This video speaks for itself. I know of a situation where a student brought a concealed handgun to school. The gun was apparently strapped to the student's leg under this pants. It was several days before school authorities were notified.
Having and consistently enforcing a dress code is more important than ever. How are you doing?
By Mark Kennedy, ACSI, Eastern Canada
To me one of the profound mysteries about the North American Christian community is, “How can so many people in two of the wealthiest nations the world has ever known say they can’t afford Christian schooling for their children?”
Now I know that there are low income families here who can barely afford the necessities of life let along Christian school tuition. But what about everyone else? Well thanks to the research of the Vanier Institute of the Family’s ninth annual report, I am beginning ‘to get it’.
The report entitled, “The Current State of Canadian Family Finance” points out that:
It seems our income level is less of an issue than our level of spending. An increasing percentage of Canadian families are spending more than they earn annually and, for these families adding payments for Christian school tuition on top of everything else is an extremely unattractive prospect. So even if a family’s annual income is $1,000,000 they cannot afford Christian schooling if their yearly expenses are $1,300,000.
In the battle of spending vs. earning, spending is winning and Canadian families are losing. The seductions of rampant materialism has triumphed over balanced and controlled family finances.
And it can’t be all that comfortable for some of our industries either, especially if they have to come up with new or “improved” products that they hope will make perfectly good older things obsolete in order to keep their income levels spiraling upwards.
How much more difficult it must be for the advertising agencies that have to create ‘ex nihilo’ an irrational public appetite for new things that we have managed to live quite happily without up until now—convincing us for example that we really need a big screen TV and VCR, then a flat screen TV and DVD player, and now an HD, LCD screen and a Blue Ray player.
Do ad executives ever wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat from a nightmare in which the North American public says something like:
“We have finally figured out that we don’t need more and more and bigger and better. We are taking back control of our own money and our lives. We have decided to be content with lower standards of living for the sake of our children and for our own peace of mind”?
In addition, if we ever were to take that stand what would happen to our way of life? Would it mean that unbridled North American capitalism would join Russian Communism on “the ash heap of history”?
Maybe. The world’s nations and empires, political and economic systems rise and fall, live and die. And those who put their trust in them tend to share their fate.
But Christian families don’t have to be captives of secular society’s values and priorities. Jesus’ familiar words, “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” are the key. In light of this principle, Christian families have some critical financial questions to think through:
With our skyrocketing gasoline prices and with the inevitable increases in almost all other costs, those questions are becoming more and more pointed. And if Christian families don’t bring their spending under greater control and rethink their priorities in light of scripture, the answers will be crippling for their own children, and for the Christian school movement in Canada.
Click to read full article>>>
BEAUTIFUL MARIN COUNTY WELCOMES YOU ... AN INVITATION TO ALL AROUND THE WORLD AND ALL IN STATES OUT SIDE OF CALIFORNIA WHO HAVE BEEN DENIED THE RI GHT TO MARRY IN THEIR OWN STATE OR HOMELAND.
CALIFORNIA WELCOMES YOU - THERE IS NO CALIFORNIA RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. (http://privatefamilycourt.com/)
A gay couple marries in CA and adopts a child. They move to your state and city (your state recognizes CA marriages) and for inexplicable reasons seek to enroll their adopted child in your school. You deny admission on biblical grounds. You are threatened with a lawsuit from the ACLU. The press is at your office door with satellite equipped vans in the parking lot.
Based on your convictions you decide to fight the lawsuit in court. At great cost the school hires attorneys and goes to court. You lose. You appeal. You lose again. You appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denies your Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
The ACLU and courts argue that you are discriminating in violation of the law because you admit the children of other couples who also violate stated biblical standards (unbiblical divorces, adultery, etc.). The essence of the argument is that your school is inconsistent and is therefore unlawfully discriminating against gay couples.
By Mark Kennedy, ACSI Regional Director, Canada
Not too many years ago Creationism was the overwhelmingly accepted view about origins for evangelicals while evolution held a similar position in secular, liberal and nominally religious communities. That is changing, for us at least. The Intelligent Design movement has opened the door for a variety of evangelical perspectives on origins including a Christian evolutionist point of view (which personally I find difficult to reconcile with scripture). A few months ago I received a letter from a fellow ACSI Director asking for some input on how to deal with the increasingly heated clashes between member schools that hold the Intelligent Design perspective and schools that take the Creationist point of view.
Here is part of my response:
We would have no hesitation in using both (ID and Creationist at our conventions).
The instructions we give to people speaking on the topic of origins is that they are not to mock, ridicule or otherwise treat disrespectfully people or beliefs with which they disagree (including evolutionists and evolution). Nevertheless, they are welcome to state their position and refute other positions as long as they do so respectfully. Francis Schaeffer said that we Christians don’t have the luxury of fighting our battles on just one front. Concerning origins, I think that means applying the policy above. All of us need to be reminded that the folks with whom we disagree hold their beliefs just as sincerely as we do and often, those beliefs take on religious dimensions- and sometimes they may be smarter than we are. If we mock those beliefs we lose credibility in their eyes. Wrong attitudes speak louder than correct arguments. No sensible Christian would witness to a Buddhist or Muslim by telling demeaning jokes about Buddha or Mohamed. The Christian might win the battle of whose beliefs are technically more credible but, because of his insulting words, he/she would lose the war for the person mind and soul. Similarly we need to learn to hold our convictions without rancor towards those with whom we disagree.
As a post middle aged radical I would be tempted to have a debate at convention between Creationists and ID people and evolutionists with the ground rules as per the above. It is a dangerous idea but if it worked some folks might start to think Christianly about the topic instead of just choosing up sides, applying demeaning attitudes towards their opponents and dividing the body of Christ.
The “ don’t touch it” approach to this issue may seem the safest for now but in the long run it fails to deal with the significant problem of one group of believers warring against its allies. Matthew Arnold describes the condition in his poem “Dover Beach”:
“And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggles and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.”
The 'ignorant armies’ to which he is referring clashed in ancient Greece. The result of their battle in the dark was that each side slaughtered its own troops. We need to fight our battles in the light of both truth and mutual respect.
With gas prices averaging over $4.00/gal. and expected to go higher and remain high, most of us are finding our personal and school budgets stretched. It cost approximately $70 to fill the average sedan and over $100 to fill a truck or SUV.
High gasoline prices have spurred a renewed interest in alternative fuel vehicles, including electric cars. These are not "your father's electric cars!"
To save you some research time, I have collected several videos about electric and hydrogen cars. Below the videos, I have also posted a Business Week article that outlines the current state of electric car development.
UPDATE: 6/23/08: According to the WSJ:
McCain to Propose Prize For New Auto Battery--Associated PressJune 23, 2008
10:38 a.m.PHOENIX -- John McCain hopes to solve the country's energy crisis with cold hard cash. The presumed Republican nominee is proposing a $300 million government prize to whoever can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology. The bounty would equate to $1 for every man, woman and child in the country, "a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency," Mr. McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery Monday at Fresno State University in California.
Mr. McCain said such a device should deliver power at 30% of current costs and have "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."
Aside from personal application, consider the following:
Are your teachers intentionally and intelligently engaging your students in these discussions and assessments? If not, why not?
Japanese Genepax
Electric/Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Volt:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=119088
The Tesla
by Matt Vella
Clean, quiet, and relatively profitable to produce, electric vehicles have had a rough start in the U.S.: Five years after General Motors (GM) nixed its innovative EV1 electric car program, just a handful of automakers have committed to making and selling electric vehicles on a mass scale any time soon.
Enter Think Global, a Norwegian upstart plotting a U.S. invasion via pint-size, affordable electric cars. Think has been selling gas-free, Lilliputian city cars in Europe and will start peddling them to fuel-crunched Americans in 2009. The company's newly formed North American division has high hopes for Think's existing models—and even higher ones for the upcoming Th!nk Ox, a concept unveiled at the Geneva International Motor Show earlier this year.
An electrified people's car for the 21st century, the Ox is a preview of Think's next-generation production vehicle, due out in 2011. Roughly the size of a Toyota (TM) Prius, the Ox can travel between 125 and 155 miles before needing a recharge, and zips from zero to 60 miles per hour in about 8.5 seconds. Its lithium-ion batteries can be charged to 80% capacity in less than an hour, and slender solar panels integrated into the roof power the onboard electronics. Inside, the hatchback includes a bevy of high-tech gizmos such as GPS navigation, a mobile Internet connection, and a key fob that lets drivers customize the car's all-digital dashboard. Pricing has yet to be announced, but the company's current vehicles cost less than $25,000.
Although little-known, Think North America is backed by an undisclosed amount from Silicon Valley venture capital firms RockPort Capital Partners and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which famously invested early in companies such as Amazon.com (AMZN) and Google (GOOG). General Electric (GE) made an unrelated $4 million investment in March to support the company's battery research and development operations.
Even more than its well-funded sponsors or cutting-edge technology, the Ox's killer app could be its design. To date, most electric cars available in the U.S.—small, unsafe, and underpowered—have been intended strictly for the earliest early adopters and the most faithful green believers. In contrast, Think's senior vice-president for design, Katinka von der Lippe, says the Ox is a "real car, a big step away from the cuteness of [other] electric vehicles." All that distinguishes the Ox from name-brand, fuel-sipping compact cars, in fact, is its silent hum and zero emissions.
The Ox also embodies the characteristic simplicity of Scandinavian design, featuring uncomplicated lines and clean, uncluttered surfaces. A band of unpainted metal stretches from the front of the vehicle to its rear, revealing the Ox's interior architecture, an aluminum frame. An unassuming grille is tucked between sophisticated sloping headlamps. "The Ox is a leap forward for the design of electric cars," says von der Lippe, "and, we think, the product of a mature company."
Still, the American market for electric vehicles "is virtually nonexistent," says John O'Dell, a senior editor specializing in green vehicles for car-buying site Edmunds.com. Even well-established gas-electric hybrids such as the Prius and Honda's (HMC) Civic account for barely 3% of U.S. auto sales. "Until you've got a compelling product, you won't have a market," adds O'Dell. Aside from the sleek Tesla Motors Roadster, which carries a price tag of nearly $100,000, there are almost no fully functional electric vehicles that meet average drivers' requirements. The Ox could fill that gap.
"It'll take a lot of time," Wilber James, RockPort's managing general partner and acting president of Think North America, says of the challenge of selling electric vehicles to American drivers, who still overwhelmingly prefer trucks to thriftier small cars. "We're going to focus at first on niche markets—cities, universities, and fleets."
The company's business model, says James, is similar to that of PC maker Dell (DELL), which fueled its rise by ruthlessly optimizing its manufacturing and supply chain. Think's ultralean manufacturing system lets it build production facilities for about $10 million, compared with the billions invested in new plants by old-line manufacturers. That means more factories closer to customers, further cutting costs.
In addition, factories "could also be the retailers," says James, which would add a unique element to Think's branding. The company, he says, will be profitable if it can sell 10,000 vehicles a year. At 20,000 to 30,000 units in annual sales, Think can cut its component costs in half.
That focus on innovative manufacturing, in addition to the high-tech Ox itself, may ultimately set the company apart from previous attempts—and, Think is betting, finally help jump-start the U.S. market for electric cars.
In two prior posts I have mentioned Jott. This is an incredibly useful tool. I also use two other free cell phone services: Goog 411 and Cha Cha. All three of these services were recently reviewed by the NY Times.
Summer may be a good time for you to try these programs out for yourself. You have nothing to lose, they are FREE!
You can also view a great video on these programs on the NY times web site at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/technology/personaltech/05pogue.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
June 5, 2008: State of the Art
By DAVID POGUE
You hear it all the time: “These cellphones are too complicated, by cracky! I don’t want to play music or surf the Internet. I just want to make phone calls!”
It may turn out, though, that these complaints are misdirected. Maybe the real problem isn’t new features — it’s the complexity added to the phones’ designs.
But what if there were a way to add features without changing the phone itself?
There is. Several super-simple cellular services are so sweet and satisfying, you can’t believe they’re free. They work by recognizing your voice, so you don’t have to master anything new on the phone itself — all of the complexity is hidden from you.
Certain voice-driven freebies, in particular, have earned a permanent place on my phone’s speed-dial keys. All work alike: you dial an 800 number, speak your request and get the results in seconds, usually in the form of a text message on your phone.
(Yes, the sort of person who uses the phrase “by cracky” may be unfamiliar with the glories of text messaging, and may bristle at having to pay 10 cents a text message, or $5 a month for hundreds. But remember: the services described here don’t require you to master sending such messages — only receiving them, which requires no skill at all.)
800-GOOG-411. Cellphone carriers have plenty to be ashamed of. Case in point: when you dial 411 to look up a phone number, you’ll be billed $1.50 or $2.
If it’s a business or store you’re looking up, for heaven’s sake, dial 800-GOOG-411 instead. It’s a voice-activated, national phone directory run by Google. It’s fast and efficient, and there are no ads or charges.
A typical transcript goes like this. “GOOG411. What city and state?”
You: “New York, New York.”
Google: “New York, New York. What business name or category?”
You: “Empire State Building.”
Google: “Empire State Building! Searching. Top listing: Empire State Building on Fifth Avenue. I’ll connect you.”
And your call is connected, just as though you’d dialed yourself. Or you can interrupt by saying “details” (meaning, “read me the phone number and address”) or “text message” (meaning, “send that info to my cellphone, so I’ll have it in writing”).
For residential listings, you can dial 800-FREE411 (not a Google service), although you have to listen to a 20-second ad. And don’t miss Google’s free SMS service, which offers business phone numbers, weather, sports, flight info, and more (details at tinyurl.com/ymeupk). But neither of those services compares with the spectacular speed, convenience and reliability of GOOG411.
ChaCha. Here’s another voice-activated service (800-2CHACHA) — but this time, you can ask any question at all. “What’s that German word that means, ‘pleasure from other people’s pain’?” Or “Who ran against Abraham Lincoln for president?” Or “What’s on the front page of today’s New York Times?” Or “How do you jump the battery in a Prius?” Or “Where’s the cheapest gas in southeast Connecticut right now?” Or “What’s the last flight to New York out of O’Hare Airport?” Just about anything, in fact, you could find on the Web.
After 30 seconds, you get a text message confirming that ChaCha is working on your question. A minute or two later, you get the answer, typed out in friendly English (“Thanks for asking!”), as though there were a real person on the other end.
That’s because there is a real person. ChaCha employs thousands of amateur researchers across the United States to field your questions, find the answers online and shoot them back, with a link to the Web page where they found the information.
They’re paid $5 to $10 an hour, which may explain the occasional unhelpful replies. (Q: “Why do British and American cars drive on opposite sides of the road?” A: “Because the British have their steering wheels on the other side.” Gee, thanks.)
Even so, ChaCha does a tantalizingly good impersonation of a personal concierge who caters to your whims, and saves the day with amazing frequency. Best of all, there’s no fee, no software, no signup or registration; you can dial it right this instant.
Jott. What do you do when you get an idea you want to remember? A brainstorm, a to-do item, a reminder you want to set for yourself? Writing it down is the only solution — so most of the time, you don’t, because you’re driving, or you have no pen, or you’re away from your computer.
Meet Jott, your personal transcription service. You sign up at Jott.com by providing your cell number and e-mail address.
If you’re a Verizon customer, you must also request that your carrier’s “premium text-message block” be removed from your account. That safeguard is meant to protect people from racking up bills using premium texting services (which Jott is not). Votes to “American Idol” by text, for example, cost $1 a vote. (I found that out by asking ChaCha.)
From now on, Jott is your personal transcription service. Speed-dial 866-JOTT123, and the conversation goes like this:
Jott: “Who do you want to Jott?”
You: “Myself.”
Jott: “Jott yourself.”
You: “Great idea for Act 2! Doing the laundry, Minna finds lipstick on her husband’s collar and sues the detergent company.”
Five minutes later, the transcribed, typed message appears in your e-mail in-box, complete with an audio attachment of the recording — and, if you like, also on your phone as a text message.
You can also fill your Jott.com address book with other people’s names, or even add them to groups. That way, you can text your spouse by saying, “Hi, honeybones — can you turn off the oven at 6:30?,” or alert everyone on your team that you will be late for a meeting by placing a single phone call.
More advanced features: after you speak, the Jott lady says, “Do you want a reminder?” If you say yes, then you can speak the date and time when you want the transcript sent to your phone — a brilliant, free way to set a wake-up call, remind yourself to file quarterly taxes, buy a gift for your anniversary, whatever.
Reqall. Reqall is the same idea as Jott, but it’s primarily a reminder system — it even recognizes words like “buy” and “meeting” and stores transcripts as separate lists on the Web.
You can dictate reminders by calling 888-9REQALL, or send them by instant message, e-mail, text message or Web browser plug-in. Later, Reqall tries to remind you of things at the right time, using e-mail, text message or instant message (your choice).
Alas, the accuracy of the speech recognition (which, as with Jott, is done by a combination of humans and software) leaves something to be desired.
All of these services are so good, so efficient and so free, you have a right to be suspicious. How will they make money?
GOOG411 is technically still in testing, but even once it’s fully baked, Google has no intention of charging for it.
ChaCha is trying to sell its services to cell carriers and syndicate its system to other information providers, and one day intends to attach relevant ads to its text-message answers. (The company insists it will not spam or repurpose your phone number.)
As for Jott and Reqall: technically, they, too, are in beta testing. When they go live, the companies plan to charge for the advanced features, but they will always offer a free basic service.
The bottom line: There’s a new Internet bubble blowing, folks, and at least in the short term, it means freebies for all. All of these companies, and more, are beginning to party like it’s 1999.
So yes, it’s conceivable that the free ride may end someday. But in the meantime, enjoy it while it lasts. There’s no reason not to start using these life-changing freebies this very day.
Click to read full article>>>
By Philip M. Renicks, Associate, Graybeal and Associates, LLC
As a former Christian high school principal and head of school I pondered more than once the question that I am confident you are asking, “How do I Know?” During my years in administrative leadership the answer continued to elude me.
Since you are taking time to read this you are likely struggling with the same age old question, “how do I know if our school is effective in the spiritual formation of our students?” The typical Christian school recruiting brochure, parent and student handbooks, and all manner of advertising lauds the excellence of the school in preparing students for life who are intellectually developed and spiritually formed.
It is quite probable that the mission and/or vision statement of your school speaks of a Christ-centered education, a distinctive that sets the school apart from the public and private school sectors that are not Christian in your community. But the question remains, “how do you validate whether or not spiritual formation is actually taking place in the lives of your students?”
As a Christian educator for more than 40 years I know how to measure the intellectual development and academic progress of students. All of us who are trained educators have been well schooled in the metrics of school effectiveness through all manner of testing instruments. Some standardized tests even offer a Bible knowledge subtest. But are we really measuring a student’s spiritual formation or just the student’s cognitive understanding of God?
Daniel Egeler, Ed.D. Vice President of International Ministries for the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) writes that some would argue that the spiritual formation of an individual is clouded in a mystery and one should seek to preserve that mystery. Along with Dr. Egeler, I question this approach and wonder if rather than “preserving the mystery,” we are hiding behind a cloke of misunderstanding and uncertainty?
We all recognize that it is difficult to quantify matters of the heart, to identify and verify those virtues that comprise spiritual formation. II Peter 1:5-9 seems to suggest that there are certain virtues of spiritual development that can be measured. Peter states: “For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith, goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.”
While the process of how the spiritual formation of your student’s takes place may be difficult to define (a mystery) since it is a product of the work of the Holy Spirit, Peter suggests that in some ways, “if you possess these qualities in increasing measure” they will create in an individual a spiritual effectiveness that is observable. I propose that the spiritual formation of your students can and should be measured if the core distinctive that sets the Christian school apart is truly its core distinctive. When we engage in a process of assessment and evaluation of the things we consider important in the lives of our students or in the culture and climate of the school, then we have a starting point for identifying and preserving those things we do well and targeting those areas that need improvement. It has been said that we need to engage in measuring what matters.
Graybeal and Associates, LLC (www.graybeal.org), has developed and tested a process known as the Spiritual Formation Audit with the aid of leading Christian educators and researchers. The end product of this research focuses on three domains of spiritual formation; the head, the heart, and the hands. If you would like more information (cost of the service, process details, etc.) about the Spiritual Formation Audit, please contact: Philip M. Renicks, Ed.D, 219 Wisteria Dr., Franklin, TN 37064, Phone: 615.599.2059, philrenicks@graybeal.org.
By: Scott Mayo
I had the distinct pleasure of reading Dr. Donovan Graham’s Teaching Redemptively: Bringing Grace and Truth Into Your Classroom in manuscript form during my Master’s program at Covenant College. It was subsequently published by Purposeful Design and is now a required reading for ACSI teacher certification. By definition, then, it is getting a wide reading in Christian school circles. That being said, I am having a hard time believing that there hasn’t been a great outcry, in that I found it to be a very troubling book on several fronts. His central premise is that the Gospel, the central element of the Christian Faith, does not permeate our schools in a manner commensurate with our profession of its importance. Sadly, our Christian schools seem to rival our secular counterparts in the area of focusing on the temporal, superficial, and measurable. In fact, because we have great kids and wonderful teachers, we tend to produce even better results, albeit results measured on the same secular yardstick.
What to do then? Well, I asked Dr. Graham that very question over lunch one day in the cafeteria. His good-natured response was that the working out of his thesis was “our job” as Christian school administrators and teachers. That answer was more profound than I originally understood. The outworking of the Gospel into daily life, including school life, does not lend itself to a recipe-like approach. The seasoning of grace will produce as many flavors as it finds sinful, hurting, difficult situations. Once I began to grasp that I didn’t have to figure out how to bring grace and truth into every classroom in every school, that freed me up to start to discern how to bring the Gospel to bear on our little school with our unique set of dreams and aspirations hindered and clouded by the site specific effects of the Fall.
Initial implementation began in the conventional way; we read the book as a faculty and then discussed sections of it throughout the year during in-services. The content of those discussions varied widely, but the structure stayed very consistent. We were always finding ourselves at “Yes, but…” moments. The “yes” was in reference to the claims of the Gospel and the necessity for all our actions to be guided and covered by grace. The “but” was the pragmatic, mundane reason why we couldn’t accommodate the Gospel in a particular school situation. Instead of acting as a conjunction, we had turned the “but” into an eraser, effectively eviscerating our “yes” to the Gospel of any real meaning. It was evident that we had good intentions, a great desire to make positive changes, and a long way to go!
We are now completing our second year of school-wide attempts to move from a place where our students derive their worth from their performance and instead find it in Christ. This has involved changes in content and process. We still teach, test, discipline, perform service projects, and field athletic teams. It’s just that we are striving to have God’s grace make a difference in each of those elements of school life. Those efforts have not always been understood, especially by the parents. We’ve been accused of giving our students a license to sin (behaviorally) and fail (academically). While not claiming to be infallible in our efforts, it is noteworthy that we had never been accused of granting license before. As Paul made clear in Romans 6:1, grace will always be misunderstood by those who measure ultimate worth and merit by performance (especially outwardly visible performance). Interestingly enough, most of the consternation was not voiced by parents concerning their own students, but was centered on how our actions with other students was somehow not “fair” to their students. During those conversations, Christ’s parable of the workers in the vineyard from Matthew 20 always echoed in my mind. It’s easy to want grace for ourselves. It’s also easy to resent grace when other receive it.
We truly believe that the image of God in our students coupled with the power of God’s grace can be used to roll back the effects of the Fall in a way unattainable by behavioristic, manipulative methods, methods that often seem to produce desirable results in the short term. In the face of all the difficulties, we are still convinced of and committed to the ideas delineated in Teaching Redemptively. To continue to make this the reality at our school, several things working together are needed. First, we must model this as well as teach it. So many times schools try to plant something at the classroom level that is choked out by the overall school atmosphere. For instance, as an administrator it makes no sense for me to expect the faculty to discipline in a relational way while I treat the teachers bureaucratically. Next, we need to continue to research, instruct, and experiment. While grace-based instruction should be situational and should never be enacted mechanically from a checklist, that certainly doesn’t mean we can’t learn great things from other schools. For instance, in Dr. Gene Frost’s Learning from the Best: Growing Greatness in the Christian School, his chapter describing the approach to discipline enacted by Lutheran High School North in Macomb, Michigan was both inspiring and useful. So much of what they are attempting to do in moving from Law to Grace is transferable in essence to any school.
Finally, as leaders we must constantly paint the big picture for those on the front lines. Sometimes that takes the form of visionary speeches. At other times, we just need to take the small, teachable moments to show how a philosophy can inform practice. Recently, I began our morning meeting by reading Luke 14:12-14 aloud. This passage is where Jesus instructs those giving a feast to invite the poor, the crippled, and the blind, i.e. those who couldn’t pay them back. I then distributed an assignment. The teachers were to reread the passage. Then, to drive home the point, I required a few written paragraphs within a week reflecting on how this story applied to their classrooms. The twist was that they had to name names in the reflection. I wanted them to realize how easy it is to reward those who are rewarding but to only tolerate those who aren’t. It’s an even greater leap to love those students who are needy in an academic or behavioral sense. It’s easy to admit that in general. It can be painful to admit that when there is a face attached.
The results were wonderful. In their written responses, the teachers were very honest about how theory and practice diverge on a daily basis. When they would mention Little Johnny by name, describe how they normally reacted to him, and then record how he should be the object of their love especially because he had less to “offer” them compared to his peers, it was evident that the desire to be gracious was making a tangible difference. For closure, I read aloud excerpts of the reflections in our morning meeting the following week. That was helpful in that various teachers identified varying ways in which teaching particular students exhibited that lack of inherent reward along with heartfelt regret for not pursuing more diligently those same students in love. If nothing else, we intentionally took time to examine our practice in light of the Gospel. While no one-shot panacea, I do believe exercises like this can aid in the process of changing the culture of a school.
Click to read full article>>>By David Balik: Dean of Faculty and Academic Affairs, Briarwood Christian School
How do we prepare our students to understand and engage people, cultures, and contexts? How do we address the diverse voices of the interfaith world? What do we mean when we tell our students that Christianity is unique and true? To authentically teach and learn as Christians in today’s world, we must not fear the hard questions that lead to critical inquiry, but persistently ask them and seek answers.
With these convictions in mind, I attended Lexington Christian Academy’s “The Global Schoolhouse Conference” for its third biennial Cultivating Inquiry Across the Curriculum on April 10 & 11, 2008.
I found this forum to be immensely interesting and challenging at the same time. Like a good workout, there was an intensity in the presentations (and subsequent discussions) that stretched me in my own thinking: How do we prepare our students for the world they’ll live in?
In his key note address on Friday morning, Michael Evans (Assistant Director of Urban School Services of ACSI) spoke on “Equipping Leaders.” Evans’ fascinating and engaging lecture focused on the importance of the following statement:
Christian Schools must become more than safe havens in which children learn and relate to one another. They must become places of preparation to launch leaders into the world, prepared to advance the Kingdom of God in multiple arenas.
In other words, Evans contends that someone will be the next Oprah Winfrey 20 years from now, and someone will be the next President 40 years from now. The larger question then is: WHO will lead in the future and with WHAT agenda?
In order that our students stand a fighting chance in an ever-darkening world, Evans goes on to suggest four key areas where serious questions must be asked and answered.
1. Academic Questions:
Are we training the minds of our students (and teachers for that matter!) to think deeply, widely, openly, and with great strength? Thinking is not for wimps! My own children will complain from time to time that the teaching they are exposed to is designed to “program” them rather than to challenge their minds. (“Programmed idiots” is the actual term my eldest son will use.) How revealing! Are our students mere passive recipients of a dearth of content and information that we ask them to recite back to us, or are we engaging them in such a way that creates a Bloom-like environment of genuine analysis, careful evaluation, systematic verification, and critical thought?
When Paul wrote, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Luke 10:27) he had to have in mind growth and development that went way beyond the “mile wide and an inch deep” approach so many Christian Schools are guilty of today!
2. Biblical Questions:
As we train the mind to think deeply, widely, openly, and with great strength are we creating an environment in our schools where really hard questions can be asked? Are we cultivating spiritual inquiry in their lives that leads our students to ask: “God, what is your heart?” What is your plan for your heart to be realized in our world?”
Oh, that we as Christian school educators would emphasize more the fact that our Lord is looking for a life of faith and faithfulness not just facts and figures. What does the Lord require of us? To act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him. (Micah 6:8)
In his lecture entitled, “Science and Faith”, Dr. Gordon Hugenberger, (Ph.D., College of St. Paul and St. Mary and the Oxford Centre for Post-Graduate Hebrew Study) focused our attention on seven common misunderstandings which have caused unnecessary conflicts with science. A few examples are: the Bible does not require a small universe or a young earth. In addition, Hugenberger went into great detail in support of his belief that the Bible does not prohibit plant or animal death before the Fall, as well as the fact that it is likely that the 7-day framework of creation does not refer to a literal earthly week composed of seven 24-hour solar days, but refers instead to a heavenly week.
The fact that there are 9 major views of creation held by evangelicals today begs the question, “Are we truly engaging our students to consider other thoughtful (and largely respected) views as they relate to faith and learning?”
3. Cultural Questions:
As we look to instill in our students a sense of “other-centeredness”, how do we do that in such a way as to illicit authentic compassion and mercy rather than pity or an “I feel good because I did something” result. This call to consider God’s perspective on social justice and His world should cause our students to ask: What do I really know about the world around me? What are God’s concerns in the world as it relates to “the least of these?” (Matthew 25:40) What are the opportunities He created and how can I play a meaningful role in them? We must recognize and espouse a Christian world view that promotes active engagement in our culture, not isolationism. May we celebrate the diversity as well as the inter-connectedness that we share in this flat world in which we live, while at the same time encouraging and modeling for our students compassion and thoughtful action that leads to a long term, life-changing impact.
4. Leadership Questions:
Rather than majoring in “pre-wealth” like many young people heading to college these days, how can we challenge our students to understand what they will need to value once they go off to University? What will they need to be prepared to defend? Explain? Will we truly and adequately have prepared them to lead in positions of influence where Godly leadership is most needed? To do so requires a Christian education that produces intelligent young people with a moral compass who are strategic and intentional in their Kingdom activities! Tall order? You betcha! Can we do it? Of course. But it will require breaking away from the traditional, sage -on-the-stage-I-talk-you-listen-and-take-notes scenario that characterizes so many of our classrooms today.
In conclusion, I find it somewhat ironic that I left Boston last week with more questions than when I arrived! Perhaps that was the point of this intellectual exercise. However, as I continue to study and consider what it means to teach and think “Christianly”, I am incredibly thankful for the privilege of being able to be a part of the conversation as together we as Christian leaders move our schools towards greater depths of inquiry and as a result, meaningful change to the glory of God that will produce the next generation of leaders equipped and able to stand on their own ready to carry out the mission God has called them to!
Click to read full article>>>
An intriguing video of scholars discussing the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, of the existence of the soul. Click the photo above to go to the site to view the video.
Participants: Brown, Radin, Searle, Tart, Wolf
By Mark A. Kennedy, Regional Director, Eastern Canada
Association of Christian Schools International
Thirty three years ago I began my teaching career at an old and respected British Empire style boys’ school in Toronto. There I became friends with a science teacher who was considered one of the foremost ornithologists in Canada and Great Britain.
Whenever the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) wanted to make a television program about birds they always involved my friend. He was amazingly knowledgeable and loved his area of expertise far more than any other aspect of science. So much so that he would gladly give long bird discourses with the least bit of prompting.
Unfortunately his students figured that out. They discovered that if someone asked a bird related question in science class, no matter how off topic, my friend would perch on the corner of a lab table and begin to soar upward, ever upward on the wings of ostentatious ornithological oratory – his gums wouldn’t stop flapping till the end of class time. To the students that meant no homework, no upcoming 
tests and no acquired knowledge about the originally intended topic. Before he caught on to the students’ ruse my friend’s inordinate focus on birds became an enemy to a more balanced and thorough teaching of science. Put simply his science classes were too “birdy”.
In the same way a Christian school can be too “religious” when it focuses inappropriately on matters that are ‘religious’ by definition.
According to the Oxford and Webster Dictionaries the adjective ‘religious’ refers to a belief in, or worship of a superhuman controlling power,. It is a system of faith and worship, a manifesting of faith through obedience and devotion.
The Apostle Paul expanded on this when in Acts 12:22 he commended the “religious” character of the Athenians because they actively worshipped a deity – even though they didn’t know who that deity was (the unknown god).
In James 1:26, 27 and 1Timothy 5:4 the authors say that the signs of a truly “religious” character are some specifically moral actions.
So the word “religious’ addresses matters of faith, worship, devotion, obedience and moral behavior. Of course each one of these traits should be a valid component of a Christian school education to be sure but none is the central issue. Above all else Christian schooling in its broadest sense is about truth. There is even a kind of truth trinity that applies to our schools.
First there is Jesus, the living truth, whose daily presence gives our schools and our staff members and students direction and meaning. Through the Holy Spirit he indwells, comforts and leads us in all truth.
Second there is the truth that is the written word of God which provides an accurate knowledge of God and his expectations for us. It also provides a plumb line that helps us discern what is true and what is false.
Third there is the truth that is revealed in the created world: the facts, figures and formulas and all the other practical matters that make up our academic curriculum.
And because we believe that “all truth is God’s truth”, when our students learn principles of physics, or solutions for mathematical problems or skills of written or oral communications they are learning God’s truth - even if their teachers aren’t able to present scripture verses to go along with each truth. Further, because we are operating schools, we had better excel at presenting God’s truth especially in the academic realm so, as ACSI’s mission statement says we can “effectively prepare students for life.” That does not lessen our responsibility to integrate scriptural principles into the academic program. But we will have failed in our overall mission if our graduates have learned scriptural principles in Math or Language or Science but never quite grasped the core knowledge and skills they need for practical applications in their adult lives. And we will have failed to teach them the whole truth too.
1. Religious matters hijack the teaching of God’s other truths. For example, a weekly chapel service is routinely allowed to run overtime and consumes significant portions of the time allocated to the following academic classes.
2. Factual information is ignored because it conflicts with particular religious convictions or with a popular interpretation of scripture. As a case in point, the 16th century church rejected Galileo’s observation that the earth revolves around the sun because it conflicted with their understanding of Psalm 113:3:
“From the rising of the sun to the place where it sets, the name of the Lord is to be praised.”
3. Only Christian authors are studied in literature class, only Christians are portrayed positively in history lessons, only Christian compositions and composers are allowed in the music program thereby encouraging an arrogant and false sense of superiority among Christian students and ignoring the need to develop discernment skills.
4. Intellectual dishonesty is a tool to support religious convictions. Facts are altered or omitted to make certain individuals or religious groups “look good”.
5. Religion is used to promote any attitudes or actions that are contrary to Jesus’ teachings and example (i.e. acts of terrorism, promotion of hatred towards individuals or groups).
6. Students are expected to memorize, believe and regurgitate whatever they are told and are discouraged from thinking critically and Christianly.
7. Issues of great concern for humanity such as HIV/AIDS, natural disasters, starvation, poverty, environmental degradation, pollution, social injustice are denigrated or ignored because these things aren’t specifically religious.
8. Teachers are hired and retained because of their spirituality with little regard for their teaching abilities and training or their willingness to upgrade their subject knowledge and teaching skills.
9. School leadership has little or no concern about honestly evaluating and improving the academic program because the overwhelming goal of the school is to produce strong (meaning demonstrably ‘religious’) Christians.
It seems pretty clear that just as my friend’s bird obsession weakened his science program, a preoccupation with “religious” things damages the overall effectiveness of a Christian school.
That is because Christianity in general and Christian schooling in particular should be concerned with the entirety of God’s truth not just one part of it.
So a Christian school can indeed be too religious but thankfully it cannot be too Christian.
To reinforce Mr. Kennedy's point, I recently stumbled onto an essay titled It's Happened to a Lot of Good Christians by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst, a clinical psychologist and writer. Dr. Whitehurst purports to be responding to a conversation she overheard at a local coffee shop between two Christian college students. Although Dr. Whitehurst's unfounded assumptions and poor logic betray her own astounding ignorance and arrogance, her concern over anti-intellectualism within Christianity has merit.
The conversation described by Dr. Whitehurst exhibits a well meaning but misguided religiosity that does not take seriously the life of the Christian mind thus failing to obey the command to "Love God with all of our minds...."
1. Have you encountered anti-intellectual tendencies in your school? Do those tendencies originate with faculty, students, or parents?
2. Does anti-intellectualism force us to be "politically correct" in our schools? In other words, do we avoid or misinterpret facts to avoid controversy? If so, what is the consequence for our students? What is the consequence for the Gospel?
3. What is the best response to anti-intellectualism in our schools? Have you dealt with this issue and if so, how?
Click to read full article>>>
How do we get from where we are to where we need to be? Technology is expensive, most teachers are not well trained, time is limited, funds are limited, and IT support is limited. How do we plan for, fund, and effectively implement technology in our schools?
Over the years I have noticed that technology planning efforts have wide pendulum swings from overly complex (5" inch binders filled with minute detail that no one reads) to the impulsive and simplistic resulting in the wasting of large sums of money and time and leading to frustrated teachers.
Here is a basic outline to guide your thinking about technology planning:
- What are the core academic objectives for core subjects (not including technology and computer sciences) for the use of technology?
- What are we striving to achieve through technology that cannot be achieved or achieved as effectively and efficiently using traditional methods? Technology integration is not the objective, it is potentially the means to an academic objective.
- What is the relationship between core academic standards and technology standards?
The International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE) has established the following 2007 standards for students. Click here for the PDF version of the standards.
1. Creativity and Innovation
Students demonstrate creative thinking, construct knowledge, and develop innovative products and processes using technology. Students:
a. apply existing knowledge to generate new ideas, products, or processes.
b. create original works as a means of personal or group expression.
c. use models and simulations to explore complex systems and issues.
d. identify trends and forecast possibilities.
2. Communication and Collaboration
Students use digital media and environments to communicate and work collaboratively, including at a distance, to support individual learning and contribute to the learning of others. Students:
a. interact, collaborate, and publish with peers, experts, or others employing a variety of digital environments and media.
b. communicate information and ideas effectively to multiple audiences using a variety of media and formats.
c. develop cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with learners of other cultures.
d. contribute to project teams to produce original works or solve problems.
3. Research and Information Fluency
Students apply digital tools to gather, evaluate, and use information. Students:
a. plan strategies to guide inquiry.
b. locate, organize, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and ethically use information from a variety of sources and media.
c. evaluate and select information sources and digital tools based on the appropriateness to specific tasks.
d. process data and report results.
4. Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making
Students use critical thinking skills to plan and conduct research, manage projects, solve problems, and make informed decisions using appropriate digital tools and resources. Students:
a. identify and define authentic problems and significant questions for investigation.
b. plan and manage activities to develop a solution or complete a project.
c. collect and analyze data to identify solutions and/or make informed decisions.
d. use multiple processes and diverse perspectives to explore alternative solutions.
5. Digital Citizenship
Students understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behavior. Students:
a. advocate and practice safe, legal, and responsible use of information and technology.
b. exhibit a positive attitude toward using technology that supports collaboration, learning, and productivity.
c. demonstrate personal responsibility for lifelong learning.
d. exhibit leadership for digital citizenship.
6. Technology Operations and Concepts
Students demonstrate a sound understanding of technology concepts, systems, and operations. Students:
a. understand and use technology systems.
b. select and use applications effectively and productively.
c. troubleshoot systems and applications.
d. transfer current knowledge to learning of new technologies.
2. Administrative Use of Technology:
Practice what we preach! We cannot expect teachers to expend the time and energy to integrate technology into their classrooms if we do not do likewise in our offices. Doing so will 
require EXTRA time and EXTRA effort on our part to find, experiment with, learn, and incorporate technology that goes beyond the Internet browser, email, and word processing into our daily routines.
(Search this site using the search box on the top right for "technology" or "productivity" to find related posts and resources.)
ISTE provides the following administrative standards (NOTE: these are 2002 standards. Administrator Standards 2009 are due for release at NECC 2008 in San Antonio. Revised Teacher Standards will also be released at NECC 2008).
Educational leaders inspire a shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology and foster an environment and culture conducive to the realization of that vision. Educational leaders:
A. facilitate the shared development by all stakeholders of a vision for technology use and widely communicate that vision.
B. maintain an inclusive and cohesive process to develop, implement, and monitor a dynamic, long-range, and systemic technology plan to achieve the vision.
C. foster and nurture a culture of responsible risk-taking and advocate policies promoting continuous innovation with technology.
D. use data in making leadership decisions.
E. advocate for research-based effective practices in use of technology.
F. Advocate on the state and national levels for policies, programs, and funding opportunities that support implementation of the technology plan.
Educational leaders ensure that curricular design, instructional strategies, and learning environments integrate appropriate technologies to maximize learning and teaching. Educational leaders:
A. identify, use, evaluate, and promote appropriate technologies to enhance and support instruction and standards-based curriculum leading to high levels of student achievement.
B. facilitate and support collaborative technology-enriched learning environments conducive to innovation for improved learning.
C. provide for learner-centered environments that use technology to meet the individual and diverse needs of learners.
D. facilitate the use of technologies to support and enhance instructional methods that develop higher-level thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving skills.
E. provide for and ensure that faculty and staff take advantage of high-quality professional learning opportunities for improved learning and teaching with technology.
Educational leaders apply technology to enhance their professional practice and to increase their own productivity and that of others. Educational leaders:
A. model the routine, intentional, and effective use of technology.
B. employ technology for communication and collaboration among colleagues, staff, parents, students, and the larger community.
C. create and participate in learning communities that stimulate, nurture, and support faculty and staff in using technology for improved productivity.
D. engage in sustained, job-related professional learning using technology resources.
E. maintain awareness of emerging technologies and their potential uses in education.
F. use technology to advance organizational improvement.
A. develop, implement, and monitor policies and guidelines to ensure compatibility of technologies.
B. implement and use integrated technology-based management and operations systems.
C. allocate financial and human resources to ensure complete and sustained implementation of the technology plan.
D. integrate strategic plans, technology plans, and other improvement plans and policies to align efforts and leverage resources.
E. implement procedures to drive continuous improvement of technology systems and to support technology replacement cycles.
A. use multiple methods to assess and evaluate appropriate uses of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity.
B. use technology to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and student learning.
C. assess staff knowledge, skills, and performance in using technology and use results to facilitate high-quality professional development and to inform personnel decisions.
D. use technology to assess, evaluate, and manage administrative and operational systems.
A. ensure equity of access to technology resources that enable and empower all learners and educators.
B. identify, communicate, model, and enforce social, legal, and ethical practices to promote responsible use of technology.
C. promote and enforce privacy, security, and online safety related to the use of technology.
D. promote and enforce environmentally safe and healthy practices in the use of technology.
E. participate in the development of policies that clearly enforce copyright law and assign ownership of intellectual property developed with school resources.
This is the most critical component of technology planning. Yet, it is where most of our schools fall woefully short.
Before moving into more detail, you may find 21st Century Connections to be a very helpful resources. Click here to access the Staff Development section of their web site.
We invest ten of thousands of dollars in hardware 
Click here for a PDF article on the Total Cost of Ownership. The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) has some excellent online tools for determining TCO.
Time limitations for faculty development is a challenge. Accordingly, the CTL recommends incorporating technology into existing content-specific professional development.
Teachers learn best by studying, doing, and reflecting; by collaborating with other teachers; by looking closely at student learning and evidence of achievement; and by sharing what they see. Therefore, staff development is best facilitated by being embedded in the classroom.
There must also be a consistent ongoing training and support plan if teachers are to become proficient and effective. If adequate follow-up training and support is not provided teachers will grow frustrated and will revert back to the "tried and true (traditional) teaching methods. Frankly, without the necessary support and training they have no choice.
I have found that scheduling staff development days throughout the year that focuses on reinforcing in-service training to be an effective means to provide support and ongoing training. The aphorism, "What you don't use you lose" certainly applies to professional development follow through.
AFTER addressing instructional objectives and staff development, it is time to address the "technology stuff." The CTL recommends the following approach:
1. Generate a list of the technology the school's needs in order to support the Curriculum and Professional Development components.
Once the vision, goals, and strategies have been established for using technology to help students meet content standards, the next job is to identify the technology and physical plant modifications needed to accomplish the Curriculum and Professional Development components.
This component involves assessing the current status of the infrastructure, hardware, software (including online learning resources), and technical support in the school and planning how those resources can be recycled or supplemented to create the learning environment envisioned in the Curriculum component.
2. Make the technology available and accessible.
The planning team must not only determine how the school will use technology but also decide where technology will be used. Research on academic gains attributable to technology
points to easy access for students and teachers in the classroom as the place in which the greatest impact may be achieved.
3. Consider security measures for protecting both the equipment and the data. Schools have many responsibilities when building a technology infrastructure, including devising acceptable-use
policies and security procedures. Although most schools report positive experiences with technology, it is still important for schools to have rules specifying the consequences of misuses.
Deciding how a school will respond to technology infractions, such as altered or deleted files, disabled or missing workstations, misconfigured networks, and misuses of the internet, is important to determine in advance.
There are two types of security issues in a technology infrastructure: physical security and electronic security. Physical security measures include installing and/or upgrading the locking systems throughout the school, installing electronic monitoring devices where technology is stored, and electronically tagging all equipment for easy identification if stolen.
4. Consider long-term implications.
Technology planning needs to be comprehensive and include consideration of the long-term implications of the choices made. Consider the following points:
• Hardware purchased should be powerful enough to meet future needs, including the need for data, voice, and video capabilities.
• Hardware purchased should meet school needs and have the lowest cost of ownership over the long term. This may lead to networked thin clients and/or networked computers.
In addition to the links provided above, I have compiled a few links below that I believe you will find useful for planning, technology integration, and your personal productivity:
Student Response System
New Super Binocular Telescope (images sharper than the Hubble)
Search this Blog
All articles on this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
