This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 09 October 2014, At: 11:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

The Christian Day School MovementJAMES C. CARPER aa Mississippi State University , Mississippi State, MississippiPublished online: 30 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: JAMES C. CARPER (1983) The Christian Day School Movement, TheEducational Forum, 47:2, 135-149, DOI: 10.1080/00131728309335955

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131728309335955

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

JAMES C. CARPER

The ChristianDay School Movement

[For almost two decades American society has been in thethroes of a fundamental reorientation of its system of beliefand institutional structure. Although it is too early to assess

the total impact of these years of profound disenchantment anduncertainty, it is apparent that there has been a collapse of con­sensus concerning the basic nature and function of our institu­tions and the values, traditions, and purposes undergirding them.As national 'cohesiveness has vanished, alternative modes ofbelieving, valuing, and behaving have emerged. These optionsand accompanying tendencies-such as the apotheosis of self , adecline of belief in all forms of obligation and authority, rejectionof the past, and confusion about the meaning of progress,justice, equality, morality, and community-suggest a " water­shed" in American history.' As noted historian Henry SteeleCommager has astutely observed: "Perhaps the 60s and 70s are agreat divide-the divide of dtsllluslonrnent.:"

This disillusionment and collapse of consensus has beenreflected clearly in Americans ' dissatisfaction with public educa­tion. While systematic schooling has been the object of muchacrimonious discussion since its inception during the middledecades of the nineteenth century , never before has the criticismbeen so caustic. The lay public, commentators of all socio­political persuasions, and many professional educators havescrutinized the schools and found them wanting. Evincing thefragmented state of the social order and bewilderment concern­ing the purposes and outcomes of schooling, charges leveled at

James C. Carper is assistant professor of education, Mississippi State University,Mississippi State, Mississippi. 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

136

TheEducational

Forum

Winter 1983

education have been legion and often contradictory. Publiceducation has been characterized as racist, permissive,authoritarian, trendy, irreligious, oppressive, too liberal, too con­servative, too involved in social change, an instrument forperpetuating the status quo, and generally unresponsive to bothindividual and public needs.'

Solutions to the school crisis have also been many andvaried. Some critics have proposed reforms of the curriculum,while others have advocated changes in school governance pat­terns, teacher education, and methods of school finance.Eschewing reform altogether, several have argued for the aboli­tion of public schoollnq.'

Of all the proposed remedies, one of the most discussed hasbeen the free school movement, which emanated originally fromthe socio-political left. Dedicated to a more "humane" and"liberating" education and opposed to standardization andauthoritarian institutions, as many as five hundred of these insti­tutions were established independently of the public schoolsystem during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Variations of thefree school movement were eventually incorporated within thepublic system in the form of alternative schools, open campuses,"relevant" curricula, and community control. While much hasbeen written about the successes and failures of the free schooland related alternative education schemes, one option, the Chris­tian day school, has received scant attention outside thereligious press.'

Since the mid-1960s, evangelical Protestants have beenestablishing Christian schools, many of which are interdenomi­nationally sponsored and attended, at a phenomenal rate.' Notonly do these institutions currently constitute the most rapidlyexpanding segment of formal education in the United States, butthey also represent the first widespread secession from thepublic school pattern since the establishment of Catholicschools in the nineteenth century.

Protestant-sponsored weekday education is not a contem ­porary development. Since the nineteenth century most denomi­nations have experimented with parochial schooling as an alter­native to public education. Until recently, however, the vastmajority of Protestants have shown little interest in such aneducational arrangement. Only certain Lutheran bodies, theSeventh Day Adventists, and Christian Reformed groups havemaintained a significant number of weekday schools.'

Most Protestants have supported public schooling since itsinception. They approved of early public education because itreflected the Protestant belief-value system of the society andwas viewed as an integral part of the crusade to establish a Chris­tian America . According to church historian Handy, elementaryschools did not need to be under the control of particulardenominations because "their role was to prepare youngAmericans for participation in the broadly Christian civilization

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

toward which all evangelicals were working."B While the publicschool by means of Bible reading, prayers, and the ubiquitousMcGuffey readers emphasized nondenominational evangelicalProtestantism, which was tantamount to the American civic faithfor the better part of the nineteenth century, the Sunday schoolstressed the particular tenets of the various denominations. Tomost evangelical Protestants this "parallel institutions" educa­tional arrangement was satisfactory. As Kennedy, an authority onProtestant education, has argued:

By 1860 there had emerged a general consen­sus in American Protestantism that the combina­tion of public and Sunday school teaching wouldlargely take care of the needed religious teachingof the young. In that pattern the public school wasprimary; the Sunday school was adjunct to it, pro­viding specific religious teaching it could nottnclude."

Much has changed in America since the establishment ofthis dualistic educational strategy. No longer does evangelicalProtestantism influence the society and the public schools as itdid in the nineteenth century. The past six decades have witnessedits rapid decline as the moving force behind cultural andbehavioral patterns. By the 1960s, the once dominant evangelicalstrain in American civil religion had been superseded by the more"humanistic" Enlightenment theme."

Despite this radical alteration of the character of Americanculture, most Protestants have clung to the myth of the "parallelinstitutions" educational strategy. The growth of the number ofChristian day schools during the past fifteen years, however, sug­gests that an increasing number of evangelicals are not onlywrestling with the consequences of the collapse of Protestant­ism as a social foundation, but they are also questioning theirhistoric commitment to public schooling and the dualistic pat­tern of education.

The term "Christian day school" has been used to describethose weekday educational institutions, many of which are of aninterdenominational character, founded by evangelical Protes­tants since the mid-1960s.11 These schools are diverse in severalrespects. Facilities, for example, range from poorly equippedchurch basements to modern, multibuilding campuses. While amajority are elementary schools, an increasing number are offer­ing secondary education as well. Though the average number ofstudents per school is probably between 100 and 200, enroll­ments vary from ten to over two thousand. Programs of study dif­fer considerably from rudimentary to the most comprehensiveavailable anywhere. Most schools follow traditional teachingpractices while others utilize, for economic as well as pedagogicreasons, individualized instruction schemes. Some mix healthy

137

TheEducationalForum

Winter 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

138

TheEducational

Forum

Winter 1983

doses of pre-1960 " Americanism" with religious education, whileothers shun this practice. Some Christian day schools areattendedby whites only, sometimes because of segregative intent, whilemany are integrated. A militant rejection of any formal state regula­tion or licensing characterizes some institutions, while otherscooperate to varying degrees with state education aqencles."

Although these institutions are diverse in many ways, theyall profess the centrality of Jesus Christ and the Bible in theireducational endeavors. Regardless of the subject matter, a con­servative Christian perspective is usually employed. History, forexample, is generally viewed as the record of God's involvementin human affairs. Though the general theory of evolution receivessome attention, science is usually taught from a creationistperspective. Moral education, an important aspect of the instruc­tional program, is also biblically based. Students are instructedto search the scriptures as the final authority for value judg­ments. Summing up the difference between the ethos of theChristian school and that of public education, Kienel, executivedirector of the recently formed Association of Christian SchoolsInternational , has maintained:

... Christian schools are Christian institutionswhere Jesus Christ and the Bible are central in theschool curriculum and in the lives of the teachersand administrators. This distinction removes usfrom direct competition with public schools.Although we often compare ourselves academically,we are educational institutions operating onseparate philosophical tracks. Ours is Christ­centered education, presented in the Christian con­text. Theirs is man-centered education presentedwithin the context of the supremacy of man asopposed to the supremacy of God. Their position isknown as secular hurnantsrn."

While there is no doubt that the number of Christian dayschools has multiplied during the past fifteen to twenty years,and particularly since the mid-1970s, it is difficult to determineprecisely thei r number and student population. U The verycharacter of the Christian school movement prohibits anaccurate accounting. Some schools are of such a separatist per­suasion that they refuse to report enrollment and related figuresto state and federal education agencies . For similar reasons,others do not affiliate with one of the many state, regional, ornational associations of Christian schools which are currentlythe primary sources of data. Furthermore, the rapid growth ofthese schools is so unorganized that exact figures are difficult toobtain.

The variation in estimates of the number of Christian dayschools and their enrollment illustrates these problems. Calcula-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

tions of the number of these schools founded since themid-1960s range from 4,000 to as many as 18,000. Enrollmentfigures for these schools range from 250,000 to over 1,200,000.Based on the best data available, an estimate of between 8,000and 10,000 schools established during the past fifteen to twentyyears with a student enrollment of approximately one millionseems reasonable."

Perhaps the most concrete evidence of the burgeoningChristian day school movement can be seen in the figures ofseveral associations. The Western Association of ChristianSchools, which in 1978 merged with two smaller groups-theNational Christian School Education Association and OhioAssociation of Christian Schools-to form the Association ofChristian Schools International, claimed a membership of 102schools with an enrollment of 14,659 in 1967. By 1973the figureswere 308 and 39,360 respectively, and in 1982 approximately1,700 and 250,000. The American Association of ChristianSchools, a rival organization of a more separatist nature, wasfounded in 1972 with 80 schools enrolling 16,000 students. In1982the association claimed more than 1,000 schools with a stu­dent population in excess of 160,000. Despite the fact that asmall number of schools were founded long before they af­filiated, these figures indicate the vigor of the movement, whichshows no sign of abatlnq."

Why are Christian day schools proliferat ing? Why are manyevangelical Protestants forsaking their traditional commitmentto public schooling and the "parallel institutions" educationalstrategy? A number of factors are involved. Some are symbolic ofevangelicals' increasing alienation from the American socialorder. To them the public school exemplifies trends and prac­tices that they deplore in the society at large: widespread uncer­tainty concerning sources of authority; dissolution of standards;waning of evangelicalism as a culture -shaping force; looseningof custom and constraint; scientism; and government socialengineering . Thus, when these groups establish schools-whichin some measure reflect the civil religion of nineteenth centuryAmerica and stress the Bible, moral absolutes, basic subject mat­ter mastery, discipline, and varying degrees of separation fromstate authority and society-they are not only protesting thesecular nature of public education, unsatisfactory academic andbehavioral standards, and unrest in the schools, but they are alsoexpressing disillusionment with the society that sustains theeducational enterprise.

While evangelicals have pointed to discipline problems,declining educational standards, the drug culture, federal med­dling , and unresponsive educators as reasons for abandoning thepublic schools, secularism has disturbed them the most."Although the United States Supreme Court decisions in 1962and1963 outlawing mandatory prayer and devotional Bible reading intax supported schools merely marked the culmination of better

139

TheEducationalForum

Winter 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

140

TheEducational

Forum

Winter 1983

than a half-century long process of "de-Protestantization" ofpublic education, many evangelical Protestants translated theremoval of these symbols of the evangelical elements of theAmerican civic faith as "yanking" God out of the schools."Rather than making the schools neutral on matters related toreligion, evangelicals believed that, despite the intent of themajority of the Court, these decisions contributed to the estab­lishment of the religion of secular humanism in the public schools.Such a belief sensitized them to what was being taught in theschools. So, while these decisions did not cause directly therapid growth of Christian day schools, they certainly provokedmany evangelicals to scrutinize public education to a greaterextent than ever before. The result has often been dissatisfactionwith the secular character of the schools, which has led theevangelicals either to attempt to restore evangelical symbols andperspectives to public schooling (e.g., voluntary prayer, Ten Com­mandments plaques, and creationism) or to establish Christianeducational institutions. As Ostling, a staff writer for the religionsection of Time, has observed: "There is little doubt that therulings produced anxiety about the climate in public schools thatis boosting Protestant schools many years later.':"

This concern has been evident in recent textbook controver­sies in, among other places, West Virginia, New Jersey, Califor­nia, Indiana, Minnesota, Texas, and Georgia. Here evangelicalProtestants have charged that the exclusion of Christian valuesand perspectives from public education and the current orienta­tion of the curriculum has resulted in a de facto establishment ofthe religion of secular humanism in the public schools." Theyhave, for instance, often complained that Man: A Course ofStudy, the well·known elementary level social studies cur­riculum, embodies the tenets of secular humanism. In thiscourse they believe moral absolutes are undermined by an evolu­tionary framework and situation ethics. Many evangelicals havealso seen evidence of secular humanism in moral education pro­grams which are based on the assumption that values arerelative, personal, and situational. Summing up this contention,University of Notre Dame Law School Professor Rice hassuggested:

If the objecting parents are correct in theirclaim that the public schools are promoting thetenets of a secular religion, it must be on the basisthat the nonjudgmental treatment of moral issueswithout any affirmation of the supernatural is itselfan implicit assertion that contradictory moral posi­tions are equally tenable, that there is therefore noobjective and binding moral order, that the super­natural is not a necessary factor in the making ofmoral decisions. It is not unreasonable to describesuch teaching as an implicit affirmation of a posi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

tion that, in its relativism and secularism, is authen­tically religious. The Christian parents ' concern istherefore understandable."

These parents have also been troubled by behavioral sciencestexts which imply that a human being is a social animal ratherthan a unique being created in the image of God, belittle belief inan omniscient and omnipresent Creator, and equate the Biblewith myth."

Evangelicals have probably been more concerned aboutpublic school science courses which present the general theoryof evolution as dogma than any other curriculum issue. In recentyears an increasing number of evangelical laypersons and scien­tists have questioned the exclusive presentation of the evolu­tionary explanation of human origins and development. To themsuch a practice not only burdens the free exercise rights ofstudents who affirm special creation as an article of their faith,but it also effectively establishes one of the cardinal tenets ofsecular humanism, the absolutism of evolution. Until a "neutral"approach which allows for the examination of evidence for evolu­tionism and creationism is widely adopted, this issue will remaina major source of evangelicals' discontent with publiceducation."

Reflecting the dissatisfaction of many evangelical Protes­tants concerning the character of public schooling, Robertson ofthe National Association of Evangelicals has asserted: "It hasbecome quite obvious to many that this religion of secularismhas indeed pervaded our public school system and created ananti-Christian attitude in all too many cases.'?' Although a major­ity of evangelicals still enroll their children in the public systemand continue to wrestle with its secular nature, a growing numberare opting for Christian day schools. Like nineteenth centuryRoman Catholics who established parochial schools to preservetheir religion and culture, a significant number of Protestants arefounding and supporting schools to counter the secular influ­ence of society and its institutions on their children.

Awakening as well as alienation and protest are involved inthe growth of these schools. The Christian school movement ismore than just a "counter-cultural" phenomenon . A recrudescentevangelical consciousness-one manifestation of the spiritualferment of the past twenty years which historian McLoughlin hastermed the "Fourth Great Awakening"-has prompted manyevangelicals to promote Christian education beyond the homeand the marginally effective efforts of the Sunday school ."Realizing that all education is value oriented and that Christiannurture is a full time endeavor, evangelicals have supportedschools which embody the biblical beliefs of the church andhome. As one parent stated on a Christian school applicationform: "We believe that our children are gifts of the Lord. We areresponsible to train them according to His word, not only at home

141

TheEducationalForum

Winter 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

142

TheEducational

Forum

Winter 1983

and in church, but in school as well."28 By embracing Christianday schools which complement the world view of the home andthe church, an increasing number of evangelical Protestantsbelieve they have fashioned an educational configuration in whichall components are engaged in their conception of the scripturalcommand to "train up a child in the way he should go...."27

Zeal for these schools is not universal. Some critics haveargued that they represent an abdication of Christian socialresponsibility rather than a manifestation of a reawakened evan­gelical sense of commitment and witness. To these critics, thepublic school is a mission field to be cultivated, not abandoned.Willimon of Duke University Divinity School enunciated this posi­tion in a provocative essay that raised the perennially con­troverted question of how to be in the world but not of it. Hewrote:

In too many communities, parents who aretalented, educated, committed Christians havewith­drawn their children (alongwith their time, talent, andprayers) from the public schools without a thoughtfor their responsibility as their brother's keeper.Without children in the public schools , they have lit­tle interest in the needs of public education... .Certainly there is much wrong in today's publicschools-mostly the same things that are wrongwith our society as a whole. Christian parents havegood reason to feel alarmed over many recentdevelopments in public education. But who willimprove it? What kind of society will we have if allChristians abandon the public school?"

Others have charged that many Christian schools wereestablished primarily to maintain racial segregation. A recentstudy by Nevin and Bills suggests that racism was an importantfactor in the founding of some purportedly Christian schools inthe South." Other investigations, however, indicate that theseinstitutions are not merely segregation academies. Based on ananalysis of Christian day schools in two states, Turner concludedthat religious and academic factors rather than racial onesmotivated parents to remove their children from public schools.He explained :

Many authors have charged that these "Chris­tian" schools are only a new type of segregationacademy, similar to those that sprang up in theSouth after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.These "new segregation academies" are said to beadopting a religious guise in order to claim FirstAmendment guarantees of religious protection andthus escape federal desegregation regulations. But

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

research conducted in early 1979 on fundamen­talist schools in Kentucky and Wisconsin disputesthis claim and suggests that the factors producingthis new wave of fundamentalist schools are morecomplex than previously supposed.. ..

... The motivation for founding and maintain­ing nonpublic schools appears to be more thanracial prejudice. In recent decades religious influ­ences in American public education have erodedrapidly. Many evangelical Protestants havecome tobelieve that the public schools now espouse aphilosophy that is completely secular, perhapseven anti-religious. Hence many conservative Prot­estants have withdrawn their children from publicschools and have established sectarian schoolswith quite different standards and curricula."

Skerry reached the same conclusion after studying Christian dayschools in North Carolina. "At least since the late 1960s," heasserted, while pointing out the vigor of the recent evangelicalrevival, "social and religious conservatism has been.on themarch. To reduce this conservatism-and the Christian schoolsthat have emerged from it-to racism is simply to ignore twodecades of social and cultural upheaval.'?'

Although racism has been a factor in the founding and main­tenance of some Christian day schools, the vast majority do notdiscriminate on the basis of race. Most Christian school associa­tions and spokespersons for the movement condemn raciallymotivated schooling. In the words of Lockerbie, a respectedChristian educator: "The racist stronghold claiming also to be a'Christian school' is, by definition, an imposter, a fraud. Itsreason for being is indefensible by standards of Scripture, theConstitution, .. . or common decency.'?' Besides professing non­discrimination, an increasing number of these institutions areenroll ing minority students, though their proportion of the totalstudent population remains small. 33

Proponents as well as opponents of Christian day schoolshave also raised questions concerning the nature and quality ofthe education provided at some of these institutions. Severalobservers have lamented the poor academic standards evident insome schools. Other critics havedeplored the "super-patriotism"which characterizes a number of Christian schools. Commen­tators have also suggested that these schools may shelterstudents and thus fail to prepare them for life in the "real world.'?'

Regardless of these criticisms, the Christian day schoolmovement continues to flourish. While these recently establishedschools have yet to attain the stature of the major alternative topublic schooling, the Roman Catholic educational enterprise,they are becoming increasingly visible on the educational land­scape. Whether or not they ever achieve that status will depend

143

TheEducationalForum

Winter 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

144

TheEducational

Forum

Winter 1983

to some extent on the resolution of the aforementioned problemsand on responses to a number of more critical questions.

Perhaps the most important question facing Christian dayschools concerns their present and future relation to state andfederal regulatory agencies. Courts in Vermont, Ohio, New Hamp­shire, Kentucky, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Nebraskahave recently decided cases in which Christian schools haveclaimed that state-mandated "minimum educational standards"and licensing practices violated their free exercise of religionrights. In the first four instances, state supreme courts ruled thatdetailed and extensive accreditation standards and teacher cer­tification requirements as applied to Christian schools wentbeyond the bounds of reasonable regulation and thus undulyburdened free exercise rights. In North Carolina, a lower courtsustained state accreditation "and teacher qualification stand­ards. That decision was, in effect, overturned by legislative actionrepealing all state regulation of religious schools except forhealth, safety, and attendance reporting requirements. The NorthDakota and Nebraska Supreme Courts ruled against Christianschools seeking exemption from state licensing practices. Thestate and the Christian schools appealed the Kentucky andNebraska decisions respectively to the United States SupremeCourt. Their appeals were dismissed, however, for lack of asubstantial federal question."

Even if efforts are made to reconcile free exercise rights withstate interest in regulating education, more litigation of a seriousnature seems likely because some Christian educators areasserting that the state has no right to license their schools. Asone commentator has noted:

... Although most of the proponents of theChristian school movement agree that the state hasa legitimate interest in expecting all children toachieve competency in basic reading, writing, andmathematics skills and requiring safe school facil­ities, an lncreasinq number of them are questioningthe authority of the state to license or charter Chris­tian schools under any circumstances. As far asthey are concerned, such a procedure is tanta­mount to imposing the state's philosophy and con­trol on an arm of the church. They raise what maybecome in the near future one of the most profoundand litigated questions in the church-state realm:"What right does the state have to license aministry of the church?"3B

Besides the fundamental church-state issue, there are otherpressing questions. To what extent, for example, will the publicschool system attempt to accommodate disgruntled evangeli·cals? Will proponents of Christian day schools accept the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

discredited assumption that schooling is a panacea for all prob­lems? How will graduates of these schools fare in society? Towhat extent will evangelical Protestants " systematize" theirschools? What direction will the apparent evangelical "awaken­ing" take in the next decade? To what extent will Reagan 'seducational policy, e.g., tuition tax credits, be implemented?

Regardless of its future status , the Christian day school hasemerged as a viable alternative to the public school , and its rapidgrowth indicates that a significant number of evangelical Protes­tants are reconsidering educational strategy. It also symbolizesalienation and awakening among evangelicals, represents areassertion of parental educational rights , and, most importantly,suggests a crisis in the American civic faith and one of the majorvehicles of its transmission , the public school.

Notes

1. Robert N. Bellah, The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time ofTrial (New York: Seabury Press, 1975); Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Ner­ciss ism : American Life in an Age of Diminish ing Expecta tions (New York: Nor­ton , 1978); William G. McLoughl in, Revivals, Awakenings , and Reform: AnEssay on Relig ion and Social Change in America, 1607·1977 (Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 1978); Richard John Neuhaus, " Moral Leadershipin Post-Secular America," Imprimus , July 1982, pp. 1-6; and Will iam L. O'Nei ll ,Coming Apar t: An Informal History of America in the 1960's (New York:Quadrangle Books, 1971).

2. " In Quest of Leadership," Time, July 15, 1974, p. 23.3. See, for example, Carl Bereiter , Must We Educate ? (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice Hall, 1973); Harry S. Broudy, The Real World of the Public Schools(New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972); R. Freeman Butts , " Assaults ona Great Idea," The Nation , April 30, 1973, pp. 553·60; Ronald and BeatriceGross, eds., Radical School Reform (New York: Simon and Schuster , 1969);Robert M. Hutchins, "The Schools Must Stay," The Center Magazine,JanuarylFebruary 1973, pp. 12-23; Allan C. Ornstein , " Crit ics and Criticism ofEducation ," The Educational Forum 42 (November 1977):21-30; Joel Spring," Dare Educators Build a New School System?" (Paper presented at the 21stAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Studies Association , ColoradoSprings , November 8, 1980); David Tyack and Elizabeth Hansot , "Confl ict andConsensus in American Public Education," Daedalus 110 (Summer1981):14-23; and Peter Witonski, What Went Wrong with American Educat ionand How to Make It Right (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1973).

4. Seymour W. Itzkoff, A New Public Educat ion (New York: David McKay, 1976);and'John Martin Rich, Innovations in Education: Reformers and Their Critics,3rd ed. (Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1980).

5. Lawrence A. Cremin, "The Free School Movement: A Perspective," Notes onEducation 2 (October 1973):1·11 ; Mario Fantini, ed., Alternative Education(Garden City, N.J.: Anchor Books, 1976); Allen Graubard, "The Free SchoolMovement," Harvard Educational Review 42 (August 1972):351-73; and DavidThornton Moore, "Social Order in an Alternative School ," Teachers CollegeRecord 79 (February 1978):437-60.

6. Evangelical Protestantism is composed of several ideolog ical subgroups .

145

TheEducationalForum

Winter 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

146

TheEducational

Forum

Winter 1983

Richard Quebedeaux has identified four. Ranging from the most conservativeon theological and social issues, they are "Separatist Fundamentalism,""Open Fundamentalism, " "Establishment Evangelicalism," and "The NewEvangelicalism." Although no research has been done on the matter, onewould speculate that enthusiasm for Christian schools is greater in the " fund­amentalist wing" than in the "evangelical wing." Richard Quebedeaux, TheYoung Evangelicals (New York: Harper and Row, 1974); see also AugustusCerillo, Jr., "A Survey of Recent Evangelical Social Thought," ChristianScholar's Review 5 (1976):272-80.

7. Francis X. Curran, The Churches and the Schools : American Protestantismand Popular Elementary Education (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1954);Otto F. Kraushaar, American Nonpublic Schools: Patterns of Diversity(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972); and Edwin H. Rian,Christianity and American Education (San Antonio: Naylor, 1949).

8. Robert T. Handy, A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and HistoricalRealities (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 102; see also James C.Carper, "A Common Faith for the Common School? Religion and Education inKansas, 1861-1900," Mid-America 60 (October 1978):147-61; Timothy L. Smith,"Protestant Schooling and American Nationality," Journal of AmericanHistory 53 (March 1967):679-95; and David Tyack, "The Kingdom of God andthe Common School," Harvard Educational Review 36 (Fall 1966):447-69.

9. William B. Kennedy, The Shaping of Protestant Education (New York:Association Press, 1966), p. 27; see also Robert W. Lynn, ProtestantStrategies in Education (New York: Association Press, 1964); and Robert W.Lynn and Elliot Wright, The Big Little School: Two Hundred Yearsof the Sun­day School (New York: Harper & Row, 1971).

10. American civil religion comes primarily from a frequently tension-producingfusion of elements of the Enlightenment (secular humanism) and Puritanthought (evangelical Christianity). See Robert D. Linder, "Civil Religion inHistorical Perspective: The Reality That Underlies the Concept," Journal ofChurch and State 17 (Autumn 1975):412-18.

11. Christian day schools existed prior to the mid-1960s. The rapid expansion ofthe number of such institutions, however, has occurred since that time.

12. American Association of Christian Schools, Directory of the AmericanAssociation of Christian Schools, 1982(Normal, II.: American Association ofChristian Schools, 1982); Association of Christian Schools International, 1982Directory (La Habra, Ca.: Association of Christian Schools International,1982); B. Drummond Ayres, " Private Schools Provoking Church-State Con­flict," New York Times, April 8, 1978, sec. A, pp. A1, A23;Joseph Bayly, "HowWide Is the Spectrum in Christian Schools?," Eternity, September 1980,pp. 24-31; William J. Lanouette, "The Fourth R is Religion," NationalObserver, January 15, 1977, pp. 1, 18; Roy W. Lowrie, Jr., "Christian SchoolGrowing Pains," Eternity, January 1971, pp. 19-21; Richard Ostling, "Why Prot­estant Schools Are Booming," Christian Herald, July-August 1977,pp. 44-47;Ken Ringle, "D.C. Suburban School Systems Are Swept by Changes- 'Chris­tian Schools'," Washington Post, December 31,1973, sec. B, p. 31;and ElmerTowns, "Have the Public Schools Had It?," Christian Life, September 1974,pp. 18-19,50-51.

13. Paul A. Kienel, "The Forces Behind the Christian School Movement," Chris­tian School Comment, 1977, p. 1; see also Joseph Bayly, "Why I'm for Chris­tian Schools," Christianity Today, January 25, 1980, pp. 24-27; AnthonyRamirez, "No-Nonsense Schools with Christian Ties Tilt with Bureaucrats,"Wall Street Journal , December 7, 1978, sec. 1, pp. 1, 34; Dorothy W. Rose,"Success Story of Christian Schools," Good News Broadcaster, September1979, pp. 48-50; and George Sweeting, "When the Bible Goes to School,"Moody Monthly, September 1979, pp. 64-66.

14. Several proponents of Christian day schools have claimed, perhaps withsome exaggeration, that such institutions are being established at the rate ofnearly two per day. See Thomas W. Klewin, "Make Way for the ChristianSchool," Liberty, September-October 1975,p. 18; and Lanouette, "The Fourth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

R Is Religion," p. 1.15. Ayres, "Private Schools Provoking Church-State Conflict," p. A23; Donald A.

Erickson, Richard L.Nault, and Bruce S. Cooper, Recent Enrol/ment Trends inU.S. Nonpublic Schools (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education,U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1977); Lanouette, "TheFourth R Is Religion, " p. 1; Gene I. Maeroff, " Private Schools Look to BrightFuture," New York Times Winter Survey of Education , January 4,1981, p. 14;Dave Raney, "Public School vs. Christian School," Moody Monthly,September 1978, p. 42; and Towns, " Have the Public Schools Had It?,"pp. 18·19.

16. These figures are based on informat ion provided by Gerald Carlson of theAmerican Association of Christian Schools, Normal, Illinois and Lee Ransonof the Association of Christian Schools International , La Habra, Californ ia.See also Paul A. Kienel, "Status of American Christian Schools " (Paperpresented at the National Institute of Christian School Administration,Winona Lake, Ind., July 25-30, 1976).

17. John F. Blanchard, Jr., "Can We Live With Public Education?," MoodyMonthly, October 1971, pp. 33, 88-89; Klewin, " Make Way for the Christ ianSchool," pp. 18-19; Lanouette , "The Fourth R Is Religion," p. 1; and Raney," Public School vs. Christian School," pp. 44-45.

18. Engel v, Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374U.S. 203 (1963); and Murray v. Curlett , 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

19. Ostling , "Why Protestant Schools Are Booming," p. 45.20. Based on a review of the literature on secular humanism, pronouncements of

humanists , such as Paul Kurtz, editor of The Humanist, Paul Blanshard, andG. Richard Bozarth, and an analysis of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933) andthe Humanist Manifesto 1/ (1973), Whitehead and Conlan assert that secularhumanism is a nontheistic religion that: "denies the relevance of Diety orsupernatural agency"; affirms the "supremacy of human reason" ; empha­sizes the " self-suffi ciency and centrali ty of Man" ; assumes the inevitability ofprogress by either natural or state-aided means, particularly public education;exalts "science as the guide to human progress and the ultimate provider ofan alternative to both religion and morals"; and emphasizes the "absolutismof evolution " in all realms. John W. Whitehead and John Conlan, "TheEstablishment of the Religion of Secular Humanism and Its First AmendmentImplications," Texas Tech Law Review 10 (Winter 1978):17-65 passim. Foradditional commentary on secular humanism and its role in public education,see Wendell R. Bird, " Freedom from Establishment and Unneutrality in PublicSchool Instruction and Religious School Regulation," Harvard Journal of Lawand Public Policy 2 (June 1979):125-27, 174-85; Harvey Cox, The Secular City :Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective (New York: Mac­millan , 1965), p. 18;Alan N. Grover, Ohio 's Trojan Horse (Greenville , S.C.: BobJones University Press, 1977), pp. 28-89 passim; Robert Russell Melnick ," Secularism in the Law: The Religion of Secular Humanism," Ohio NorthernUniversity Law Review 8 (April 1981):329-57; and Robert L.Toms and John W.Whitehead, "The Religious Student in Public Education: Resolving a Con­stitutional Dilemma," Emory Law Journal 27 (Winter 1978):3-40 passim.

21. Charles E. Rice, " Conscientious Objection to Public Education: TheGrievance and the Remedies," Brigham Young University Law Review(1978):860; see also Alan L. Lockwood, "A Crit ical View of Values Clarifica­tion ," Teachers Col/ege Record 77 (September 1975):35-50 passim; and Joel S.Moskowitz, "The Making of the Moral Child: Legal Implications of ValuesEducation," Pepperdine Law Review 6 (Fall 1978):114·26.

22. James C.Hefley , Textbooks on Trial (Wheaton, II.: Victor Books, 1976); GeorgeHillocks, Jr., " Books and Bombs: Ideological Confl ict and the Schools-ACase Study of the Kanawha County Book.Protest," School Review 86 (August1978):632-54; Donald Oppewal, " Humanism as the Religion of Public Educa­tion : Textbook Evidence," Christian Legal Society Quarterly 2 (Winter1981):7·9, 31·33; Ostling , "Why Protestant Schools are Booming," p. 45; andGerald J. Stiles and Louis R. Rittweger, "The Dichotomy Between Pluralistic

147

TheEducationalForum

Winter 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

148

TheEducational

Forum

Winter 1983

Rhetoric and Bias Pract ices" (Paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting ofthe American Educational Studies Association, Philadelphia, November 3,1977).

23. Legislation requiring instruction in creationism as well as evolutionism hasbeen introduced in at least a dozen states including Illinois, Georgia, Indiana,Iowa, Arkansas , Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. According to Bird:"School districts in six states currently require or encourage balanced treat­ment of the theory of scientific creationism and the general theory of evolu­tion , and state-approved textbook lists for five states currently include textspresent ing scientific creationism along with evolution." See Bird, " Freedomfrom Establ ishment and Unneutrality in Public School Instruct ion andReligious Schooi Regulation," p. 165; and " Evolut ion, Creation ism BackersTangle over Teaching of Origins," Christianity Today, April 18, 1980, pp. 50-51.For an excellent analysis of the creatlonismlevolutionism issue and Its legaland religious implications, see Wendell R. Bird, "Freedom of Religion andScience Instruction in Public Schools, " Yale Law Journal 87 (January1978):515-70. Various 1981/82 issues of Acts &Facts, a publication of the In­stitute for Creation Research , EI Cajon, California; American Biology Teacher;Christianity Today; Church & State; Educational Leadership; Phi Delta Kap­pan; Science Digest; and Science News have included numerous thoughtfularticles on the creationismlevolutionism issue in general, and recent litiga­tion in California and Arkansas in particular.

24. Floyd Robertson, "The Declining Support for Public Schools," ChristianTeacher, November-December 1976, p. 19.

25. Adjustments in institutional arrangements, including schocttnq, are frequentlylinked to religious awakenings. The alteration of educational patternsassociated with the common school movement can be understood in part asan outcome of the "Second Great Awakening. " For an informative discussionof the different facets of the current awakening see McLoughlin, Revivals,Awakenings , and Reform, pp. 179·216. The resurgence of conservative Chris­tian churches is described by Dean M. Kelly , Why Conservative Churches AreGrowing (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), pp. 1-35; and Jackson W. Carroll ,Douglas W. Johnson, and Martin E. Marty , Religion in America : 1950 to thePresent (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), pp. 9·17.

26. Paul A. Kienel , "Ten Reasons Why You Should Send Your Child to a ChristianSchool," Christian School Comment, 1976, p. 1.

27. Proverbs 22:6.28. William H. Will imon , "Should Churches Buy into the Educat ion Business?,"

Christianity Today, May 5, 1978, p. 22; see also Ethel L. Herr, "Who's Saltingthe Schools?," Eternity, February 1976, pp. 16, 18, 58-59.

29. David Nevin and Robert E. Bills, The Schools That Fear Built (Washington,D.C.: Acropolis Books , 1976).

30. Virginia Davis Nordin and William Lloyd Turner, "More Than SegregationAcademies: The Growing Protestant Fundamentalist School," Phi Delta Kap·pan, February 1980, pp. 391-92.

31. Peter Skerry , " Christian Schools versus the I.R.S.," Public Interest 61 (Fall1980):28-31 . Busing has been a factor in the establishment of some Christianschools in all regions of the country. It is unc lear, however, as to whether thereaction to bus ing has been due to racism, resentment of federal coercion,fear of unrest, or a comb inat ion of all three . See Russell Chandler , " Popularityof Religious Schools Rising, " Los Angeles Times, June 18, 1978, p. 14; andTowns, " Have the Public Schools Had It?," pp. 19, 50.

32. D. Bruce Lockerbie, "The Way We Should Go," Christian Teacher, September­October 1976, p. 7; see also " Creed and Color in the School Crisis," Christian·ity Today, March 27, 1970, pp. 32-33; Lowrie, " Christian School GrowingPains ," p. 20; and Ostling, "Why Protestant Schools Are Booming," pp. 45·46.

33. According to G. William Davidson of the Association of Christian Schools Inter·national , La Habra, California, most of the 700-plus Christian schools in Califor­nia are integrated. See also Chandler , " Popularity of Religious Schools Rising,"pp. 1, 14; and Ostling, "Why Protestant Schools Are Booming," pp. 45-46.

34. Bayly, " How Wide Is the Spectrum in Christian Schools?," pp. 24-31 ; Herr,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4

"Who's Salting the Schools?," pp. 16, 18, 58·59; Lockerbie, "The Way WeShould Go," pp. 6·7, 29; Lowrie, "Christian School Growing Pains," pp. 19-21;and Will imon, "Should Churches Buy into the Education Business?,"pp.20·22.

35. State v. LaBarge, 134Vt. 276,357 A.2d 121(1976); State v. Whisner, 47 Ohio St.2d 181,351 N.E.2d 750 (1976); City of New Concord v. New Testament BaptistChurch, 382 A.2d 377 (N.H. 1978); Kentucky State Board for Elementary andSecondary Education v. Rudasill, 589 S.W.2d 877 (Ky. 1979); North Carolina v.Columbus Christian Academy, No. 78·CVS·1678 (N.C.Super. Ct. Sept. 5,1978);State v. Shaver, 294 N.W.2d 883 (N.D. 1980); and State v. Faith Baptist Church,207 Neb. 802, 301 N.W.2d 571 (1981). For discussions of these cases andrelated issues see Bird, " Freedom from Establishment and Unneutrality inPublic School Instruction and Relig ious School Regulation," pp. 185·95;James C. Carper, "The Whisner Decision: A Case Study in State Regulation ofChristian DaySchools ," Journal of Church and State 24 (Spring 1982):299-301;and Alex Heard, " Church·Related Schools: Resistance to State ControlIncreases," Education Week, February 17, 1982,pp. 1, 10, 18. For informationon recent conflicts between relig ious schools and the Internal RevenueServ­ice, see Jeremy Rabkin, " Behind the Tax-Exempt Schools Debate," PublicInterest 68 (Summer 1982):21-36; Skerry, "Christian Schools versus theI.R.S.," pp. 18·19,31·41; and current issues of Outlook, published by the coun ­cil for American Private Education, Washington , D.C.

36. Carper, "The Whisner Decision ," pp. 301-02; see also Stephen Arons, "TheSeparation of School and State: Pierce Reconsidered," Harvard EducationalReview 46 (February 1976):76·104; J. Eric Evenson II, " State Regulation ofPrivate Religious Schools in North Carolina-A Model Approach ," WakeForest Law Review 16 (June 1980):405·37; and Cynth ia Wittmer West, "TheState and Sectarian Educatio n: Regulation to Deregulation," Duke Law Jour­nal (1980):801·46.

149

TheEducationalForum

Winter 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

1:42

09

Oct

ober

201

4