Chapter One

Walking a Fine Line

The teacher stood at the window of her seventh-grade classroom watching the students line up for the first day of school. She already knew many of them because she had seen them around school last year. There was Vernon with his sandy hair and dusting of freckles across his nose; Randy with his black eyes darting around, waiting for something funny to happen; Jennie standing, as usual, off by herself until the last bell rang. Two boys she hadn't seen before had just returned from a residence for delinquent children. What would she be able to do for and with all of them during the coming year? Of course she would strive to be caring, thoughtful, and fair and would work hard to help them learn. She knew it would be wrong to be directly evangelistic with them, but was showing fairness and loving concern all she could do?

    It takes courage to be a Christian teacher in a public school. Leaders in Christian and secular communities alike have severely criticized public schools for poor behavior of students, inappropriate selection of textbooks, and teachers who are too uninformed, lazy, or unwilling to teach a rigorous curriculum. While there surely are reasons for criticism of some schools, teachers everywhere hear those words as rebuke for the work they are doing under difficult circumstances. Teachers who are attempting to fulfill their Christian calling within legal guidelines feel an even greater frustration.

    When we refer to "public schools" in this book, we mean those schools that are supported by the state for the purpose of educating students of every race and ability. Within the United States the term is easily understood, but in countries such as The Netherlands and Australia, along with some Canadian provinces, a great variety of schools receive federal or provincial funding. In those cases, the phrase "public schools" usually refers to the schools that are not associated with a particular worldview or religious perspective. An excellent description of the different types of schools and the complexity of the task that faces public schools in a pluralistic democracy can be found in Charles Glenn's The Myth of the Common School (1988).

    Children and adolescents who attend school today have very different lives than those who lived even two generations earlier. There was a time in North American schools when a teacher could raise children's expectations of the life they would someday live--a life open to marvelous possibilities. A child born into that world was encouraged to make active choices that would influence the person he or she would someday become. Teachers said, "You can become anything you choose to become," and told students stories of famous people who had succeeded in spite of great difficulties.

    Today that world of wonderful possibilities is only a partial truth. The gap between those who have the background to follow their dreams and those who hardly dare dream at all is enormous and growing wider every day. We speak about children living "below the poverty level," but that phrase does not even begin to describe the abject misery in which some children live. For many children, home is even more dreadful than a place where food and shelter are inadequate. For them, home is an unsafe place filled with misery. Such children hardly know how to survive, much less to dream.

    In other cases, children grow up in safe homes in which they are free to dream, but they are encouraged to dream in ways that are individualistic and self-centered. They see around them adults who believe that their own wishes and desires are of primary importance and that success can be achieved by learning to manipulate people and events to make outcomes conform to their wishes. Peter Kreeft (1992) suggests that we are living in a time in which self-control is lacking in many people's lives as they pursue their own desires. Children and adults who cannot control themselves are at the mercy of outside forces. This is particularly dangerous at a time when television, videos, and the Internet have brought violence and many other kinds of inappropriate and disruptive behavior into their homes.

    It is still true, however, as Max van Manen (1991) suggests, that children must believe in the possibility of success if they are to become educated:

The modern child must actively realize that he or she is born into a condition of possibilities. He or she is this body of possibilities. To become a person, to grow up and to become educated, is to transform one's contingency into commitment responsibility--one must choose a life. (p. 3)

    Van Manen goes on to say that teachers are the ones who can shape these life choices. That may sound marvelously optimistic to teachers faced with the day-to-day task of surviving each day's fearful challenges. Yet, if teachers cannot work toward helping children and adolescents to choose a worthwhile life that is valuable to themselves and to others, there is often no one else left to do so. Many children and adolescents do not have the kind of parental support and guidance they need, and often teachers are the only ones left to fill this gap. This means that teachers are the only ones who will help these students learn to recognize the dangers of drug use and how to deal with the violence that is a part of daily life in and around some schools. For many students, teachers are the only adults who will help them make wise decisions concerning their sexuality. Unfortunately, the task of shaping lives in today's world has become increasingly difficult to the point at which even Christian teachers despair and wonder whether what they are doing or saying has any effect at all on students.

The Concerns of Christian Teachers

    Are Christian teachers capable of providing the direction needed to fill the gap left in the lives of many students? In preparation for this book, we conducted interviews with public school teachers throughout the United States and parts of Canada and discovered that many long-term teachers speak privately of their understanding that each student is made in the image of God. Yet, when the same teachers were asked whether they feel called to teach in a public school, their answers suggested that they do recognize the call but that the activities of the school day often interfere with all that responding to such a call implies. It is easy to lose track of one's purpose in school when one is caught up in the daily business and busyness of getting the system to work as well as it should. Still, one has to recognize the implications of the call if one is to engage in the struggle.

    James Schwartz (1997) describes three distinct roles Christian teachers see for themselves as they struggle to fulfill their calling.

1. Agent for Enculturation . These teachers believe God has called them to be an influence for good in the lives of school children. They can only fulfill this purpose, however, if they retain the goodwill of the school community. As a result, they steer clear of any controversial roles or the expression of personal points of view concerning religion to avoid jeopardizing that goodwill.

2. Christian Advocate/Evangelist. These teachers believe they must act as "undercover agents" or infiltrators seeking ways to provide a Christian perspective on the things they teach, even if they must take risks and test the limits of church-state separation.

3. Golden Rule Truth-Seeker. A teacher who sees himself or herself in this role would introduce worldview questions into the study of culture with the purpose of identifying and responding justly to the source of differences among people in a pluralistic society.

In social studies or literature classes this teacher might ask questions such as:

What kind of war might be considered a war that is fought for just reasons? What might a perfect community look like? How would people in that community ensure that all citizens would be treated justly? Would there be poverty in such a community and, if so, what would be done to help those who live in poverty? What does it mean to be a person of honor?

In science or math classes this teacher might ask:

Should we use artificial means to keep people alive as long as possible? Is it appropriate to spend money on a space program when there is so much poverty in the world? To what extent does the use of technology change us? Does it ever get in the way of relationships? How would you respond to a person who, like the Amish, says that before we use any new technology we should ask ourselves, "How will the introduction of this new technology change us?" What is infinity? The philosopher Descartes likened the concept of infinity to God. What do you think about that?

The Golden Rule Truth-Seeker would have a somewhat less abrasive view of her role than would the Christian Advocate/ Evangelist. At the same time, the Golden Rule Truth-Seeker would agree with the Christian Advocate/Evangelist that the Agent for Enculturation is too accommodating of secularism. Instead of keeping the religious questions largely private, as the Agent for Enculturation would do, the Golden Rule Truth-Seeker would attempt to treat religious questions and concerns as a normal and healthy part of public human life. (p. 295)

    Schwartz admits it is unlikely that a teacher would neatly fit into just one of these positions. It is more likely that he or she would function in one role at one particular time and in another role at another time. Although he appreciates the value in each of the roles, he believes the position of Golden Rule Truth-Seeker offers the best model for Christian teachers in the public school. He reasons that the Golden Rule Truth-Seeker role encourages teachers to explore with their students their religious liberty, consider philosophical and religious questions in a structured program, and pose worldview questions in the study of various parts of the curriculum.

    Schwartz's categories are helpful to experienced teachers as they think about ways to integrate their faith into their professional lives. These descriptions would also be of help to many beginning teachers who, in spite of having graduated from Christian colleges, often concentrate so carefully on classroom climate, lesson preparation, and getting to know their students that they give little thought to what it might mean to "teach Christianly" (Hill, 1982). Recognizing the difficulty of doing so is what makes education majors uneasy about teaching in the public school. Of course a Christian teacher must strive to be caring, thoughtful, and fair with students and work hard to help them grow in the right direction. Of course it is wrong to be directly evangelistic with students in the classroom. But is showing fairness and loving concern all one can do? Our interviews show that beginning teachers in public school settings were often puzzled when they were asked what teaching Christianly means to them, and they questioned whether it is possible or legitimate to do so in their school.

    While it is true that some teachers lack the understanding necessary to struggle with the issue of being called to teach in a public school, others admit they also lack the courage to address the issue and to find an appropriate response. The call to teach is a call to be with others, and yet it is, paradoxically, a lonely calling. Many Christian teachers say that at times they feel a loneliness that cannot be described--a depletion. Ann put it this way:

Early in my teaching career I was teaching in a school close to the downtown area of a large city. Many of my fifth graders were troubled children who needed close watching, and so when the motorcade of the president of the United States was scheduled to pass just a block from the school, the principal decided it would be better if we watched it on television rather than in person. We had just studied the civil rights movement, and the Kennedy assassination was fresh in our minds. Suddenly I realized that Marvin, a very troubled student, was muttering something under his breath. I stepped closer and heard him whisper over and over, "I hate that man. I'm gonna kill that man if I get a chance." I moved my chair so I could sit beside Marvin and put my hand on his trembling arm, and eventually the whispering and shaking stopped. Months of teaching students who were so needy left me exhausted and lonely, wondering where there was help for them ... or for me.

    It is possible that Christian teachers in public schools experience discouragement and burnout because they have not understood the importance of developing a way of thinking that will allow their world-and-life view to guide their teaching. Therefore, they encounter uneasy moments when they wonder whether they could have done more in a given situation. To teach without a framework within which one can make decisions means that each new decision must be rethought--an exhausting business, to say the least.

    Kathleen Norris, in The Cloister Walk , tells of a desert monastic of fourth-century Egypt who said, "It is impossible for us to be surrounded by worldly honor and at the same time to bear heavenly fruit" (p. 76). There are few places in which one is likely to get so little worldly honor as when teaching in a public school, but there are also few places in which heavenly fruit is so much needed.

    Many teachers say they would like to talk about their faith with other teachers, but for some reason they rarely engage in conversations about what it is to teach Christianly in a state-supported school. They admit they are often disturbed at the ease with which different learning theories subtly direct classroom management and shape the learning environment, and they desire the support of other Christians who struggle with these issues. Because that support is not present, many cease to wrestle to align their educational practice with their Christian commitment. They are also often uncertain about what state and constitutional laws allow them to say and do in a public school and, as a result, do all they can to avoid giving offense.

    A public school superintendent addressed this issue in an interview:

You asked whether, during my tenure as superintendent, there have been many court cases concerning teachers who have caused offense by being too open about their Christian faith in the classroom. I don't recall ever having had that issue arise in all of my years of experience. In fact, in my opinion, the opposite has been true. Many Christian teachers have bent over backwards to avoid stepping over the line, and the students have not had the benefit of knowing their teachers as people of deep religious faith. Of course, the law must be obeyed. However, in a time when students so much need direction in knowing what is right or wrong, we need teachers who can provide that direction.

    In addition, in communities in which Christian schools exist, many public school teachers have chosen to be silent about their work because, whether or not it is true, they fear there is an underlying judgment concerning their choice of service in the kingdom. They wonder whether it is true, as some argue, that teaching from a Christian perspective can only occur in a Christian school. They bristle under the implication that they have chosen to teach in a public school because the salaries are higher than those in Christian schools.

    Jane, the spouse of a public school teacher, put it this way:

I have always felt pressure, even from family members, that Monty should have been teaching in Christian schools. They asked if it was for the money. It wasn't until the last ten years that our pastors even prayed for Christian teachers in public schools. Of course our pastor has three council members who teach in public schools. That likely makes a difference. And often families in the church who send their children to the public school feel much more rapport with Monty [because he is there]. They can appreciate what he is doing. They can't afford to send their children to the Christian school, and they think it is wonderful to have Christian teachers in the school.

    Christian teachers are not alone in their work even on the days when, after the last bell, they feel only relief and despair. If they truly believe they were brought into their students' lives so that they will be there for each student and will pray for them, God will not allow these teachers to founder but will support them as they live out their calling.

    Ann stated:

In my first years of teaching in public schools, there were many things I didn't understand that I do understand now. Perhaps the most important was that during my prayer time at home I needed to pray individually for my students. Oh, I always prayed that I would be a good teacher for them and that we would work well together as God wanted us to. But I didn't, at that time, understand that perhaps God wanted me in those students' lives because I was likely the only one who would ever bring each of those names before the throne of grace. I truly regret the years I taught without understanding that.

    Lori added:

I think the biggest way my faith has influenced my relationship with the children I have taught has been to recognize each child's uniqueness. I have taught in two school systems that were at each end of the spectrum. The first school was in a small rural community ... where the parents were almost all on welfare. The second school system was in an affluent area. Where all the children in my previous school were in the free lunch program, no child in my second school received even reduced-priced lunches. Though these children in both schools contrasted so much, I always prayed for each child and his or her future, as well as for guidance as to how best to meet the needs of each one.

    The difficulty comes, of course, when teachers find themselves longing for their classroom and school to be a true community but seeing them fall far short of that goal. They remember how school was when they were children, and they grieve for a time and place that are no more. Moreover, there is a longing for God's shalom in a place in which teachers fear it will never happen. Still, teachers who pray individually for children often find that their personal walk with them is transformed. They know that the God who can turn "the desert into pools of water and the parched ground into flowing springs" (Ps. 107:35) can also change relationships in a classroom. Along the way, teachers will be helped a great deal if they can share the burden and blessing of their work with other teachers who are like-minded.

The Concerns of Christian Parents

    It is no secret that there is tension between some Christian parents and the public schools their children attend. One cause of this tension is confusion on the part of the parents over what is occurring in their child's development. For example, at the middle-school level the intellectual, emotional, and physical development of students varies considerably and teachers work hard to create a learning environment appropriate to those changes. Alex Molnar (1994) says, however, that parents who are concerned about their child becoming a "moody, self-absorbed, rebellious stranger" often think it is the middle school's fault.

Behaviors that educators regarded as predictable during the turbulent transition of adolescence, parents might think of as precipitated by whatever it was their child was doing in middle school. I could imagine a mother or father remembering the summer before middle school when a happy, loving child eagerly took part in family activities. Then, suddenly, apparently for no other reason than moving from elementary to middle school, he or she turned into some sort of monster. What were they doing in that middle school anyway? ... Part of the job of public school educators is explaining the logic behind the school curriculum to community members, soliciting their ideas, and being willing to participate with them in defining and directing the school program. (p. 5)

    Molnar goes on to suggest that educators should explain to parents the changes they can expect in their child before those changes occur. The concerns that Christian parents express often reflect their lack of awareness; they are not prepared for the normal developmental changes their child will go through. When the changes cause disturbance in the family, the parents wonder if the school is the source of the problem.

    Another cause for confusion is that there is no one set of beliefs concerning education in public schools to which all Christians adhere. Some Christian parents want their children to have a great deal of freedom to think in new ways as they develop, believing that children must learn to become all that God has made it possible for them to be. Other Christian parents want their children to have very little freedom and expect the school to be restrictive and to "train" them in ways that will keep them free from trouble. Then there are Christian parents who believe that schools have no right to do more than inculcate basic skills. Christian parents who are delighted to discover that their child's teacher is a devout Christian can become extremely disappointed when that teacher's view of schooling is different from their own.

    Christian parents have also expressed concern about the lack of neutrality in textbooks. They would like to protect their children from literature that refers to sexual activity or that is considered "vulgar" in any way. Some parent groups believe worldviews such as secular humanism or New Age religion are being taught through the textbooks used in public schools. In an article in Educational Leadership , Robert Marzano (1994) describes the attack by Christian fundamentalists on his widely used program Tactics for Thinking . Christian fundamentalist parents were convinced that in writing this program Marzano was part of a conspiracy to enlist children into an anti-Christian New Age religion. Marzano, a Roman Catholic, relates his understanding of ways in which his belief about the sinfulness of human nature led him into a far different operating principle from that used by those he calls "ultra fundamentalists." He suggests that parents and teachers keep an open dialogue concerning ways in which they may learn to communicate when their unprovable worldviews collide.

    Teachers in many schools, confused by accusations that they are using materials that are part of the New Age movement, have said that their school offers a "secular program of study" consistent with the First Amendment prohibition of state-sponsored religion. Unfortunately, they have equated the absence of religion in the curriculum with constitutional neutrality in matters of faith. The Equal Access Act (1984), found constitutional by the Supreme Court, was passed to end "perceived widespread discrimination" against religious speech in public schools. Congress recognized the constitutional restrictions concerning government promotion of religion but said that non-school-sponsored student speech, including religious speech, should not be excised from the school environment. However, many teachers remain unclear as to whether student groups may meet to explore issues unrelated to the curriculum and whether outsiders who are neither students nor teachers may attend.

    Christian parents have also become increasingly dissatisfied with a system of education that denies knowledge about religions to students. For example, Nicholas Piediscalzi, Paul Will, and Barbara Swyhart (1981) suggest that many who argue against prayer and Bible reading in public schools ignore the fact that the Supreme Court encouraged schools to teach about religions. The question is how should religion be taught in the public school?

    Charles Haynes, in Finding Common Ground: A First Amendment Guide to Religion and Public Education (Haynes & Thomas, 1996), has provided a very helpful explanation of the difference between "teaching religion," which the Constitution does not allow, and "teaching about religions," which is allowed. Haynes's book describes ways in which knowledge of religions might be taught and provides resources for teaching about different world religions. If the public school is not to be a "religion-free zone," to use President Clinton's words, a copy of this book should have a place in the professional library of every public school.

    Haynes (Haynes & Thomas, 1996) found general agreement among teachers, parents, and administrators that while public schools must protect the freedom of conscience of every student and parent, a quality education must include an understanding of the religious influences that have played a vital role in the molding of our nation. Haynes says that omission of instruction and discussion about religious and philosophical points of view in history, literature, and other subjects will give students the false impression that religious traditions and ways of believing are of only marginal importance in people's lives and that only nonreligious points of view are worthwhile (p. 1.3). If students are to learn to treat others with dignity and respect in increasingly diverse communities, they will need to understand ways of thinking that are different from their own. It is important that children and young people come to understand the religion of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and Jews, among others, but many teachers are unclear concerning how that instruction is to take place.

    This is especially true when teachers are faced with the argument that any attempt to teach children to respect another faith as much as their own is impossible; it will demean both faiths and cater to relativism. Charles and Joshua Glenn, in their interesting essay "Making Room for Religious Conviction in Democracy's Schools" (1992), quote a Muslim as saying:

We should not adopt the ingenuous Western attitude that rites, traditions, and structures don't matter. They do matter, because they make us different, and they respect the values we hold dear; they should not be lightly shared, cheapened or trivialized in an attempt to promote multicultural understanding. That kind of understanding only begins with mutual respect. (In C. Glenn & J. Glenn, 1992, p. 108)

    Concern for a pluralism that protects religious liberty prompted over one hundred political, religious, and educational leaders to craft The Williamsburg Charter (The Brookings Institution, 1990). This charter was framed to address the dilemmas, challenges, and opportunities posed by religious liberty in public life today. It calls for a reaffirmation of the principles that underlie religious liberty in America, a reappraisal of the course and conduct of recent public controversies, and a call for a reappropriating of the Constitution framers' vision and ideals in our time. It would help teachers to know of the curriculum materials that grew out of the charter, such as Living with Our Deepest Differences: Religious Liberty in a Pluralistic Society (Cassity, et. al., 1990) available for the upper elementary school.

    Discussions about the way in which personal beliefs about life and about people color what we do and how we teach are important to our democratic society. But Haynes (Haynes & Thomas, 1996) warns that if discussions about the place of religion and values in school are to reflect the truest meanings of the First Amendment, they must take place with respect for each other and for the different views that are present.

    Many people lament the loss of shared values and moral convictions that were part of their own public school education. Others say that instruction in such values can no longer take place in school because such diversity exists in our underlying beliefs. The next chapter will discuss the principles on which we may base the teaching of morals and values while still honoring our deepest differences.

Copyright © 1999 Julia K. Stronks and Gloria Goris Stronks. All rights reserved.