By Dan Krause
President
GraceWorks Ministries
Try this experiment. Ask an ardent supporter of public education what’s wrong – from a
philosophical, societal good point-of-view – with private Christian schools. Chances are, a
top reason you’ll hear is that Christian schools “cherry pick” the wealthiest and highest
functioning families in the community, leaving public schools to pick up the pieces with lower
income (and therefore lower functioning) students. Of course students in private schools
do better, they’ll say; these same higher functioning students would do well - if not better -
in public schools. Ipso facto, it’s not what private schools do that makes them successful, it’s
the students private schools attract. Public schools, by societal decree, have to service
everyone, and therefore cannot achieve the same stellar results as private schools.
Let’s evaluate this argument two ways: (1) as a statement of reality, and (2) as a statement
of philosophy.
As a statement of reality, it is our experience, working with hundreds of Christian schools
across North America, that many in fact do “cherry pick” economically. However, it works
both ways. Some private Christian schools attract higher income families, and many others
tend to attract mostly middle and lower income families. We’d estimate that the number of
the later actually exceeds the number of the former.
Attract lower income families? How could that possibly be? It’s really fairly simple. The
conventional way most Christian schools operate is to charge too little tuition, and offer too
little needs-based scholarships. The leaders of these schools struggle heroically to provide
high quality education on a shoe string, conquering often staggering operational deficits year after year. With the best of intents, they are blissfully unaware that their artificially low
tuition rates actually turn off higher income families, who wonder how the school could
possibly be high quality or professional.
Even if the school is high quality and professional, these same higher income parents
question how the school could possible be fiscally stable, a good long-term bet for educating
their children. More often than not, their concerns are dead on. This year (2008) alone,
over 60 ACSI schools in California closed their doors forever.
In micro-economics 101, when price decreases, demand increases. In Christian school
economics 101, we often see “low cost leaders” losing students year to year. As I write this,
I’m traveling on a plane from a northern community where the lowest priced Christian
school in town, a Lutheran school, lost 55 students from ‘06/’07 to ‘07/’08 – 225 to 170.
The Roman Catholic school in the same mid-sized town charges about twice as much tuition
as the Lutheran school - and offers copious financial aid – is doing just fine enrollment-wise.
From the point of view of what we see in hundreds of Christian schools, two conclusions
seem fair. (1) Parent’s perception of program quality is more important in enrollment
decisions than price. Because of (1), charging less than the cost to educate a child is counterproductive in maintaining a robust enrollment. Why? Because the lower price diminishes the perceived quality of the school.
As a statement of ministry philosophy, we could hypothetically ask what Jesus would do,
whether or how Jesus would target ministry by socio-economics. Our ardent Christian
school critic might ask us – wouldn’t Jesus focus on the poor? Or perhaps - wouldn’t Jesus
operate in such a way to reach out to every person in the community?'
The good news is – we don’t have to speculate on what Jesus would do, we can study what
He actually did. The answer to both of the above questions is clearly and decisively: NO.
No, Jesus did not reach out largely – or even mostly – to the poor. He ministered to the
Donald Trumps of his day, including Matthew, the rich young ruler, and Zaccheaus.
Importantly, Jesus invited himself over to Zacheaus’s house – not vice versa. Surely the
Roman Centurion was upper or at least middle class in those days. Jesus did not turn him
away, but instead gave him the highest compliment for faith recorded in the New
Testament.
The thousands that Jesus miraculously fed on two separate occasions seem more middle
class or lower middle class than penniless on the street. The disciples clearly imply that they
had somewhere to go if Jesus dismissed them – but it was a long walk, up to a whole day.
Yes, Jesus did also minister to the destitute – lepers, the paralytic, the man at the Bethseda
pool, demoniacs immediately come to mind. Clearly, Jesus served people in all economic
levels.
No – Jesus did not reach out to every member of his community equally. The question is
crucial to Christian schools, many of whom believe that their Christian school should in fact,
serve everyone in the community. This philosophy is a major justification for keeping tuition
artificially low – “anyone can afford our tuition.”
Clearly, Jesus did target His ministry, specifically to the lost sheep of Israel. Consider John
4:1: “Now he had to go through Samaria.” Apparently, he didn’t want to go. Jesus was
Samaria-phobic, our politically-correct Christian school critic might insert, or even
Canaanite-phobic. (Remember, “It’s not right to give the children’s food to the dogs.”) Of
course Jesus wasn’t ___phobic anything. He wasn’t against any particular people group – he
just focused. Besides concentrating on the Israelites, Jesus was concerned about the sick –
both physically ill, and sick at heart.
Many others target their ministry efforts as well. Rick Warren, the author of the mega-hit,
The Purpose Driven Life, felt called of God to start a church for people who felt they didn’t
need God. The success of his ministry to “Saddleback Sam” is proof enough that he got his
call right, even though it was the exact opposite of the type of Israelite Jesus felt called to –
“only the sick need a doctor.” Many of the greatest churches in America also clearly
targeted an audience, such as Bill Hybels at Willow Creek or Robert Schuller at Crystal
Cathredral. Decades ago, as he started his ministry, Schuller personally made hundreds of
house to house visits in Orange County, California.
So how do we bring the realities of Christian school economics in line with the ministry
philosophy of Jesus? Four possibilities are common:
The bottom line is this. Jesus clearly did not target by economics, but 3 of the four usual
models for tuition and financial aid (B, C, D) have the effect of targeting low income, high
income, and middle income families respectively. Only A – full cost tuition with significant
financial need, gives us the best opportunity, the best ability, to minister to families across all
socio-economic levels, rich, poor, or middle income. Of the four choices, (A) seems the
most Biblical.
No comments:
Post a Comment