 11% of private
school students. CSI comprises 500 schools with approximately
100,000 students.
The two associations have a common origin. In 1920, the
National Union of Christian Schools (NUCS) was founded in Chi-
cago. It was an organization to support and promote schools that
provided Christian day school education for families that had emi-
grated from the Netherlands and, for the most part, belonged to
the Christian Reformed Church in North America. In 1978, the
NUCS, adopting a larger vision in recognition that a significant
number of its schools were in Canada, changed its name to Chris-
tian Schools International (Van Brummelen, 1986). The mission of
CSI is ‘‘advancing Christian education and supporting schools in
their task of teaching students to know God and His world and
to glorify him through obedient service’’ (CSI, n.d.). CSI schools
typically see their role as assisting parents in the task of raising their
children. ‘‘[T]he nurture of children in the believing community is
a covenantal responsibility of both the parents and the larger com-
munity . . . [C]ovenantal demands point to a school that fully shares
the faith commitments of parents and the Christian community.
Furthermore, the reformed conviction about the kingdom of
God and Christ’s lordship over all creation requires education that
honors Christ’s lordship’’ (Vander Ark et al., 2003, p. 317).
The ACSI began in 1978 as a merger of three school associa-
tions in the United States. The vision of ACSI is ‘‘to enable Chris-
tian educators and schools worldwide to effectively prepare
students for life.’’(ACSI, 2008). Typically, member schools have
a more evangelical focus and represent a broader spectrum of
evangelical Protestant schools than the CSI. While the ACSI began
in 1978, its roots date back to 1947 and the NUCS. In that year,
the executive secretary of the NUCS, who had been promoting
Christian day schools among Baptists, was replaced. Van Brumme-
len (1986) reports, ‘‘[t]he NUCS decided to ‘maintain its own
distinctive character,’ i.e., to limit its clientele to persons of
30 A. J. Boerema

Reformed and closely related persuasions’’ (pp. 171–172). As a

result, the replaced executive secretary started the National Asso-
ciation of Christian Schools, whose members eventually formed
the ACSI.
Christian school leaders from both CSI and ACSI schools and
the support organizations were asked about the kinds of research
they thought should be carried out in Christian schools. This report
outlines the elements of a research agenda for Christian schools
that was suggested by these school leaders, and analyzes some of
the themes that emerge.

Method and Data

Data were gathered by asking 28 educators, university profes-

sors, and education coordinators of Christian school support
organizations to respond to a short e-mail questionnaire. This
purposive sample was chosen to include educators from schools
in the two Christian school support organizations as well as
include those who had leadership roles in the organizations.
This sample contained 10 education coordinators, seven school
principals, and 11 education professors at Christian colleges.
Responses were received from seven education coordinators,
three principals, and seven professors. Of those who responded,
14 were from the CSI community, two were part of the ACSI
community, and one was not part of any Christian school
community.
The questions asked for opinions on the issues in Christian
education that needed research, topics for books and articles that
were needed by Christian schools, and what audiences should
receive the results of the research. In addition, it was asked
whether research or statements of philosophy would be more
important for Christian schools. Some respondents indicated that
they needed time to think about the issues before responding, tak-
ing several days, while others appeared to have dashed off a quick
response. The effect of this was that issues tended to arise in
answers to all four questions. Also, the answers to the first two
questions about the research needed and books or articles that
were needed tended to overlap. Several respondents also provided
their views on the nature of schools and, in particular, Christian
schools. One respondent requested a telephone interview rather
 Research Agenda 31

than using electronic mail to provide answers to the survey

questions.

Results

The respondents suggested that research was needed in 12 areas.

Most of them were common to any educational setting, but
three were specific to private schools in general, and one was
specific to faith-based schools. The areas of general concern
were leadership models, the use of technology in schools, pro-
fessional development, assessment and accountability, the struc-
ture of schools, learning theory, pedagogy, and curriculum.
Topics that were specific to private schools were the role of
the supporting community, the relationship between schools
and government, and the importance and need for school sys-
tem comparisons, a topic which received many responses. The
topic that received the most concern and response which is spe-
cific to Christian schools relates to the linkage between school
mission and practice.

Common Educational Themes

Four respondents suggested leadership issues. These issues were

the need to develop shared leadership models, and the relationship
between the Carver (1990) board governance model and servant
leadership. There was a suggestion for a study on the relationship
between governance models and school success or failure. One
respondent wanted research on the effects of networking between
schools, citing the different approaches to school support organiza-
tions in the United States and Canada.
The use of technology in Christian schools was of interest to
one respondent. There was a question of how this might be done
differently than in public settings, what the effect of using tech-
nology was on the poor, and the need for more expertise in the
general area of media by Christians.
One respondent indicated an interest in finding ways to stimu-
late professional growth that was related the core function of the
school. This suggestion arose from the trend to focus on spiritual
growth at school professional days. While acknowledging that
spiritual and professional growth cannot be separated, concern
32 A. J. Boerema

was expressed over the inclination to make professional growth

devotional in nature. This respondent compared the medical pro-
fession with the teaching profession, noting a desire for physicians
who have studied medicine, not just the Bible.
Four responses contained questions about assessment and
accountability. These questions included building assessment
into the ongoing process of instruction, tying that assessment
to school mission and program aims, and a question about
the effects of faith-based learning and student performance.
One respondent wanted research to show whether Christian
schools were effective, but did not elaborate on the meaning
of effective.
There were many suggestions to study some of the structural
arrangements of schools. These included exploring a year-round
calendar, new physical designs for schools, and schooling arrange-
ments that had fewer courses, longer blocks of time, and curricular
integration. One thought virtual schooling needed to be studied to
determine if it was a legitimate form of education and whether it
was effective. An important question of content-centered versus
student-centered learning was raised.

Should Christian schools begin with the traditional and incorporate that in
children’s minds . . . or should they begin with the child’s gifts, have a strong
individual and project focus . . . ?

Two respondents raised the issue of learning theory. They

wanted research to investigate whether there was a unique Chris-
tian view of learning and whether there was a relationship
between brain function and commitment. There was also a ques-
tion about the difference between learning in the different disci-
plines, such as science, history, math and Bible. One wanted to
have research on whether Christian schools were applying cur-
rent knowledge and theories about how children, young people
and adults learn.
Six respondents expressed an interest in research on peda-
gogical issues. This interest included the importance of developing
better pedagogical techniques for the high school level, developing
a unique Christian pedagogy, and linking biblical worldview think-
ing to school practice at the classroom, administrative and the
 Research Agenda 33

board levels. One respondent was concerned that good pedagogy

be introduced to Christian schools, noting:

A huge gap has opened between instructional practices in Christian schools

in some areas and those in others. My region is too heavily influenced by
essentialist thinking. Somehow models of alternate practice need to be
made available outside of regions where they are currently flourishing.
So, while good elementary and middle school practices have taken root
in some areas, they are little known in others.

Two others wanted research in pedagogy that promoted inde-

pendent learners.

We have learned that respecting the learner means we set up situations

where students take ownership for their learning. Respect for God’s
image-bearers means we lead, guide, push, and prod but we do not lecture
and force stuff down their throats.

One respondent expressed the possibility of developing a

unique Christian pedagogy.

I would have to say that for me one of the key areas is still delivery of curricu-
lum and instruction in a way that is unique to [Christian] schools. Why bother
doing what we are if it is simply an imitation of what is happening elsewhere
already and maybe even better than we do it. If we really believe we are
called to be salt and light in the world, how do we create an educational
environment where we are going to be able to help foster that kind of vision
in students? This needs to be seen in the postmodern context . . . We educate
for a world that does not exist outside the walls of school. For young people
growing up in a Christian context I believe this can have devastating effects.

Finally, as two educators noted, one of the dangers of

faith-based schooling is that it can degenerate into indoctrination.
One framed the problem as:

[h]ow can we avoid pushing our adult view of Christianity down the throats
of kids, respecting them as people, respecting their faith development at the
stage they are and yet maintaining a Christian atmosphere in our schools?

Considering that it is the heart of the educational program,

relatively little mention was made of the need for curriculum
research. Possibly this is because Christian schools have done
more work on development of Christian curriculum than any other
aspect of schooling. The issues that were brought up relating to
34 A. J. Boerema

curriculum were a general interest in curricular models, their use

and the effects of these models, and the significant problem of
equating the textbook with the curriculum. A surprising item came
from two respondents who raised the issue of the need for study on
how to teach the Bible in Christian schools. One of the college
respondents expressed a desire for reports on the interesting cur-
riculum projects and ideas that were being implemented in Chris-
tian schools. One respondent suggested that work was needed on
cross-graded teaching and learning. A long response was received
from a university professor on the need for rethinking curricular
orientations in general.

Much of the best work of the immediate past has been in instructional
methods, in curriculum planning for direct use, and in organizational struc-
tures, including leadership models. The field of curriculum theory has had
Van Brummelen, but otherwise has been somewhat dormant. I think it is
time for bold rethinking of the fundamental bases for curriculum. Most cur-
rent models borrow heavily from technique-driven traditions, especially
since that is what our state and provincial educational authorities push
our way. The foundational explanations=justifications of curriculum are
led by models that emerge from the social sciences which serve as an iron
cage preventing other possibilities. We need a period of wild theoretical
experimentation with intellectual traditions which might emerge from the
humanities, perhaps the arts, maybe even intellectual traditions that are
very rigorous but do not use social science type reasoning such as law.
I’m grasping here since these thoughts are only weeks old for me. In sum-
mary, I’m suggesting that we need to escape the thrall that social sciences
have held over education and we may need help from other intellectual tra-
ditions to break free. In time it may be possible to return to social science
methods in order to use them wisely and as servants rather than masters. I
think curriculum is a field in which to engage this battle.

Private School Themes

Topics that touch on private schools in general were the role of the
school’s supporting community and the relationship between
government and schools. One respondent wanted research on
the role of the supporting community in a child’s education, while
another suggested that Christian schools might be in a position to
provide more information about the role of parents.

Christian schools do not seem to act in ways that take full advantage or
nurture its strengths. School reform initiatives have goals of parent
 Research Agenda 35

participation, local school councils, and increased social capital. Christian

schools . . . ought to continue to work at nurturing and fostering these to
their greatest potential. They need to ask how do we foster parent involve-
ment most effectively toward the educational goals of the school. Should
they learn from the home school movement, tutoring programs, etc. that
are occurring in the environment around them?

Private schools tend to worry about their relationship with the

government. One respondent stated that a critique of the ‘‘over-
reach’’ of the government into the life of schools was necessary.
Two others wanted research into the school choice issue, specifically
its effect on implementation of school mission. It was suggested that
research on this issue be carried out in British Columbia, where
Christian schools have received provincial funding for approxi-
mately 25 years, and in Alberta, where Christian schools have
become part of the public school system. Another noted that

Educational freedom exists just about everywhere except the U.S. But
things are changing. Voucher experiments, charter schools, and home
schooling are changing the educational landscape. But examining the might
of the public-school monopoly is still fun.

Another topic of great interest to leaders in Christian schools

is a comparison of various schools systems, whether a
Christian-public comparison, public-private comparison, or com-
parisons between various faith-based systems. One suggestion
was to carry out a longitudinal study of ‘‘how Christian schools
are distinctly different, especially in who the student becomes.’’
Several mentioned comparisons between schools of different
faiths, for example comparing Christian, Jewish and Muslim
schools, others wanting comparisons between different types of
Christian schools: Baptists, Catholics, Seventh-Day Adventists,
Episcopalians, Mennonites, and Calvinists. Another wanted
research comparing career choices and church attendance
between students of ACSI and CSI schools. Naturally, several
respondents were interested in research on the difference between
Christian and public schools. The issues were whether Christian
schools achieve all that is expected of public schools, how the goals
of the two systems might be different, if there is a difference in stu-
dent performance between the two systems, and what contributes
to that difference. One suggested that the research carried out by
36 A. J. Boerema

Vryhof (1994) on social capital and functional communities be

expanded and updated.

The Link Between Mission and Practice

The topic that received the most response and the most concern
was the integration of mission and practice. As an alternative to
the public school system, Christian schools have taken on the task
of explicitly adding a faith component to their educational pro-
gram. It is not surprising that this should be the area of greatest
concern since it is the core of Christian school uniqueness. Several
aspects of this issue were raised. One educator suggested research
on the relationship between the academic enterprise and the spiri-
tual life by asking the question, ‘‘What does ‘Christian’ have to do
with ‘education’?’’
Several sought more work on the question of what it means to
‘‘teach Christianly.’’ It was suggested that too many teachers
believe that devotional activities add the Christian component.

I find many ACSI schools have a ‘‘soft’’ approach to academics. They think
the ‘‘spiritual’’ part is more important . . . Both academics and spiritual
development are equally important in the Christian school, and one should
not be raised above the other.

Another wanted research that explored this area more deeply.

What will free Christian school people to develop distinct alternatives? Sta-
ted another way, what personal, institutional, professional, social, cultural,
political obstacles prevent them from building a better fit between their the-
ology and their practice? Stated another way, why, precisely, do Christian
schools imitate their secular counterparts fairly closely? The answer lies,
perhaps, in an even deeper examination of their history and development.

A related challenge is to integrate Christian teaching without

becoming ‘‘bastions of indoctrination.’’ And the only respondent
from outside of the Christian school community wanted research
that examined the extent to which Christian schools promoted
intolerance.
Several respondents sought research on the gap between
Christian school philosophy or mission and Christian school
practice. It was noted that the philosophical statements of many
 Research Agenda 37

Christian schools are so general that they do not shape school prac-
tice. Another noted that many schools seem to have a secular
approach to education inserted in a Christian environment.
More responses were received about the issue of how Chris-
tian school graduates live after they leave school than any other
issue.

A question that I find myself wondering about is, are we really effective in
any meaningful way at working towards the ‘‘transformation of socie-
ty’’ . . . or are our schools really just providing sheltered environments for
kids during their turbulent teens? This is an issue of mission and praxis
and it will not apply to all Christian schools, but I feel it is a relevant ques-
tion for . . . [Christian] schools to be asking.

One of the respondents wanted to see a book that challenged

the parochial nature of Christian schools and encouraged ‘‘the
Christian school community to integrate the Great Commission
with the Great Mandate and the Great Commandment (to love
God above all and neighbor as self).’’ Concern was expressed that
Christian schools were isolationist, that their students did not
develop a concern for the world or understand the ‘‘the pockets
of deep poverty in different parts of the world.’’ These educators
were not satisfied with high academic achievement, but wanted
to see their students live and act justly, even toward those with
whom they disagree. They used the language of ‘‘preparing people
for a life of engagement in society in a way that is faithful to the
community beliefs.’’ One asked, ‘‘are Christian school graduates
practicing [as adults] the fundamental principles espoused by the
Christian schools from which they graduated?’’ The respondent
did note the difficulty of controlling for the effects of home, church
and youth groups in such a study. Still another frames the problem
in terms of a dualistic approach to life.

Do Christian schools integrate faith and the stuff of life so that graduates at
[age] 35 are more likely to practice holiness in farming and pharmacy, fam-
ily and fun, than fundamentalistic or secular counterparts who may have
stronger piety practice but operate businesses and sports as if they have
no connection to faith?

Another wondered if the gap between mission and practice

didn’t arise from ‘‘inflated expectations . . . the ‘talk’ is about change
agents, culture-shapers, transformers of society, Kingdom-builders,
38 A. J. Boerema

etc. When a student graduates and adjusts brakes on trucks for forty
years, the theorists wonder if that’s what they had in mind.’’
One principal expressed a desire for thinking about the role of
the Holy Spirit in the educational process, noting that school prac-
tice is a balance of intentionality and letting the Holy Spirit work in
the lives of the students.
Finally, a respondent associated with the CSI family of schools
observed that this school community was not engaged in the larger
world of education.

When I was speaking and writing on Christian school matters, I always

found it strange that the Christian schools seemed so inarticulate about
what they were doing, and that, rather than engaging the more general edu-
cational picture, they seemed so ‘‘ghettoized.’’ And there [were] almost no
empirical studies to find out how they were actually doing. As I say, I never
understood this, and still do not.

A contrasting comment, reflecting a bold vision, came from

the ACSI community. It was stated that one of the goals of ACSI
was to reach a point of speaking authoritatively, not only on
Christian education, but also on education generally in the
United States.

Research or Philosophy

The last question of the survey asked respondents whether

research or statements of philosophy were more important for
Christian schools. As could be expected, the answers came down
on both sides and many points in between.
One university professor expressed his surprise that very few
Christian scholars were specializing in the philosophy of education,
but then noted that in addition to philosophy, schools, and educa-
tors need what the professor called ‘‘on the ground’’ studies.
Another professor observed that Christian schools have philosophi-
cal statements; the real challenge now is to unpack those statements
so that they have an impact on school and teacher practice.
Four respondents expressed the view that Christian schools
tend to be skeptical of educational research. One noted that hard
quantitative data is expensive and it is easier for Christian educators
to talk about philosophy. A second expressed the view that Christian
schools were not as self-critical as public schools and were not as
 Research Agenda 39

engaged in the current school reform movement as they could be.

The third stated that ‘‘[m]ost Christian school principals, parents,
and teachers have little knowledge of, and are skeptical of,
educational research.’’ The fourth opined that research ‘‘is always
limited in scope’’ and is ‘‘seldom successfully implemented.’’

There are many reasons for the latter: poor dissemination of research
results, poor professional development strategies, lethargy among teachers,
parental demands for high but narrow standards, an inability to see and=or
work out the consequences of theoretical perspectives, and, above all,
government policies such as high-stakes testing that drives the curriculum
and instruction in schools.

Several responded that Christian schools were at a point in

their history where research was important. One expressed the
view that while he believed research was important, he thought
Christian schools need historical research rather than social
science research.

If you mean traditional social science styled research that looks at a tiny
issue and comes to a tentative interpretation of statistically analyzed results
which will only stand once it has been replicated many times—no, we don’t
have time for that. There are too few of us and the problems are too great
for that kind of work. If you wanted to do that type of work on an issue that
would illuminate a decisive point of contention between Christian school
education and other kinds, it might be useful. Historical research, research
using methods of cultural critique, and research based in qualitative
approaches might be more useful.

A group of respondents took the middle position. They

expressed a desire for philosophical statements that were sup-
ported by research examples:

Do we need statements of Christian educational philosophy? Maybe, but

only if they have their feet in the real muck of what’s really happening
and what happened before to make this happen now. Too disconnected
from practice, statements of philosophy provide convenient ways for us
to say one thing and do another.

Finally, one respondent expressed the importance of research

on effective schools as a tool to convince parents that ‘‘Christian
schooling is not a modest option, but an essential.’’
40 A. J. Boerema

The question about the distribution of research results evoked

a strong response from two educational leaders, who felt that edu-
cators were not reading enough.

I have found teachers lately, and administrators, do too little reading of sub-
stance about their task . . . but teachers and administrators are the ones who
get the job done. If research doesn’t get through to this crowd, all the
research in the world will sit in libraries. Someone needs to take the best
research and put it in . . . palatable . . . form.
We need leaders who will start reading; we don’t really need new
literature, there is such a wealth out there already. We need to develop a
reading discipline among [school] leadership. Leaders need to read about
business leadership; when schools fail, they fail at a business level. They
need to read about spiritual formation and the world we live in, they need
to read about spiritual and academic applications.

The survey data provided a wide variety of research topics to

support Christian education, including issues common to the larger
world of education, issues focusing on the private school world,
and Christian schools.

Discussion

The most important theme emerging from the survey data was
the need for studies on the gap that exists between Christian
school mission and practice. This concern is not new. As the
American educational system tried to address the challenges of
the 1983 report A Nation at Risk, Christian schools also began
to think about school reform. Christian school leaders met during
three summers at the Chicago Conferences in 1986 to 1988. The
published outcome of those three conferences was 12 Affirmations:
Reformed Christian Schooling for the 21st Century, a summary of the
discussions that took place during those summers. The twelve
affirmations and commentary outlined an agenda for improve-
ments to schools that arose from three gaps: the gap between
the rich heritage of Christian education and actual practice, the
gap between research results and present methods, and the gap
between the needs of the future and traditional aims and goals
of schooling (Vryhof et al., 1989).
In 1993, as a result of a year of study at the Calvin Center
for Christian Scholarship, Stronks and Blomberg, with six other
 Research Agenda 41

leaders in Christian education, published A Vision with a Task:

Christian Schooling for Responsive Discipleship. The book articulated
a set of issues causing serious concern in Christian school com-
munities and ways to address them. These issues included estab-
lishing vision, moving to a school mission, deciding on what and
how to teach, and establishing communities of learning in class-
rooms. The book concluded with five pages of recommendations
designed to help school communities carry out their task more
faithfully.
A number of academic studies explored the gap between
Christian school mission and practice. Hoeksema (1992) carried
out a qualitative research study of two CSI Christian schools in
the United States. Hoeksema focused on uncovering the curricular
and communal distinctiveness of these Christian schools.

[W]hat I observed did not support a distinctive integration of faith and

learning in the Christian school curriculum. Except for the most obvious
references to religious or moral issues and examples, the curriculum and
instruction in Christian schools reflected the character and content of pub-
lic school curriculum and instruction . . . Interestingly, at both study sites the
most convincing declarations of a distinctive curriculum that fully inte-
grated faith and learning came from members of the school community
who were furthest removed from the actual instruction. (p. 2)

Hull (2003) made a similar observation in a study of 13 Cana-

dian Christian high schools in the early 1990s. Hull reported that
‘‘[a]fter sifting through dozens of surveys, interviews, and obser-
vation notes, I concluded that, on the whole, there was nothing dis-
tinctively Christian about these schools in terms of their curricular
design, pedagogy, evaluation procedures, organizational structure,
or the lifestyle of its students’’ (p. 208). Hull suggested that while
Christian schools aspire to provide Christian education, in reality,
they are more characterized by Christian educating.

Christian education connotes a biblically grounded, alternative kind of edu-

cation that rejects the whole matrix of scientific and humanistic ideals that
currently vie to define the purpose of the public school . . . Christian educat-
ing stands for a Christianity-enhanced public school brand of education.
Inside this status quo frame of reference, the distinguishing character of
the Christian school revolves around what teachers ‘add’ to the students’
educational experience by means of moral integrity, devotional piety,
and biblical insights into a select group of controversial topics. (p. 204)
42 A. J. Boerema

These studies raise the question of why, in spite of being based

on fundamentally different worldviews, Christian schools still look,
to a large extent, the same as their public school counterparts.
Three answers to this question arise from the literature on organi-
zations and economics of education. First, there continues to be a
deep faith in the rational approach to organizational management
(Gergen & Thatchenkery, 2004) and the belief that organizational
success is due to the rational coordination and control of activity
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977). This rational organizational management
approach shapes the structure of how the educational process is
carried out in both public and faith-based schools. Meyer and
Rowan cast this belief in the context of myths, which generate for-
mal organizational structure. These myths, they note, have two
properties. First, they are, to a large extent, highly institutionalized,
and therefore beyond the judgment of any individual participant.
Second, they are rational and impersonal instructions that identify
social purposes as technical ones and identify the means to pursue
these technical purposes rationally (Ellul, 1964).
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) suggest a second reason: insti-
tutional isomorphism. They observe that as organizations in the
same field of endeavor develop into a unified field, they begin to
resemble each other. ‘‘The concept that best captures the process
of homogenization is isomorphism . . . a constraining process that
forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face
the same set of environmental conditions’’ (p. 149). DiMaggio
and Powell identify three mechanisms through which this process
takes place: coercive isomorphism arises from political influence
and the problem of legitimacy; mimetic isomorphism that is asso-
ciated with responses to uncertainty; and normative isomorphism,
which develops through professionalization.
The third answer to why schools seem to be structured in simi-
lar ways comes from the literature on the economics of education.
Brown (1992) noted that parents will choose schools for their chil-
dren in a way that reduces their children’s labor market uncer-
tainty. One way to do this is to choose schools that exhibit
‘‘comprehensive uniformity’’ (p. 288). Brown divided school ser-
vices into two categories: primary and secondary. Primary services
are those that affect labor market characteristics. These services
include training in traditional academic subjects and workplace
socialization. Secondary services are those that do not affect labor
 Research Agenda 43

market options, including religious instruction, some kinds of

medical screening and school lunches. ‘‘One consequence of these
similarities is that private schools will have difficulty finding an
empty niche in the schooling market, except by differentiating
themselves on secondary service dimensions, such as religious
instruction’’ (p. 288). These three approaches to the problem of
the similarity in school structure capture what is described by
Tye (2000) as the deep structure of schooling and by Elmore
(1996) as the core of educational practice.
As Christian schools seek to find ways to carry out their mis-
sion more faithfully, a distinction by Cuban (1988) is useful. Cuban
divided reform efforts into first-order and second-order changes.
First-order change involves quality control type of reform, while
second-order change involves new concepts of schooling. Hull
(2003) noted the need for Christian educators to ‘‘base their
schools on a comprehensive and distinctively Christian edu-
cational philosophy. The expected consequence of implementing
such a philosophy is the transformation of the school’s educational
goals, curriculum, pedagogy, student evaluation, and organiza-
tional structure (Hull, 2003, p. 204). This comprehensive agenda
is inherent in the challenge to link school mission and practice,
and requires second-order changes.

Conclusion

Several themes emerge from this survey on the research agenda for
Christian schools. One sentiment expressed by several respon-
dents was that too many Christian school leaders are skeptical
about the importance of research, and particularly about quantitat-
ive research that has little impact on the daily work of the class-
room. If the results of research are to have an impact on school
practice, it will be important to bridge the gulf between researchers
and practitioners.
An important theme mentioned by several leaders was con-
cern about lack of reading on the part of teachers and administra-
tors. While this is not a matter for research, it is an issue that
researchers need to keep in mind when presenting their results.
To have an impact, the results of research need to be packaged
in a way that teachers who already have too much to do carrying
out their daily classroom work can become aware of them. The
44 A. J. Boerema

challenge may be to continue to produce material that, if not ‘the

next big thing’ is at least the next thing to keep discussion of issues
about Christian education alive.
The research area that was of most interest was that of the gap
between Christian school mission and its practice. This is both
important and troubling. The studies of Christian schools done
by Hoeksema (1992) and Hull (2003) indicated that there was little
or no difference between Christian schools and public schools in
the way the school was organized, the way teaching took place,
and the curriculum. The results of this survey would indicate that
very little has changed in this area. The challenge for the Christian
school researchers and philosophers continues to be closing this
gap between the mission of the Christian schools and the way they
attempt to bring life to that mission in the day to day activities of
the school.

References

Association of Christian Schools International. (2008). ACSI vision and mission.

Retrieved from http://www.acsi.org/tabid/535/itemid/20/default.aspx
Boerema, A. (2006). An analysis of private school mission statements. Peabody
Journal of Education, 81(1), 180–202.
Brown, B. (1992). Why governments run schools. Economics of Education Review,
11(4), 287–300.
Carver, J. (1990). Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit
and public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Christian Schools International. (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved from http://
www.csionline.org/about/mission
Council for American Private Education. (2010). Facts and studies. Retrieved from
http://www.capenet.org/facts.html
Cuban, L. (1988). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(5),
341–344.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage revisited: Institutional isomor-
phism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48(April), 147–160.
Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26.
Gergen, K., & Thatchenkery, T. (2004). Organizational science as social construc-
tion: Postmodern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2), 228–249.
Hoeksema, T. (1992, May 1–3). Are Christian schools truly distinctive? Christian
School Administrator. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Schools International.
 Research Agenda 45

Hull, J. (2003). Aiming for Christian education, settling for Christian educating:
The Christian school’s replication of a public school paradigm. Christian
Scholar’s Review, 32(2), 203–223.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as
myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Stronks, G., & Blomberg, D. (Eds.) (1993). A vision with a task: Christian schooling for
responsive discipleship. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Tye, B. (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Van Brummelen, H. (1986). Telling the next generation: Educational development in
North American Calvinist Christian schools. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Vander Ark, D., et al. (2003). Report of the committee to study Christian day
school education. In Agenda for Synod 2003. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian
Reformed Church in North America.
Vryhof, S. (1994). Between memory and vision: Reformed Christian schooling in America.
Chicago, IL: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Vryhof, S., Brouwer, J., Ulstein, S., & Vander Ark, D. (1989). 12 Affirmations:
Reformed Christian schooling for the 21st century. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House.

Albert J. Boerema is a graduate of Vanderbilt University’s

Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations. He has
served as a high school principal in British Columbia, and cur-
rently teaches educational leadership at Calvin College, Grand
Rapids, Michigan.
Copyright of Journal of Research on Christian Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.