University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Schools at risk: an analysis of factors endangering the evangelical Christian school movement in America

(USC Thesis Other)

Schools at risk: an analysis of factors endangering the evangelical Christian school movement in America

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

1

SCHOOLS AT RISK: AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS ENDANGERING THE
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL MOVEMENT IN AMERICA

by

Vance Everett Nichols

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Vance Everett Nichols

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

2

Acknowledgements
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Carol, who sacrificed more for its completion
than anyone will ever know or fully appreciate.
I wish to further acknowledge the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Sylvia
Rousseau, Dr. Julie Marsh, and Dr. William Walner, for their time, graciousness, and wisdom. In
particular, I wish to thank Dr. Rousseau, my committee chair, for her many hours of guidance,
her transformational abilities as a professor and mentor, and her constant inspiration and
encouragement throughout the duration of this dissertation— even as she was retiring.
Additionally, I wish to acknowledge Dr. Nancy Guirguis, the former assistant director of
the doctor of education program at the USC Rossier School of Education. Her ongoing
encouragement and knowledgeable direction during my three years in the program were essential
to my successful completion.
I also wish to acknowledge the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) for
its support in the conducting of this study; the leadership team and staff members of Alta Loma
Christian School for their exceptional patience and encouragement while this dissertation was
being completed; and the USC Rossier School of Education doctor of education cohort of 2013
and Class of 2016, for being an extraordinary group of Trojan scholars, educators, colleagues,
and friends— Fight On!
Ultimately, I wish to acknowledge the One who saved my soul and called me into the
vocation of education. Just as Christ was the undergirding foundation of the University of
Southern California when it began in 1880, so He has been my steadfast hope and unchanging
vision throughout this remarkable and unforgettable doctoral process 136 years later.
Soli Deo Gloria.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

3

Table of Contents
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 12
Introduction 12
Background and Historic Context for the Study 12
The First Movement—The Early Church Christian Schools 12
(AD70-590)
The Second Movement—The Reformation Christian Schools 13
(1517-1850)
The Third Movement—The Associated Christian Schools 14
(1950-present day)
Statement of the Problem 17
Purpose of the Study 20
Research Questions 20
Significance of the Study 21
Assumptions 23
Definition of Terms 23
Organization of the Study 26
Chapter Two: Literature Review 28
Introduction 28
Literature Review Overview 28
Limited Research 29
The Pre-Phenomenon and Phenomenon Periods 29
External Events and Influences—Phenomenon Period, 2006-2015 30
Trends in Private Religious School Enrollment 30
Other evangelical schools 30
Catholic schools 32
Jewish schools 33
Islamic schools 34
Contributing External Factors to Loss of Enrollment 34
The Great Recession 34
Changing parental expectations 35
The rise of charter schools 38
The rise of homeschooling 42
The rise of online K-12 schools 43
Racial and Demographic Shifts—Social Changes 44
Cultural Shifts—Cultural Changes 46
Changing Patterns of Evangelical Church Attendance in America 48
Internal Events and Influences—Phenomenon Period, 2006-2015 49
Leadership Failure 49
Leadership failure—pastors 51
Leadership failure—school boards 52
Leadership failure—illegitimate leadership groups 53
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

4

Leadership theories 55
Financial Stresses 58
Loss of Homogeneity of Vision and Culture 59
Educational Competition—Other Christian Schools 60
Diversity Issues 61
Challenges to Sustaining School Mission 64
Resistance to Change—Lack of Innovation, Reinvention, and 66
Retooling for 21
st
Century Educational Challenges
Theories of innovation 70
Danger Signs 71
Repetitive Inaction Disorder Theory 77
Hubris, Complacency, and the “God Will Save Us” Syndrome 82
Eschatological Inevitability 83
Multiple Causation Theory 84
Conclusion 84
Contributions of this Literature to the Field 84
Overall Strengths of the Literature 86
Overall Weaknesses of the Literature 86
Missing Pieces 87
Next Steps for Research 87
Chapter Three: Methodology 89
Introduction 89
Qualitative Methods 89
Problem Statement 90
Purpose of the Study 91
Research Questions 91
Sample and Population 92
Research Methodology—Data Collection Instrumentation 93
Survey 93
Interviews 95
Documents 97
Data Analysis 98
Triangulation 98
Validity and Reliability 99
Ethical Considerations 100
Limitations and Delimitations 101
Limitations 101
Delimitations 103
Conclusions 103
Chapter Four: Findings 105
Introduction 105
Findings 109
Research Question 1 (Survey, Section One): What are the nature and 109
causes of the decline in the number of evangelical Christian schools in
America and the third Christian school movement since 2006?
#1—Financial stresses 109
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

5

#2—The Great Recession 111
#3—Cultural shifts 112
#4—Changing parental expectations 113
#5—Ongoing failure of schools to act on threats to their existence, 115
leading to repetitive inaction
#6—Failure of schools to detect and effectively deal with danger 116
signs
#7—Resistance to change at the school site level 118
#8—Changing patterns of evangelical church attendance 120
#9—The rise of charter schools 122
#10—Failure of schools to effectively market themselves 123
#11—The rise of homeschooling 124
#12—Challenges to sustaining school mission 125
#13—Failure of leadership at the school site level 126
#14—The rise of online K-12 schools 129
#15—Competition from other Christian schools 129
Research Question 2 (Survey, Section Two): What factors continue to 133
endanger the movement?
#1—Financial stresses 133
#2—Changing parental expectations 137
#3—Cultural shifts 139
#4—Ongoing failure of schools to act on threats to their existence, 142
leading to repetitive inaction
#5—Failure of schools to detect and effectively deal with danger 143
signs
#6—Resistance to change at the school site level 144
#7—Changing patterns of evangelical church attendance 145
#8—Failure of schools to effectively market themselves 147
#9—Lingering effects of the Great Recession 149
#10—The continuing rise of charter schools 150
#11—Failure of leadership at the school site level 152
#12—The continuing rise of homeschooling 156
#13—Challenges to sustaining school mission 157
#14—The continuing rise of online K-12 schools 158
#15—Loss of homogeneity of vision and culture at the school site 159
level
#16—Competition from other Christian schools 161
Research Question 3 (Survey, Section Three): What are associational 165
and school leaders in the movement doing—or recommending be
done—regarding the factors that continue to endanger it, in order to
reverse the movement’s downward trend?
Embody “Stronger Together” 165
Improve the Quality of Leadership at the School Site Level 168
Understand the Changing Culture and Social Structures and 170
Respond Accordingly
Engage in Improved Marketing and Communications, Including 172
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

6

Understanding and Addressing Changing Parental Expectations
Embrace Technology, Innovation, and Instructional Techniques 176
to Develop 21
st
Century Skills in Both Students and Staff
Members
Remember, Return to, and Reinforce Christian School 178
Distinctives
Be Willing to Change 180
Diligently Pursue Excellence in Academics 181
Resurrect Pastoral and Church Support 182
Consider the Consolidation of Schools 184
Improve Fiscal Management 185
Help Families Better Afford Christian Schooling 186
Conduct Thought Leadership Discussions 188
Engage in Multiple Responses Simultaneously 190
Pray 192
Chapter Five: Discussion 195
Introduction 195
Key Findings and Implications for Practice 196
Improve the Quality of School Leadership at All Levels, in Particular 196
School Boards
Study, Understand, and Respond Effectively to the Changing Culture, 197
Changing Parental Expectations, and Changing Patterns of Church
Attendance
Hold Firmly to Christian School Distinctives as Imperative and Non- 198
Negotiable
Engage in Effective and Responsive Marketing and Communications 198
Efforts
Pursue Excellence in Every Aspect of the School, Rejecting Mediocrity 199
Change. Innovate. Think Entrepreneurially. 200
Set Priorities, Be Systematic, and Engage in Multiple Responses to the 200
Crisis Simultaneously
Pioneer Greater Openness, with a Goal of Collaboration 201
Broaden the Intellectual Net 201
Recommendations for Research 202
The Recent Disparity Between Continuing School Closures and Slight 202
Enrollment Increase
The Connection Between Christian School Closures in Urban Settings 203
And the Subsequent Nationwide Crisis of Christian School Closures
Effects of the Christian School Movement Crisis on Educationally 204
Disenfranchised and Economically Disadvantaged Students
Transferrable Characteristics of Successful Schools—The Outliers 205
Accreditation and School Closure 205
Supportive Pastors 206
Additional Recommendations for Research 206
Replicate this study with the leaders of other associations and 206
their member schools
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

7

Replicate this study with different categories of respondents 207
Charter schools 207
Homeschooling 207
Online K-12 schools 207
Regarding this study 207
Conclusions 208
References 210
Appendix A: Survey Instrument 231
Appendix B: Letter of Endorsement from ACSI 235
Appendix C: Principal Investigator Cover Letter 236
Appendix D: Informed Consent Materials 237
Appendix E: Informed Consent Signature Page 240
Appendix F: Table 7: Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of 241
evangelical schools in America, with highlighted analysis (all respondents).
Appendix G: Table 8: Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement 242
in America, with highlighted analysis.
Appendix H: Figure E: Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of 243
evangelical schools in America (all respondents).
Appendix I: Figure F: Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement 244
in America (all respondents).
Appendix J: Table 9: Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of 245
evangelical schools in America, with highlighted analysis—ACSI headquarters/home
office respondents only.
Appendix K: Table 10: Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement 246
in America, with highlighted analysis—ACSI headquarters/home office respondents
only.
Appendix L: Table 11: Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of 247
Evangelical schools in America, with ranking comparisons of all survey participants
v. ACSI HQ/home office participants.
Appendix M: Table 12: Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement 248
in America, with ranking comparisons of all survey participants v. ACSI HQ/home
office participants.
Appendix N: Table 13: Statistical analysis of survey section one (Research Question 249
#1): Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of evangelical schools in
America (all respondents). Table 14: Statistical analysis of survey section two
(Research Question #2): Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement
in America (all respondents).

Appendix O: Figure G: Revised conceptual framework for considering the nature and 250
causes leading to the decline of the Christian school movement in America, utilizing
Multiple Causation Theory.
Appendix P: Figure H: Conceptual framework for considering the factors that continue 251
to endanger the Christian school movement in America—considering combination,
convergence, and intersectionality—utilizing Multiple Causation Theory.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

8

List of Tables
Table 1: Percentage of study respondents compared to all possible respondents 103
per US region.

Table 2: Breakdown of survey participants by ACSI region of the US. 107

Table 3: Breakdown of survey participants by years of educational experience. 107

Table 4: Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of evangelical 110
schools in America since 2006.

Table 5: Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement in America. 134

Table 6: Responses to key questions and summary, ACSI Thought Leadership 190
Discussion.

Table 7: Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of evangelical 241
schools in America, with highlighted analysis (all respondents).

Table 8: Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement in America, 242
with highlighted analysis.

Table 9: Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of Christian schools 245
in America, with highlighted analysis—ACSI headquarters/home office respondents
only.

Table 10: Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement in America, 246
with highlighted analysis—ACSI headquarters/home office respondents only.

Table 11: Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of evangelical 247
schools in America, with ranking comparisons of all survey participants v. ACSI
HQ/home office participants.

Table 12: Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement in America, 248
with ranking comparisons of all survey participants v. ACSI HQ/home office
participants.

Table 13: Statistical analysis of survey section one (Research Question #1): Causal 249
factors contributing to the decline in the number of evangelical schools in America
(all respondents).

Table 14: Statistical analysis of survey section two (Research Question #2): Factors 249
continuing to endanger the Christian school movement in America (all respondents).

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

9

List of Figures
Figure A: Number of ACSI member schools in the US, 2003-2012. 18
Figure B: Comparison of the number and trend of public charter schools, 41
ACSI member schools, schools as a composite in the top 10 Christian school
associations, and Catholic schools in the US, 2001-2014.

Figure C: Repetitive Inaction Disorder Theory—Sequential indicators of RID. 81
Figure D: Conceptual framework for considering the nature and causes leading 85
to the decline of the Christian school movement in America, utilizing Multiple
Causation Theory.

Figure E: Causal factors contributing to the decline in the number of evangelical 243
schools in America (all respondents).

Figure F: Factors continuing to endanger the Christian school movement in America 244
(all respondents).

Figure G: Revised conceptual framework for considering the nature and causes 250
leading to the decline of the Christian school movement in America, utilizing
Multiple Causation Theory.

Figure H: Conceptual framework for considering the factors that continue to endanger 251
the Christian school movement in America—considering combination, convergence,
and intersectionality—utilizing Multiple Causation Theory.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

10

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the nature and causes of the unexpected decline
in the number of evangelical, Protestant Christian schools in the US since 2006, including an
examination of factors continuing to threaten and endanger the Christian school movement now
and in the future; provide analysis and determine the implications that these factors hold for the
future; and develop recommendations to address the phenomenon in order to help reverse the
movement’s downward trend, based on analysis. This research employed a qualitative research
methodology, incorporating a grounded theory design. A nationwide survey was conducted
including associational and school site leaders from every region of the US, followed by selected
interviews and an examination of documents. Respondents identified and rank-ordered 15 factors
that combined, converged, and intersected to cause the phenomenal decline in the number of
Christian schools since 2006. These causal factors included financial stresses, the Great
Recession, cultural shifts, and changing parent expectations and reasons for considering a
Christian school for their children. Respondents further identified and rank-ordered 16 factors
that continue to combine, converge, and intersect to endanger the movement. These ongoing
threats include financial stresses; changing parental expectations; cultural shifts; and ongoing
failure of schools to act on threats to their existence in a timely manner, leading to an
organizational pattern of repetitive inaction. Data gathered from survey responses, interviews,
and documents revealed emergent themes identifying 15 recommendations and actions on the
part of associational and school leaders aimed at reversing the movement’s downward trend.
These included embodying the concept of “Stronger Together”; improving the quality of
leadership at the school site level; understanding the changing culture and societal structures and
responding accordingly; engaging in improved marketing and communications, including
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

11

understanding and addressing changing parental expectations; and remembering, returning to,
and reinforcing Christian school distinctives. A major overarching finding across all three
research questions was that nearly all factors identified by participants invariably intersected
with and were interrelated to either (1) leadership failure at the school site level or (2) cultural
changes, or both. This connectivity was undeniable and repeatedly permeated the findings. Nine
implications for practice included the need to: Improve the quality of school leadership at all
levels, in particular the school board; study, understand, and respond effectively to the changing
culture, changing parental expectations, and changing patterns of church attendance; hold firmly
to Christian school distinctives as imperative and non-negotiable; engage in effective and
responsive marketing and communication efforts; pursue excellence in every aspect of school
operations, rejecting mediocrity; change, innovate, and think entrepreneurially; and pioneer
greater openness with a goal of collaboration, at both the associational and school level.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

12

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Christian schooling in the United States has grown in both size and significance since the
middle of the twentieth century, as parents have sought alternatives to public schools for a
variety of reasons, one of which is to ensure that their children experience instruction with a
biblical, Christian worldview (Kienel, 2005; 1998; 1978; Fitzpatrick, 2002; Lockerbie, 1994;
Oates, 1989; Holmes, 1982). This educational wave has included establishing thousands of
evangelical, Protestant Christian schools not only in America, but in 113 nations around the
world, giving rise to nearly 24,000 schools serving 5.5 million students (Egeler, 2015; ACSI,
2014a; 2013; Kienel, 2005). This proliferation has been referred to as the third great movement
of Christian schools in human history (Kienel, 2005) and a “global tsunami” (Egeler, 2015;
2014) sweeping across cultures, languages, and territorial boundaries.
Background and Historic Context for the Study
Historically, there have been three identifiable education movements constructed on a
biblically integrated, Christ-centric foundation. These three movements have been significant
both by the large number of Christian schools established and the impact of these schools on
students and societies (Egeler, 2015; Kienel, 2005; 1998). The histories of the first two
movements have been well documented. The third movement is still in progress.
The First Movement—The Early Church Christian Schools (AD70-590)
The first movement was The Early Church Christian Schools period, occurring from AD
70-590 and spanning half a millennium (Kienel, 2005; 1998). Also known as the First-Century
Movement, it began during a time when the Western world was dominated by the Roman
Empire. The Christians of the early church opposed the polytheistic teachings of Rome’s public
schools and viewed these schools as enemies of the faith (Kienel, 2005; Wilds, 1936). When
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

13

Jerusalem was destroyed by Roman forces under Titus in AD 70, both Jews and early church
Christians were forced to flee. Many Christians were well educated, having attended Jewish
schools. Because of their high level of education, the families who fled were able to teach their
own children secretly in their homes (Kienel, 2005). As Christianity expanded rapidly
throughout the Roman Empire, so did Christian schools, and these schools became a major
instrument in the advancement of Christianity and academics to the far corners of the Roman
world (Kienel, 2005; Eby & Arrowood, 1940; Harnack, 1908). As other schools were eventually
outlawed the early Christian schools multiplied, forming the first Christian school movement
(Kienel, 2005; Good, 1960). The movement entered into decline with the establishment of
Catholicism in AD 590 and finally met its demise when the Roman Catholic Church “exercised
its civil authority and outlawed all educational fountains of literacy” (Kienel, 2005, p. 308). This
oppression of educational freedom would last nearly 1,000 years.
The Second Movement—The Reformation Christian Schools (1517-1850)
The second Christian school movement, The Reformation Christian Schools period,
stretched from 1517-1850. It became one of the centerpieces of a revolution that reshaped much
of the thinking of the Western world (Kienel, 2005). Under the dominance of the Holy Roman
Catholic Church academic instruction and basic literacy were still unavailable to the general
populace, the Bible was inaccessible to all those who were not members of the clergy, and death
was the sentence for anyone deemed a heretic (Kienel, 2005; Boettner, 1962; Cubberley, 1920).
In spite of these threats, there were groups of Christians who broke away from strict
Catholicism regarding educational freedom, laying a foundation that would usher in a non-
Catholic system of religious expression and learning that was radically different from what was
in existence at the time. These groups, committed to free access to the Bible, became unwavering
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

14

advocates of basic literacy, establishing hundreds of Christian elementary and secondary schools
that typically met in secret (Kienel, 1998). The 300 Christian schools John Hus established in
Bohemia added to the critical mass of change that would inexorably explode as the Great
Reformation (Kienel, 1998). Luther, a young Augustinian monk and the president of Wittenberg
University, ignited immeasurable change. The Reformation was a far-reaching awakening in
Western civilization (Kienel, 1998; Eby & Arrowood, 1934), and it has been noted that Luther
wrote more about education than any of the other reformers. He is considered a champion for
Christian education as much as for Bible-centered churches (Kienel, 2005; Painter, 1886). The
Christian schools of the Reformation transformed education. Ultimately, however, three factors
combined to bring the movement to an end: (1) the absence of coordinated leadership within the
movement to prepare for the coming challenges of mass movements of immigrants; (2) the
influence of naturalistic philosophies; and (3) the rise of secularists who established schools
funded by government and free of tuition (Kienel, 2005). Although the second Christian school
movement had grown so extensively that it reached America, by 1850 the movement had ended.
The Third Movement—The Associated Christian Schools (1950-present day)
The third and current movement of Christian schools that Egeler (2015) and Kienel
(2005) describe began in the years following World War II, in the United States. The Associated
Christian Schools period, in just 65 years, is already the most expansive Christian school
movement in history. While the total number of Christian schools in the current movement is
estimated to be lower than the past two movements, today’s evangelical Christian schools are
distributed globally (Kienel, 2005). Like the first two iterations, the third movement emerged
from (1) the strong belief that there must be freedom to teach literacy and educate utilizing the
truth of the Bible, in an atmosphere centered on faith in Christ, delivered exclusively by
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

15

Christian teachers; and (2) the belief that those liberties were being threatened (Kienel, 2014;
2005; 1998). This third movement gained traction in the middle of the 20
th
century when
numbers of Protestant evangelicals became convinced that American public schools were no
longer extensions of the Christian community (Kienel, 2005).
Contextually, social and political events began to change the face of American education
and society at large. The 1954 landmark court case of Brown v. School Board ordered the end of
racial segregation in the nation’s public schools. This ruling was followed by a flurry of court
cases, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the American Civil Rights Movement, including the
march on Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965 pushing for voting rights. Especially in the South,
the mandated integration of Black and White students had an impact on many White families’
departure from public schools and considerations for attending a private school—Christian or
otherwise—since private schools were exempt from the Brown v. School Board ruling (Ryan,
2004). From 1964 to 1969, enrollment in Southern private schools increased by 900%. Those
numbers continued to climb steeply during the 1970s and into the 1980s (Ryan, 2004). Although
many of the initial private schools were exclusively secular, subsequent schools were
increasingly church-related. Christian academies and day schools sponsored by evangelical
Protestants became the most significant and enduring of these institutions (Ryan, 2004). While it
is sometimes disputed whether or not these schools were established in direct response to
desegregation, the mass departure from public schools, the timing and location of the schools,
and the comments by founders would seem to indicate that avoiding integration was at the very
least one of the motivating reasons for the schools’ creation (Ryan, 2004).
Concurrent, nonracial circumstances also increased momentum for the movement. First,
much of the national evangelical community had become convinced that public schools were
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

16

influenced directly by the rise of secularism. This change was seen as a deliberate attempt to
replace belief in God with an atheistic paradigm that viewed the physical universe as merely
natural, absent of anything supernatural (Tackett, 2006; Kienel, 2005). Second, the Protestant
perspective that there was a growing insensitivity to biblical, Christian values in America’s
public schools was galvanized with US Supreme Court rulings in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale)
outlawing mandatory prayer and 1963 (Abington School District v. Schempp) banning devotional
Bible readings in public schools (Kienel, 2005; Ryan, 2004). As a result, Kienel (2005) noted
that the High Court’s decisions “created a powerful stimulus for the third Christian school
movement. Almost overnight, Christian schools began to multiply across the country” (p. 309).
This meteoric growth accelerated and continued unabated into the 1990s (Kienel, 2005).
During this ascent, non-Catholic religiously affiliated schools (of which evangelical schools are
the major share) grew 149%, with approximately 2.5 million students. “The elementary and
secondary schools educating these children number about 18,000” (Hunter, 1988, p. 34). Hunter
(1988) noted that enrollment at Catholic K-12 schools in the US had declined during the same
time period.
The third movement of Christian schools has been called the age of Christian school
associations, because a key element of the movement has been the growth and development of
formal Christian school associations at the state, regional, national, and international levels. This
was an unknown concept to the schools and educators of the first two movements, which did not
have the types of transportation or methods of communication that have made possible a wide
range of services and supports that Christian school associations provide to member schools
today (Kienel, 2005). By 1978, there were five Christian school associations of national scale in
the US. These still exist today. By far the largest group, the Association of Christian Schools
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

17

International (ACSI), began in 1950 as the California Association of Christian Schools. It
merged with two other associations in 1976 to become the Western Association of Christian
Schools, then merged with six additional associations in 1978 to become ACSI. Not only is
ACSI the largest Christian school organization in the US, it is the largest Protestant Christian
school association in the world, fueling an international proliferation of Christian school
education and driving the third movement to global scale (Egeler, 2015; Kienel, 2005; Roth,
1981).
Statement of the Problem
While the Christian school movement continues to grow robustly on the international
landscape, on American soil the growth of Christian schools has seemingly wilted (Egeler, 2015;
ACSI, 2014a; 2014b; Ritzema, 2013). Figures reveal that since 2006 the movement has not
merely stalled or plateaued, but has dropped into decline (see Figure A). This phenomenon has
been unexpected and unprecedented (ACSI, 2015a; 2014a; Moran & Nichols, 2014; Gutzwiller,
Kitchell, & Rietze, 2014; Ritzema, 2013). Christian schools have closed before, due primarily to
failed leadership (Nichols, 2015b; 2006; Kienel & Nichols, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2002; Harden,
1988) and additional issues of loss of homogeneity of vision and culture, competition, and
finances (Fellers, 2013), but not in large numbers over a relatively short period of time (Nichols,
2015a; 2014; Ritzema, 2013; Kienel & Nichols, 2006; Walner, 2006). Said one superintendent of
a private school system in urban Southern California, “Let’s face it: Christian schools are in free
fall” (ACSI, 2014a).
Starting in 2006, evangelical private schools in the US have been closing in large
numbers for the first time since the third Christian school movement began in 1950 and leaders
within the movement are searching for answers (ACSI, 2014a; Moran & Nichols, 2014). For
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

18

Figure
A.
Number
of
ACSI
member
schools
in
the
US,
2003-‐2012
(ACSI,
2014b).

3928

3948
3957

3885

3782

3598

3444

3347

3111

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Number
of
ACSI
Member
Schoos
in
U.S.

Number
of
ACSI
Member
Schools

in
the
U.S.,
2003-‐2012

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

19

example, included in this historic number of schools lost are: (1) a drop from approximately 550
ACSI-member schools in Southern California in 2007-2008 (at that time the largest Christian
school region in the world, in terms of number of schools) to an estimated 440 schools in 2012-
2013 (ACSI, 2014a; 2014b; 2006; Ritzema, 2013; Haddock, 2005); and (2) 350 urban Christian
schools across the US that have reportedly closed since 2011-2012, representing not only the
largest number of ACSI-member schools to close in so short a time span, but linking school
failures and the movement’s downturn to urban settings (Ritzema, 2013; U.S. Department of
Education, 2008). While there is some uncertainty among movement leaders and the available
records regarding how many schools have actually closed versus the number of schools that have
dropped associational membership but continue to exist, there is universal agreement that the
sharp decline signals the end of over half-a-century of sustained growth of the evangelical
Christian school movement in America (Charter Oak Research, 2014; ACSI, 2014a; 2014b;
Ritzema, 2013). In an unprecedented statement in 2014, ACSI said:
The days of year-after-year growth in the North American Protestant Christian school
movement ended some time ago. Our schools are struggling because of many forces
beyond their control. The economic downturn has created a new normal for all
organizations that wish to keep their doors open. (Charter Oak Research, 2014, slide
“New Normal?”)
Unlike an examination of the first two Christian school movements that is aided by
historical perspective in determining the reasons for the movements’ decline and ultimate
demise, the reasons for the decline of the third movement are uncertain. In truth, while anecdotal
reasons abound from various quarters of the movement as to why this decline is occurring—
including causal factors beyond the Great Recession and economic indicators alone—there is not
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

20

yet an empirical explanation to shed definitive light on the matter that is comprehensive and
inclusive of the myriad of potential threats endangering the movement. ACSI’s own account for
the decline is somewhat ambiguous; on one hand, it posits that it is the economic downturn that
has created a new normal, while on the other hand it states that schools are struggling because of
many forces beyond schools’ control (Charter Oak Research, 2014). This gives more credence to
the sense that almost no one, including Christian school leaders within the movement, fully
grasps or agrees on why the phenomenon of mass faith-based school closures is occurring in the
US (ACSI, 2015a).
Purpose of the Study
Exploratory research is needed regarding the school closure phenomenon, in order to
identify and understand the factors driving the movement’s decline. Such research is vital if the
movement’s educational leaders at multiple levels (national, regional, district, and site) are to
deal with the heightening crisis from an informed, research-based perspective. Therefore, the
purpose of this study is to examine the nature and causes of the unexpected decline in the
number of evangelical, Protestant Christian schools in the U.S. since 2006, including an
examination of factors still endangering the Christian school movement in America; provide
analysis and determine the implications that these factors hold for the movement’s future; and
develop recommendations to address the phenomenon and help reverse the movement’s
downward trend, based on analysis.
Research Questions
The overarching research questions for this study are:
1. What are the nature and causes of the decline in the number of evangelical Christian
schools in America and the third Christian school movement since 2006?
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

21

2. What factors continue to endanger the movement?
3. What are associational and school leaders in the movement doing—or recommending
be done—regarding the factors that continue to endanger it, in order to reverse the
movement’s downward trend?
Through analysis of the data from the research questions and the interview questions
stemming from them, the researcher will present recommendations for actions. The hope is that
leaders of the Christian school movement at all levels will utilize these recommendations in an
attempt to reverse the movement’s decline.
Significance of the Study
Understanding the nature of these school closures and the factors behind their failings is
crucial to the future of the nation’s private preschool and K-12 educational system. Fewer private
evangelical Christian schools are available for urban students and others whose families desire a
faith-based educational experience, and whose curriculum is biblically integrated and taught
from the perspective—and within the context—of a Christian worldview. Research demonstrates
that students who attend such schools have higher levels of academic achievement and deeper
biblically-based convictions than their public school peers, which combined and translate into
greater levels of satisfaction in family life and involvement in church, as well as success in
higher education and professional endeavors (Scott, 2012; Cardus Education Survey, 2011;
NAEP, 1978-2011; Coleman, 1981). Meanwhile, Christian schools—including those in urban
settings—continue to close across the country, reducing the number of institutions available to
produce students who are so equipped for the future (ACSI, 2014a; 2014b; Ritzema, 2013).
In addition to the loss of quality academic programs inclusive of Christian values, the
closure of large numbers of Christian schools produces unemployment. Many Christian school
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

22

educators and support personnel work for wages far below the wages paid to public school
workers in identical or similar roles within the same boundaries as the local public school
district, often resulting in reduced personal savings and retirement plans (ACSI, 2015b; Nichols,
2006). This combination of low wages and reduced savings with the unprecedented and
unforeseen nature of the phenomenon has threatened the financial stability of many educators
and their families, which research indicates is a common occurrence when Christian schools
close suddenly (Nichols, 2006).
Beyond America’s borders, the decline in the movement is causing concern among
Christian schools on the international front. Many ACSI-member schools in other countries
depend on U.S. Christian schools for financial resources and other support. Further, they have an
appreciation for the current third movement of Christian schools in the context of history,
realizing that it started in the U.S. and could end there, as well. In response, the president of
ACSI has reported that international schools have begun praying for the survival and well-being
of Christian schools in the U.S.—a reversal of the pattern of prayer in past decades—referring
to American Christian schools as the roots and their rapidly-expanding international schools as
the new green leaves on the tree (Egeler, 2015). Clearly, there is concern for what will happen to
the new growth if the root system dies.
The current crisis represents nothing less than a spiritual disaster of unequalled
proportions in the movement’s history, because it carries with it eternal consequences that
transcend exclusively worldly ramifications. In other words, while the closure of faith-based
schools is acknowledged within the movement as resulting in a reduction in the number of
students equipped to be ethical citizens with a strong moral foundation, as well as students
academically better prepared than many of their counterparts in public school settings (Scott,
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

23

2012; Cardus Education Survey, 2011; NAEP, 1978-2011), the loss of Christian schools results
in something infinitely worse from the perspective of the Christian faith: The loss of souls. While
there is room for biblical, theological debate regarding the nature of salvation and its degree of
dependence on human means for reaching lost souls for redemption (i.e., Calvinist [Reformed]
versus Arminian [non-Reformed] stances regarding eternal life), Christian educators as a whole
still view the Christian school crisis with alarm (Heyman, 2015; ACSI, 2015a; 2014a; Ritzema,
2013).
Assumptions
It is assumed that reliable, knowledgeable respondents with valid insights into the
Christian school movement and its past, present, and future challenges will be located, and that a
sufficient number of these individuals will agree to be interviewed and provide data and
information as needed by the researcher. It is further assumed that the Christian educators and
other professionals interviewed will provide accurate information and truthful responses to
verbal and written questions. Additionally, it is also assumed that all documents and artifacts
provided will be genuine and typical, and will not be edited or otherwise manipulated to present
a fictitious image of the Christian school movement, Christian school practices, related
information, or to prevent the accurate depiction of factors endangering the Christian school
movement in America.
Definition of Terms
• Christian school. A private, evangelical, Protestant Christian school. A Christian
school may include any or all age and grade levels, from early education through high
school, depending upon the particular Christian school.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

24

• The Christian school movement in America. The rapid and sustained growth of
private, evangelical, Protestant Christian schools in the U.S. that began in the years
following World War II and continued to expand at explosive rates—particularly in
the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s—until about 2003, after which time the long
trend of meteoric growth slowed and then unexpectedly dropped into decline across
the nation starting in 2006.The Christian school movement in America ignited the
third Christian school movement in history, which continues to the present time.
• Church-sponsored Christian school. A Christian school that is sponsored by an
overseeing church body. Typically, schools that are church sponsored are considered
ministries of the sponsoring church congregation.
• Independent Christian school. A Christian school that operates independently of any
particular church, group of churches, or denomination. While these schools maintain
a biblical philosophy of Christian school education and adhere to a statement of faith
(usually identical to or closely resembling the ACSI statement of faith), they are
stand-alone educational institutions. In nearly all cases, independent Christian schools
are not-for-profit, religious organizations.
• Covenant school. A descriptive term often used for a Christian school that accepts
only Christian families, Christian students (typically at the secondary school level), or
families in which at least one of the parents is a professing Christian. These schools
often require a pastoral recommendation form during the admissions process.
• Outreach school; Evangelistic school; Mission school. Descriptive terms often used
for a Christian school that accepts both Christian and non-Christian students and
families. These schools typically view reaching out to students and families with the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

25

gospel message—through the establishing of school-family relationships—as an
integral part of their purpose.
• Christian school association. Formal associations that provide support and services
to their member schools. By 1978, there were five Christian school associations of
national scale in the U.S. The American Association of Christian Schools (AACS),
formed in 1972; Christian Schools International (CSI), the result of four associations
that merged from 1892-1978; the National Association of Christian Schools (NACS),
founded in 1947; the Mid-Atlantic Christian School Association (MACSA), begun in
1948; and by far the largest group, the Association of Christian Schools International
(ACSI), that started in 1950. ACSI offers a broad range of services to its member
schools, from legal services to student activities to teacher and administrator
certification to accreditation partnerships with agencies across the U.S., including the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and other commissions.
Perhaps more importantly to the movement, ACSI also wields political and legal
influence aimed at protecting and fighting to expand the rights of parents, churches,
and independent evangelical schools to educate in freedom and perpetuity. This
includes advocating strongly for school choice initiatives, education tax credits, and
school voucher programs, as well as the right to teach and lead Christianly (ACSI,
2015c; Kienel, 2014; Ritzema, 2013). In addition to offices in Washington, D.C. and
regionally throughout the U.S. and Canada, ACSI has also established offices around
the world, to keep pace with its growing global reach (ACSI, 2015d).

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

26

Organization of the Study
Chapters One through Five are organized around a central theme, in adherence to
uniform dissertation guidelines as adopted and maintained by the University of Southern
California (USC) and the USC Rossier School of Education.
Chapter One provides a brief introduction of the U.S. Christian school movement and a
description of the problem: That Christian schools are in decline after many years of rapid and
sustained growth, a phenomenon that was unforeseen and now threatens the future of the
movement in America— and potentially around the world.
Chapter Two presents a synthesis of current related literature, in order to provide insight
into the phenomenon of Christian school failure and the decline of the Christian school
movement. The review focuses on two categories of literature, one examining potential external
influences on the Christian school movement from 2006-2016, and one examining potential
internal influences on the movement during the same period.
Chapter Three focuses on the research design and methodology to be utilized in the
mixed methods study of Christian school leaders from around the nation and their insights into
the factors endangering the movement in America. This chapter also provides details on the
selection of respondents for the study, data collection procedures, and ethical considerations for
the research.
Chapter Four provides a complete presentation of the findings of the study and its
conclusions, including selected segments of transcriptions from interviews with respondents and
additional pertinent material collected during the course of the research.
Chapter Five presents the findings in response to the research questions and additional
information relevant to this study. This chapter also draws connections between the findings of
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

27

the research and the review of the literature, and includes a discussion of the research design,
influences, and interpretive remarks on study findings. A summary of conclusive findings,
recommendations, implications, and potential areas for further study are shared.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

28

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter One briefly examined the three Christian school movements in history, including
the current movement that began in 1950 in the United States. In 65 years, this third Christian
school movement has expanded to 108 nations, giving rise to nearly 24,000 schools and 5.5
million students (ACSI, 2014a). The movement in America was characterized by meteoric
growth in the early 1960s through the 1990s, especially in the 1970s and 1980s when evangelical
Christian schools were being established at a rate of two new schools per day (Kienel, 1978).
However, while the movement continues to grow internationally, figures reveal that since 2006
the movement in America has dropped into steep decline (Egeler, 2015; ACSI, 2014a; 2014b;
Ewert, 2013; Ritzema, 2013; NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006). This phenomenon was
unexpected and unprecedented, and has witnessed the closure of hundreds of schools across the
nation (ACSI, 2015a; 2014b).
Literature Review Overview
Exploring this phenomenon further in Chapter Two, the literature review is comprised of
two core categories: (1) external events and influences on the Christian school movement in
America since 2006, and (2) internal events and influences on the movement during this same
time period. From an external perspective, scholars have identified the Great Recession as only
one of numerous factors in the decline. Trends in enrollment at other types of religious schools
help point to changing parent expectations, racial and demographic changes, and cultural shifts
affecting Christian school enrollment. Educational competition—particularly the rise of charter
schools—has also influenced trends in evangelical school attendance. The likelihood of falling
church attendance also figures into the picture of Christian school decline.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

29

Christian schools also faced internal challenges that called for new kinds of leadership.
The problems of financial stresses, loss of homogeneity of vision and culture, and changes in
diversity became critical issues, as did resistance to change and sustaining a school’s mission.
Unfortunately, much of leadership was either not able to respond to danger signs or chose to
ignore them, leading to repetitive inaction when action was most needed. This complacency and
organizational hubris combined with many factors to create a perfect storm that thrust the
Christian school movement into decline.
After these external and internal influences have been discussed, the literature review
concludes with a description of the contributions of the literature to the field, overall strengths
and weaknesses of the literature, missing pieces, and next steps for research.
Limited Research
A review of the literature reveals that little attention has been given to the causes of
declining private school enrollment in America over the past decade and even less attention has
been given to empirical studies specifically researching the Christian school movement in
America and the phenomenon of its decline. Due to this limited of research, the literature review
focuses on discovering and examining numerous factors that potentially led to the decline and
that may continue to endanger evangelical schools as a whole in the US.
The Pre-Phenomenon and Phenomenon Periods
The third Christian school movement can be bifurcated into two time periods regarding
American-based PK-12 schools, since the movement has experienced two distinctly different sets
of realities during its existence. The first time period is the Pre-Phenomenon Period, stretching
from the movement’s inception in 1950 until 2006, a span of 56 years. This era was marked by
exceptionally rapid growth (ACSI, 2006; Kienel, 2005; 1978). The second time period is the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

30

Phenomenon Period, surfacing unexpectedly in 2006 and continuing until the time of this study.
This period is characterized as a decade-long period of unprecedented decline in the Christian
school movement as evidenced by declining enrollment and hundreds of school closures
(Phillips, 2016; Egeler, 2015; ACSI, 2015a; 2014a; 2014b; 2006; Charter Oak Research, 2014;
Ewert, 2013; Ritzema, 2013; Buddin, 2012; NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006; 2004; 2002;
Chakrabarti & Roy, 2011).
A number of external and internal events and influences were identified in Chapter One
that converged to ignite the Christian school movement in America and drive its meteoric ascent
during the Pre-Phenomenon Period. As alluded to previously, the review of the literature in
Chapter Two focuses on possible external and internal events and influences during the
Phenomenon Period that converged to initiate the movement’s sudden decline. Such an
exploration involves identifying concurrent, parallel developments in numerous arenas that may
have exerted negative downward effects on the Christian school movement and that may
endanger the movement’s continued existence.
External Events and Influences—Phenomenon Period, 2006-2015
Trends in Private Religious School Enrollment
Other evangelical schools. Although the Phenomenon Period of 2006-2015 was marked
by the dramatic closures of private schools rooted in the Christian faith, by contrast other
religious schools did not experience such enrollment loss. While the Association of Christian
Schools International (ACSI) is the largest evangelical Christian school association in the world
and in the US (NCES, 2012), there are other Protestant school associations that exist. A
comparison of enrollment data and trends in the US during the Phenomenon Period reveal that
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

31

smaller, evangelical Christian school associations have also experienced decline, in addition to
the much larger ACSI.
Figures from the American Association of Christian Schools (AACS), an umbrella
organization of forty member state associations and seven associations outside of the US,
reported that its associational membership dropped from an all-time high of 1187 US schools in
2001 to 772 schools in 2014, a reduction of 34.96% (AACS, 2015). Regarding student
enrollment in the US, enrollment fell from a high of 210,708 in 2001 to 93,548 in 2013, a drop of
55.6%. The largest single annual drop in US enrollment occurred from 2007 to 2008, with
students at member schools dropping from 175,704 to 122,648, a loss of 30.2% of AACS’ total
US student population in a single year (AACS, 2015). While AACS experienced several up and
down years as it generally plateaued from 1997 to 2006, its sustained decline began after the
2006 school year and continued unabated until 2014, when student enrollment leveled off at
94,997, a slight uptick of 1.5% from the year before. However, the number of member schools
continued to fall slightly, from 775 to 772 in 2014 (AACS, 2015).
AACS officials noted that they do not consider their enrollment and membership figures
a reflection of trends in evangelical Christian schools except in a very general sense, noting that
their numbers may rise and fall because of numerous factors. These causes may include
declining school enrollments, closing schools, or schools either choosing not to affiliate with a
particular state association, or a particular state association choosing not to affiliate any longer
with AACS. The latter scenario occurred in 2008 when the Florida Association of Christian
Colleges and Schools chose to end its affiliation with AACS, which amplified AACS’ 30.2%
single-year loss of students, representing nearly all of the decline (AACS, 2015). Even so, taking
into account all known factors and AACS’ disclaimer notwithstanding, the AACS figures clearly
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

32

demonstrate a decline in the number of member Christian schools. Christian Schools
International (CSI), one of the oldest associations in the US and comprised almost exclusively of
schools in the Reformed (i.e., Calvinist) theological tradition, did not have accurate data to report
(CSI, 2015). Data on enrollment declines in other associations were not available.
Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) revealed that the top 11
evangelical Christian school associations in America for which data is collected and published—
without exception—has each suffered some level of decline during the past decade (NCES,
2012; 2010; 2008; 2006; 2004; 2002). During the period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, every
association declined at some point. Furthermore, of the 11 associations, only two had more
member schools at the conclusion of 2011-2012 than they did at the end of 2006, and the gains
were numerically small (NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006). As a composite group, the 11
associations dropped from a combined membership of 8,064 schools in 2005-2006 to 6,484 in
2011-2012, a decline of 19.6% (NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006). Thus, during a six-year period,
nearly one in five Christian schools either no longer existed or had chosen to abandon its
associational membership and operate without associational support (NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008;
2006).
Catholic schools. Although not part of the evangelical Christian school movement,
Catholic schools in America have also experienced sharp decline and over a longer period of
time. The National Catholic Education Association (NCEA) is the largest private professional
education organization in the world, representing 150,000 Catholic educators serving 6 million
students in Catholic elementary and secondary schools, in religious education programs, in
seminaries, and in colleges and universities (NCEA, 2015a). However, K-12 Catholic schools in
the US have been declining since 1965 and have shown the greatest rates of decline among all
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

33

types of private schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2008; Cooper, McLaughlin, & Manno,
1983). In 1983, a study by Cooper, McLaughlin, and Mann revealed that Catholic schools had
dramatically diminished in numbers and enrollments (p. 90) while other private schools that were
few in number in 1965 had “increased enormously” (p. 90) during the same 18-year time period.
The study further discovered that the number of losses by Catholic schools appeared to be nearly
identical to the number of gains made by other private schools, in particular, rising Christian
academies and schools about which little was known at the time (Cooper, McLaughlin, &
Manno, 1983). In hindsight, the Christian schools mentioned by Cooper, McLaughlin, and
Manno (1983) are now understood to have been in the midst of their rapid ascent in the private
school realm (Kienel, 2014). Although Catholic schools made temporary gains in the mid- to
late-1980sand a rare few local Catholic school coalitions have recently made modest headway
(Newswire, 2015; Faith in the Future, 2015), US Catholic schools have been in a constant state
of decline for more than a decade, dropping from 7,071 schools in 2001-2002 to 5,740 schools in
2011-2012 (NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006; 2004; 2002).
Jewish schools. However, other faith-based schools not tied to the Christian faith—in
either its evangelical Protestant or Catholic forms—have not experienced similar decline
(Schick, 2014; NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006; 2004; 2002). A grant-funded, 2014 census report
of Jewish day schools in the US revealed that PK-12 Jewish school enrollment had increased
37% since 1998 and 12% since 2009 (Schick, 2014). In terms of schools, the number of Jewish
day schools increased from 676 in 1998, to 802 in 2009, to 861 in 2014, an increase of 27.4%
from 1998 to 2014, and 7.4% from 2009 to 2014 (Schick, 2014). While the report noted the
strain on schools and families that the Great Recession had initially caused during the 2008-2009
school year, enrollment and school numbers grew in spite of the serious fiscal challenges faced
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

34

by both schools and families (Schick, 2014). The report also predicted a continued growth rate
for Jewish schools nationwide through at least 2019 (Schick, 2014).
Islamic schools. Likewise, Islamic K-12 schools have not reflected the trend experienced
by evangelical Christian schools. The Islamic Schools League of America (ISLA) estimated in
2011 that 40,000 students were enrolled in Islamic schools in the US, representing a 25%
increase from 2006 (Huus, 2011). ISLA reported that those numbers were expected to grow as
new schools continued to open and existing schools expanded (Huus, 2011). Figures from NCES
(2012; 2010; 2008; 2006; 2004; 2002) confirm the rise of Islamic day schools in America.
In summary, while evangelical Christian schools have experienced decline since 2006
and Catholic schools entered into negative growth four decades before that, neither Jewish nor
Islamic schools have experienced such a sustained loss of schools. In fact, both of these non-
Christian groups have achieved gains over the same time period.
Contributing External Factors to Loss of Enrollment
The Great Recession. Since 2008, the Great Recession has often been discussed as a
primary factor in the movement’s downturn at Christian school conferences, leadership summits,
associational district meetings, and online webinars (ACSI, 2015a, 2014a; Egeler, 2015; Charter
Oak Research, 2014; Ritzema, 2013). Announced as officially over in June 2009, the Great
Recession that began in December 2007 is now generally accepted as the most devastating US
and global economic crisis since the Great Depression (Economic Policy Institute, 2015; Russell
Sage Foundation, 2012). The economic impact and residual influence of the Great Recession on
American life has been extensive and long lasting, with many effects lasting well beyond its so-
called conclusion (Economic Policy Institute, 2015; Russell Sage Foundation, 2012; Simpson,
2010). Lingering consequences have included job losses, a sense of gloom, negative impact on
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

35

family life, psychological results on children, emotional feelings of hopelessness and resentment,
and unwanted effects on education (Simpson, 2010). Simpson asserts that when parents have less
money, education and enrichment opportunities for their children suffer. Thus, public schooling
becomes a choice over tuition for private schooling and tuition-based schools suffer. Confirming
this, data from the NCES confirmed a drop in school membership among evangelical Christian
school associations following the Great Recession (NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006). However,
data did not support the explanation that the Great Recession started the decline in Christian and
private school enrollment. Rather, research demonstrated that the economic impact of the Great
Recession acted to accelerate the Phenomenon of school closures, but was not the root cause
(Ewert, 2013).
Changing parental expectations. Parental expectations have been cited as an important
consideration for parents’ decision to enroll their children in Christian schools. Short (2001)
researched the stated goals and purposes of Christian schools and the reasons parents give for
choosing to send their children to these schools. In the study she sought to answer questions such
as:
• Are the reasons given by parents for choosing to enroll their children in Christian schools
in agreement with the stated purposes of the Christian schools they have chosen?
• Are these reasons similar to those cited in studies done in the late 1960s and early 1970s?
• Are the Christian schools providing the educational instructional programs and
environment that parents want for their children? (Short, 2001, p. 2)
The methodology used was a comparative analysis of multiple sources. The study examined
documents from ACSI, educational journals, and interviews with administrators and parents
from selected Christian schools. The results of her survey were consistent with her earlier
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

36

findings in the literature, as the emergent categories of what parents were expecting of Christian
schools included: (1) faith/spiritual development; (2) child/student development; (3)
home/family connections; (4) school academic environment; and (5) school non-academic
environment.
Shelton (2001) also researched factors influencing enrollment in ACSI-member schools
in Virginia. Three major research questions guided the study: (1) what factors do principals
perceive influence parents to enroll children in Christian schools?; (2) what factors do parents
perceive influence them initially to enroll children in Christian schools?; and (3) what factors do
parents perceive influence them to re-enroll their children in Christian schools? Parents and
principals were asked to rank what they perceived as the top factors causing parents to enroll
their students in Christian schools. Shelton ranked the various factors, isolating the most
prevalent reasons. The data were analyzed using SPSS to determine frequency distributions,
cross tabulations, and Chi-square results. The study found that parents enrolled (and re-enrolled)
their children in Christian schools for the same reasons that principals perceived they did, which
were: (1) values; (2) school philosophy; (3) climate (classroom atmosphere/behavior and
teachers caring/committed); and (4) academics. Shelton (2001) found Christian values and
biblical school philosophy to be the two most important factors to families choosing a Christian
school. The study noted parents sought schools where subject areas are approached from the
point of view of biblical beliefs.
Since the completion of Short’s (2001) and Shelton’s (2001) studies, major events in
American life have occurred in both the educational and social realms. These have included the
terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Great Recession, numerous mass school shootings, the rise of charter
schools and homeschooling, and a social phenomenon that some perceive to be the ongoing
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

37

secularization and dechristianization of US culture (Kinnaman & Lyons, 2016; Laderman, 2013;
Ewert, 2013; Pearcey, 2010; 2005; Tackett, 2006; Barna, 2005; Colson & Pearcey, 1999;
Zacharias, 1996). In the wake of these events, Giglio’s (2009) findings demonstrated that a shift
in parent priorities for their children’s education had taken place, replete with a new set of parent
expectations superseding the desire for a Christian school philosophy, biblically-integrated
curriculum, and a Christ-centered educational setting. These findings appeared to be reflective of
the permeating effect of cultural change across the nation on parental thinking (Kinnaman &
Lyons, 2016). Giglio (2009) discovered that parents reenrolled their students in Christian schools
on an annual basis because of three factors: (1) satisfying relationships with others at the school;
(2) safety; and (3) quality academics. Christian-specific reasons to re-register did not surface as a
priority at the schools Giglio studied. Compared to the Christ-centric, biblically-driven reasons
given by parents for enrolling their children in evangelical schools during more than half-a-
century of previous growth in the movement (Kienel, 2005; Short, 2001), these parent
expectations represented a significant, foundational change. Laderman (2013) commented on this
radical shift over time. He argued that recent history demonstrates that religion overall is not
losing impact, but Christianity, in particular—and its authoritative power in society—is waning.
He calls this shift a dechristianization of America, not a secularization of America. This analysis
offers one explanation for the contrast between private religious schools in the US with roots in
Christianity that are in decline, as compared to private religious but non-Christian schools (e.g.,
Jewish and Islamic) that continue to grow.
By contrast, one study provided somewhat of an outlying perspective. Rodriguez (2014)
investigated the most highly valued factors given by caregivers for enrolling their children in
Christian schools, surveying 297 caregivers from 39 ACSI-member schools in California whose
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

38

children were already enrolled and attending a Christian school. The survey considered factors
from five categories: (1) biblical values, (2) academics, (3) school culture, (4) student-
centeredness, and (5) economic considerations. Rodriguez (2014) found caregivers’ highest
valued factors to be biblical values and care of the student. However, quality academics, safe
environment, and the number of highly qualified teachers on staff were also found to be highly
valued factors. By comparison, the factors of care of the student, quality academics (including
highly qualified teachers), and safe environment were generally consistent with Giglio’s 2009
findings. Rodriguez’s (2014) key outlying factor of biblical values may be reflective of the fact
that survey participants were already enrolled in a Christian school and were satisfied with their
experience, which would include a school’s focus on biblical values. It may also be a possible
indicator that the Christian faith had personally affected caregivers during their students’
attendance at their respective schools, elevating the level of importance of biblical values
compared to families whose children had not been attending a Christian school.
The rise of charter schools. During the same period that parental expectations for
choosing private schools changed, the rise of charter schools across the nation had an impact on
enrollment in Christian schools (Ewert, 2013; Council for American Private Education, 2012;
Buddin, 2012; Chakrabarti & Roy, 2011). In 1990, there were no charter schools in America.
According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, enrollment figures for charter
schools show that student enrollment increased from zero in 1990, to 789,000 in 2003-2004, to
1.45 million in 2008-2009, to 2.57 million in 2013-2014 (NAPCS, 2015). As of 2014, 6,440
charter schools were operating in the US, including 642 new charter schools for the 2013-2014
school year (NAPCS, 2015). Ewert (2013) analyzed the rapid rise of charter schools while
considering the concurrent rapid decline of private schools. She concluded that there was a
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

39

quantitative correlation between the growth of public charter schools and the decline of private
schools—including Christian schools—on a national scale (Ewert, 2013). Ewert’s (2013)
conclusions were echoed by other studies and reports, citing that there was a correlation between
rising charter enrollment and declining private school attendance (Buddin, 2012; Council for
American Private Education, 2012; Chakrabarti & Roy, 2011).
Ewert (2013) stated that most states that have experienced a significant increase in
charter school enrollment have also experienced a decrease in private school enrollment. As an
example, during the 2009-2010 school year in California, the number of students enrolled in
charter schools grew by 48,000 while the number of private school students fell by 40,000
(Ewert, 2013). Pursuing this idea further, a look at available ACSI records—while not
complete—does provide potentially telling indicators. In 2003-2004, there were 3,928 ACSI-
member schools in the US. By 2013-2014, the number of schools had dropped to 3,109, a loss of
819 schools, representing a 20.9% decline in ten years. In 2003-2004 ACSI-member schools in
the US had a combined enrollment of 740,632 students. By 2010-2011(the latest school year for
which contiguous enrollment records were available), enrollment had declined to 631,307. This
was a reduction in enrollment of 109,325 students, representing a loss of 14.8% in seven years
(ACSI Membership Services, 2014).
Comparing available ACSI and charter school statistics reveal that from 2003-2004 to
2008-2009—a period of five years—ACSI enrollment growth slowed and then dropped from
740,632 to 688,666, a decrease of 51,966 students, or a 7% loss. During the same parallel period,
charter schools grew from 789,000 to 1.45 million students, an increase of 661,000 students, or a
45.6% gain (ACSI Membership Services, 2014; NAPCS, 2015). Clearly, as Christian schools
were losing enrollment, charter schools were gaining students. As Ewert (2013) demonstrated,
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

40

these figures represent trends in student enrollment prior to schools absorbing the full effects of
the Great Recession in 2008, indicating that the Great Recession was not the only factor affecting
the decline in the Christian school movement.
Further evidence of this simultaneous Christian school decrease and charter school
increase was found through a comparison of NCES data regarding the number of both types of
schools. According to NCES, the number of charter schools in America grew from 3,780 in
2005-2006 to 6,079 by 2012-2013, a rise of 60.8% over seven years (NCES, 2015). At the same
time, ACSI dropped from 3,627 schools in 2005-2006 to 2,948 in 2011-2012 (most recent
figures available), a decline of 18.7% (NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006). It should be noted that
figures from ACSI and figures from NCES do not correspond; ACSI shows a larger number of
member schools than does NCES (ACSI Membership Services, 2014; NCES, 2012). Regardless
of the discrepancy in the two sets of figures, there is ample evidence that while charter schools
were growing, Christian schools were in decline (see Figure B).
Some of the students who in the past were candidates for Christian schools became
candidates for charter schools, as some parental priorities other than a biblical-centered
perspective could be met in charter schools (Giglio, 2009). One result of these changing
expectations of parents considering a Christian school versus a charter school was that the top
three reasons given by parents now appear to be identical: School safety, academic rigor, and
satisfying relationships with others at the school (Giglio, 2009). Thus, if the only difference in
the minds of many parents when considering a school is whether they have to pay tuition or not,
parents have often chosen not to pay tuition (Ewert, 2013; Buddin, 2012; Chakrabarti & Roy,
2011), because the expressly Christian aspects of the school are irrelevant to them (Giglio,
2009).
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

41

Figure
B.
Comparison
of
the
number
and
trend
of
public
charter
schools,
ACSI
member
schools,

schools
as
a
composite
in
the
top
10
Christian
school
associations,
and
Catholic
Schools
in
the

U.S.,
2001-‐2014.
1,2,3

0"
1000"
2000"
3000"
4000"
5000"
6000"
7000"
8000"
9000"
2001,02" 2003,04" 2005,06" 2007,08" 2009,10" 2011,12" 2013,14"
Number'of'Schools'
Comparison'of'the'Number'and'Trend'of'Public'Charter'Schools,'ACSI'Member'Schools,'Schools'as'a'
Composite'in'the'Top'10'Chris>an'School'Associa>ons,'and'Catholic'Schools'in'the'U.S.,'2001B2014'
Public"Charter"Schools"
ACSI"Member"Schools"
Top"10"AssociaBons"
Catholic"Schools"

1.
Based
on
statistics
from
the
National
Center
for
Educational
Statistics,
the
National
Alliance
for
Public
Charter
Schools,

and
the
Association
of
Christian
Schools
International
(NCES
2015a;
2015b;
2012;
2010;
2008;
2006;
2004;
2002;
NAPCS,

2015;
ACSI,
2014b).

2.
The
Top
10
Associations
category
included
the
top
10
Christian
school
associations
in
terms
of
number
of
member

schools,
and
associations
that
were
included
in
NCES
statistics
from
at
least
the
2001-‐2002
school
year
forward.
ACSI
was

included
in
the
top
10
associations,
and
was
the
largest
single
association
represented.

3.
Public
charter
school
statistics
were
already
available
for
2013-‐2014,
and
were
thus
included.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

42

Fellers (2013) conducted a quantitative research dissertation focused on identifying
warning signs at K-12 Christian schools that could uncover stresses leading to school closure.
Building on previous research by Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006) that did not find
competition as a significant factor and that was conducted prior to the Great Recession (and
before the movement’s downturn had begun), Fellers conversely found that competition was a
factor, but did not specify charter schools (or any other category of schools) as a competitor.
Instead, Fellers (2013) noted that the questions in his study examined a school’s competitive
advantage, and found that schools should focus on their own overall competitive advantage in
the marketplace instead of looking initially at another school’s threat as a competitor. The study
found that school leaders should (1) ensure their marketing emphases match school strengths
with student and parent needs and demands; (2) ensure that school marketing pieces highlight a
wide range of student experiences; and (3) ensure that campus appearance and landscaping is a
priority, even at the expense of other budget items that may be deemed more important by some
individuals in the organization (Fellers, 2013).
The rise of homeschooling. The number of children being home educated in the US has
risen during the past 30 years. In 1999, there were approximately 800,000 children being
homeschooled; by 2010 that number had risen to an estimated 2.04 million students (Horn &
Staker, 2011; Ray, 2011). Between 2007 and 2010, the homeschool population grew by
approximately 7% (Ray, 2011). During that same period, the number of ACSI-member schools
dropped from 3,551 to 3,129, a decline of 11.9% (NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008).
Ewert (2013) analyzed the rise of homeschooling and found that the limited data
regarding homeschool enrollment prevented a careful examination of the relationship between
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

43

homeschooling and private school enrollment, including Christian schools. While the researcher
noted that the rise of homeschooling might have had some effect on private school decline, the
degree of impact is not yet known, and further research needs to be conducted (Ewert, 2013).
What was discovered was that large numbers of parents have chosen the homeschooling option
and for many reasons. One study using NCES data noted that the top three reasons parents chose
homeschooling were: (1) Concern about the environment of other schools (31.2%); (2) to
provide religious or moral instruction (29.8%); and (3) dissatisfaction with academic instruction
at other schools (16.5%). These were followed by additional reasons of: (4) child has special
needs other than a physical or mental health problem (6.5%); and (5) a high percentage of other
reasons (8.8%) that could include flexibility, parent and child preference, increased parental
control over the child’s learning, the financial inability to pay tuition, or the lack of a Christian
school in their area (Infoplease, 2003). Homeschool students now also have the advantage of
online blended learning opportunities, increasing their capacity to be educated at home (Horn &
Staker, 2011).
The rise of online K-12 schools. The rapid rise of online K-12 schools, online courses,
and the use of blended education—in particular public programs that do not require tuition or
significant fees—is a relatively recent development on the American educational landscape that
has quickly gained traction (Horn & Staker, 2011). It is estimated that 45,000 K-12 students took
an online course in the year 2000; by 2009, that number had mushroomed to over 3 million
(Horn & Staker, 2011). The strength of a system that delivers on the promise of providing
personalized learning opportunities for all students has fueled explosive growth. Many
homeschool families and charter schools now utilize online course delivery, and public schools
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

44

now exist in most states that offer their courses exclusively online (K12.com, 2015; Horn &
Staker, 2011).
Although there were no studies found that specifically explored the influence that the
increasing number of online K-12 schools and schools constructed on blended learning may have
had on the decline of Christian schools, the rise of online education at the K-12 level shows no
signs of slowing; projections by some scholars are that 50% of all high school courses will be
delivered online by the year 2019 (Horn & Staker, 2011; Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008).
Racial and Demographic Shifts—Social Changes
The Great Recession, changing parental expectations, and tuition-free educational
alternatives were not the only external factors that were possible contributors to the loss of
Christian school enrollment. There have been significant ethnic and demographic shifts in
America affecting the social fabric of the nation (Frey, 2015), including the demographic
composition of private schools (Buddin, 2012).
In addition to reasons of faith, the sharp rise in Christian school enrollment in the 1960s
had racial implications, as Whites rapidly left public schools in large numbers to avoid
integration with African-American students, particularly in the South, where Christian school
student enrollment was almost entirely White (Ryan, 2004). Five decades later, private schools
are more common in areas that are ethnically diverse and with more students categorized as at
risk than in areas without those characteristics. This is also true of charter schools. This shift in
Christian school demographics accompanies the period of sharp decline in private schools,
including Christian schools. (Buddin, 2012). In addition, estimates from the National
Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) indicated that the African-American and Hispanic
students who currently attend private schools are enrolled at schools that are slightly more
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

45

integrated than the public schools attended by those groups (Fairlie, 2006). Also, a higher
percentage of African-American students attend evangelical Christian schools than any other
type of private religious school (NCES, 2015b).
That said, however, the ethnic composition of conservative Christian schools nationally
in 2011-2012 was 72.3% White, 11.3% Black, 7.9% Hispanic, 4.8% Asian, 2.7% two or more
races, 0.5% American Indian, and 0.5% Pacific Islander (NCES, 2015b). For Christian schools,
this was found to be problematic on two fronts. The first is a religiously-based moral and ethical
dilemma. Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, stressed
that statistics revealing the disappointing lack of success in creating racially integrated private
religious schools—including non-Catholic schools—should be viewed as a challenge to the
traditions of the faith, eliciting a more concerted response on the part of Christian schools
(Orfield, as cited in Reardon & Yun, 2002). Orfield explained that Christian beliefs value the
personal dignity of each individual, work to end discrimination and separation, and reflect a
commitment to help the poor. He also reminded private school educators that they have the
freedom to provide leadership in integration efforts, even though private Christian schools are
not currently under court-ordered desegregation requirements (Orfield, as cited in Reardon &
Yun, 2002). Orfield’s implication is that if Christian schools are going to be truly Christian, they
need to do a better job of creating truly interracial schools, particularly in a society that is
becoming more diverse (Orfield, as cited in Reardon & Yun, 2002).
The second problem for Christian schools is the reality that the White population is
already in a zero-growth mode and projected to enter decline throughout the future of America
(Frey, 2015). Although White parents and high-income families of other racial groups continue
to move to more exclusive communities with superior performing schools (Rothwell, 2012) and
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

46

Whites are withdrawing their children from public schools and placing them in private schools,
this cannot be sustained demographically (Frey, 2015). Christian schools can no longer look to
the White populace to sustain the movement, not only because of zero growth, but because of a
new racial and social paradigm that is quickly emerging (Frey, 2015). Frey posits that this new
paradigm, created by an explosion of diversity in America, signals a demographic transformation
that has begun to effect wholesale change in US social structures, including education (Frey,
2015). Frey’s (2015) implication is that the demographic change has already influenced school
enrollment, which would include private schools. Frey (2015) further argued that “diversity is
America’s future” (p. 244), and noted as proof 2011 being the first birth year on record in the US
in which Whites were in the minority. He also pointed to projections that by the decade of 2040
Whites will become a minority of the nation’s overall population— permanently. Thus, Frey
makes the case that institutions must understand key areas of change and focus on the younger
generations of non-Whites, including improved access to high-quality schools (Frey, 2015).
Putnam (2015) points out how rapidly changing demographics have plunged the American
Dream—with a core belief that all children should have equal opportunity to achieve—into
crisis. With family and social backgrounds in nationwide transition, Putnam posits that large-
scale demographic shifts are driving greater educational inequality on a broadening scale. As this
demographic transformation has already begun, many Christian schools are being challenged
with how to effectively assimilate students of color (Gant, 2013).
Cultural Shifts—Cultural Changes
In tandem with racial and ethnic shifts producing growing social changes, there have also
been cultural shifts creating changes in American culture that have impacted Christian thought.
These cultural and philosophical influences have been viewed by biblically conservative
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

47

evangelicals in the US as potentially catastrophic developments for Christianity and the church,
undermining the foundations of the faith (Pearcey, 2010; 2005; Platt, 2010; Horton, 2008; Nobel,
2008; Stonestreet, 2008; Tackett, 2006; Barna, 2005; Greene, 2003; Schultz, 2002; Colson &
Pearcey, 1999; Zacharias, 1996; Beckwith & Koukl, 1998). Themes that thread their way
through the fabric of cultural change, as it relates to Christianity in America, are numerous. The
rise of moral relativism and postmodern thought have given rise to the rejection of notions about
absolute truth (Beckwith & Koukl, 1998; Stonestreet, 2004; Pearcey, 2005; Tackett, 2006), that
Pearcey (2005) argues have resulted in what she considers to be the cultural captivity of
Christianity by the Western world (Pearcey, 2005) and the loss of the perspective that biblical
Christianity is truth concerning total reality (Tacket, 2006; Pearcey, 2005; Colson & Pearcey,
1999; Schaeffer, 1981). Pearcey (2010) asserts that Western civilization has been under secular
assault on mind, morals, and meaning in the popular culture, and Zacharias (1996) examined
how many popular notions are not being recognized for what he insists they truly are: Ideas that
are vandalizing and threatening the foundations of Christian culture in the Western world. This
perceived erosion of a biblically-grounded worldview and metanarrative has resulted in a call for
evangelical Christians in America to take steps to engage in firmly reestablishing such a
perspective (Pearcey, 2010; Nobel, 2008; Tackett, 2006; Schultz, 2002; Colson & Pearcey, 1999;
Zacharias, 1996). Theologian Michael Horton (2008) insists that there has been a corrupting of
the faith in America that has morphed Christianity into a belief system that is more American
than it is Christian, and Platt (2010) posits that much of biblical faith has been replaced by
materialistic concepts of the American Dream. Research by Kinnaman and Lyons (2016)
demonstrates that American culture has become increasingly hostile to Christianity, noting that
US society is growing in its belief that faith in Christ is both irrelevant and extreme. This is
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

48

challenging traditional Christian convictions, creating difficulty with Christians and faith-based
institutions in knowing how to address such a cultural backlash, and raising questions in the
arenas of politics, sexuality, race, gender, and religious freedom that are causing many American
Christ-followers to feel overwhelmed (Kinnaman & Lyons, 2016). Putnam and Campbell (2010)
noted that, on average, America remains “a highly religious nation, but that average obscures a
growing secular swath of the population” (p. 3). These foregoing cultural developments have had
a bearing on Christian schools. The earliest beginnings of the third Christian school movement in
America included a belief among conservative Christians that there were signs of moral and
spiritual decay that were negatively seeping into the culture (Kienel, 2005; Schultz, 2002). With
the arrival of the 21
st
century, biblically-conservative leaders noted with alarm their view that
what was once considered seepage in 1950 now (1) is nothing less than a torrent, (2) is
seemingly out of the control of school leaders, and (3) has contributed to enrollment loss in
Christian schools (Egeler, 2015; Charter Oak Research, 2014). These cultural (and other) factors
are viewed as potential ongoing threats to the Christian school movement as it moves further into
the new realities of the 21
st
century (Charter Oak Research, 2014).
Changing Patterns of Evangelical Church Attendance in America
There is evidence that changing patterns of evangelical church attendance have led to
reduced capacity for churches to support Christian school enrollment, particularly with regard to
church-sponsored schools. In a review of recent studies and polls regarding church attendance in
America inclusive of Catholic, mainline, and evangelical churches, Shattuck (2013) reported that
the actual numbers of churchgoers in the US is considerably less than what is often reported.
Shattuck (2013) noted seven key findings when looking closely at US church attendance: (1) less
than 20% of Americans regularly attend church (half of what the pollsters report); (2) American
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

49

church attendance is steadily declining; (3) only one state (Hawaii) reports church attendance
that is growing at a faster rate than its population growth; (4) mid-sized churches are shrinking,
while the smallest and largest churches are growing; (5) established churches that are 40 to 190
years old are declining, on average; (6) the increase in churches is only a quarter of what is
needed to keep up with population growth; and (7) projections are that in 2050, the percentage of
the American population attending church will be almost half of what it was in 1990.
However, data from two other sources contradict some of those results, claiming that
church attendance is actually on the increase (Shattuck, 2013). Both the Barna Group and the
Center for Missional Research at the North American Mission Board (NAMB) of the Southern
Baptist Convention (SBC) report that attendance is rising, especially when taking into account
house churches and small group meetings, noting that approximately six million people in the
US gather with a small group but rarely, if ever, go to church services in the traditional sense
(Shattuck, 2013).
Bartfell (2015) points out the implications of reduced church influence on Christian
schools. From his perspective Christian schools are the last hope for bringing up a generation of
youth on biblical principles. His perspective on Christian schools stands in contrast with the
downward trend of parents whose primary reason for selecting Christian schools is not a
biblically based learning environment for their children (Giglio, 2009).
Internal Events and Influences—Phenomenon Period, 2006-2015
Leadership Failure
Several studies have identified failure of leadership as one of the chief reasons Christian
schools have failed. Harden (1988), in a groundbreaking study, targeted schools sponsored by
local congregations within the Assembly of God denomination. Because no previous studies on
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

50

Christian school closures had been conducted, Harden built on a prior study of business failures
by Jansen (1984) to analyze eight evangelical Protestant Christian schools that had closed. Of the
10 reasons for business failure identified by Jansen, Harden selected eight that he believed best-
paralleled issues encountered by Christian schools that closed. Using a case study method for his
qualitative research, Harden studied schools located in various geographic areas of the US:
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. His research found that
the chief reason the schools of his study failed was partnership difficulties, which upon closer
examination appeared to primarily involve issues of leadership.
Fitzpatrick (2002) developed hypotheses about why Christian schools fail, leading to a
model for explaining Christian school closures. Fitzpatrick used a qualitative approach involving
case studies of five closed Christian schools. The model was comprised of eight variables.
Interviews were conducted with 43 stakeholders, including former administrators, parents,
school board members, pastors, and teachers. Among the eight factor categories, Fitzpatrick
discovered that leadership was the number one factor in the closure of the schools that were
studied. Fitzpatrick concluded that leaders failed to heed warning signs that an institution was in
difficulty. Fitzpatrick’s research proved to be a warning in itself, as the movement’s downward
turn soon followed her study. (A discussion of warning signs follows later in this chapter.)
Nichols (2006) built on Fitzpatrick’s research by replicating the 2002 study and
investigating a cluster of Christian school closures in Southern California from 2001 to 2004. At
the time, such a concentration of closures was rare (Walner, 2006). The study was considered
groundbreaking because it examined the nature and causes of the closure of four evangelical
Protestant Christian schools which were all members of ACSI; it was the first research ever to
examine ACSI-member schools that had closed (such schools had declined to participate in
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

51

Fitzpatrick’s 2002 study) (Nichols, 2006; Kienel & Nichols, 2006). It was also the first study to
include a school that was accredited in good standing at the time of its closure, as well as another
school that had previously been accredited and was beginning the process of becoming re-
accredited (Nichols, 2006). The qualitative study followed Fitzpatrick’s 2002 methodology,
interviewing respondents from Christian schools that had closed, but adding an additional
question to the items that had been asked by Fitzpatrick: Stakeholders who identified leadership
as a factor were asked to identify which individuals or groups within leadership were responsible
for the closure of their school (Nichols, 2006). Given the absence of economic recession or
competition, the study explains that failure of leadership, among eight factors/variables tested,
was the chief reason each school closed. Within leadership, respondents further identified pastors
as the leaders most responsible for Christian school closures, followed closely by school boards
and “illegitimate leadership groups” (Nichols, 2006, p. 163).
Leadership failure—pastors. Stakeholders in the Nichols (2006) study identified
pastors as the individuals most responsible for the closure of Christian schools, both in the
overall research and at the schools in which they had served. This seemed to be particularly
problematic when a church that sponsored a Christian school changed pastors, and the newly
arriving pastors did not have a vision for Christian schools, did not want to be encumbered by
such a ministry, and did what they could to end the school ministry at the church (Nichols,
2006); these findings echoed and amplified prior findings by Fitzpatrick (2002). Nichols
discovered that respondents as a composite group found the failing pastors guilty of deceit,
arrogance, a lack of love, a dislike of children, and an absence of vision for Christian school
education (Nichols, 2006). Although the researcher pointed out that the majority of ministers that
oversee churches with Christian schools strongly support those ministries, it was clear that at
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

52

some churches it was the pastor who was actually the worst enemy of its own school, and these
men were viewed with considerable disdain by stakeholders (Nichols, 2006). Some respondents
even questioned if the ministers involved in eliminating their schools were actually Christians
(Nichols, 2006).
Leadership failure—school boards. School boards were the second leading strata of
leadership most responsible for school closures in the Nichols (2006) study, along with
illegitimate leadership groups (to be discussed later). All of the schools in Nichols’ 2006 study
cited school board failure as contributing to the closure of their school. In some instances,
stakeholders felt that school board members were too often comprised of church members who
had little or no experience in the field of education, either Christian or secular. In addition, some
school board members with exclusively public school backgrounds were viewed as not
understanding much of the essential nature of faith-based evangelical schools. The absence of a
personal philosophy of Christian school education proved to be a hindrance (Nichols, 2006). In
more than one instance, as a sponsoring church decreased in numbers of regular attenders, it
became much more difficult to find qualified school board members to serve. These
qualifications included spiritual maturity, educational experience, an understanding of Christian
school education, a deep belief that Christian schools should share Christ while boldly teaching
an uncompromising biblical worldview, and specialized board member training (Nichols, 2006).
In fact, because of by-laws and policies typically requiring church membership as a prerequisite
for school board service, this often meant there were no genuinely qualified individuals left to
choose from when vacancies arose on the school board (Nichols, 2006). Respondents repeatedly
pointed out that school board members seemed to be disconnected from the realities of their
schools—and were dispassionate about and detrimental to their schools—even though these
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

53

board members had the heavy responsibility and liability of ultimate legal oversight of their
private school systems (Nichols, 2006). For stakeholders, the core of the problem often boiled
down to weaknesses and failures of personal character and integrity, either on the part of board
members themselves, those who led them, or both. In the end, respondents felt that good board
members were not only outnumbered by poor board members around them, but were simply
overwhelmed by the gravity and scope of the various problems at hand, and either lacked
experience or training in what to do, or did not receive the proper direction from board
leadership or pastoral overseers (Nichols, 2006). All these foregoing issues related to school
boards continue to be concerns across much of the US Christian school landscape (ACSI, 2015a;
2014a; Nichols, 2015a; 2015b; 2015c; 2014; Moran & Nichols, 2014). When asked to identify
the number one cause of Christian school dysfunction and crisis at the school site level on a
national scale, one ACSI official anonymously and firmly stated: “Boards behaving badly”
(ACSI leader, personal communication, 2014). With this understanding, it seems apparent that
additional examination is needed concerning the role of school boards and the decline of the
Christian school movement in America.
Leadership failure—illegitimate leadership groups. Sharp comments and criticisms
about failed leadership in the Nichols (2006) study did not stop with pastors and school boards. It
also included another leadership category that was just as much to blame for two schools’
disintegration as were school board members. The term illegitimate leadership group (ILG) was
coined by the researcher to describe a third category of significant leadership failure that
emerged from responses given by stakeholders in the study (Nichols, 2006). At those
stakeholders’ schools, groups of individuals who were not professionally qualified or school-
authorized to be leaders banded together to exert influence and control over school operations
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

54

and much of the organization. These groups were collections of individuals from various
segments of their schools who joined forces to manipulate others and improperly forward their
own ideas beyond the boundaries of their authority. They were typically not confronted, and in at
least one case were empowered by an administrator who abdicated her authority. That particular
school closed soon thereafter, with little warning (Nichols, 2015a; 2006). As with other failed
leaders, respondents described ILG members as being devoid of Christian character, lacking
personal values, and using deceit to seize unauthorized power (Nichols, 2006).
In each of the three categories of failed leadership that were found to have been most
responsible for school closure (i.e., pastors, school boards, and ILGs), Nichols (2006) discovered
that stakeholders overwhelmingly pointed to character flaws and shortcomings of personal
integrity as reasons leaders failed. This included a failure to genuinely embody and model
Christlike virtues—especially humility—as well as other elements of an authentic Christian
lifestyle (Nichols, 2006). Implications of the Nichols (2006) study included the need for effective
training of Christian school leaders, especially pastors of churches that sponsor schools and
school board members, regardless of whether the board oversees a school that is church-
sponsored or independent.
Fellers (2013) considered the findings of both Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006) and
conducted the first quantitative research ever performed aimed at recognizing the early warning
signs of K-12 Christian school operational and situational distress leading to institutional closure.
Fellers (2013)—like Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006)—found that leadership was the chief
causal factor in school closures, but also found that the factors of financial stresses, loss of
homogeneity of vision and culture, and marketing and competition were just as likely as failed
leadership in the eventual closure of the Christian schools in his study. In addition, as with
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

55

Nichols (2006), Fellers (2013) found that school boards—not school administrators—were the
leaders statistically most likely to fail (at non-church sponsored schools) and most likely to steer
their institutions toward disaster.
The three foregoing research studies (Fellers, 2013; Nichols, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2002)
strongly demonstrate that failure of leadership is a chief factor in individual school closures, and
has been for more than a decade. Failure is especially evident at the school board level (Fellers,
2013; Nichols, 2006) and can also be highly problematic when unsupportive pastors decide to
work against their church-sponsored schools (Nichols, 2007; 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2002; Given,
1989). These patterns of leadership failure do not appear to have changed for the better in recent
years (ACSI, 2015a; 2014a; Nichols, 2015a; 2015b; 2015c; 2014; Moran & Nichols, 2014;
Fellers, 2013; Kienel, Moran, & Nichols, 2011a; 2011b; Baeder, Braley, Heyman, Hopson,
Kienel, & Nichols, 2010).
Leadership theories. Fellers (2013), Nichols (2006), and Fitzpatrick (2002) revealed
areas of leadership practice that fell short of fulfilling the models and theories that would have
helped prevent leadership failure and given rise to school success. Fitzpatrick (2002) detailed
several theories of leadership related to her study, including: (1) Weber’s (1947) theory of social
and economic organization; (2) Shashkin and Burke’s (1990) three key elements of leadership
(the leader’s personal characteristics; the leader’s effect on organizational functioning and
culture; and the leader’s behavior); (3) Katz and Kahn’s (1978) types of leadership behavior; and
(4) Kouzes and Posner’s (1995) five exemplary characteristics of successful leaders in any
organization (challenging the process; inspiring a shared vision; enabling others to act; modeling
the way; and encouraging the heart). Fitzpatrick (2002) also touched on theories and models of
leadership in organizational change as posited by Adizes (1988), Beckhard (1969), Beer (1980),
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

56

Morris (1995), and Walton (1995). Fitzpatrick (2002) further discussed spiritual models and
aspects of leadership, including the 18 essential qualities of spiritual leadership as described by
Sanders (1994).
Nichols (2006) discussed inventories of qualities and characteristics that are commonly
expected of leaders in the Christian sector and written from a scriptural perspective. These
included McAlpine’s (1985) 20 requirements for leadership as demonstrated in the life of Jesus;
Sanders’ (1994) list of 34 comprehensive elements and 18 essential qualities of spiritual
leadership (also referenced by Fitzpatrick, 2002); and the 26 characteristics of a true leader as
presented by MacArthur (2004). All of these writers emphasized matters of personal character
and integrity as non-negotiable requirements of leaders in Christian endeavor, before ever
discussing professional skills, education, and training. Nichols (2006) further examined
transformational leadership as conceived by Bass (1998)—a leadership mindset that manifests
itself in ongoing care and concern for others, that leads to greater follower effort, and that results
in a both a higher level of satisfaction and a higher level of performance for all involved—and
Abbott’s model of biblical leadership, which Abbott (1999) argued was synonymous with
transformational leadership. Abbott posited that transformational leadership could be distilled
down to four basic principles: Trust, commitment, justice, and love (Abbott, 1999). Nichols
noted that at the schools that closed in his study, there was an absence of both transformational
leadership qualities and spiritual leadership qualities among the leaders who failed, regardless of
the leadership theory, model, or inventory utilized for assessment (Nichols, 2015a; 2006).
Fellers (2013) analyzed leadership from two perspectives: That of heads of school and
that of school boards, and utilized different leadership indicators, models, and theories for each
group. For school heads, Fellers (2013) selected nine leadership indicators drawn from several
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

57

sources: (1) separation of collaboration during difficult times (Province, 2009); (2) where school
leaders originated and if they were in place as head of school during school decline (Collins,
2001; MacTaggart, 2007); (3) the leader’s support staff (Collins, 2001; MacTaggart, 2007;
Martin, Samels, & Associates, 2009); (4) the utilization of a situational approach to leadership,
as described by Northouse (2016); (5) the utilization of the skills approach to leadership
(Northouse, 2016); (6) the utilization of team leadership theory (Northouse, 2016); (7) the
utilization of path-goal theory (Northouse, 2016); (8) emotional intelligence, primal leadership,
and the ability of leaders to handle themselves and their relationships, including reactions to
discomfort and uncertainty (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; MacTaggart, 2007; Fullan and
Scott, 2009); and (9) leader communication (Chabotar, 2010; Evans, 2009). For school boards,
Fellers (2013) chose three board leadership indicators as lenses through which to examine board
leadership: (1) leadership regarding finances; (2) leadership concerning relationships; and (3)
leadership involving academics (MacTaggart, 2007; Martin et al., 2009).
In addition to theories of leadership already attributed to him in the foregoing, Northouse
(2016) also presents additional theories and practice of leadership that appear to lend themselves
particularly well to the study of Christian schools when evaluating those schools’ leadership.
These include transformational leadership, authentic leadership, and servant leadership, each of
which is often expected of Christian leaders (MacArthur, 2004; Sanders, 1994; McAlpine, 1985).
Additionally, the ability of a leader or a leadership team to move effectively between the four
leadership frames—the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the
symbolic frame—can have an impact on a Christian school, just as it would in any organization
(Bolman & Deal, 2013). The data presented by researchers suggests the effective understanding
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

58

and use of leadership frames did not occur at the failed Christian schools of their studies
(Fitzpatrick, 2002; Nichols, 2006; Fellers, 2013).
Financial Stresses
Harden (1988) found heavy operational expenses to be a factor in some school closings.
Harden looked at numerous schools that closed in numerous states and examined how economic
forces may have come to bear on the existence of a portion of the schools studied. Oates (1989)
concluded that the greatest threat to the survivability of urban Catholic and Episcopal schools
was their vulnerability to budgetary woes and an absence of sufficient strategies to deal with
them effectively. Both Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006) identified school financial
problems as fourth in importance in the list of factors contributing to school closure. While
financial issues may have existed at some of the schools in their respective studies, respondents
overwhelmingly pointed to failed leadership, loss of vision, and splintered institutional and
constituent relationships as the primary causes of school closure (Nichols, 2006; Fitzpatrick,
2002). Even when financial problems were severe, Nichols (2006) found that stakeholders saw
fiscal crises as a symptom, consistently (and vehemently, in interviews) pointing to failed
leadership as the disease. However, the Fitzpatrick and Nichols studies were both conducted
during a relatively strong national economy and prior to the Great Recession; thus, instances of
widespread fiscal pressures on school families and school budgets, in and of themselves, were
not leading factors at that time as reported by the researchers (Nichols, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2002).
In contrast, Fellers (2013) conducted his study in the wake of the Great Recession, and
found that financial pressures were just as much a predictor of school decline and closure as
failed leadership (and loss of homogeneity of vision and culture, and competition, to be
discussed later in this chapter). In particular, he found that (1) short-term bridge financing
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

59

becoming a necessity for a school in the final quarter of the fiscal year; (2) the practice of
offering tuition discounts in excess of the average discounts extended for a similar type of school
and geographic area; and (3) schools that struggle with a combination of increasing debt and
decreasing fund development were all signs of institutional problems that can lead to school
closure if not dealt with successfully (Fellers, 2013; see p. 105). Fellers noted that unhealthy
financial practices such as these are the reason many K-12 Christian schools find themselves in
crisis, adding that these detrimental fiscal practices should serve as warning signs to heads of
school and school boards. He added that these signs are often visible, but no one is watching
carefully to guarantee that the particular institution’s finances and operations are as they should
be. He also noted that one of the results of the Great Recession and other tough financial times
was that they simply exposed ongoing problems in the school organization that had been ignored
or undetected in better times (Fellers, 2013 [citing Moll, 2009]).
Also revealing are statistics from ACSI. These indicate that from the 2007-2008 school
year until 2010-2011, student enrollment dropped from 720,896 to 631,307 (ACSI Membership
Services, 2014). This nationwide loss of 89,589 students in three years—or 12.4%—coincided
with the serious financial repercussions related to the Great Recession. These data suggest a
relationship between societal economic factors and the Christian school movement’s decline, and
the possibility that financial pressures had a role in the downturn (Charter Oak Research, 2014;
Ewert, 2013).
Loss of Homogeneity of Vision and Culture
The loss of homogeneity of vision and culture was identified by Fitzpatrick (2002),
Nichols (2006), and Fellers (2013) as a contributing factor in the decline and closure of Christian
schools. However, unlike Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006) who did not find the loss of
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

60

homogeneity of vision and culture as the key reason schools closed, Fellers (2013) found that it
was just as likely to lead to school closure as was failure of leadership. Fellers posited that the
concept of vision and culture was found to be closely tied to the school’s mission; when a school
disengaged from its mission, there was invariably a loss of homogeneity of vision and culture
(Fellers, 2013). The ability to stay on mission and maintain homogeneity of vision and culture is
an essential element of institutional stability and health for Christian schools, and warrants
further exploration.
Educational Competition—Other Christian Schools
It is noteworthy that the stakeholders in the Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006) studies
did not identify competition as a factor contributing to the closure of their Christian schools,
either from other Christian schools, private schools, or public schools, including charter schools.
In fact, charter schools were not mentioned by respondents as being an influence of any
significance at the time of those two studies. Since respondents were questioned in 2001-2002
and in 2005-2006, respectively, it is quite possible that charters were not yet perceived as being
competitors for the same set of students as were attending Christian schools. As previously
discussed, the growth of charters exploded upward after 2004 and has continued to rise, while
the downward trend of Christian schools began in 2006 and has continued to fall. Although other
Christian schools were not perceived as being a competitive threat by the stakeholders in the
Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006) research, Fellers (2013) identified competition as being a
leading factor in school closure, but did not specifically identify other Christian schools as the
competitors. Fellers (2013) found that a lack of effective marketing at the school level essentially
made Christian schools more susceptible to competition from all school challengers in the
marketplace (Fellers, 2013). It may be important that Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006)
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

61

conducted their studies before the drop in Christian schools began and prior to the onset of the
Great Recession, while Fellers (2013) performed his research in the wake of both the decline and
the economic downturn, suggesting the competitive landscape had changed in the intervening
years.
Diversity Issues
Giglio (2009) conducted a qualitative study examining the attitudes and practices of five
leaders of minority urban, evangelical Christian schools in the eastern US. Each school selected
had to be an ACSI member, have at least 75% African-American and/or Hispanic ethnic student
composition, have at least 90 students enrolled and in attendance, have established at least a 75%
reenrollment rate, and have had the same head of school for the last three years. The study found
that the leaders who were empowered by a strong sense of spiritual calling (responsibility and
appropriate giftedness) expressed that calling through mission-driven service to their local
communities. Students reenrolled at these schools because of three factors: (1) satisfying
relationships with others at the school; (2) safety; and (3) quality academics. According to the
study, knowledge of civil rights history and other urban issues were relatively secondary
regarding the motivations of leaders. While the study did not speak directly to school closures, it
did identify reasons that students stay enrolled in ACSI-member urban schools serving a high
percentage of non-White students. This finding may be useful in helping identify factors that
might be absent in schools that close, as compared to those that remain open, particularly as such
factors relate to leadership attributes.
Gant (2013), in a journal article, discusses the assimilation of urban students into
evangelical Christian schools who have never before attended a private, faith-based school. His
discussion begins with the school choice movement and its affording of expanded opportunities
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

62

for students from moderate- and low-income families to attend a Christian school for the first
time. In his discussion of voucher programs, Gant (2013) focuses on the challenges that private
schools—and prospective students who have historically been educationally underserved—need
to identify and overcome. These can include perceived threats by those already at the school and
by those coming into the school. Gant (2013) posits that unless a school makes the preparations
necessary and takes appropriate steps for successful student assimilation, the organization runs
the risk of destabilizing as it expands. In light of this challenge, he describes a modified intake
process to receive new students of color during admissions. The key, Gant (2013) contends, is to
establish an onboarding process that affords new students the time and pace to successfully and
effectively merge with the pace that already exists regarding the academic standard of the current
student population and school culture. Whether a school refers to this as orientation, boot camp,
or another term, a simple but vital principle applies: The greater the disparity between the pace
of the new student and the pace of the current students and the school culture, the greater the
time that needs to be provided for the new student to be able to get up to speed. If this does not
happen, the chances of successful academic and cultural assimilation are not high (Gant, 2013).
The need for Christian schools to provide for greater racial and cultural diversification as
a reflection of the changing American multicultural and multiethnic population (Frey, 2015; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2012) is becoming evident, as is the need for schools to create a culture of
acceptance (Wepner, Ferrara, Rainville, Gómez, Lang, & Bigaouette, 2012). Gant, an African-
American who directs urban school services for ACSI, leads a division that has conducted
considerable research in order to assist schools with student academic and cultural assimilation.
This has included developing tools to empower this process. The implication is that such
assistance has become necessary because Christian schools and traditionally underserved
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

63

students have little experience working together in numerous areas of the country. At the very
least, this inexperience in reaching out to once-minority student populations calls into question
the effectiveness of some schools to attract, enroll, and retain students of color, which could be a
contributing factor in urban school closures and the greater decline of the movement overall in
the US (Gant, 2013). The irony here is that the very populations that were refused enrollment in
many US Christian schools at the onset of the Christian school movement in the 1950s and 60s
and fueled the rapid rise of the movement (Ryan, 2004) appear to be the very ethnic groups being
approached by many urban Christian schools in an attempt to sustain the movement (Gant,
2013). However, it should be borne in mind that with the change of parent expectations and the
rise of charter schools, low-SES families can go to a charter school for free and still achieve the
parental goals of student safety and academic rigor in states and regions where charter schools
are available. (ACSI, 2015a; 2014a; Ewert, 2013; Ritzema, 2013; Buddin, 2012; Giglio, 2009).
It should also be noted that faith-based, private schools located in urban areas inclusive of
inner city populations and self-identifying as urban—including evangelical Protestant Christian
schools—entered into decline much sooner than the rest of the country (U.S. Department of
Education, 2008). According to a 168-page report from The White House Domestic Policy
Council entitled Preserving a Critical National Asset: America’s Disadvantaged Students and
the Crisis in Faith-based Urban Schools, the private faith-based education sector experienced a
loss of nearly 1,200 K-12 schools and nearly 425,000 students between 1999-2006 (U.S.
Department of Education, 2008, citing NCES statistics), seven years prior to the onset of the
nationwide phenomenon of evangelical Christian school decline. The report further reveals that a
warning was issued by the President’s Panel on Nonpublic Education as far back as April 14,
1972—while the broader evangelical Christian school movement was entering into its most
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

64

meteoric period of growth—that if declining enrollments and rising costs continued in faith-
based urban schools, educational pluralism and parental options would evaporate, forcing public
schools to absorb students numbering into the millions (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
That warning further predicted that the greatest negative impact would be on poor and lower
middle-class families, because urban faith-based schools would be lost as an “indispensable
stabilizing factor” in “racially changing neighborhoods” (U.S. Department of Education, 2008,
second cover page). The 2008 report further stated that the “rapid disappearance of faith-based
schools in America’s cities” was “a deeply troubling but vastly under-reported phenomenon
limiting the educational options available to low-income urban families” and “the disappearance
of these schools is having a tragic impact on many of our most disadvantaged families” (p. 1).
Challenges to Sustaining School Mission
The ability of a Christian school to sustain its mission and remain true to its foundational
tenets results in school longevity and institutional stability (Fellers, 2013; Walner, 2000). Walner
(2000), in a dissertation at Pepperdine University, studied the ability of evangelical Christian
schools to sustain their unique mission, which is concurrently academic and spiritual. Walner
noted that while the academic mission of a Christian school is tangible and easily verifiable, the
spiritual mission might be more difficult to assess on an on-going basis. His query: Would
Christian schools be able to sustain a mission based on the teachings of the Bible and the values
of the Christian faith as they grew into maturity? The research design and methodology used
involved a two-part qualitative descriptive study of 36 accredited, ACSI-member Christian high
schools in the US. The first part of the study involved a content analysis of the mission
statements of the Christian schools. In the second part of the study, a structured interview of 15
open-ended questions based on findings in the literature was administered to 36 school leaders
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

65

who could best respond to the stated objectives. Transcripts of the interviews were content-
analyzed by a trained panel of readers. Matrices for the content themes were developed for each
research question and used for data analysis. Walner (2000) found that a strong majority of the
schools had developed a clear Bible- or Christ-centered mission statement. He further discovered
that each school’s mission was most strongly sustained when teachers, administrators, governing
boards, and other members of the school community supported it. The mission was found to be
inherent in all activities of most of the schools studied, particularly with regard to the selection of
curriculum and faculty members. To a large degree, the formulation and implementation of the
mission was found to be dependent upon the head of school. Walner further found that Christian
schools appear to struggle with evaluating the success of their mission, discovering that casual
observation and anecdotal methods were used more often than formal, measurable criteria
(Walner, 2000).
Of particular interest to this study, Walner (2000) also identified several factors that
prevented or threatened to prevent the success of each school’s mission. These factors, if
protracted, could arguably endanger the institution. These factors included “societal changes,
financial issues, and a lack of vision or focus on the mission” (pp. xi-xii). This is a crucial
finding. Social and cultural changes may include changes in parent expectations and attitudes
toward their children’s schooling, affecting school choice (Walner, 2000; Giglio, 2009; Fellers,
2013; ACSI, 2014a; 2015). Financial issues may include (1) the ability of a school to handle its
finances wisely and effectively, including maintaining sufficient cash flow (Moran & Nichols,
2014; Fellers, 2013; Kienel, Moran, & Nichols, 2011); (2) the ability of families to afford the
tuition and fees necessary to attend a private Christian school, and (3) the affect that a regional or
national fiscal crisis—such as the Great Recession—has on foregoing items 1 and 2 (Charter Oak
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

66

Research, 2014). A lack of vision or focus on the mission can lead to organizational meandering,
mediocrity, and inevitably a loss of homogeneity of vision and culture, which both Fitzpatrick
(2002) and Nichols (2006) saw as potential factors leading to school closure and that Fellers
(2013) identified as a key factor in school failure in his study, equal to leadership failure,
financial stresses, and competition as threats to the existence of Christian schools (Fellers, 2013).
Resistance to Change—Lack of Innovation, Reinvention, and Retooling for 21
st
Century
Educational Challenges
When the conditions of an educational environment change, schools are faced with a
dilemma. They can retrench themselves in longstanding and familiar ways of behaving, or they
can soberly examine their organizational behaviors and make the changes necessary for future
success. Failure to do so can have negative effects throughout a school system (Marsh, 2007;
Wilson, 1989). Christian schools that have not adopted new ways of thinking in response to
change have similarly had a negative affect on the movement. Drawing a direct connection to
change resistance, Ritzema (2013) reported that an estimated 350 ACSI-member Christian
schools closed nationwide from the end of the 2011-2012 school year through the start of the
2013-2014 school year. He also noted that over 100 ACSI-member schools in Southern
California had closed between the 2007-2008 and 2012-2013 school years, a figure equivalent to
approximately 20% of all Christian schools in the southern region of the state (ACSI, 2014b;
Ritzema, 2013). He stated that unless Christian schools take note of the changing cultural,
educational, and technological landscape of the 21
st
century and do something about it by
innovating, retooling and reinventing themselves, he believed more schools would continue to
close (Ritzema, 2013). He asserted that it cannot continue to be educational business as usual;
Christian schools can no longer simply open their doors and expect people to flock to them in
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

67

droves, which used to be the case in the 1970s and 1980s; a new day has come and new methods
are required (Ritzema, 2013). Ritzema gave examples of Christian schools that have successfully
embraced educational innovation in a variety of forms, embodying pedagogical approaches that
develop 21
st
century skills. These included 1:1 device programs (such as iPads) and the
integration of additional educational technology, including new methods of instruction featuring
collaboration and communication. These innovative approaches also included new science
partnerships with NASA and SpaceX empowering students to design, construct, and submit their
own experiments delivered to the International Space Station; robotic engineering programs
including competition with other schools and starting in the elementary grades; 3-D printing; and
coding courses (Ritzema, 2013). The schools that have acted creatively and resourcefully to
initiate and sustain these programs include some of the finest faith-based schools in the nation,
such as Valley Christian Schools of San Jose (ACSI, 2014a; Ritzema, 2013). Conversely, many
schools that have refused to innovate, reinvent, and retool themselves for the realities of 21
st

century education are now closed (ACSI, 2015; 2014a; Ritzema, 2013; Moran & Nichols, 2014).
In February 2014, ACSI (2014a) organized its first California Mind Meld, a think tank
comprised of superintendents, heads of school, and academic leaders from 16 of the largest
evangelical Christian schools and school systems in California and Hawaii. The central topic was
the sudden downturn in the Christian school movement in America, including a shocking number
of Christian school closures in US urban areas and in Southern California. In addition to the
lingering effects of the Great Recession, additional possible reasons were shared and debated,
including: Changes in national culture in a post-modern society; failure of schools to adapt;
school boards behaving badly; changes in parent expectations regarding the need for higher
academic achievement versus a priority on spiritual development and a commitment to a biblical,
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

68

Christian worldview; inability or refusal of schools—at the highest levels of leadership—to
reinvent themselves, retool for the realities of 21
st
century education, and do the necessary work
to re-envision, embrace, and enact a new paradigm (as Bennis wrote, “The first basic ingredient
of leadership is a guiding vision” [Bennis, 2003, p. 33]; also see Nichols, 2015b; 2014; Frost,
2015); a lack of depth regarding the well from which to draw out trained, talented, Christ-
following leaders (especially at the school board level, but also at the administrative level) and
supportive pastors and sponsoring churches; and a lack of succession planning and mentoring of
young, developing leaders to carry Christian schools and the movement into the future (ACSI,
2014a).
Moran and Nichols (2014) also identified likely factors for school decline in addition to
the fallout from the Great Recession. This included the inability of many Christian schools to see
the changing culture and educational landscape for what it really is, and the sluggishness of these
schools to adapt to the changing parental expectations that place academic excellence and
student safety above reasons of Christian values and biblically-integrated curriculum (ACSI,
2015a; 2014a; Moran & Nichols, 2014; Ritzema, 2013; Giglio, 2009). Frost (2015), Moran &
Nichols (2014), and Ritzema (2013) noted that a resulting unwillingness or incapacity at
Christian schools to innovate and reinvent themselves organizationally and academically—and
seize a new paradigm to match the challenge—has led to school closures and endangered the
existence of others. In this same vein, Frost (2015) posited that the lack of creativity and
innovation is a factor in school failure, reiterating that hundreds of ACSI-member schools have
closed over the past ten years. Frost examined Christian schools by taking the principles in the
book Built to Last: Successful Practices of Visionary Companies (Collins & Porras, 1997) and
seeing if those same principles could be applied to various Christian schools across the nation.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

69

Frost found that they could (Frost, 2015). He also found that one of the problems endangering
Christian schools is the stubborn determination to perpetuate the status quo, rather than using
inspiration to build the future by being creative and innovative while staying true to core
Christian beliefs. Resisting educational innovation by hiding behind the misguided notion that it
would preserve a school’s values only hastens decline. Failure to embrace new educational
practices that can stimulate progress will prevent growth that is essential (Frost, 2015; 2014).
Furthermore, Frost (2014) pointed out that existing Christian schools are now challenged by an
“unparalleled convergence of the explosion of information and knowledge, the pursuit of twenty-
first-century educational models, growing economic pressures, increased parental and student
demands, the globalization of learning, and the increasing secularization of our society” (as
quoted by Bartfell, 2015, p. 4). Echoing Ritzema (2013), Frost’s (2014) increasing fear is that
hundreds of Christian schools may close their doors in an education landscape that will
not tolerate pedagogical and instructional mediocrity. Business as usual for Christian
schools is not an option. The days of “if you open the doors, they will come” are clearly
behind us. Only those that…build an enduring greatness…will survive. (As quoted by
Bartfell, 2015, p. 4)
Carson (2008) notes that people and leaders must be willing and able to take risks,
learning to identify, choose, and live with acceptable risk. Without taking acceptable risk, there
can be no reaping of rewards, only the paying of a price for refusing to take the chance (Carson,
2008). In the case of Christian schools, dogged resistance to calculated risk and innovation
invariably leads to school closure (Frost, 2015; 2014; Bartfell, 2015; Nichols, 2015b; Ritzema,
2013).
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

70

Theories of innovation. Clayton Christensen ignited the concept of disruptive innovation
in 1997 with his book, The Innovator’s Dilemma. At the core of that book and The Innovator’s
Solution (Christensen & Raynor, 2003) are three vital theories that help give clarity to the
complex process of innovation: (1) the disruptive innovation theory; (2) the resources, processes,
and values theory; and (3) the value chain evolution theory (Christensen, Anthony, & Roth,
2004).
In disruptive innovation theory, disruptive innovations introduce a new value proposition
(Christensen et al., 2004), either creating new markets or reshaping existing ones. Resources,
processes, and values (RPV) theory asserts that what an organization has (resources), how an
organization does its work (processes), and what an organization wants to do (values) combine to
define the strengths of a company or institution, “as well as its weaknesses and blind spots”
(Christensen et al., 2004, p. xvii). The value chain evolution (VCE) theory posits that firms ought
to control any activity or combination of activity within the value chain that influences the
characteristics of the product or service that the customer considers most crucial (Christensen et
al., 2004).
Christensen et al (2004) followed this by conducting an in-depth study of the educational
field in order to outline an analytical model and provide diagnostics and tools that were
actionable, enabling decision makers:(1) to identify education-changing models long before
others realize change is imminent; (2) to forecast the outcome of competitive head-to-head
battles, correctly predicting winners and losers in the educational space; and (3) to effectively
evaluate whether a particular education organization’s choices will increase or decrease that
group’s chances of success. Although primarily focusing on higher education, Christensen et al
(2004) provided a new lens with which to examine education at all levels. The authors noted that
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

71

even though many people “think of innovation as antithetical to education” (p. 99), vital
innovations have reshaped the way education is being delivered, bearing the fingerprints of
disruption. Christensen and his colleagues insist that an “ideal education system would meet all
students where they are and help them reach as far as they can go” (pp. 119-120), that there are
opportunities for innovative disruption to reshape the way that primary education is delivered,
and that two innovations of particular note are (1) charter schools and (2) virtual schools.
Although Christensen et al did not mention private Christian schools, many of the characteristics
of excellent and innovative charter schools are very similar to those of strong and innovative
Christian schools (i.e., virtually autonomous, independent budgetary control, independent
curricular control, non-union faculty able to be dismissed for inadequate performance, etc.), with
the chief difference being that the latter provides an education in the context of a biblical
worldview (Kienel, 2014). While Christensen et al (2004) assert that education organizations
could use disruptive innovation strategies to bring about nothing less than “radical
transformation in our public school system” (p. 124), it follows that the utilization of disruptive
innovation theory and other core innovation theories by private Christian schools could similarly
be considered as a strategic response to the movement’s downturn.
Danger Signs
Several studies and ongoing research have resulted in the development of an inventory of
danger signs warning of institutional distress, decline, and eventual collapse (Nichols 2015a;
2015b; 2014; 2007; 2006; Fellers, 2013; Fitzpatrick, 2002). As part of her qualitative research
findings, Fitzpatrick (2002) noted that leaders should be prepared for failure and be aware of
warning signs pointing to institutional difficulty. In her conclusions, Fitzpatrick (2002) identified
nine recurring themes from her research that could be used as signs predicting a school’s decline
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

72

and eventual closure: (1) leader burnout; (2) a change of pastor; (3) the effects of children of
members of the congregation no longer being enrolled at the school; (4) an aging congregation;
(5) the loss of vision for Christian education; (6) the enrollment of a large number of children
from outside the sponsoring church; (7) the lowering of enrollment standards to increase
enrollment; (8) teachers who are from a different denominational background than the
sponsoring church; (9) a loss of spirituality at the school. Fitzpatrick further noted that if a leader
observed one or more of these foregoing warning signs, “he or she might be able (to) use
intervention strategies to prevent the school from closing” (p. 162).
In his qualitative study, Nichols (2006) replicated and built upon Fitzpatrick’s (2002)
research, developing a list of 24 danger signs warning of institutional disaster. Between 2006 and
2015, Nichols (2015b) continued to study closed and declining schools and expanded the
inventory of precursors to catastrophic organizational failure in Christian schools to 33. These
are: (1) a change of pastor at the sponsoring church or at a church which impacts the school; (2)
pastoral interference and micromanagement, especially if the pastor has not been trained in
Christian school administration; (3) schools being sponsored by a church in decline or transition;
(4) schools being sponsored by a church whose congregation is smaller than the attendance of
the school; (5) schools being sponsored by a church whose budget is smaller than the school it
sponsors; (6) schools being sponsored by a church that is experiencing financial difficulties; (7) a
loss of vision on the part of leadership (at various levels) for their Christian school, as well as for
Christian school education in general; (8) untrained, uninformed, or inexperienced school board
members; (9) untrained or inexperienced school administrators; (10) church leaders, school
board members, or any other individuals involved with the school who do not genuinely care
about children or Christian school education; (11) the loss of a school’s long-time Christian
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

73

school administrator; (12) frequent changes of school principals, chief administrators, or other
administrative personnel; (13) the continued leasing of facilities by the Christian school, rather
than owning its own property; (14) the lowering of school admissions standards in an attempt to
increase enrollment; (15) a loss of spirituality in the school, particularly among leadership and
faculty members, but also including support staff; (16) the inability of a school to stay on
mission and adhere to its stated purpose; (17) individuals within leadership that view the school
as belonging to them rather than belonging to God; (18) leadership that seeks to forward a selfish
human agenda for the school rather than seeking to discover and accomplish God’s agenda for
the school; (19) behavior of leaders that is incongruent with a Christian worldview or with
biblical principles of living (said one respondent: “We require a Christian worldview be taught in
the classrooms by our teachers to our students, so why do we allow leadership to be in charge
which doesn’t follow a biblical worldview in the way it leads?”); (20) open conflict at the highest
levels of school or church leadership; (21) conflict that spills over to the parents of the school,
leading to parental uncertainty and confusion, lack of confidence in the school, a proliferation of
damaging gossip, a reduction in parental support and involvement, and an eventual decline in
student enrollment; (22) ongoing and unresolved conflict with the sponsoring church over shared
space matters and property issues (including problems with shared classrooms and Sunday
School rooms, shared kitchen facilities, shared restrooms, a shared sanctuary, shared parking
areas, shared playgrounds, a shared gym, etc.); (23) pastor search committees that do not
determine if a prospective new pastor is the right fit for the church, when that church already has
a Christian school ministry in place; (24) hesitation of Christian school leadership to act quickly
and decisively when one or more warning signs surfaces, in order to prevent the escalation of a
crisis from occurring or prevent a crisis from developing into an institutional disaster;
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

74

predominant attitude of “let’s wait and see” typically prevailed—especially at the school board
level—often leading to catastrophic consequences, eventually if not immediately (this danger
sign will be examined further during the chapter’s discussion of Repetitive Inaction Disorder
Theory); (25) school boards which too often refuse to accept responsibility for poor decisions or
recognize that they have made decisions which are severely detrimental to the school, until well
past the tipping point; (26) Illegitimate Leadership Groups (ILGs)—especially key individuals—
which are allowed and even empowered by the school board to usurp authority in blatant
disregard of the chain of command; this ill-gotten power may then be wielded against teachers,
support staff, parents, and even students; (27) chief administration which makes decisions that
are ill-informed, fiscally unwise, or designed to protect and expand the CEOs personal power
base—including manipulating personnel to serve as organizational “human shields”—rather than
place the legitimate needs of the school system and the needs of others first as a matter of
priority; (28) chief administration that creates programs, policies, and procedures based on
purely secular educational and cultural trends, with a blatant disregard for biblical core values
and Christian worldview concerns (not just “best practices” issues); (29) individuals within
leadership and management which keep hidden personal or corporate unethical, immoral, or
unlawful conduct, that may be made public in the media and through electronic social networks,
critically damaging the school’s reputation; this may result in dramatic and rapid enrollment loss
and a decline in credibility amongst various segments of the community at large, including
churches, parachurch groups; (30) ad hoc parent groups and former employees that run amuck,
leading assaults on individuals and the school via the media and electronic social networks,
going far beyond simply addressing legitimate issues of leadership to engaging in outright libel
and slander; (31) highest levels of leadership that continue to live in a state of perpetual denial
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

75

regarding the genuine potential of impending financial doom for the school system; this can
eventually result in a cascade of overwhelming crises, including the possibility of being shut
down by lenders and other institutions to which the school has made itself liable; (32) failure by
the highest levels of administrative and executive leadership to effectively mentor the next crop
of God-honoring school leaders, or the failure of school boards to put into place those qualified
leaders who have already been mentored for administrative leadership; this can result in an
organizational implosion that leaves deep internal wounds that may take years to heal, and that
may be irreversible to the institution without direct intervention by godly leadership and God
Himself; and (33) refusal at the highest levels of leadership to see things the way they really are,
to courageously face a new future rather than the one they may have previously (and long ago)
envisioned, to comprehend the need for a new direction, to seize a new paradigm for a new
challenge and a new day, to make the sacrifices necessary to make it happen, and to truly and
intentionally submit to God for His will and His best to be accomplished for His school and His
kids, for His glory and not their own (Nichols, 2015b).
Nichols (2015b; 2006) discovered that not all 33 danger signs have to be present for a
school to close; just one or two key events or occurrences can be enough to begin the descent
toward institutional disaster. However, research demonstrated that all of the schools studied had
multiple danger signs present, sometimes a dozen or more within the same school system
(Nichols, 2015b; 2006). Nichols (2015b) noted that when danger signs are left unnoticed or
unheeded they tend to proliferate.
Fellers (2013) considered the findings of both the Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006)
studies, and conducted a quantitative research dissertation aimed at recognizing the early
warning signs of K-12 Christian school operational and situational distress that lead to
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

76

organizational closure. Like Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006), Fellers (2013) also stated he
believed that if schools could learn to identify warning signs of school distress and take
appropriate actions to safeguard the institution, school closure could be averted. Fellers (2013)
developed a list of 26 possible warning signs indicating conditions that can lead to school
closure, proposed in the form of binary, primarily yes/no, questions. He then completed a
comparison of means test with ANOVA tables, Welch test, and Fisher Exact test where
appropriate, and recorded the significance for each category, school studied, and question posed.
Fellers (2013) found that 14 of the 26 warning signs demonstrated significant statistical
relationships when strong, declining, and closed schools were compared with one another. He
found that stresses involving leadership, homogeneity of vision and culture, finances, and
competition were equally important and likely to contribute to school failure, and that all four of
these broad factors contained identifiable warning signs.
Fellers (2013) stated that certain questions in his study revealed warning signs that were
of statistical significance, questions that Christian schools should be asking themselves. He
posited that if more than one of the following eight warning signs was present (he distilled the 14
warning signs into a list of eight core indicators), a school could be in decline and should take
immediate steps to halt and reverse any negative trends that have begun. The questions,
converted into statements equivalent to warning signs, are: (1) the school’s mission is not
considered first in decision-making and strategic planning; (2) marketing decisions are not based
on the school’s mission; (3) a trend has developed for short-term bridge financing to be required
in the final quarter of the fiscal year; (4) tuition discounting exceeds the average for type of
school and geographical area; (5) the school struggles with a combination of increasing debt and
decreasing fund development; (6) the school’s marketing does not match the school’s strengths
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

77

with the needs and demands of students and parents; (7) the content of the school’s marketing
does not communicate the broad spectrum of student experience; and (8) campus appearance and
landscaping is not a priority (Fellers, 2013).
It may be of some importance that Fellers (2013) conducted his study after the Great
Recession, while the initial research by Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006) were both
performed prior to the economic collapse. It may be just as important that Fellers’ (2013) study
was conducted after the decline in US evangelical schools had already begun, while the
Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006) studies were both conducted prior to the beginning of the
decline in the Christian school movement. The key point of interest is this: Whereas Fitzpatrick
(2002) and Nichols (2006) both identified leadership as the key reason Christian schools closed,
Fellers’ research revealed that in addition to the factor of leadership, homogeneity of vision and
culture, finances, and marketing and competition were equally as important factors when it came
to school closure. But these latter three factors in Fellers’ research did not emerge as primary
reasons for school closure in either Fitzpatrick’s (2002) or Nichols’ (2006) study. It raises the
question of whether these three additional factors—factors that Fitzpatrick and Nichols both
questioned stakeholders about in their respective studies but were told by respondents that these
factors were not contributory to their schools closing—became noticeable factors only after the
Great Recession had ensued and/or only after the decline in the Christian school movement had
begun.
Repetitive Inaction Disorder Theory
One of the results of the development of danger signs warning of potential organizational
demise in Christian schools was the introduction of Repetitive Inaction Disorder Theory in
February 2015 (Nichols, 2015b). The theory emerged from Nichols’ earlier research at California
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

78

Baptist University (Nichols, 2006) combined with ongoing observation and analysis over a 12-
year period of closed and declining Christian schools, including analysis performed at the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education (Nichols, 2015b). Nichols
(2015b) found that when one particular danger sign persisted at any given school, that school
closed— without exception.
Nichols (2015a; 2015b) posited that the 24
th
danger sign from his 2006 research (referred
to as danger sign “x” in the 2006 study) is more than just a warning indicator, but can expose a
deeper organizational malaise. That danger sign is:
hesitation of Christian school leadership to act quickly and decisively when one or more
warning signs surfaces, in order to prevent the escalation of a crisis from occurring or
prevent a crisis from developing into an institutional disaster. A predominant attitude of
“let’s wait and see” typically prevailed—especially at the school board level—often
leading to catastrophic consequences, eventually if not immediately. (Nichols, 2006, p.
168)
Research demonstrates that it is common for struggling, at risk Christian schools to take a
wait and see approach when faced with serious problems (Nichols, 2015b; 2006). When waiting
to take action is actually the wisest, best approach that school leadership can take regarding a
very specific situation, it is not necessarily a problem. Sometimes, patience is part of the solution
(Nichols, 2015b).
But according to Nichols (2015b), that is usually not what happens at schools on the
brink of collapse. Instead, the following connected string of events occurs, giving rise to
Nichols’ theoretical framework for Repetitive Inaction Disorder (RID):(1) dangers to the
organization are not dealt with; (2) this repeatedly occurs, producing a pattern of inaction; (3)
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

79

this pattern of inaction persists, becoming the preferred and “normal” way of dealing with
critical issues facing the institution; (4) this preferred pattern of inaction becomes ingrained in
the operational mindset of the school, creating a culture of toxic leadership that renders the
organization dysfunctional; (5) this dysfunction becomes a disorder; (6) the longer the disorder
goes untreated, the more diseased and susceptible the school becomes to institutional death; and
(7) untreated, the disorder becomes terminal, and the school dies (see Figure C). Nichols (2015b)
added: “Thus, the disorder—and perhaps not necessarily the other danger signs themselves—is
actually what does the school in” (slide 30).
This theoretical framework resulted in a definition for Repetitive Inaction Disorder
Theory (RIDT). RIDT posits that RID is a severe organizational condition that occurs when
dangers to the institution are repeatedly not dealt with, producing a persistent pattern of inaction.
This pattern becomes the preferred method of dealing with critical issues facing the institution,
and is subsequently ingrained in the school’s operational mindset. This creates a culture of toxic
leadership that renders the organization dysfunctional. Unabated, the dysfunction becomes a
disorder. Untreated, the disorder grows as a systemic disease threatening institutional death,
eventually becoming terminal and killing the school (Nichols, 2015b).
Nichols (2015b) also noted that RID may be properly diagnosed when the foregoing
indicators (i.e., symptoms) are present: (1) dangers to the organization are not dealt with; (2) this
failure to deal with dangers to the organization repeatedly occurs, producing a pattern of
inaction; (3) this pattern of inaction persists, becoming the typical way critical issues facing the
institution are dealt with (or not dealt with); (4) this preferred pattern of inaction becomes
ingrained in the operational mindset of the school, creating a culture of toxic leadership and
organizational dysfunction; (5) this dysfunction becomes a disorder, putting the school at risk of
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

80

closing; (6) the disorder goes untreated, and the school becomes more diseased and susceptible
to institutional death; (7) the disorder becomes terminal, the organization goes into palliative
mode, and the school dies (see Figure C).
According to the theory, once RID has been diagnosed, there is a plan for treatment.
Treatment of RID should be immediate; as with most disorders, early detection is the key. If the
disorder is dealt with in its earliest stages, then other danger signs can be addressed without also
having to concurrently fight to be able to address them effectively. Data demonstrates that the
longer the disorder persists, the more difficult it is to find noninvasive treatment to save the
organization. Not only does the disorder grow, but the danger signs continue to deepen. The
treatment leading to a cure may be painful and necessitate considerable courage: It may require
reinventing or restructuring the school board, convincing entrenched and RID-perpetuating board
members to step down, enacting or enforcing term limits for board members, asking a RID-
infected pastor to resign, and other similar types of changes. This may produce negative side
effects for the entire organization, including the possible loss of healthy parts of the school (e.g.,
personnel, students, families, board-connected donors or partners, etc.) as collateral damage.
However, data demonstrates that the longer the disorder persists without treatment, the greater
the likelihood that the school will die (Nichols, 2015b).
Ultimately, according to Nichols (2015b), the prognosis depends on: (1) early detection;
(2) the condition of the Christian school when treatment begins; (3) the effectiveness of the
treatment; and (4) the responsiveness of the school and its leadership to the treatment. While
treatment does not guarantee a cure, the theory states that if treatment is ignored, the Christian
school in question is guaranteed to die in every instance. In conclusion, Nichols (2015b)

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

81

Figure
C.
Repetitive
Inaction
Disorder
Theory—Sequential
indicators
of
RID
(Nichols,
2015b).

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ! ! 79!
!
Figure'C.!Repetitive!Inaction!Disorder!Theory—Sequential!indicators!of!RID!(Nichols,!2015b).

The!disorder!becomes!terminal,!the!organizaTon!goes!into!
palliaTve!mode,!and!the!school!dies!
The!disorder!goes!untreated,!and!the!school!becomes!more!
diseased!and!suscepTble!to!insTtuTonal!death!
This!dysfuncTon!becomes!a!disorder,!puUng!the!school!at!
risk!of!closing!
This!preferred!paWern!of!inacTon!becomes!ingrained!in!the!
operaTonal!mindset!of!the!school,!creaTng!a!culture!of!
toxic!leadership!and!organizaTonal!dysfuncTon!
This!paWern!of!inacTon!persists,!becoming!the!typical!way!
criTcal!issues!facing!the!insTtuTon!are!dealt!with!(or!not!
dealt!with)!
This!failure!to!deal!with!dangers!to!the!organizaTon!
repeatedly!occurs,!producing!a!paWern!of!inacTon!
Dangers!to!the!organizaTon!are!not!dealt!with!
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

82

therefore posited that the presence of RID is as much a factor in Christian school closures as is
the broader factor of failed leadership, as identified by Fitzpatrick (2002), Nichols (2006), and
Fellers (2013), and the additional equivalent warning factors of loss of homogeneity of vision
and culture, financial pressures, and competition later indicated by Fellers (2013). Further,
presenting his theory in 2015—after both the Great Recession and after the Christian school
decline began in 2006—Nichols noted that he believed his theory would be applicable in all
economic circumstances, social and cultural eras, and time periods, and that he had not yet found
any exceptions (Nichols, 2015b).
Hubris, Complacency, and the “God Will Save Us” Syndrome
Moran and Nichols (2014) argued that some Christian schools that have closed or are at
risk of closing since 2006 have succumbed to a curious combination of hubris and complacency,
as described by Collins (2009), and what Moran coined the “God will save us” Syndrome
(Moran & Nichols, 2014). In this hybrid institutional malady, Christian school systems that have
been in place for decades—especially those that operated during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s—
believed they were practically invincible and had never experienced anything other than rising
enrollment and budgetary growth. This led to the perilous idea that such a growth trend would
continue without end, opening the door for hubris and complacency to creep into the institution
and replace humility and careful stewardship (Moran & Nichols, 2014; Nichols, 2015c). Further,
once schools found themselves in steep decline, Moran and Nichols (2014) posited that many
schools’ leadership—rather than take immediate actions to deal with their own overconfidence,
complacency, lack of training, or the very real challenges at hand—instead fell victim to the
“God will save us” Syndrome; they believed that prayer alone would resolve their issues. While
Moran and Nichols (2014) explained that they believed that prayer was an indispensable element
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

83

of genuine evangelical school operations and the Christian faith, such petitions to God had to be
accompanied by action.
This perspective that evangelical Christian schools had no prior experience dealing with
serious enrollment decline and fell victim to their own decades-long unabated success and,
ironically, to the blessings of God—to the point that school leaders essentially failed to maintain
the indispensable humility and resulting trust and loyalty that successful leadership demands—
helped create a climate in which Christian school failure was inevitable, as would be the case in
any other organization (Collins, 2015; 2009; 2005; 2001; Collins & Hansen, 2011; Collins &
Porras, 2011; Bennis, 2009; Sinek, 2009; Sanders, 1994; McAlpine, 1985).
Eschatological Inevitability
Career Christian school educator and higher education leader James Heyman (personal
communication, February 12, 2015) posits that in addition to issues and factors endangering the
Christian school movement that are confined to education, sociology and culture, demographics,
politics, and related human realms, there may be an additional factor at work—a Bible-based
reality that from a Christian perspective cannot be changed—that this researcher will henceforth
identify as eschatological inevitability. Generally-speaking, this concept, held by numerous
influential Christian leaders and pastors in North America, is that with the return of Jesus Christ
drawing ever nearer in time—as foretold in the book of Revelation and other Bible passages—
certain changes and events in America and around the world are inevitable and beyond human
control or manipulation (Hindson, 2014; Hitchcock, 2012; Jeremiah, 2008; MacArthur, 2007;
LaHaye, 1999; LaHaye & Jenkins, 1999). Thus, in this light, Heyman (personal communication,
February 12, 2015) has suggested that an eventual downturn in evangelical Christian schools in
America may be inevitable as a precursor to the prophesied second coming of Christ, as God’s
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

84

eschatological timetable for the end times unfolds. Whether the current Phenomenon Period of
Christian school decline is an indicator of such prophetic fulfillment remains to be seen.
Multiple Causation Theory
Multiple Causation Theory—also known as Multiple Cause Theory—is an outgrowth of
the Domino Theory (Janicak, 2015). Multiple Causation Theory is the philosophical position that
explains that a single cause is unlikely to be the result of a single cause, instead multiple causes
are likely to be involved. By definition, “the concept of multiple causation argues that some
events are unlikely to be caused by a single previous act, and are more likely to be the result of
multiple causes" (Psychological Dictionary, 2015). The theory is often used in the fields of
accident investigation, law, and disease tracking, and is often utilized in examining the
phenomenon of an unplanned and unexpected event (Janicak, 2015). Thus, multiple causation is
the mutual effect by various forces resulting in a particular outcome, representing a theoretical
framework that posits that multiple coexisting causes may influence the occurrence of a
phenomenon (Oxford Reference, 2014). In the case of the decline of the third Christian school
movement in America, this theory provides a logical and corresponding basis for the conceptual
framework to be used in this study’s examination of the phenomenon (see Figure D).
Conclusion
Contributions of this Literature to the Field
A review of the literature reveals that numerous concurrent developments appear to have
had—and continue to have—a negative effect on the third Christian school movement, in
particular in the US. The data also suggests that the types and numbers of factors that have led to
school closures have expanded since 2006. Not only does Fellers (2013) demonstrate a 300%
increase in the categories of factors leading to school closure than did Pre-Phenomenon research
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

85

Figure
D.
Conceptual
framework
for
considering
the
nature
and
causes
leading
to
the
decline
of

the
Christian
school
movement
in
America,
utilizing
Multiple
Causation
Theory.

(e.g., Fitzpatrick, 2002; Nichols, 2006), but the danger signs warning of catastrophic Christian
school failure also continues to expand (Nichols, 2015b; 2014; Fellers, 2013). In accordance with
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ! ! 84!
!
CONTRIBUTING'FACTORS—
EXTERNAL'EVENTS'&'
INFLUENCES'
CONTRIBUTING'FACTORS—
INTERNAL'EVENTS'&'
INFLUENCES'
Figure'D.!Conceptual!framework!for!considering!the!nature!and!causes!leading!to!the!decline!of!
the!Christian!school!movement!in!America,!utilizing!Multiple!Causation!Theory.!

The!Great!
Recession!
'RESULT:'''''''
Unprecedented'decline'in'
the'number'of'evangelical'
Christian'schools'in'
America,'endangering'the'
third'Christian'school'
movement'
The!Rise!of!
Homeschooling!
Racial!&!
Demographic!
Shifts!&!
Social!
Changes!
!
Changing!
Parental!
Expectations!
The!Rise!
of!Online!
K<12!
Schools!
Changing!Patterns!
of!Evangelical!
Church!Attendance!
The!Rise!of!
Charter!
Schools!
Cultural!
Shifts!&!
Cultural!
Changes!
Repetitive!
Inaction!
Disorder!
Eschatological!
Inevitability!
Diversity!
Issues!
Danger!
Signs!
Competition!
from!Other!
Christian!
Schools!
Financial!
Stresses!
Leadership!
Failure!
Resistance!
to!Change!
&!Lack!of!
Innovation!
Challenges!to!
Sustaining!
School!
Mission!
Loss!of!
Homogeneity!
of!Vision!&!
Culture!
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

86

Multiple Causation Theory (Janicak, C., 2015; Psychology Dictionary, 2015; Oxford Reference,
2014), the literature strongly suggests that multiple factors of causation were responsible for the
onset of the phenomenon of Christian school closures, and may continue to endanger the
movement.
Overall Strengths of the Literature
Ewert’s (2013) research examined three possible causal factors of private school decline
over the past decade—affordability of private school in light of the Great Recession, the rise of
charter schools, and the rise of homeschooling—and determined that a statistically significant
correlation existed for the rise of charters as a cause of private school decline.
The studies by Harden (1988), Fitzpatrick (2002), Nichols (2006), and Fellers (2013)—
although small in number—provide valuable insights into the reasons that individual Christian
school sites shut down. This includes the emergence of Repetitive Inaction Disorder Theory
(Nichols, 2015a). In addition, key conference proceedings and recent Christian school journal
articles have begun to recognize and address various issues surrounding the phenomenon in
transparent tones. Furthermore, there is a sizeable amount of data that demonstrate that numerous
concurrent developments appear to have influenced, driven, sparked, or contributed to the
decline of the Christian school movement in America, and that many of these factors may
continue to endanger evangelical PK-12 education in the US in the future.
Overall Weaknesses of the Literature
Empirical studies focusing on any aspect of PK-12 Christian school education are limited
in number and research specifically targeting reasons for evangelical school closure at the site
level is rare. Thus, while some quantitative and qualitative research was found studying the
reasons that individual Christian schools close and the danger signs that warn of possible,
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

87

impending school failure, research examining the comprehensive factors endangering the
Christian school movement as a whole in America since 2006—and leading to the movement’s
decline—is non-existent. Much of what is available regarding Christian schools and the
movement, such as journal articles and books, is helpful, but is not based on research conducted
specifically to investigate the phenomenon of the movement’s descent. This leaves recent journal
articles, conference presentations, leadership summit proceedings, think tank findings, personal
communications, and documentation from these sources to fill the gap. While this information is
vitally important to consider in lieu of other sources, it is not yet of sufficient mass, validity, or
reliability—in and of itself—when searching for conclusive answers to this investigation’s
problem, particularly from an empirical perspective.
Missing Pieces
Although the Great Recession looms as a key factor in the movement’s downturn, it
seems clear from the literature that it was not the only factor in play. The national decline in the
Christian school movement began in 2006, two years before the effects of the Great Recession
were fully felt across the country. This indicates that additional factors must have been at work.
Many concurrent events and developments of nationwide scale were discovered that paralleled
the comprehensive decline of Christian schools, but there was nothing found in the literature that
both identified these events or developments and connected them to the movement’s downturn.
There were also no studies found that tracked where former students of ACSI schools (or
other evangelical schools) decided to go to school once they departed.
Next Steps for Research
There was clearly a negative tipping point (Gladwell, 2002) that occurred in 2006 when
the movement’s growth halted and the Pre-Phenomenon Period ended, and when the movement
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

88

dropped into decline and the Phenomenon Period began. Applying a Gladwell-like approach to
the movement, the unexpected has now become expected, and radical change has become more
than a possibility. It is here; it is a certainty (Gladwell, 2002).
An examination of the literature—and a multiplicity of events and developments that
occurred concurrently with the decline of Christian schools—seems to point to a multiple
causation, “perfect storm” of sorts that gathered and struck in 2006, producing a tipping point
moment.
To fully grasp the change that has occurred, which factors have led to the decline, which
factors continue to endanger the movement, and what actions might be taken to save the
movement, further research must be undertaken. The next step for this research is to contact
practitioners and leaders in the field of Christian school education, in order to determine if this
preliminary correlation of diverse factors as causation for evangelical school decline is
plausible—as the literature would appear to suggest—and further, whether a preliminary
hypothesis of multiple factors of causation is accurate and representative of ongoing threats
endangering the Christian school movement in America.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

89

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Chapter Three provides an explanation of qualitative methods, a rationale for why a
qualitative study is in order regarding the research of the problem, and brief reviews of the
problem statement, the purpose of the study, and the research questions. This is followed by a
discussion of the sample and population to be used in the research, and the instrumentation to be
utilized in data collection: Surveys, interviews, and documents. Data analysis, including the
planned triangulation of data, is described, and ethical considerations are discussed. Study
limitations and delimitations are considered, and the chapter concludes with a summary of the
study.
Qualitative Methods
This study employed a qualitative research methodology. Merriam (2009) states that
qualitative research focuses on discovering deep meaning, developing new areas of
understanding, and providing insight into processes. Purposeful sampling is of primary
importance, with data collection being conducted by means of such instruments as in-depth
personal interviews, careful observations, revealing documents, and well-crafted surveys. The
analysis of data is an inductive and comparison-based process, and findings are marked by rich
descriptions presented in categories and by themes (Merriam, 2009).
This study incorporated a qualitative research design known as grounded theory. In
grounded theory, the researcher assumes the role of an investigator and is the primary instrument
of data collection and analysis of data. Taking up an inductive posture, the researcher endeavors
to make meaning from the data. The final result of this type of qualitative inquiry is a theory that
emerges from—or is grounded in—the data; thus, the term grounded theory (Merriam, 2009).
Although rich description is important, it is not the predominant element of this kind of study.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

90

Rather, the focus of qualitative research in grounded theory is its focus on constructing theory
based on the data and its analysis (Merriam, 2009). A key facet of grounded theory is the use of
the constant comparative method of data analysis. The foundational strategy of the constant
comparative method is to constantly compare data. Since a grounded theory is comprised of
numerous categories, properties, and evolving hypotheses, the constant comparative method is
highly conducive to the effective concept-building orientation of inductive qualitative research
conducted in grounded theory (Merriam, 2009). Since it was previously demonstrated that a
study of the phenomenon of evangelical school closures is needed in order to discover the causes
and factors of the Christian school movement’s decline, a qualitative approach utilizing
grounded theory was appropriate for this study.
Problem Statement
Since 2006, private evangelical Christian schools in the US have been closing in large
numbers for the first time since the third Christian school movement began in 1950. It is a
phenomenon that was unexpected and unprecedented. The sharp decline signaled the end of over
half-a-century of sustained and often meteoric growth of Christian schools in America. ACSI,
the world’s largest Christian school service and support organization, acknowledged that the 56-
year trend of annual growth has ended for US evangelical schools. ACSI asserted that the
economic downturn of the Great Recession had created a new normal for Christian schools in
North America, adding that many unidentified forces beyond schools’ control continue to be the
source of struggle (Charter Oak Research, 2014; ACSI, 2014a; 2014b). Yet there was not an
empirical explanation identifying the causes of the movement’s sharp national decline and the
ongoing threats endangering the movement.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

91

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the nature and causes of the unexpected decline
in the number of evangelical, Protestant Christian schools in the U.S. since 2006, including an
examination of factors endangering the Christian school movement in America; provide analysis
and determine the implications that these factors hold for the movement’s future; and develop
recommendations to address the phenomenon and help reverse the movement’s downward trend,
based on analysis.
Research Questions
The design of the research questions was crucial to the overall direction of this study,
establishing a framework for inquiry and providing parameters and context within which
findings were presented. The overarching research questions for this study were:
1. What are the nature and causes of the decline in the number of evangelical Christian
schools in America and the third Christian school movement since 2006?
2. What factors continue to endanger the movement?
3. What are associational and school leaders in the movement doing—or recommending
be done—regarding the factors that continue to endanger it, in order to reverse the
movement’s downward trend?
The use of qualitative methods for this study was appropriate, as the intent was to
explore, interpret, and obtain a deeper understanding of the decline of the third Christian school
movement. This qualitative study was designed to provide information and findings regarding
the phenomenon of private evangelical school closures in America since 2006, and the factors
that continued to endanger the future of the movement at the time of the study. The ultimate
objective of this study was to explore the phenomenon more deeply than previously achieved and
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

92

provide recommendations for reversing the movement’s decline. Since the goal of a qualitative
study is to examine a topic, describe relationships, increase understanding, and articulate
findings (Patton, 2002), the most effective way to approach the foregoing proposed research
questions was via qualitative methodology.
Sample and Population
This study utilized purposeful sampling, also known as purposeful selection (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam, 2009). As a form of non-random sampling, purposeful sampling was chosen
because of the need to explore, discover, comprehend, and acquire new insights related to the
closure of private evangelical schools and the decline of the Christian school movement in the
US. The participants were selected based on their unique experiences and expertise as Christian
school associational leaders and school site leaders and educators within the movement, as well
as their perceived capacity to contribute informative, pertinent, and rich data on this topic
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002).
Each participant was chosen according to the following set of criteria:
1. Participants must have been current or past leaders involved in evangelical Christian
school leadership in the United States.
2. Participants were selected from a three-tiered sample population. They were either:
(1) associational leaders from ACSI headquarters (Tier One); (2) associational
regional directors, associate directors, and directors of accreditation representing all
eight ACSI regions in the US (Tier Two); or (3) school heads and/or lifelong
educators from evangelical Christian schools, representing all eight ACSI regions in
the US (Tier Three).
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

93

3. A total of 129 participants were distributed proportionately across the foregoing three
tiers, as follows: (1) 10 participants from Tier One; (2) 10 participants from Tier
Two; and (3) 109 participants from Tier Three.
4. Participants preferably served in roles of leadership before the start of the
Phenomenon period in 2006 and had remained in the same or similar positions until
the time of this study.
Research Methodology—Data Collection Instrumentation
Survey
Data gathered from the utilization of surveys can present strong supportive data,
substantially improving the validity of a study’s findings (Brown, 2009). Surveys provide access
to a broader range of information than might otherwise be available through the use of other
instruments alone (e.g., a limited number of interviews, documents, etc.). They also have the
advantage of identifying trends and patterns in the data by using a larger pool of participants, and
are able to be administered electronically via online connectivity.
This study used a survey exploring a range of possible factors and causes that led to the
closure of private evangelical Christian schools in the US, the resulting decline in the third
Christian school movement, and factors that may endanger the future of the movement in
America. Several survey formats connected with school closures, Christian school surveys
utilized in previous studies, or other types of educational surveys were considered (California
Department of Education, 2014; Fellers, 2013; Walner, 2000; Abbott, 1999; Vogt, 1999; Bass &
Avolio, 1995). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995), as utilized by
Abbott (1999), was modified for use in this survey. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is
a five-point Likert scale-based survey format. Vogt (1999) noted that a Likert scale-based
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

94

method is commonly utilized to measure such items as attitudes, knowledge, perceptions, values,
and changes in behavior. This method of survey involves a series of statements that participants
may choose from, in order to rate their responses to evaluative questions (Vogt, 1999).
A respected professional colleague who is well known within the Christian school
movement sent a letter of introduction by email, as well as by standard mail in hard copy form,
to possible participants. After this initial introductory contact a second letter, from this
researcher, was sent to these possible participants, inviting them to participate in the study and
providing them with directions for completing and submitting the survey. This letter was
followed up with an email, a phone call, or both. The eventual participants were required to meet
the sample and population criteria given previously in this chapter. They were invited to
participate in the study based on their positions and roles in Christian education, length of service
in Christian education, experience in Christian schools, expertise in educational leadership, and
the likelihood that they served in Christian education both before and after the 2006 tipping point
marking the beginning of the decline of Christian schools in the US. Participants were assured
that their identity would remain confidential. Participants were further informed that they would
receive a copy of the results of the study when completed. The survey was administered
electronically to participants via an online questionnaire utilizing online-based, USC Qualtrics
research survey software, allowing for the digital gathering of responses.
Survey questions were structured to inquire of participants their views of possible factors
and causes of the decline in the number of evangelical Christian schools in America and the third
Christian school movement since 2006. They were also asked to identify which factors they
believed continued to endanger the movement. Finally, they were asked to identify what kind of
responses—or recommendations—associational and school leaders in the movement are making
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

95

regarding the factors that continue to endanger it, in order to reverse the movement’s downward
trend. The basis of the questions corresponded to the findings in the literature review and the
conceptual framework. The answers given in all categories and themes were scored
electronically, with the exception of one question regarding responses and recommendations, and
one opportunity for respondents to enter additional comments; both of these were open-ended
questions appearing near the conclusion of the questionnaire. These open-ended questions
allowed for the possibility that participants would provide a cause or factor endangering
Christian schools that may not have been included as one of the choices on Likert scale-based
questionnaire. Participants were each assigned a response identification code number. A scoring
guide was developed to indicate emerging trends and patterns and identify common themes.
Before administering the survey to the participants, the researcher piloted it by
administering it to experts in the field of Christian education. Following the pilot’s completion,
the survey was adjusted as needed prior to actual use with the participants of the study.
Interviews
Data collected from interviews provide in-depth responses about people’s experiences,
perceptions, opinions, feelings, and knowledge (Merriam, 2009). From among the pool of
respondents who submitted the completed questionnaire, six individuals were selected for in-
depth interviews from a list of ten possible interviewees. The interviewees were chosen based on
the following criteria:
• Potential interviewees must have (1) submitted their signed consent form, (2) completed
the survey, and (3) indicated at the end of the survey that they were willing to be
interviewed.
• The potential interviewee list must include:
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

96

o one leader from the ACSI HQ/Home Office
o one leader from an ACSI Regional Office
o one leader from an ACSI-member school
o one to three additional leaders from within these three aforementioned groups.
• Additional considerations were:
o The potential interviewee’s position of influence within the Christian school
movement.
o The potential interviewee’s geographic location in the country to help ensure
representation from across ACSI regions.
o Potential interviewees whose survey answers closely aligned with the literature
review and/or the trends and patterns in the survey.
o Potential interviewees who entered written comments that revealed insights into
the problem and whose written comments demonstrated intense interest in the
problem, as entered in the open-ended section of the survey regarding what needs
to be done to address the issue (these comments would typically appear reflective
of the literature review and/or the summary results of the survey).
o A single interviewee would be considered whose survey responses appeared to
represent an outlying view as compared with one or more trends or patterns
discovered from survey responses and/or the literature review.
Selected participants were contacted by email and by phone to confirm their willingness
to be interviewed. Interviewees had already signed an informed consent form during the survey
completion process, indicating their willingness to be interviewed and an understanding that their
identities would remain anonymous.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

97

Subjects were interviewed once, with interviews lasting 60 minutes to 75 minutes in
length. Follow-up contacts, either by email or short phone interviews, were conducted between
seven and 21 days thereafter. These secondary contacts included questions stemming from
responses given by each subject during the first interview. The researcher utilized a semi-
structured protocol with prepared questions, but allowed for shifting inquiry as determined by the
researcher. Thus, the researcher was free to prompt and pursue additional lines of questioning,
with the flexibility to probe more deeply. The second contact was designed specifically to clarify
information gathered during the first interview, and to drill down for deeper meaning and
understanding in the context of the initial interview. Interviews were conducted in person or via
phone. With the permission of the participants, all interviews were audio recorded with the apps
Voice Record Pro on both an iPhone 5S and an iPad Air, and were also recorded simultaneously
via a portable Sony ICD UX533 Digital Voice Recorder in order to provide audio recording
redundancy. Written notes were also taken during the interview by the researcher.
Samples of existing instruments for interview questions were examined from multiple
studies involving Christian schools (Nichols, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2002; Walner, 2000) and
elements from each were combined to produce the format for this study. Each interview was
transcribed and coded for themes. Using constant comparative methods (Merriam, 2009),
common themes were identified between the survey results and the participant responses
provided in the interviews.
Documents
Unlike interviews or surveys, documents are usually created for reasons other than the
research at hand, and an examination of pertinent documents may provide both context and
crucial information for the study (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). A comprehensive review of
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

98

records and documents related to the closure of Christian schools and the national decline in the
Christian school movement enhanced the study’s findings. Such documents included
correspondence at the school site level (including among members of school leadership), at the
associational regional level, and at the associational national level. Correspondence that took
place between associations (e.g., ACSI) and its member schools, as well as between individual
schools and parents, was also gathered. Documents also included letters sent to parents and staff
members; newspaper articles; public notices; church bulletins; school board or church board
minutes; notes regarding administration meetings; and documents related to events and activities
happening in the year or two prior to school closure that had implications for closing schools. Of
particular importance to this study were documents obtained pertaining to key discussions
conducted internally at the association level, including experts from a variety of fields outside of
Christian education regarding the crisis and current challenges to evangelical schools.
The objective of gathering data from documents was to get close to the activity
surrounding school closures, the reasons for such activity, and the ultimate implications of such
activity. These documents were requested of interview participants at the conclusion of the initial
interview. It was understood that anonymity of individuals, especially with regard to sensitive
information and situations, would be maintained. A rubric was created for examining the
documents, in order to provide a consistent framework within which the documents were
observed and evaluated, and to identify common themes as they emerged.
Data Analysis
Triangulation
The following table is a visual representation of the overarching research questions and
the corresponding sources of data that were provided.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

99

Research Questions Surveys Interviews Documents
1) What are the nature and causes of the
decline in the number of evangelical Christian
schools in America and the third Christian
school movement since 2006?
x x x
2) What factors continue to endanger the
movement?
x x x
3) What are associational and school leaders
in the movement doing—or recommending be
done—regarding the factors that continue to
endanger it, in order to reverse the
movement’s downward trend?
x x x

All three instruments were coded by themes. Utilizing constant comparisons, an analysis
of agreements and disagreements in survey responses, interviews, and document content were
conducted. This use of triangulation allowed for the insightful comparison of data. The
triangulation of data sources was also designed to significantly enhance the validity and
reliability of the study. Data gleaned from the use of surveys, detailed comprehensive interviews,
and written documents can improve the validity and reliability of a study’s findings (Merriam,
2009; Patton, 2002).
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are concerns that can be addressed through a study’s design, by
the way data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted, and in how the findings are subsequently
presented (Merriam, 2009). In qualitative research, the study must provide enough detail to
demonstrate that the conclusion of the researcher is a logical result of the research (Merriam,
2009). In order for conclusions to be convincing and make sense to the reader—and to have an
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

100

effect on practice or theory in a given field or discipline—research studies must be performed
with a high degree of rigor, presenting insights and conclusions that genuinely appear
trustworthy and true (Merriam, 2009).
This study was designed to use rigorous research methods to elevate its validity and
reliability. This included careful attention to the conceptualization of the study, skillful handling
of sampling and populations, triangulation of data sources, constant comparisons of data, and the
presentation of conclusions and recommendations for further study that demonstrated
connectedness and coherence.
Ethical Considerations
Merriam (2009) posits that all qualitative research has as its goal the producing of valid
and reliable knowledge that is arrived at in an ethical manner. The parameters of this study
served as a clear guide to assure that no harm came to any participants, and all participants were
treated in an ethical and respectful manner. This study was performed in compliance with
government guidelines for conducting research involving human subjects, as well as the
guidelines of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Southern California
(USC). This study was careful to comply fully with USC IRB requirements, inclusive of all
activities associated with this research. Further, this study was strictly guided by USC IRB
principles and standards, with all materials, study methodology, and data collection
instrumentation clearly articulated, and having received IRB approval prior to conducting the
study. The study did not begin without full IRB approval and abided by all IRB directives.
In addition, the American Psychological Association (APA) forbids the fabrication or
falsification of data, in order to help ensure the ethical reporting of research results (APA, 2010).
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

101

This study was conducted and its research was presented so as to comply with all APA
requirements for the ethical publication of research results.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Influences beyond the control of the researcher placed restrictions on research
methodology and the study’s conclusions. In light of this, the following limitations were
established:
1. Views and experiences of the participants may not have reflected all of the
perspectives and truths present regarding the factors endangering the Christian school
movement, the causes for its recent decline, and the possible implications for the
future of the movement.
2. Views and experiences of associational participants may not have reflected the
perspectives of all Christian school associations and their leaders, in particular
associations in addition to ACSI. Although the researcher reached out to associations
beyond ACSI, there was little response.
3. Views and opinions expressed by participants may not have necessarily been in
agreement with one another and may have, potentially, been contradictory in nature
on some or all points.
4. Equitable access to selected participants may have been limited by factors such as
conflicts in schedules, interest in participation, and any number of life events.
5. Some participants may have felt reluctant to answer some or all questions, for a
number of reasons that may have been outside of the researcher’s control.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

102

6. Data collection, data analysis, and the findings presented may have been limited by
time constraints, financial resources, access to individuals, access to artifacts (e.g.,
documents), and the ability to gain the trust of the subjects interviewed.
7. The sample population for the survey was a small number and percentage of all those
invited to participate in the study, especially school site leaders. Higher numbers of
respondents would likely have been reached without the requirement that informed
consent forms be signed and returned (digitally or otherwise), as stipulated by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for this study. That requirement, for extremely busy
school administrators, impeded the process of securing respondents for the study, in
particular the survey. This reduced the sample population for this study. Although it
was a relatively small number of participants that comprised the sample population,
Christian school site leaders did represent all eight ACSI regions of the US. In
addition, participants included associational leaders from all eight US regional offices
and the home office, including high-ranking leadership; this represented a larger
percentage of respondents participating from among ACSI leadership (17.86% of
possible participants from the ACSI home office; 25.49% of possible participants
from ACSI regional offices) than the percentage of school site leaders participating
from among all leaders of ACSI-member schools nationwide (4.31%). The
percentage of study respondents compared to possible respondents per region is
reflected in Table 1. The sample population also covered all years of professional
educational experience.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

103

Table
1.
Percentage
of
study
respondents
compared
to
all
possible
respondents
per
US
region.

#
ACSI
Region
of
U.S.

Study

Respondents

Possible

Respondents

%
of
Possible

Respondents

1
California/Hawaii

42
341
12.32%

2
Florida/Caribbean

7
162
4.32%

3
Mid-‐America

11
418
2.63%

4
Northeast

17
365
4.66%

5
Northwest

9
145
6.21%

6
Rocky
Mountain

7
129
5.43%

7
South-‐Central

14
331
4.23%

8
Southeast

12
413
2.91%

9
ACSI
HQ/Home
Office

10
56
17.86%

Total
8
Regions,
1
HQ/Home
Office
129
2,360
1

5.47%

1.
The
discrepancy
between
the
2,360
possible
respondents
in
this
table
(from
spring
2016
ACSI
data)
and
the
2,635
possible

respondents
as
represented
by
the
survey
invitations
sent
during
this
study
are
due
primarily
to
(1)
differences
in
the
contact

lists
provided
by
ACSI
at
the
beginning
of
this
study
as
compared
to
the
most
recent
breakdown
of
ACSI-‐member
schools
per

region,
and
(2)
the
number
of
school
closures
that
occurred
during
the
conducting
of
this
study.

Delimitations
Delimitations are boundaries of the study set by the researcher. This study was delimited
to participants who were present or past educators and educational leaders with apparent insight
into the Christian school movement by virtue of their role, experience, education, and reputation
within the faith-based educational profession. Generalizations made from this study were limited
because of the short period of time for data collection and because of the limited number of
participants from whom data was collected.
Conclusions
The conducting of this grounded theory, qualitative research study was intended to
explore and discover the factors and causes of Christian school closures across America since
2006, leading to the decline of the third Christian school movement. Through the utilization of a
carefully conceived methodology, including the purposeful selection of key participants who
serve or have served as experts and leaders in the field of Christian school education, it was the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

104

clear objective of the study to help uncover answers surrounding the decline of Christian schools
as a movement and thereby inform associational and school leaders in such a way that the
decline might be mitigated.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

105

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Chapter Four provides a restatement of the research questions, a review of the
instrumentation utilized to gather data for the study, and a description of the nationwide survey
administered to participants. This is followed by a presentation of the findings of the three
research questions with analysis, and a summary of each research question’s findings. The
chapter utilizes the research questions posed in Chapter One, compares the findings to the
information discovered during the literature review in Chapter Two, and presents the findings in
accordance with the research methodology established in Chapter Three.
The three overarching research questions for this study were:
1. What are the nature and causes of the decline in the number of evangelical Christian
schools in America and the third Christian school movement since 2006?
2. What factors continue to endanger the movement?
3. What are associational and school leaders in the movement doing—or recommending
be done—regarding the factors that continue to endanger it, in order to reverse the
movement’s downward trend?
Three instruments were utilized to gather the data for this study. These sources of data
collection were:
1. A nationwide survey of Christian school leaders;
2. Subsequent interviews of selected survey participants;
3. Pertinent documents.
A nationwide survey (Appendix A) was conducted including leaders from ACSI-member
schools in all eight regions of the US and leaders from the association’s eight US regional
offices, as well as leaders from the association’s headquarters (home office) in Colorado Springs,
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

106

Colorado. Electronic invitations were sent utilizing contact lists approved by and obtained from
ACSI, attached with (1) a letter of endorsement from ACSI (Appendix B); (2) a cover letter from
this study’s principal investigator (Appendix C); (3) three pages of informed consent materials
(Appendix D); and (4) an informed consent signature page (Appendix E). These invitations were
sent via email to 2,635 contacts: 2,528 school site educators, 51 regional office representatives,
and 56 HQ/home office personnel. (A small number of invitations included retirees and former
career educators.) After the initial invitations were distributed, a reminder email was sent to
those who did not respond following the first invitation. In addition, a third reminder email (and
in some cases a fourth) was sent to specific leaders and regional offices in order to secure
representation from all regions of the country.
Of that number, 179 responded by submitting signed informed consent signature pages:
153 from school leaders, 13 from regional representatives, and 13 from personnel at the home
office. Of the 179 individuals who returned signed consent forms and were sent electronic links
to the survey via USC Qualtrics, 129 respondents activated the link and completed the survey
before the closing date, as follows: 106 from the schools category (from all US regions), 13 from
regional offices (with at least one respondent per regional office), and 10 from the home office.
Thus, the survey respondents represented all eight regions of the US and the ACSI home office,
providing nine categories of respondents (Table 2). The mean number of years of professional
educational experience of survey respondents was 25.5 years per participant (Table 3).
All 129 participants taking the survey completed section one (Research Question #1) and
section two (Research Question #2), regarding the nature and causes of the decline of the
movement, and factors continuing to endanger the movement, respectively. Of the 129
respondents, 125 completed section three (Research Question #3), entering comments noting
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

107

actions taken or recommendations made regarding how to reverse the movement’s downward
trend. Ninety-one participants entered additional comments or clarifying statements in
completing their surveys. Six survey participants were subsequently interviewed, based on
previously established selection criteria. After the initial interviews, follow-up contacts with
interviewees were made as needed, and pertinent documents were received and examined. These
documents served to provide comparative data regarding the research questions, particularly
Research Question #3 related to actions being taken by ACSI leadership to deal with the crisis.

Table
2.
Breakdown
of
survey
participants
by
ACSI
region
of
the
US.

#
ACSI
Region
of
U.S.
Responses
%
of
Responses

1
California/Hawaii

42
33%

2
Florida/Caribbean

7
5%

3
Mid-‐America

11
9%

4
Northeast

17
13%

5
Northwest

9
7%

6
Rocky
Mountain

7
5%

7
South-‐Central

14
11%

8
Southeast

12
9%

9
Headquarters/Home
Office
(Colorado
Springs)
10
8%

Total
8
Regions,
1
Headquarters/Home
Office
129
100%

Table
3.
Breakdown
of
survey
participants
by
years
of
educational
experience.

#
Years
of
Educational
Experience
Responses
%
of
Responses

1

1-‐2

0
0%

2

3-‐5
4
3%

3

6-‐10
14
11%

4
11-‐15
10
8%

5
16-‐20
14
11%

6
21-‐25
19
15%

7
26-‐30
20
16%

8
31-‐35
22
17%

9
36-‐40
10
8%

10
Over
40
16
12%

Total
25.5
Years
of
Educational
Experience
(Mean)
129
100%

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

108

The data collected through the survey were representative of all regions of the US in
which Christian schools exist. Although percentages of responses from different regions of the
US varied, all regions were represented in the responses. Some of the variations were related to
the size of the region and the number of Christian schools in specific regions, and some of the
variations were reflective of individual educator decisions to participate in the study, irrespective
of regional size or school numbers. The respondents to the survey represented a wide spectrum
of years of professional experience.
The first two sections of the survey asked participants to identify causal factors and
ongoing factors, respectively, regarding the Christian school crisis that began in 2006, from
among 21 listed factors in each section. Respondents indicated to what degree they believed each
potential factor contributed or continues to contribute to the movement’s decline by choosing
one of seven corresponding levels of influence for each factor: (1) very likely a factor; (2) likely
a factor; (3) somewhat likely a factor; (4) undecided; (5) somewhat unlikely a factor; (6) unlikely
a factor; (7) very unlikely a factor. The USC Qualtrics Survey software assigned a numerical
value to each of the seven levels of influence, with very likely a factor having a value of 1 (n =
1), likely a factor having a value of 2 (n = 2), and so on, until very unlikely a factor, with a value
of 7 (n = 7). Thus, the lower the number value, the greater the degree of likelihood in the mind of
respondents that the factor in question contributed to the phenomenon of school closures.
Collectively, these responses were reflected as means (M), thus providing statistical rankings for
all potential factors in sections one (Research Question #1) and two (Research Question #2) of
the survey.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

109

Findings
Research Question 1 (Survey, Section One): What are the nature and causes of the decline
in the number of evangelical Christian schools in America and the third Christian school
movement since 2006?
Of the 21 possible causal factors identified in the literature review and the preliminary
conceptual framework as contributing to the decline of the movement since 2006, participants of
the nationwide survey identified 15 factors leading to the movement’s unprecedented downturn.
These factors, as ranked by survey participants, are as follows (see Table 4).
#1—Financial stresses. Christian school educators participating in the survey ranked
financial stresses as chief (M = 1.56) among the 15 causal factors leading to the phenomenal
decline, with 60.47% of respondents rating it as very likely a factor. This reinforced previous
research that indicated that financial stresses were one of four predominant reasons that schools
find themselves in danger of closing (Fellers, 2013). Survey respondents and interviewees noted
that while financial stresses have seemingly been ever-present in most schools, many schools
were operating on such thin fiscal margins that when the tipping point came in 2006 they were
not able to withstand the perfect storm of multiple, combining factors that was to come. Said one
school leader and regional accreditation commissioner: “My perception is that most of the
schools that have closed in our region have been low-priced and often low-quality schools that
were financially under resourced and unsustainable.” Explained another respondent:
For some of the schools that have closed in our area, it was due to extreme financial
stress. Enrollment did not cover the costs of operation and debts mounted until closure
was forced. Frequently this has been done at the last moment in August just before school

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

110

Table
4.
Causal
factors
contributing
to
the
decline
in
the
number
of
evangelical
schools
in

America
since
2006.

!#!
Question!(Section!One)!–!!
All!Results!(8!Regions!+!ACSI!HQ)!
Very!Likely!a!
Factor!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Somewhat!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Undecided!
Somewhat!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Very!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Total!
Responses!
Mean! RANK!
1" The"Great"Recession" 55.04%" 27.91%" 11.63%" 2.33%" 2.33%" 0.78%" 0.00%" 129" 1.71" 2!
2" The"rise"of"charter"schools" 29.69%" 24.22%" 30.47%" 4.69%" 5.47%" 3.91%" 1.56%" 128" 2.50" 9!
3" The"rise"of"online"K>12"schools" 11.72%" 14.84%" 42.19%" 10.16%" 15.63%" 5.47%" 0.00%" 128" 3.20" 14!
4" The"rise"of"homeschooling" 16.28%" 31.78%" 31.78%" 5.43%" 10.85%" 2.33%" 1.55%" 129" 2.76" 11!
5"
Changing"patterns"of"evangelical"
church"attendance"
25.20%" 35.43%" 18.11%" 13.39%" 3.15%" 4.72%" 0.00%" 127" 2.48" 8!
6"
Racial"and"demographic"shifts—
social"changes"
4.72%" 14.17%" 25.20%" 20.47%" 22.83%" 10.24%" 2.36%" 127" 3.83" 18!
7"
Cultural"shifts—cultural"changes,"
impacting"Christian"thought"
35.16%" 35.16%" 18.75%" 3.91%" 3.91%" 3.13%" 0.00%" 128" 2.16" 3!
8"
Changing"parental"expectations"and"
reasons"for"considering"a"Christian"
school"for"their"child's"education"
29.46%" 42.64%" 15.50%" 4.65%" 4.65%" 3.10%" 0.00%" 129" 2.22" 4!
9"
Failure"of"leadership"at"school"site"
level"
17.05%" 25.58%" 25.58%" 7.75%" 11.63%" 9.30%" 3.10%" 129" 3.12" 13!
10"
Failure"of"leadership"at"association"
level"
4.65%" 10.08%" 20.93%" 17.83%" 20.93%" 15.50%" 10.08%" 129" 4.27" 19!
11"
Loss"of"homogeneity"of"vision"and"
culture"at"school"site"level"
9.38%" 14.84%" 28.91%" 17.97%" 14.84%" 10.94%" 3.13%" 128" 3.59" 16!
12" Financial"stresses" 60.47%" 28.68%" 8.53%" 0.78%" 0.00%" 1.55%" 0.00%" 129" 1.56" 1!
13"
Competition"from"other"Christian"
schools"
6.98%" 18.60%" 36.43%" 10.85%" 15.50%" 9.30%" 2.33%" 129" 3.47" 15!
14"
Failure"of"schools"to"effectively"
market"themselves"
14.73%" 37.21%" 32.56%" 2.33%" 8.53%" 3.88%" 0.78%" 129" 2.67" 10!
15"
Failure"of"schools"to"detect"and"
effectively"deal"with"danger"signs"
threatening"their"existence"
22.48%" 41.09%" 24.03%" 6.98%" 3.88%" 1.55%" 0.00%" 129" 2.33" 6!
16"
Ongoing"failure"of"schools"to"act"on"
threats"to"their"existence"in"a"timely"
manner,"leading"to"an"organizational"
pattern"of"repetitive"inaction"
23.44%" 47.66%" 15.63%" 6.25%" 4.69%" 2.34%" 0.00%" 128" 2.28" 5!
17"
Challenges"to"sustaining"school"
mission"at"school"site"level"
11.63%" 27.91%" 30.23%" 11.63%" 7.75%" 10.85%" 0.00%" 129" 3.09" 12!
18"
Resistance"to"change"at"school"site"
level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"
and"retooling"for"21st"century"
educational"challenges"
28.68%" 32.56%" 24.81%" 1.55%" 5.43%" 5.43%" 1.55%" 129" 2.45" 7!
19"
Resistance"to"change"at"association"
level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"
and"retooling"for"21st"century"
educational"challenges"
8.53%" 10.85%" 33.33%" 13.95%" 17.83%" 9.30%" 6.20%" 129" 3.74" 17!
20" Diversity"issues" 0.78%" 9.38%" 18.75%" 23.44%" 28.13%" 9.38%" 10.16%" 128" 4.38" 20!
21"
Eschatological"inevitability:"With"the"
approaching"return"of"Christ,"certain"
changes"and"events—including"an"
eventual"downturn"in"Christian"
schools—may"be"inevitable"
7.81%" 6.25%" 16.41%" 18.75%" 17.97%" 14.84%" 17.97%" 128" 4.49" 21!
" " " " " " " " " " " !
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

111

reopens for a new year. Parents are forced to make a quick change to another Christian
school or go to public.
One associational leader, who viewed financial stresses as a key element among numerous causal
factors contributing to the decline, stated:
[In 2006, prior to the Great Recession,] you already had schools that were on the fringes
financially…that were really on the edge and probably would have closed anyway. Then
an event happens in our country that changes everything. …you hear from administrators
about families in the community [that] were impacted by that. As [families] are
personally impacted, it impacts their ability to send their child to the school. It’s a perfect
storm.
Although a large number of respondents identified financial stresses as the number one factor
causing the decline of the movement, numerous school administrators in the study pushed back,
noting that schools have always experienced fiscal stresses, but not all schools have closed.
#2—The Great Recession. Respondents identified financial stresses as closely aligned
with the Great Recession and ranked it a close second (M = 1.71) in factors contributing to the
phenomenon, with 55.04% of participants describing it as very likely a factor. Although some of
the literature indicated the phenomenon of school closures began prior to the Great Recession’s
full effects being felt throughout the movement (Economic Policy Institute, 2015; Russell Sage
Foundation, 2012; Simpson, 2010), the nation’s economic crisis was clearly a contributing factor
during the early stages of the downturn. The literature revealed that statistically large numbers of
Christian schools closed following the full effects of the Great Recession, and that the Great
Recession changed the economic landscape, adversely affecting the Christian school movement
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

112

(Charter Oak Research, 2014, NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006). Survey respondents stated that
the Great Recession acted as an accelerant to enflame a process of decline that had already
started. One respondent stated: “Many schools that closed were existing on a day-to-day basis
with nothing to rely on financially when the economic bottom fell out.” Said another participant:
“I believe the economy has played a large part in parents being not able or unwilling to put and
keep their children in a Christian school.” Another influential leader commented: “The Chris
Dodd recession caused many families to lose employment, thus the inability to pay for tuition-
funded Christian schools. This is the number one cause of our enrollment decline.”
#3—Cultural shifts. Survey participants identified cultural shifts—cultural changes,
impacting Christian thought as the third-ranked factor (M = 2.16) contributing to the
movement’s unexpected descent, with 70.32% of respondents selecting either very likely a factor
(35.16%) or likely a factor (also 35.16%) as their rating. This response was reflective of the
literature that described cultural changes as having an impact on Christian endeavor and thought
in the US (Kinnaman & Lyons, 2016; 2007; Pearcey, 2010; 2005). Said one Christian school
administrator:
Christian communities have been slow to recognize the shift in American society and so
are behind in addressing the changing culture. While some Christian communities have
also been afraid to take a stand on core beliefs for fear of being perceived as exclusive or
not politically correct, others have become very rigid, outspoken and almost militant in
their stand on cultural issues facing the world today. Both extremes have distracted many
from the message of Good News and the good works that are being done in the name of
Jesus. These extremes have given the Christian community as a whole—and this includes
Christian schools—a bad name.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

113

One head of school explained:
Schools expanded for a long time. It just wasn't hard at all to really be successful as a
Christian school for many years. In light of the fact that we're kind of in a new reality
now, should we be trying to re-envision the contribution that schools can make in a new
culture? We were a Christian America, if you will, and now it seems clear we're post-
Christian.
The respondents seemed to consider the cultural shift to be one in which the nation no longer
considered itself to be “Christian.”
#4—Changing parental expectations. Changing parental expectations and reasons for
considering a Christian school for their children was identified as the fourth-ranked causal
factor (M = 2.22) contributing to the decline of the Christian school movement that began in
2006, as 72.1% of participants indicated very likely a factor (29.46%) or likely a factor (42.64%).
These results are reflective of the literature, which revealed that expectations for many parents
seeking a private faith-based education have shifted significantly since the arrival of the 21st
century, away from an overarching desire for Christian values and a biblical school philosophy
(Kienel, 2005; Shelton, 2001; Short, 2001) to expectations of satisfying school relationships,
student safety, and quality academics (Giglio, 2009). These changing parental expectations were
seen by respondents as an outgrowth of America’s changing culture. One school head
commented:
The biggest change I have seen in my thirty-three years of Christian education is in the
parents. When I began, for the most part, the parents that had their children in Christian
schools were very committed to having their children raised in a Christian atmosphere.
They were very involved in their churches, and very involved with the school. I would
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

114

classify most of them as strong Christian families. Today, I don't feel the majority of
families are here for the Christian teaching and support. They want their children to be
successful, and they feel that the school offers a greater chance of that occurring than
other options. Far more of our students come from single parent families. Many times the
parents need to be discipled as Christians as much if not more than the students. Rather
than strong Christian families that have a strong conviction to raise their children in a
Christian environment, they are parents that are looking for help. They don't have strong
religious commitments, and because of this, they don't usually have strong commitments
to Christian education. When everything is going well with their students, they love the
Christian school, but as soon as there is any kind of struggle or accountability they are
likely to look elsewhere.
An associational leader explained that the new generation of parents is seeking schools that can
deliver on their new set of expectations:
Millennial [parents] are very savvy... They’re knowledgeable about the different types of
schools. As you go down through the generations, you find the older [parents] are not as
knowledgeable. These current parents are savvy people, parents that understand what the
value of [schooling is]. They have high expectations of what they want for their kids.
They’re looking for schools that can do that, that actually can include all of these factors
that are really important to them.
One head of school remarked:
I was at a conference that talked about different parenting styles and mindsets of Baby
Boomers versus Gen-Xers versus Millennials. One of the…identifiers of…Gen-X parents
is [they] tend to be more adversarial, more inclined to threaten to walk if you don't satisfy
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

115

[their] demands, more demanding and so forth. My point [is] that's a little illustration of
educators who had been at it for a long time [who have] started to notice some of these
shifts in the minds of parents, even [among those] who were [already] enrolled.
#5— Ongoing failure of schools to act on threats to their existence, leading to
repetitive inaction. Survey respondents identified ongoing failure of schools to act on threats to
their existence in a timely manner, leading to an organizational pattern of repetitive inaction as
the fifth-ranked causal factor (M = 2.28) contributing to the decline, with 71.1% of participants
indicating either very likely a factor (23.44%) or likely a factor (47.66%). This response reflected
the literature regarding organizational and leadership dysfunction as a precursor to school closure
and provides further support for Repetitive Inaction Disorder (RID) Theory as posited by
Nichols (2015b). One highly influential associational leader, speaking directly of the ongoing
failure of schools to act on threats to their existence, leading to RID, said:
You had that chart [on the sequential indicators of RID; see Figure C], where [the stages
continue to increase in severity] in terms of an infection or fever to the point of [school]
closure. I've never really thought about mapping that out in terms of what those stages
were. It all makes sense.
One school educator explained that a school system’s repeated failure to take timely action—
which leads to RID and school closure—is a critical problem directly connected to poor
leadership:
Finding the right person is worth all of the time and resources necessary, for it is true that
just about everything rises and falls with leadership. A person who is poorly trained or
has no heart for the burdens of leadership will not likely succeed in doing the very hard
work of turning a school around. Another factor is the role that the board plays. I believe
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

116

they need to find the right head of school and then let that person lead. I have seen well-
intentioned board members micromanage schools to the point of frustrating good leaders
while ignoring their duty to pay attention to guiding the school to a successful future by
setting good policies and engaging in strategic planning… Schools that are fully
dependent on God, focusing on the fundamentals, hiring someone ready to lead, and led
by boards willing to govern, are far less likely to close their doors no matter what is
happening around them.
Respondents reaffirmed that school boards and administrators who did not take actions in a
timely way led their organizations into a pattern of repetitive inaction. As Nichols (2015a;
2015b) stated in the literature, failure of schools to deal with issues in a time-sensitive manner—
on an ongoing basis—inevitably leads to “organizational disorder, which becomes entrenched as
a procedural and behavioral way of life for the institution. Once entrenched—if not dislodged
and eliminated—disorder caused by repetitive inaction will lead to eventual school
disintegration” (Nichols, 2015a, p. 145). Respondents were clear this had happened, contributing
to the movement’s unprecedented decline.
#6—Failure of schools to detect and effectively deal with danger signs. Participants
identified failure of schools to detect and effectively deal with danger signs threatening their
existence as the sixth-ranked causal factor (M = 2.33) leading to the crisis of Christian school
closures across the country, as 63.57% selected either very likely a factor (22.48%) or likely a
factor (41.09%). This was reflective of the literature, which indicated that danger signs left
undetected and ineffectively dealt with by schools placed them at risk of closure (Nichols,
2015a; 2015b; 2014; 2006; Fellers, 2013; Fitzpatrick, 2002). Nichols (2015a, 2015b; 2014)
identified 33 danger signs that served as warning indicators of institutional problems needing
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

117

leadership awareness and skillful response. This differed from RID and the causal factor of
repetitive inaction (previous factor #5), which was an outgrowth of one specific danger sign from
among the 33, as discovered by Nichols (2015b). Fellers (2013) found that if more than one of
eight key warning signs and core indicators was present (especially financial issues and
marketing failures), a school could be in decline and should take immediate steps to halt and
reverse any negative trends that may have begun. One head of school explained that the new
landscape of decline, rather than growth, brought about challenges and a new set of danger signs
that most Christian schools had never had to confront before, catching many leaders unaware or
unprepared:
I think it's very significant… I have used the analogy of the wagon trains on the westward
expansion. For years, Christian schools were just driving across open prairie. You just
make your road wherever you want to. There's nothing standing in your way, and then
you get to the Rockies. You're all the sudden at this place where you’ve got to look hard
to find a mountain path to even get to… [but] there is one. We're not going to all be the
Donner party [dying on] the mountain…there is a path, but you’ve got to look hard for it,
and it's going to be rocky and it's going to be uphill for half of the way and so forth. I
think that's right where we are, and it's where we have been, I guess, for a few years. We
didn't have to try hard at all kinds of things. Again, it was probably staffing decisions. It
was how we market our schools, just all kinds of things at a board and leadership level.
We…suddenly found ourselves in a place where we weren't really equipped or
experienced with what to do. I guess it's a little bit of that sense why I think that I do
attribute some of the school closings in the past and potentially in the future to lack of
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

118

leadership at the school level and local level [in recognizing and dealing with danger
signs].
#7—Resistance to change at the school site level. Survey respondents indicated
resistance to change at the school site level: Lack of innovation, reinvention, and retooling for
21st century educational challenges as the seventh-ranked factor (M = 2.45) contributing to the
cause of the movement’s decline that began in 2006. Just over 86% of participants (86.05%)
identified resistance to change as very likely a factor (28.68%), likely a factor (32.56%), or
somewhat likely a factor (24.81%). This was indicative of the literature, although there was no
clear response on the part of participants, with somewhat likely being nearly as strong a response
as very likely. This indicates there may not be wide agreement among the respondents that this is
an important cause, and may suggest a reluctance to embrace change. The statistical analysis
places this as a lower-level cause in comparison to the top six causes identified. It raises the
question: Could this be one of the reasons schools have not responded quickly and effectively
enough to prevent the decline in Christian schools? The literature revealed that the lack of
innovation and the embracing of new challenges by Christian schools placed them at a serious
disadvantage in the educational realm. This included resistance to considering new paradigms for
various facets of their educational institutions, from organizational structures to the use of
updated technology in school offices, from the integration of educational technology in
classroom instruction to curricular and extracurricular offerings (such as STEM), and from
engaging in the act of re-envisioning what education should look like in the 21
st
century to
undertaking related elements of disruptive innovation for the future good of the school (ACSI,
2015; 2014a; Frost, 2015; 2014; Nichols, 2015b; 2014; Moran & Nichols, 2014; Ritzema, 2013;
Carson, 2008; Marsh, 2007; Christensen et al, 2004; Bennis, 2003; Christensen & Raynor, 2003;
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

119

Christensen, 1997; Collins & Porras, 1997; Wilson, 1989). Ritzema (2013) was emphatic that
resistance to change at the school site level had put Christian schools in peril, contributing to the
closing of approximately 20% of all ACSI-member schools in Southern California from 2007-
2008 to 2012-2013, which before the crisis had more ACSI-member schools than any other
region in the world (Haddock, 2005). Ritzema (2013) stated that unless Christian schools
recognized the changing cultural, educational, and technological landscape of the 21
st
century
and responded by innovating, retooling, and reinventing themselves, more schools would
continue to close. Frost (2015), Moran and Nichols (2014), and Ritzema (2013) noted that a
resulting unwillingness or incapacity at Christian schools to innovate and reinvent themselves
organizationally and academically—and seize a new paradigm to match the challenge—has led
to school closures and endangered the existence of others. In this same vein, Frost (2015) posited
that the lack of creativity and innovation is a factor in school failure, reiterating that hundreds of
ACSI-member schools have closed over the past ten years. Documentation from several think
tank discussions convened by Christian school leaders confirmed that failure of schools to adapt
to a broad range of new realities contributed to school closures and is an ongoing threat to
schools and the movement (ACSI, 2016a; 2015; 2014a). Respondents indicated that this is
exactly what happened to Christian schools. Christian schools were not only unaware or
unobservant of the changes affecting them, but unwilling to consider acting in new ways,
contributing to wholesale closures. In disruptive innovation theory, disruptive innovations
introduce a new value proposition, where businesses and organizations take steps toward
significant change, in order to improve what is not good enough, especially in relation to the
markets in which they operate (Christensen et al, 2004). Survey respondents indicated that
considering such changes was a bridge too far for many schools, leading to their demise. In
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

120

addition to resistance to change at the school site level being seen as one of the key causal factors
of the movement’s decline (though not by a large margin), respondents recognized that such
resistance did not occur in a vacuum, but rather at the hands of hesitant and stubborn school
leadership across the country. One respondent commented:
Christian schools often are so focused on the institution or tradition of their school that
they lose sight of what will most effectively reach the student. If the key is effective
education and effective ministry to the student, then there should be a willingness to
change and adapt at the methods and organization level.
This willingness to change and adapt was not present in many Christian schools, which helped
fuel the crisis. It is interesting to note that while respondents identified resistance to change as a
causal effect, it was not strongly represented in the survey responses, as it was ranked number
seven among the major causes, with shrinking financial resources ranked number one. It was not
apparent that respondents considered that resistance to change might be one of the causes for
shrinking resources.
#8—Changing patterns of evangelical church attendance. Participants identified
changing patterns of evangelical church attendance as the eight-ranked causal factor (M = 2.48)
contributing to the closure of Christian schools and the downward slide of the movement, with
60.63% of respondents indicating either very likely a factor (25.2%) or likely a factor (35.43%).
This reflected the literature, which demonstrated that while there has been some debate regarding
whether or not church attendance is increasing or decreasing, there are different patterns of
attendance that have emerged that could affect Christian schools, and that these changing
patterns are connected to cultural changes impacting Christian thought in America (Kinnaman &
Lyons, 2016; 2007; Bartfell, 2015; Shattuck, 2013; Kinnaman, 2011). According to Shattuck
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

121

(2013) there are seven key findings regarding evangelical church attendance in the US, including
a steady decline in church attendance and a serious lack of new churches being planted to keep
up with the rising population growth. This has led to a reduction in church support for Christian
schools (Bartfell, 2015). According to survey respondents, not only is fewer numbers of people
attending church a potential cause for the withering support for Christian schools, but changes of
heart within many congregations that is also driving reduced support. This appeared to be the
result of ongoing cultural change seeping into US churches, along with changes in pastoral
affirmation of Christian school education (to be discussed in more detail later in this chapter),
which was clearly a cause for the movement’s decline in the minds of survey participants. One
Christian school administrator said:
Christian families get behind what they believe in. Certain evangelical churches
discourage rather than encourage Christian education due unfortunately many times to
political pressures not to offend “public school people.” Our society is becoming more
selfish. Churches are following suit and seeing Christian schools as an inconvenience
rather than a blessing to their communities.
Another commented:
The evangelical church in America as a whole no longer values Christian schools as
relevant. Despite evidence to the contrary (in the) Cardus Study, there is no connection
being made as to why young people are leaving the church in droves and the impact of
secular education on their decisions.
One head of school reflected:
We talk about these factors that seem to all move toward a shrinking demand for
Christian schools, and I think there are several. Like I said, if you even just look at the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

122

shrinking population of evangelicals, that alone seems to imply that there are fewer
people who are even candidates for the kind of schools that we have offered before. I
think lots of schools are questioning. We've been a covenant school for all these years.
Do we shift our philosophy on that in order to continue to have a place in this changing
world?
#9—The rise of charter schools. Survey respondents identified the rise of charter
schools as the ninth-ranked factor (M = 2.50) leading to the decline in the Christian school
movement, with 84.38% of participants indicating very likely a factor (29.69%), likely a factor
(24.22%), or somewhat likely a factor (30.47%). Patterns of responses seemed to indicate that
states and regions where charter schools exist—particularly good charter schools—near
respondents’ Christian schools, the greater the likelihood of charters having a negative effect on
Christian school enrollment and the movement. Recognizing the impact of charter schools aligns
with the literature, which shows that areas with strong charter schools have been drawing
students away from private schools, including Christian schools, for at least the past ten years
(Ewert, 2013; Council for American Private Education, 2012; Buddin, 2012; Chakkrabarti &
Roy, 2011). In this respect, the overall responses do not fully represent the negative impact that
the charter school movement had on the Christian school movement’s downturn that began in
2006. From 2006 to 2012, the number of charter schools in the US increased from 3,780 to 6,079
a gain of 60.8%, while the number of ACSI-member schools fell from approximately 3,627
schools to 2,948, a loss of 18.7% (NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006). Noted one educator bluntly:
“I think the charter school movement has done great damage.” Said another: “We have watched
(Christian) schools close around us, and two of the top charters in the state are in our city.” As
with other causal factors in this study, Christian school leaders did not appear to anticipate the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

123

significance of impact that the charter school movement would have on private faith-based
schools in many states and regions of the US. This flight to charter schools over Christian
schools may support the data that indicate that respondents believe parent expectations have
changed. One interviewee stated that parents’ expectations are more focused on the quality of
academic offerings than the promotion of Christian values. In one region, Christian school
educators left the Christian schools in which they were serving to work in a local charter school,
and urged parents to leave their Christian school and enroll at the new charter school. This brings
into question not only changing expectations of parents in the community at large, but changing
expectations of parents serving at Christian schools, something that respondents said would have
been unthinkable a decade or two ago.
#10—Failure of schools to effectively market themselves. Participants in the
nationwide survey identified failure of schools to effectively market themselves as the tenth-
ranked causal factor (M = 2.67) in the movement’s unexpected descent, with 69.77% of
respondents either indicating likely a factor (37.21%) or somewhat likely a factor (32.56%).
Although included as a causal factor, it is ranked as number 10. This ranking stands in some
contrast to the findings of Fellers (2013), who ranked marketing and competition challenges
among the top four danger signs warning of impending Christian school closure. He asserted that
a lack of effective marketing at the school level essentially made Christian schools more
vulnerable to competition from all schools in the marketplace. Other research (cited previously)
has shown Christian schools’ vulnerability to charter schools. In one analysis of the decline in
the Christian school movement, one leader commented: “Our school has made a diligent effort to
market our school more effectively” and another noted, “effective marketing of the school is now
important,” with the clear implication that this had not previously been the case. Many
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

124

respondents stated that prior to the arrival of the phenomenon of school closures in 2006, many
Christian schools did not spend the time or fiscal resources necessary to create and sustain an
effective and sophisticated marketing presence beyond simple advertising and limited
promotional events, including a professional online presence in the emerging digital
marketplace. As the movement’s decline was unexpected, schools did not effectively re-envision
and redesign their marketing, communications, and advertising efforts as needed. Amplified by
the causal factors of resistance to change, failed leadership, and changing parental expectations
that went unrecognized, this factor contributed to the movement’s decline.
#11—The rise of homeschooling. Survey respondents ranked the rise of homeschooling
eleventh (M = 2.76) on the list of causal factors contributing to the decline of Christian schools
starting in 2006, with 63.56% of participants either indicating likely a factor (31.78%) or
somewhat likely a factor (also 31.78%). While the literature revealed that homeschooling had a
negative effect on private school enrollment, the degree of impact was uncertain due to a lack of
research (Ewert, 2013). Survey respondents indicated, in agreement with the literature, that there
was a negative influence on enrollment figures due to the rise of homeschooling, contributing to
the movement’s unprecedented drop; however, few included it in the category of very likely,
indicating they did not rank it among the most influential causes in comparison to other causes.
While homeschooling had been viewed by Christian school administrators as an area of
competition for years prior to the decline of Christian schools, changing parental expectations
appeared to have given extra impetus to the continuing rise of homeschooling. One school
administrator said:
Another area (of concern) has to do with homeschooling. For the first 14 years of our
school, we were an elementary school only, and our families with students entering
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

125

middle school did not feel comfortable with the options available, so in 1988 our school
sponsored a home school satellite program which grew to be one of the largest programs
in Maryland with over 500 students, in addition to our day school enrollment. It seems
like home schooling is now a misnomer, because families rely on cooperative classes
rather than home instruction, and replicate so much of the school experience, doing
senior trips, yearbooks, etc. It seems they truly want a Christian school experience
without paying for it.
This respondent provides an important insight about parent expectations that connect to
homeschool finances. The parents cited in this quote wanted what Christian schools had to offer,
but at the least cost possible. The parental expectation could also be their way of holding on to
the Christian influence at a time when the nation’s economic crisis had reduced family income. It
appears that this school was open to innovative ways to meet the needs of its families.
#12—Challenges to sustaining school mission. Participants in the nationwide survey
identified challenges to sustaining school mission at the school site level as the twelfth-ranked
causal factor (M = 3.09) in the decline of the Christian school movement, with 58.14% of
respondents either indicating likely a factor (27.91%) or somewhat likely a factor (30.23%). This
was reflective of the literature. Walner’s (2000) research identified factors that prevented or
threatened schools from staying on mission, which could endanger the school. In addition to
changes in society and financial issues, Walner identified “a lack of vision or focus on the
mission” (pp. xi-xii). Fellers (2013) further found that failure to sustain school mission was as
critical a danger sign as leadership failure, financial stresses, and marketing and competition
issues in leading to school collapse. One career administrator who had helped several Christian
schools recover from near collapse, explained:
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

126

In each of the struggling schools mentioned…there was little or no attention being paid to
the schools' mission and core values. They started focusing primarily on the problems
and were ignoring the fundamentals that support a growing institution. My goal was to
get them focused on mission…
This statement by an experienced administrator provides one explanation for the relatively large
percentage of respondents identifying this as a causal factor, even though overall it was ranked as
number 12 among the causes. In times of crisis, organizations often lose sight of their mission
and core values as they identify symptoms of their problem rather than causes. As was seen in
the literature, Walner (2000) found that a lack of focus on the mission can lead to organizational
meandering, mediocrity, and inevitably a loss of homogeneity of vision and culture, which both
Fitzpatrick (2002) and Nichols (2006) saw as potential factors leading to school closure and that
Fellers (2013) identified as a key factor in school failure in his study, equal to leadership failure,
financial stresses, and competition as threats to the existence of Christian schools (Fellers, 2013).
#13—Failure of leadership at the school site level. Survey respondents identified
failure of leadership at the school site level as the thirteenth-ranked factor (M = 3.12) causing the
decline in the Christian school movement, with 68.21% of participants indicating very likely a
factor (17.05%), likely a factor (25.58%), or somewhat likely a factor (25.58%). This is reflective
of the literature; however, previous research clearly places failure of school leaders in decision-
making and related realms of leadership in a much more prominent role regarding school
closures, and thus the movement’s decline (Fellers, 2013; Nichols, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2002). In
particular, prior studies indicated school boards, pastors, and to a lesser extent school
administrators (typically from smaller schools with a lack of training or advanced education)
were at fault (Fellers, 2013; Nichols, 2006). One high-ranking associational leader asserted, “A
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

127

primary contributor to the school closures was a dearth of leadership or a lack of leadership. I see
leaders rise up that do incredible things. I’ve seen good leadership [under which], against all
odds, a school flourishes. In fertile soil with poor leadership, the school collapses. That’s always
been my perspective, that clearly it’s been leadership that’s been a critical factor.” Remarked
another long-time school administrator: “I was principal of a church school…when
unannounced, the pastor decided to close the preschool through 12th grade schools in July. Only
the high school survived as parents reorganized as an independent school using the booster club's
(tax exempt status), changing the name. More recently I have heard of other churches whose
leadership decided to abandon the financial ‘risk’ and obligations of their church school. This
was probably due to lack of vision in the church leadership as well as a lack of confidence in the
school's leadership to address factors mentioned in this survey.” Another respondent said: “I
believe one of the core issues that parallels the decline is the lack of visibility and support from
the pulpit: A lack of understanding and making a priority of Deuteronomy 6:4-9 as it relates to a
child's educational experience and spiritual formation from church leaders in the evangelical
community.” One associational leader at the regional level explained:
While the financial aspects of the current challenges within the Christian school
movement have received the most attention, and blame for the decline of Christian
schooling over the last ten or twelve years, I believe that other issues have had a greater
impact. The most notable in my mind are poor leadership (due either to lack of
competence, discipline, or courage) and the dramatic shifts in the current and upcoming
generation of parents.
This is another statement that calls into question whether respondents ignored fundamental
contributors to the decline in schools like mission and leadership issues. Although items like
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

128

finances and promotions are important, they may be superficial in comparison to the
fundamentals that enable organizations to weather the storms. At this point, it should be noted
that survey participants ranked numerous factors (cultural shifts; changing parental expectations;
failure of schools to act on threats to their existence, leading to repetitive inaction; failure of
schools to detect and effectively deal with danger signs; resistance to change at the school site
level including lack of innovation, reinvention, retooling for 21
st
century educational challenges;
failure of schools to effectively market themselves; challenges to sustaining school mission; and
failure of leadership at the school site level) lower in significance than the chief causal factor of
financial stresses. Considering the literature, it appeared that the issue of finances (and the Great
Recession, for that matter) was easier to blame for the movement’s downturn and school failure
than the admission on the part of leaders that they were not taking note of the changes in the
culture, changes in parental expectations, their own resistance to innovate, their own failure to
market themselves, and so on. Nichols (2006) noted this pattern in his case studies of schools
that closed from 2001 to 2004, even before the phenomenon of school closures began. Nichols
(2006) discovered that while the issue of finances was the reason most often given anecdotally
by school board members, pastors, and some administrators for school closure, interviewing a
broader range of stakeholders from closed schools—including teachers, support staff members,
and parents, in addition to school board members, pastors, and administrators—revealed
leadership as the chief cause of school collapse, not finances. In fact, Nichols (2006) found that
finances were not considered a significant causal factor of school closure by stakeholders of the
closed schools. While financial distress certainly appeared to be a causal factor in the
phenomenal crisis that began in 2006, it would also appear that failure of school leadership to
respond effectively to the growing challenges facing their schools was more central to the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

129

problem than was admitted by most respondents. This seems especially true when taking into
account that several survey participants shared that their schools did not lose attendance during
the past decade, in spite of the financial stresses that existed during that time period.
#14—The rise of online K-12 schools. Survey participants identified the rise of online
K-12 schools as the fourteenth-ranked causal factor (M = 3.20) contributing to the movement’s
decline, with 42.19% of respondents indicating it was somewhat likely a factor. This was
indicative of the literature, which showed a rapid rise in online K-12 schooling occurred during
the same period that Christian schools were heading into decline (Horn & Staker, 2011).
However, the literature did not indicate the degree of influence that online schools have had on
private schools, as there has been little research on the topic. The specific influence of online
schools on Christian schools was not known due to a lack of research. One participant shared:
“While many pastors remain committed to Christian schooling, there are also many who sent
their children to public or charter/online programs because they consider this the best option for
their children.” As with charter schools, most Christian school leaders did not anticipate the
potential negative ramifications that the rise of online K-12 schools would have for their
organizations, especially prior to 2006.
#15—Competition from other Christian schools. Survey participants identified
competition from other Christian schools as the fifteenth-ranked factor (M = 3.47) contributing to
the movement’s decline, with 55.03% of respondents indicating either likely a factor (18.6%) or
somewhat likely a factor (36.43%). The literature indicated that marketing and competition issues
were among the four key precursors to school closure (Fellers, 2013). Although respondents
identified competition as a factor, as a group they did not appear to elevate it to the same level of
prominence as Fellers’ 2013 quantitative research indicated. However, respondents did comment
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

130

that Christian schools appeared to be pitted against one another at times, almost like any other
business battling for customers in the competitive marketplace. Said one survey respondent: “It
doesn't help that in our area parents have told us that they are being offered by another Christian
school the opportunity to attend that school for the same tuition as ours if they bring a statement
as proof.”
Of the 21 possible causal factors for the decline, there were three factors that survey
participants were largely undecided about regarding each factor’s influence (or non-influence) on
the movement’s downturn. These three factors were loss of homogeneity of vision and culture at
the school site level (#16; M = 3.59), resistance to change at the association level: Lack of
innovation, reinvention, and retooling for 21
st
century educational challenges (#17; M = 3.74),
and racial and demographic shifts—social changes (#18; M = 3.83). Statistically, these were in
the undecided range (M = 3.51 to 4.49). While these shaded slightly toward somewhat likely,
participants’ uncertainty eliminated them from causal consideration.
It is interesting to note that according to the literature, loss of homogeneity of vision and
culture at the school site level has been previously identified as a factor in struggling schools and
school closures (Fellers, 2013; Nichols, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2002). Fellers, in particular, found that
loss of homogeneity of vision and culture was just as dire a warning sign of institutional distress
that leads to K-12 school closure as were financial stresses, leadership issues, and competition
(Fellers, 2013).
The three remaining possible causal factors of failure of leadership at the associational
level (#19; M = 4.27), diversity issues (#20; M = 4.38), and eschatological inevitability: With the
approaching return of Christ, certain changes and events—including an eventual downturn in
Christian schools—may be inevitable (#21; M = 4.49) were ranked lowest by respondents. These
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

131

three factors fell within the undecided range (M = 3.51 to 4.49) but leaned toward somewhat
unlikely, and thus were not considered contributing factors to the movement’s decline in the view
of survey respondents.

The literature regarding diversity issues and racial and demographic shifts—social
changes seems to indicate these two potential causal factors played some part in the movement’s
decline (Frey, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2008), despite the survey results.
Respondents as a group (1) did not indicate awareness of these factors’ impacts; (2) ignored or
denied those factors’ impacts; or (3) had not been affected by those issues during their careers.
On this latter point, it could possibly be that educators involved in schools most impacted by
these factors did not participate in the study. In any event, it seems highly unlikely—based on the
literature—that diversity, racial, and demographic issues did not play a role in the downturn.
Along with the low ranking assigned to failed leadership by participants, it represents two of the
more incongruent areas of responses in this study, compared to the literature.
When asked, survey respondents and interviewees did not identify or offer any additional
potential causal factors beyond the 21 presented in the survey. Possible political influences were
rarely mentioned. While vouchers, school tax credit programs, and additional parental choice
opportunities were occasionally mentioned in survey comments and interviews, these were tied
to ways that schools and families could help eliminate financial stresses.
In summary, survey respondents identified and rank-ordered 15 factors that combined to
cause the phenomenal decline in the number of evangelical Christian schools in America since
2006. To a large extent, participants demonstrated through the survey data, subsequent
interviews, and examined documentation that while financial stresses were highest-ranked
among the factors and that the role of the Great Recession as an accelerant two years into the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

132

decline was significant, there were 13 additional causal factors that contributed to the downturn.
The literature suggests these 13 factors represent (1) the forces beyond schools’ control that had
remained unidentified prior to this study (Charter Oak Research, 2014), and (2) factors within
schools’ control or influence that had been identified previously, but that had gone largely
unnoticed or unmentioned at the national level (Fitzpatrick, 2002; Nichols, 2006; Kienel &
Nichols, 2006; Kienel, Moran, & Nichols, 2011a; Kienel, Moran, & Nichols, 2011b; Fellers,
2013; Nichols, 2015b). Responses to the first research question also demonstrate, as suggested
by the literature, that it was not the economic downturn of the Great Recession alone that created
a new normal for Christian schools. Rather, it was a combination—moreover, a convergence and
intersectionality—of 15 factors that brought the movement to the tipping point in 2006 and
pushed or accelerated US evangelical schools into their phenomenal downward slide. This
supports a conceptual framework demonstrating that multiple, interrelated, and converging
factors led to the movement’s decline (Appendix O). As an example of the foregoing, one
response typified many of the participants’ experiences with trying to weather perfect storm
conditions:
I spent the period referenced (2006-2014) in Southern California. Our elementary
Christian school closed in 2014 because of a few very direct factors: (1) the founding
church decided a Christian school was no longer part of its ministry or mission; (2) the
(Great) Recession impacted our community with unemployment that averaged 5% higher
than the national averages; (3) two charter schools opened up in close proximity to the
school, one with a staff composed of 80% Christians.
Collected data and the literature demonstrate that the world was changing around US Christian
schools leading up to 2006 and continuing thereafter, shifting the cultural context in which the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

133

movement was operating. However, the data also reveal that Christian school leaders did not
anticipate how significantly this change in contextualization would affect their schools, leaving
the movement exposed to decline and its leaders ill-equipped to take actions to effectively deal
with the mounting crisis.
Research Question 2 (Survey, Section Two): What factors continue to endanger the
movement?
Of the 21 possible causal factors identified in the literature and the preliminary
conceptual framework as continuing to endanger the movement now and in the future,
participants of the nationwide survey identified 16 factors in section two that they believe
continue to endanger the movement. These factors, as ranked by survey participants (see Table
5), often resembled the responses given by respondents in section one of the survey.
#1—Financial stresses. Christian school educators identified financial stresses as the
number one factor (M = 1.78) continuing to endanger the movement, just as they had identified
financial pressures as the chief causal factor leading to the movement’s decline. In the
nationwide survey, 85.27% of respondents indicated financial stresses as either very likely a
factor (45.74%) or likely a factor (39.53%) threatening evangelical schools. As with responses to
Research Question #1, participants’ responses to Research Question #2 reflected portions of the
literature indicating finances as ongoing dangers to schools (Fellers, 2013; Harden, 1988). One
school leader stated: “I think the most vulnerable schools are those that operate on thin margins
financially.” Another chief administrator responded, “As a small school, financial burdens will
likely shut us down the fastest.” Warned another school head, “Financial backing is the single
greatest threat to a Christian school. Without funding, we cannot carry out our mission.” Another
chief administrator remarked: “I'd like to point out one thing about the survey. One of the

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

134

Table
5.
Factors
continuing
to
endanger
the
Christian
school
movement
in
America.

#!
Question!(Section!Two)!)!–!!
All!Results!(8!Regions!+!ACSI!HQ)!
Very!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Somewhat!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Undecided!
Somewhat!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Very!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Total!
Responses!
Mean! RANK!
1"
Lingering"effects"of"the"Great"
Recession"
17.05%" 30.23%" 36.43%" 2.33%" 10.08%" 3.10%" 0.78%" 129" 2.71" 9!
2" Continuing"rise"of"charter"schools" 13.28%" 39.06%" 28.13%" 3.91%" 9.38%" 6.25%" 0.00%" 128" 2.76" 10!
3" Continuing"rise"of"online"K>12"schools" 9.30%" 25.58%" 36.43%" 10.08%" 10.08%" 7.75%" 0.78%" 129" 3.12" 14!
4" Continuing"rise"of"homeschooling" 12.40%" 34.11%" 27.91%" 4.65%" 14.73%" 3.88%" 2.33%" 129" 2.96" 12!
5"
Changing"patterns"of"evangelical"
church"attendance"
33.33%" 30.23%" 22.48%" 4.65%" 5.43%" 3.10%" 0.78%" 129" 2.31" 7!
6"
Racial"and"demographic"shifts—social"
changes"
7.75%" 16.28%" 23.26%" 21.71%" 20.93%" 4.65%" 5.43%" 129" 3.67" 17!
7"
Cultural"shifts—cultural"changes,"
impacting"Christian"thought"
42.64%" 27.13%" 19.38%" 4.65%" 3.88%" 0.78%" 1.55%" 129" 2.09" 3!
8"
Changing"parental"expectations"and"
reasons"for"considering"a"Christian"
school"for"their"child's"education"
36.72%" 38.28%" 17.19%" 1.56%" 3.91%" 1.56%" 0.78%" 128" 2.05" 2!
9"
Failure"of"leadership"at"school"site"
level"
21.71%" 27.91%" 27.13%" 6.20%" 10.08%" 5.43%" 1.55%" 129" 2.78" 11!
10"
Failure"of"leadership"at"association"
level"
4.69%" 10.16%" 22.66%" 18.75%" 19.53%" 13.28%" 10.94%" 128" 4.22" 19!
11"
Loss"of"homogeneity"of"vision"and"
culture"at"school"site"level"
10.85%" 21.71%" 32.56%" 10.85%" 14.73%" 6.98%" 2.33%" 129" 3.27" 15!
12" Financial"stresses" 45.74%" 39.53%" 11.63%" 0.00%" 1.55%" 0.78%" 0.78%" 129" 1.78" 1!
13"
Competition"from"other"Christian"
schools"
10.08%" 20.16%" 27.91%" 9.30%" 20.93%" 6.98%" 4.65%" 129" 3.50" 16!
14"
Failure"of"schools"to"effectively"market"
themselves"
21.09%" 39.06%" 27.34%" 3.91%" 6.25%" 2.34%" 0.00%" 128" 2.42" 8!
15"
Failure"of"schools"to"detect"and"
effectively"deal"with"danger"signs"
threatening"their"existence"
25.00%" 39.84%" 25.78%" 3.91%" 3.91%" 0.78%" 0.78%" 128" 2.27" 5!
16"
Ongoing"failure"of"schools"to"act"on"
threats"to"their"existence"in"a"timely"
manner,"leading"to"an"organizational"
pattern"of"repetitive"inaction"
29.46%" 41.09%" 20.93%" 3.10%" 2.33%" 2.33%" 0.78%" 129" 2.18" 4!
17"
Challenges"to"sustaining"school"
mission"at"school"site"level"
12.40%" 33.33%" 27.13%" 8.53%" 11.63%" 4.65%" 2.33%" 129" 2.97" 13!
18"
Resistance"to"change"at"school"site"
level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"
and"retooling"for"21st"century"
educational"challenges"
24.41%" 44.88%" 19.69%" 3.94%" 2.36%" 4.72%" 0.00%" 127" 2.29" 6!
19"
Resistance"to"change"at"the"association"
level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"
and"retooling"for"21st"century"
educational"challenges"
6.20%" 17.83%" 31.78%" 7.75%" 16.28%" 11.63%" 8.53%" 129" 3.79" 18!
20" Diversity"issues" 1.57%" 9.45%" 21.26%" 22.05%" 23.62%" 10.24%" 11.81%" 127" 4.35" 20!
21"
Eschatological"inevitability:"With"the"
approaching"return"of"Christ,"certain"
changes"and"events—including"an"
eventual"downturn"in"Christian"
schools—may"be"inevitable"
9.30%" 5.43%" 15.50%" 23.26%" 15.50%" 15.50%" 15.50%" 129" 4.39" 21!

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

135

possible choices was ‘Financial Stresses.’ I think this will always be the only reason a school
closes, so I suspect you will see this answer outweigh the others. It is all of those other things,
however, that cause the financial stresses. The financial stress is a symptom (of bad decisions,
poor marketing, etc.).” Another school administrator noted:
Each spring, and occasionally at other times of the year, we will have a large number of
phone calls about admission. People seem very interested, may even come to visit, get the
papers, etc. ...but then nothing happens. We have tried email reminders or notices.
Usually we are told that they do not have the money to send all of their students, so they
end by not sending any. We do have some scholarship money; we use an outside rating
firm to determine the family’s ability to pay tuition and then award what we have as
fairly as possible, which usually comes to about $1,000 per family. I believe that the
financial situation in our country is the biggest problem.
One head of school stated: “I think finances is the number one issue. Parents are not convinced it
is worth the money. Public school is viewed as not that bad that you need to pay huge amounts of
money for school.” Another school leader believed that “part of the problem is schools charging
too low a tuition rate trying to keep the school affordable, without offering tuition assistance on a
need basis.” Another school head noted:
Finances are always a major concern for us. We are one of the poorest counties in
Pennsylvania and finding community support from area businesses is very difficult. We
have not been able to hire someone who has the specific job of development. It falls
heavily on the head of school. In spite of this, God has blessed us and kept us afloat.
Though we know it would be in our best interest not to be dependent on state and county
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

136

help, we have leaned heavily on them for supplies and books. When the state budget was
not passed this year until into January, we sadly felt the effect of this.
One school leader predicted:
The financial part will continue to be a problem and become a larger factor for parents
and schools. I have shared with schools for many years that ownership of property ends
the ongoing monthly outlay of money for rent and lease payment. The finances can be
used to increase salaries and improve the academic program. It also allows the school to
create an endowment program to help control the ever-increasing tuition.
A head of school submitted this closing epitaph in comments on the survey:
At this time we are a closing school at the end of the year. In large part, this is due to
some incredible financial mismanagement coupled with not keeping up on educational
trends and expectations, to the detriment of our students.
This foregoing quote, as well as elements of many other survey and interviewee responses in this
study, once again brought into question participants’ responses when compared with areas of the
literature that indicated that leadership—not finances alone—is actually the lynchpin when
considering financial stresses. As reported in the literature, Nichols (2006) found that even when
financial problems were severe, stakeholders of closed Christian schools saw financial crises as
symptoms, consistently and vehemently pointing to failed leadership as the root cause. While the
literature was somewhat divided on the matter (e.g., leadership failure identified by Nichols,
2006 v. finances identified by Fellers, 2013, although Fellers ultimately determined that
leadership failure and financial distress were equal threats to closure), it is interesting to note that
many long-time leaders in this study commented that leadership will always be the number one
factor determining whether or not a Christian school survives, not monetary concerns or any
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

137

other factor more than leadership. As was alluded to in the discussion for Research Question #1,
it may be that school site leaders were more inclined to identify fiscal problems as a sort of
scapegoat, rather than admitting to leadership struggles or failures in dealing with threats to their
schools, including budgetary dangers.
#2— Changing parental expectations. Survey respondents identified changing parental
expectations for considering a Christian school for their child’s education as the second-greatest
factor (M = 2.05) continuing to endanger the Christian school movement now and in the future,
with 75% of participants indicating either very likely a factor (36.72%) or likely a factor
(38.28%). This was consistent with the literature (Giglio, 2009) as well as the responses given in
response to Research Question #1, with respondents elevating changing parental expectations
from fourth in importance as a cause of the decline to second in importance as an ongoing threat
to the movement. Explained one chief administrator who was tearfully counting down her
school’s last days of existence at the time this study was being finalized:
In the case of my school, I believe that its closure was ultimately part of God's plan for
this time and season. We attempted so many things to try to keep the doors open, but in
spite of all of our efforts we were forced to close. Families with school-age children don't
seem to have the same desire to give their children an education that includes a Biblical
worldview as they used to— the times and culture are changing.
Another school administrator stated:
It seems that most families are so busy that the importance and value of a Christian
education has lost its meaning in the culture war. Discretionary funds that used to be
directed towards a child's education are being spent other places. Current and future
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

138

parents seem to be more focused on themselves than on others, including their own
children.
This statement appears to contradict the claim of some that parents lack sufficient financial
resources to invest in Christian schools for their children, and may have simply become more
focused on using their resources on themselves. Other respondents’ statements continued to cite
reasons other than parents’ limited financial resources, including changing parental expectations
and the shifting culture. One survey respondent and school administrator noted:
Schools are going to continue to be impacted by changing expectations of parents,
including many local pastors, who prefer to send their children to hybrid charter
school/home school programs or brick and mortar public schools because they feel this is
better life preparation for their children and it is free.
One school leader said:
I believe that biblical illiteracy and lukewarm church affiliation, combined with the shift
in culture to a more secular worldview—even in the last 10 years—has contributed
greatly to Christian education not being a priority in parents' lives. They just aren't
interested enough to pay money for a product they don't fully support or understand.
Another school educator responding to the survey put it this way:
Unfortunately, we see parents assigning less and less value to a private Christian
education, so trying to lead parents back to understanding why they should invest in their
child's education has been a focus. Parents seem to be less willing to sacrifice their own
standard of living in order to afford a private Christian education. It is our experience in
Southern California that the financial pressures have eased a bit but are still the primary
reason our families give for leaving the school. We are working hard to counter that trend
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

139

by holding costs as low as possible while trying to improve marketing, product, and
competitiveness.
One associational leader posited:
Parents don't seem to be seeking out an education that includes a spiritual component to it
as much. I think our nation is drifting away from God…becoming more godless. I think a
kinder [way] might be to say “drifting away.” I think as people are successful, they don't
see a need for God. We're parenting kids less well every day. Even the parents that send
their kids to our schools seem to be doing a poorer job of parenting, overall. If you
weren't parented well, you don't parent your own kids very well. You aren't going to
realize the need to have that spiritual component and go to church. I think it's probably
just another aspect of the culture.
These and other comments obtained through survey responses and interviews demonstrated that
there is a clear connection seen by Christian school leaders between changing parental
expectations and cultural shifts. Participants frequently spoke of these factors in combination,
both in response to Research Question #1, as a causal factor in the movement’s decline, and in
response to Research Question #2, as an ongoing threat endangering the future of the movement.
There appeared to be a strong intersectionality among financial constraints, changing culture, and
parental expectations as perceived causes of decline and ongoing threats to Christian schools.
#3—Cultural shifts. Participants in the survey identified cultural shifts—cultural
changes, impacting Christian thought as the third-ranked factor (M = 2.09) that poses an ongoing
threat to the movement, with 89.15% of respondents indicating very likely a factor (42.64%),
likely a factor (27.13%), or somewhat likely a factor (19.38%). This was consistent with both the
literature (Kinnaman & Lyons, 2016; 2007; Pearcey, 2010; 2005) and responses quoted in
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

140

relation to Research Question #1, which asked for the causes of the massive closing of Christian
schools. Cultural shifts ranked third in importance in response to the question about ongoing
threats to Christian schools’ existence. It is again noteworthy that even though only 75% of
respondents indicated changing parental expectations as either very likely a factor (36.72%) or
likely a factor (38.28%) in the preceding indicator, most of the comments attributed these
changes in parental views to overall changes in the societal culture. One Christian school
superintendent responded:
Current society does not seem to value Christian education. Barna statistics along with
local church surveys indicate that Christians attend church about 50% of the time.
Obviously, from 10 to 15 years ago, this is a significant change in the church. With the
continuing downward spiral of our culture evidenced by the acquiescence to the LGBT
movement, transgender priority, Common Core, release of convicted criminals, general
lawlessness without punishment, (and) leadership in America with a lack of integrity is
helping set a tone of entitlement and tolerance that has crept into the hearts and minds of
the latest generation of Christians.
Another respondent noted: “There is less value upon Christian education in our culture...we have
to learn how to function and market the mission of our schools with this challenge in mind.” This
response captures the essence of a major dilemma facing leaders of the Christian school
movement: How to remain true to their mission, yet market their school and mission in a way
that is appealing to a changing national culture. Regarding Christians in American culture, one
leader said: “We are becoming a minority,” requiring Christian schools to think differently about
how to educate Christianly and how to conduct business as Christian schools, now that the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

141

majority in America—once Christian—has become the minority. As one associational leader
explained:
The culture of society has been and will continue to become anti-Christian. I have shared
with schools that they will have to improve the academics to attract potential families and
provide a few outstanding programs that families must go to their school [if they want] to
obtain them.
This comment indicates a potential shift in a school’s mission priorities as a solution to the
dilemma, and advocates an elevated focus on academics as a priority. One association regional
leader shared that what causes him greatest concern
is the culture, and the culture changes. I believe that Christians overall are being
marginalized here and in other countries, and I think it's going to take some sort of major
revival to get our salt and light back. We're just continuing to be less of an influence, less
of a voice.
This repeatedly stated view that Christians in America are continuing to lose their influence
within the culture is consistent with the literature. Research by David Kinnaman, the president of
the Barna Research Group, and Gabe Lyons, founder of Q—a learning community representing
the perspectives of a new generation of Christians—indicated that US society increasingly views
Christians as irrelevant and extreme (Kinnaman & Lyons, 2016). Putnam and Campbell (2010)
found that there is a growing secular segment of the US population, and Laderman (2013) insists
that a process of dechristianization has begun in America. In the eyes of Christian school leaders
at both the associational and school site levels, cultural shifts were rightly viewed as a current
and ongoing threat to the future of the Christian school movement.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

142

#4—Ongoing failure of schools to act on threats to their existence, leading to
repetitive inaction. Educators identified ongoing failure of schools to act on threats to their
existence in a timely manner, leading to an organizational pattern of repetitive inaction as the
fourth-ranked factor (M = 2.18) continuing to endanger the Christian school movement, as
91.48% of participants indicated very likely a factor (29.46%), likely a factor (41.09%), or
somewhat likely a factor (20.93%). As with section one in response to Research Question #1,
these data reflected the literature regarding organizational dysfunction and Repetitive Inaction
Disorder Theory (Nichols, 2015b), as respondents elevated it to fourth in importance as an
ongoing danger to the movement (compared to fifth in importance as a causal factor of the
phenomenon). As one respondent explained: “Many Christian schools seemingly are not
interested in continuous school improvement and limp along doing things as they have been
done. The lack of urgency for improvement many times has led to disaster in the school.” The
repeated refusal or inability of school site leadership—especially school boards—to act on
threats to their schools’ existence in a timely manner, thus leading to an organizational pattern of
repetitive inaction and eventually RID, was identified by respondents as continuing to endanger
Christian schools now and in the future. The literature suggests that school leadership needs to
act in an appropriate and timely fashion regarding the greatest potential threats to its school’s
existence, and work with high awareness and great intentionality not to slip into a pattern of
repeated indecisiveness and inactivity that might lead to a perpetual and organizationally
catastrophic death loop. The literature posits that Christian school leadership is marked by a
philosophy of wait and see, until there is no longer a school at which to wait and see (Nichols,
2014b). As noted in the literature, that might require reinventing or restructuring the school
board, convincing entrenched and RID-perpetuating board members to step down, enacting or
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

143

enforcing term limits for board members, asking a RID-infected pastor or school administrator to
resign, or other similar kinds of changes. Survey respondents and interviewees rightly identified
this factor as posing a high-risk threat to Christian schools—and thus the movement—now and
in the future.
#5—Failure of schools to detect and effectively deal with danger signs. Survey
respondents identified failure of schools to detect and effectively deal with danger signs
threatening their existence as the fifth-ranked factor (M = 2.27) continuing to endanger the
movement, as 90.62% of participants indicated very likely a factor (25.0%), likely a factor
(39.84%), or somewhat likely a factor (25.78%). As with section one, this was reflective of the
literature (Nichols, 2015a; 2015b; 2014; 2006; Fellers, 2013; Fitzpatrick, 2002), and as with the
preceding indicator, respondents also elevated this factor one step higher in importance
compared to its ranking in relation to Research Question #1. In an interview regarding leadership
being a critical factor in detecting and dealing with danger signs, one high-ranking associational
leader noted: “Some of the stuff I hadn't really read about or dug deep into, like some of the
reasons [for school closure]…well, there's 33 listed in terms of [danger] signs of school
decline…it all makes sense.” That same associational leader echoed the view that leadership was
the single most important element in any Christian school and the number one reason a school
either thrives or struggles to survive. This reality was also echoed by other survey participants,
interviewees, and was reflected in examined documents from think tank discussions. Failure of
schools to detect and effectively deal with danger signs threatening their existence was seen as a
continuing endangerment to the Christian school movement in the future. This ongoing threat
was inextricably tied to leadership in this study.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

144

#6—Resistance to change at the school site level. Participants in the survey identified
resistance to change at the school site level: Lack of innovation, reinvention, and retooling for
21st century educational challenges as the sixth-ranked factor (M = 2.29) continuing to threaten
the nation’s Christian schools, as 69.29% of educators indicated very likely a factor (24.41%) or
likely a factor (44.88%). Consistent with the previous two indicators, respondents elevated this
factor one level higher compared to section one. Also consistent with section one, this factor was
reflective of the literature. Marsh (2007) and Wilson (1989) pointed out that when the conditions
of an educational environment change, schools are faced with a dilemma. They can retrench
themselves in longstanding and familiar ways of behaving, or they can soberly examine their
organizational behaviors and make the changes necessary for organizational success. Failure to
do either can have negative effects throughout a school system (Marsh, 2007; Wilson, 1989).
This failure was evident in responses to Research Question #1 as a contributing cause to the mass
closures of Christian schools that began in 2006, and continued in Research Question #2 to be a
grave concern looking to the future of the movement. Again, Ritzema (2013) stated in prophetic-
sounding terms that unless Christian schools—meaning Christian school leaders—take note of
the changing cultural, educational, and technological landscape of the 21
st
century and take
action by innovating, retooling, and reinventing themselves, he predicted more schools would
continue to close. This is what has occurred, as verified by respondents in this study. Ritzema
(2013) further asserted that it cannot continue to be educational business as usual; Christian
schools can no longer simply open their doors and expect people to flock to them in droves as
happened three and four decades ago. A new day has come. New methods are required (Ritzema,
2013). Frost (2015) found that one of the problems endangering Christian schools is the stubborn
determination to perpetuate the status quo, rather than using inspiration to build the future by
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

145

being creative and innovative while staying true to core Christian beliefs. Resisting educational
innovation by hiding behind the misguided notion that remaining the same will preserve a
school’s values only hastens decline. Failure to embrace new educational practices that can
stimulate progress will prevent growth that is essential (Frost, 2015; 2014). Furthermore, Frost
(2014) pointed out that existing Christian schools are now challenged by an “unparalleled
convergence of the explosion of information and knowledge, the pursuit of twenty-first-century
educational models, growing economic pressures, increased parental and student demands, the
globalization of learning, and the increasing secularization of our society” (as quoted by Bartfell,
2015, p. 4). One educational leader commenting in the survey said: “We as leaders must not be
afraid of change, of innovation, and of failure. Schools afraid of these things will become
stagnant and will die slowly.” This study would indicate that such schools might actually die
quickly. With the rate of change—internal and external to Christian schools—continuing to
accelerate, school closures will likely continue without an alteration in the patterns of school site
leaders regarding their own stubborn reluctance to change. This is a serious concern. It remains
noteworthy that failure of leadership at the school site level was ranked lower in significance
than resistance to change in both research questions, yet resistance to change at the school site
level is clearly an ongoing leadership issue with life or death organizational ramifications for the
Christian school movement. The two are inextricably connected. It is also worthy of note that
while there was much literature regarding the necessity for urgent change, there were fewer
comments about resistance to change from respondents in this study than many other factors
with which they were presented.
#7—Changing patterns of evangelical church attendance. Respondents identified
changing patterns of evangelical church attendance as the seventh-ranked factor (M = 2.31)
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

146

continuing to endanger the American Christian school movement, with 86.04% of participants
indicating very likely a factor (33.33%), likely a factor (30.23%), or somewhat likely a factor
(22.48%). As with the previous three indicators, respondents elevated this factor one level higher
in importance in response to Research Question #2 compared to responses to Research Question
#1. Also as with Research Question #1, participants’ responses were consistent with the
literature, which demonstrated there are different patterns of attendance that have emerged and
continue to affect Christian schools, and that these changing patterns are connected to ongoing
cultural changes impacting Christian thought in America (Kinnaman & Lyons, 2016; 2007;
Bartfell, 2015; Shattuck, 2013; Kinnaman, 2011). Again, Shattuck (2013) noted there are seven
key findings regarding evangelical church attendance in the US, including a steady decline in
church attendance and a serious lack of new churches being planted to keep up with ongoing
population growth. This continues to produce reduced church support for Christian schools
(Bartfell, 2015). One Christian school educator said:
I think that the cultural changes and the changes in church attendance on the part of
young families are of great concern, and I think that Christian schools can help stop the
erosion in values. However, I think that support is needed from strong Christian churches
to help with facilities and leadership support for Christian schools to remain strong and to
grow.
Another head of school commented:
Over the years I have observed the drop of students connected to a church. Often they
remark on Monday that they went “this place or that” on Sunday or they slept in. Many of
our unchurched families consider our school chapel service as their child's church.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

147

This reflected the literature, that pointed out six million Americans who consider house
churches, small group meetings, and other religious settings the same as attending church, but
rarely, if ever, go to church services in the traditional sense (Shattuck, 2013). That could include
weekly Christian school chapel services attended by students and often by a number of their
parents, as well. Kinnaman (2011) also revealed that Christians ages 18-29—which includes the
nation’s younger Christian school parents at the time of this study—are leaving the traditional
church because the Christian community has failed to equip young adults to follow Christ in the
midst of profound cultural change. Kinnaman (2011) clearly connects these ongoing shifting
patterns of evangelical church attendance with the concurrent shifts in US culture. This tandem
change within church and culture is a major challenge facing both associational and school site
leaders in the Christian school movement. How leaders respond to these changes will clearly
impact the future of Christian schools in America.
#8—Failure of schools to effectively market themselves. Participants in the study
identified failure of schools to effectively market themselves as the eighth-ranked factor (M =
2.42) endangering the movement now and in the future, with 87.49% of respondents indicating
very likely a factor (21.09%), likely a factor (39.06%), or somewhat likely a factor (27.34%).
Compared to their response to Research Question #1, respondents raised this factor two levels in
importance as an ongoing threat to the movement. As one head of school explained:
Our school has had to go through the process of re-thinking our approach to marketing.
There is resistance to effective marketing due to the fact that it appears more of a
business approach and less like a ministry approach. My view is that if you charge a fee
(tuition) for services (education) rendered, then you are a business and should consider
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

148

your viability. For me, the process of making this paradigm shift is like pushing a school
bus uphill with the breaks on!
This foregoing comment was reflective of the literature. Fellers (2013) found that Christian
schools need a competitive advantage in the current educational marketplace, especially
regarding private schools, or their existence is in jeopardy. This means (1) ensuring school
marketing emphases match school strengths with student and parent needs and demands; (2)
ensuring school marketing pieces highlight a wide range of student experiences; and (3) ensuring
that campus appearance and landscaping is a priority, even at the expense of other budget items
that may be deemed more important by some individuals in the organization (Fellers, 2013). For
many Christian schools, this represents nothing short of a paradigm shift, as the head of school
lamented in the foregoing quote. This once again brings up the issue of school site leadership.
Many Christian school administrators indicated they know what continues to endanger their
schools now and in the future, and what responses are needed. However, the reality is they often
have to fight against other forces—in particular, their school boards—when trying to effect
substantive change, including the creation and implementation of an effective marketing plan.
School boards have repeatedly been demonstrated in the literature and by the respondents in this
study as being a foundational detriment to the effective functioning of Christian schools across
the country (ACSI, 2015a; 2014a; Nichols 2015a; 2015b; 2015c; 2014; 2006; Moran & Nichols,
2014). Respondents indicated that school boards must find ways to hire qualified heads of school
and then allow those heads to lead with their full support in a rapidly changing world. That
includes the development and implementation of a robust and effective marketing plan, without
which a private Christian school risks almost certain closure in the current and ongoing 21
st

century climate (Fellers, 2013).
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

149

#9—Lingering effects of the Great Recession. Eight years after the Great Recession
struck the US economy full force, educators identified its lingering effects as continuing to exert
a negative influence on Christian schools, though not nearly to the degree it had in causing the
decline, dropping it to ninth in importance (M = 2.71) among all factors still endangering the
movement. Since the Great Recession was seen almost as much of a contributing factor to the
decline of the movement as financial stresses was in response to Research Question #1 (M = 1.71
v. M = 1.56, respectively), this was an important finding. Two out of every three participants
(66.66%) indicated either likely a factor (30.23%) or somewhat likely a factor (36.43%), with just
17.05% of respondents indicating very likely a factor. This was reflective of the literature, which
demonstrated that the Great Recession clearly had an adverse effect on Christian schools soon
after its force was fully felt (Charter Oak Research, 2014, NCES, 2012; 2010; 2008; 2006) and
that the economic crisis was the source of residual negative issues across the nation (Economic
Policy Institute, 2015; Russell Sage Foundation, 2012; Simpson, 2010); yet it was also reflective
of respondents who revealed that the Great Recession’s lingering effects have slowly though
begrudgingly relaxed their grip on the economic landscape as it relates to Christian schools—
though not entirely so. Even with evidence that the Great Recession did not cause the initial
downturn but rather acted to accelerate the decline once it had already begun, it was still difficult
for some leaders to lay aside its impact. Although one associational leader said, “Whether it's
recession or financial stresses, which are probably similar items, they are front and center, both
for the past as well as the future,” the majority of respondents made a clear distinction between
financial stresses and the lingering effects of the Great Recession, and were willing to let the bad
memories of the economic collapse fade into the past. It is noteworthy that during the course of
this research, participants were regularly surprised when faced with the truth that the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

150

phenomenon of Christian school closures began two years before the Great Recession’s full
effects were felt. This revealed how quickly the Great Recession was blamed by much of the
movement for its downturn, when the reality was that multiple factors and forces were acting in
concurrence upon Christian schools. This research suggests that this quick response to blame the
national economy as a chief cause for the decline in the movement blinded many Christian
school leaders to the reality that multiple causes had long been marching toward the ultimate
tipping point in 2006, and continued to obscure the vision of many Christian school leaders
during the past decade, even up until the time of this study.
#10— The continuing rise of charter schools. Participants identified the continuing rise
of charter schools as the tenth-ranked factor (M = 2.76) continuing to threaten the Christian
school movement, with 67.19% of respondents selecting either likely a factor (30.23%) or
somewhat likely a factor (36.43%), but only 13.28% indicating very likely a factor. As with
responses to Research Question #1 regarding charter schools, patterns of responses indicated that
in states and regions where excellent charter schools exist in close proximity to Christian
schools, there is a greater likelihood of charters having a negative effect on Christian school
enrollment and the movement. As with responses to Research Question #1, this was in agreement
with the literature, which showed that areas with high-performing charter schools have been
drawing students away from private schools, including Christian schools, for at least a decade
(Ewert, 2013; Council for American Private Education, 2012; Buddin, 2012; Chakkrabarti &
Roy, 2011). What appears inconsistent with the literature is that respondents in the survey ranked
the effect of the continuing rise of charter schools as less of a threat now and in the future (M =
2.50 as causal factor, compared to M = 2.76 as continuing factor threatening the movement),
despite the ongoing, unabated rise of charter schools and the growing parent choice movement.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

151

In this respect—as much or more than section one’s response to this factor—the overall
responses may not fully represent an awareness or acknowledgment of the negative impact that
the charter school movement will likely continue to have on the Christian movement in America.
As one associational leader shared:
One of the critical factors here is the rise of charter schools, because in this city all
education is local… I was in church [and] the daughter of the former president [of an
international ministry] stands up and says, “You know what? Next year a new charter
school is starting and it's a classical education and all the teachers are going to be
Christian. I would recommend that everyone make an application because there's going to
be a waiting list.” …Everybody went to [the new] classical academy. The high school
principal of the classical academy is the former middle school principal from [the local
Christian school]. The athletic director is a graduate of [the local Christian school]. A
good chunk of the teachers are from [the local Christian school]. The elementary campus
principal of the new charter school is the husband of [a Christian school leader]…[this
new charter school is] replete with Christians. On the street, word is that it's “Christian
school light.” You can go there and have an ethos as Christian. It's not going to be overt,
but you can get that tuition-free. [The local Christian school’s enrollment] has
dropped…they were 1,400; today they are struggling to be 800. They had to sell off their
elementary campus, consolidate. Incredibly painful. In this city, the leader [of a Christian
school] will say the number one challenge is charter schools. That's an absolute
challenge. I would not say that's [necessarily] a trend nationwide.
A school administrator added:
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

152

As a high school, the most disturbing trend appears to be where the charter schools are
beating our elementary schools as far as value and increasing in market share. Students
not attending a Christian school during these formative years make it really difficult to
transfer back to a Christian school— especially when friends and relationships matter so
dearly in junior high and high school.
Once again, as with responses to Research Question #1, the overall responses in the survey did
not fully represent the negative impact that the charter school movement appears it will continue
to pose for the future of the Christian school movement. As with other ongoing factors
endangering the Christian school movement presented in this study (e.g., failure of leadership at
the school site level, among others), many Christian school leaders did not appear to fully
consider the elevated level of negative influence that the charter school movement seems it will
continue to hold for private faith-based schools.
#11—Failure of leadership at the school site level. Survey respondents identified
failure of leadership at the school site level as the eleventh-ranked factor (M = 2.78) continuing
to endanger the Christian school movement, with 76.75% of participants indicating very likely a
factor (21.71%), likely a factor (27.91%), or somewhat likely a factor (27.13%). As seen in
responses to Research Question #1, while this is reflective of the literature, it still is not fully
consistent with previous research that clearly identified school site leadership failure (including
school boards, pastors, illegitimate leadership groups, and to a lesser extent ill-equipped heads of
school) as the chief cause of school closure (Fellers, 2013; Nichols, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2002). In
this regard, it is noteworthy that a larger percentage of respondents indicated somewhat likely
than those who responded very likely. This seems to indicate that the overarching importance of
school site leadership and its connection to school failure or success is not fully appreciated.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

153

However, respondents did view this as a greater threat to the movement in the future than it did
as a causal factor in the decline (M = 2.78 in section two compared to M = 3.12 in section one;
eleventh-ranked in section two compared to thirteenth-ranked in section one), demonstrating
some awareness that school leadership failure is an ongoing concern. Further, it should be noted
that at least four key factors inextricably tied to school site leadership—(1) ongoing failure of
schools to act on threats to their existence in a timely manner, leading to an organizational
pattern of repetitive inaction; (2) failure of schools to detect and effectively deal with danger
signs threatening their existence; (3) resistance to change at the school site level: Lack of
innovation, reinvention, and retooling for 21st century educational challenges; and (4) failure of
schools to effectively market themselves—were also identified as high-ranking threats (fourth,
fifth, sixth, and eighth, respectively) continuing to endanger schools and the movement. This
linkage was evident in the literature, in comments from survey respondents and interviewees,
and in examined documents from think tank discussions. “I feel that school leadership is the
number-one variable in the sustainability of Christian schools…that’s been my experience,”
commented one high-level associational leader, who sees school leadership as the biggest
difference between thriving Christian schools and schools that are struggling. Continuing, he
explained:
It can be different variations of leadership, but fundamentally it's leadership. When you
get them working in synergy, if you've got a quality board with a quality leader, that's a
powerful dynamic. You can have a quality leader and a mediocre board; it's a bit of a
drag, but it can be overcome. If you've got a quality leader with a toxic board, then there's
no chance. There're these elements of leadership, but the most successful ones are all
working in harmony, in unison, so there's a synergy that takes place there.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

154

In light of the literature demonstrating that school boards are more at fault than heads of school
for school closures (Fellers, 2013; Nichols, 2006), the same high-ranking associational leader
agreed, saying: “boards behaving badly is really the key factor” in failure of leadership at the
school site level. One respondent said: “Board governance and leadership of schools remain
constant challenges to developing quality programs.” This includes leadership missteps—
especially school board governance problems—leading to failure to detect and deal with danger
signs and the onset of RID. Once again, school boards have repeatedly been demonstrated in the
literature and by the respondents in this study as being a foundational detriment to the effective
functioning of Christian schools across the country (ACSI, 2015a; 2014a; Nichols 2015a; 2015b;
2015c; 2014; 2006; Moran & Nichols, 2014). School boards must find ways to hire qualified
heads of school and then allow those heads to lead with their full support in a rapidly changing
world. The literature further indicates that pastors are also leading causes of school closure at
schools that are church sponsored (Nichols, 2007; 2006), and this was also reflected in
participants’ comments. One educator said:
There is a strong movement among churches that have caused pastors to view Christian
education as optional, and since it is a costly and sacrificial endeavor on the part of any
church, this message has given pastors a rationale for closing Christian schools.
This perspective was reinforced by comments from another long-time school administrator:
I have been in Christian school education since 1981. To me it seems that years ago
pastors would speak from the pulpit about the necessity for parents to train their children
biblically, and the critical role that education plays in that training. Today, it seems like
pastors are unwilling to potentially offend congregants who send their children to secular
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

155

schools by speaking clearly to this issue. In a nutshell, I don't believe churches and
pastors support Christian school education the way they once did.
This view was echoed by yet another school educator:
Evangelical pastors don't see the need for Christian Schools. In fact, I have known of
some who were downright opposed to Christian schools because they felt Christian
young people needed to be missionaries to the public schools. I believe that statement to
be true with adults being missionaries—teachers, principals, influencers—but not with
children.
One interviewee, a high-ranking associational leader, shared information from a yet-to-be-
completed research study (that was being conducted at the same time as this study) that included
pastoral perspectives on Christian schools:
The early findings were stunning. The evangelical pastors, when asked about Christian
schooling— we had two-thirds that theologically, their theological perspective, is that it
is not the role of education to get engaged in spiritual formation. That's strictly the church
and the home. That's actually a theological belief, not just a personal feeling. That's
gigantic. No wonder we've got huge challenges. Of any nation in the world, I don't know
why that it is here in this country where there's this antagonism at Christian education. If
you look at the Cardus data (Pennings, R., et al. [2011]), the best parishioners, by far, are
Christian school graduates. You would think pastors would be eager to partner with
Christian schools, because that's paying it forward for their future. (But) they're
antagonistic, they're hostile, they're at best neutral. (There are a) few isolated incidences
of proponents of Christian education. Around the world it's the opposite. The church is
fully behind Christian education.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

156

As Maxwell (1998) stressed, “Everything rises and falls on leadership” (p. 225). When it comes
to the future of the Christian school movement in America, truer words could not be spoken. The
Christian school movement is at a historic crossroads. It is beyond question that failure of
leadership at the school site level, despite its eleventh-ranked status as an ongoing threat
endangering the movement in the US, is the key issue facing Christian schools now and in the
future. How leadership at both the associational and school site levels rises to face the multiple,
connected, growing, and formidable challenges before them will determine the future
survivability of evangelical Christian schools as a viable movement for the remainder of the 21st
century. The third great Christian school movement in history will rise or fall as a result.
#12—The continuing rise of homeschooling. Respondents identified the continuing rise
of homeschooling as the twelfth-ranked factor (M = 2.96) continuing to endanger the Christian
school movement, with 62.02% of participants indicating either likely a factor (34.11%) or
somewhat likely a factor (27.91%). This remained consistent with the literature that
homeschooling has had some negative effect on Christian school enrollment, though the degree
of impact remains uncertain pending further study (Ewert, 2013). Respondents viewed
homeschooling as slightly less of an ongoing threat now and in the future (M = 2.96) as it was in
contributing to cause the crisis (M = 2.76). However, one respondent described this threat in no
uncertain terms:
I believe the biggest threat to Christian schools, aside from the fact that education is, by
nature, very expensive, is the expansion of the homeschooling movement. While some
families do it well, there is a larger majority that (is) using homeschooling as a shelter
from the world, and I predict a reactionary experience against the Christian faith from
many of these children. I think we have to give our students tools for discernment in a
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

157

difficult world— and part of growing discernment is learning to operate in a community
of very different people.
The foregoing quote not withstanding, most respondents viewed the continuing rise of
homeschooling as less of a factor endangering the Christian school movement than the
continuing rise of charter schools. Respondents also gave the impression that homeschooling was
once viewed as a much more significant threat to Christian schools than it is today, due in part to
numerous Christian schools establishing their own internal homeschool divisions as an umbrella
organization for parents committed to homeschooling their children, particularly during the past
decade.
#13—Challenges to sustaining school mission. Participating educators identified
challenges to sustaining school mission at school site level as the thirteenth-ranked factor (M =
2.97) presenting an ongoing threat to the movement, as 60.46% of respondents indicated either
likely a factor (33.33%) or somewhat likely a factor (27.13%). Although respondents ranked the
factor of sustaining school mission one level lower in their responses to Research Question #2 as
compared to their responses to Research Question #1, they statistically viewed the factor as
slightly more impactful as an ongoing threat to the movement (M = 2.97) as compared to being a
causal factor in the movement’s decline (M = 3.09). As was the case with Research Question #1,
participants’ responses were reflective of the literature (Fellers, 2013; Walner, 2000). One head
of school wrote, “A school's mission must be clear and upheld at all costs.” An associational
regional leader said:
I believe most mission statements lack vitality and focus and fall far short of being any
type of motivating factor for leadership and staff. If schools are going to attract students
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

158

they need a mission statement that is “on fire,” something worth repeating to yourself as
you drive to work each morning, something that motivates you to get better and better.
An administrator at a prominent Christian school relayed the difficulty that can arise when trying
to uphold a school’s mission:
At my current school, we have an increased population of unchurched families, and often
times, parents seem to care more about our school beating out our local competition. Our
admission department (a few years ago) began down playing our “Christ-centered”
mission, and this resulted in several families withdrawing after a year because their
families were not a good fit for our school. Returning to our mission and the “why” we
exist has slowly helped to reverse the trend, but (our school) doesn't have many Christian
independent schools with which to compare ourselves. The result is often comparing
ourselves with our secular counterparts...which is a dangerous road to travel.
It is worth noting that there did not appear to be any correlation in responses—or any differences
in responses—based on the church denomination with which the school was affiliated, if any. Of
more importance in the minds of respondents was whether or not Christian schools would be
able to stay on mission and be true to their purpose in the face of the growing winds of cultural
change and shifting parental expectations.
#14—The continuing rise of online K-12 schools. Respondents identified the
continuing rise of online K-12 schools as the fourteenth-ranked ongoing factor (M = 3.12)
endangering the Christian school movement in the US, with 62.01% of participants indicating
either likely a factor (25.58%) or somewhat likely a factor (36.43%). Respondent rankings were
consistent based on their responses to both Research Question #1 and Research Question #2
(fourteenth in both), with participants perceiving online schools as slightly more of a factor now
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

159

and in the future (M = 3.12) than it was in contributing to the movement’s decline starting in
2006 (M = 3.20). This was also generally reflective of the literature, which indicated that the rise
of online schooling at the K-12 level is not expected to show signs of slowing, with rapid growth
projected by many scholars (Horn & Staker, 2011; Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). One
school administrator responded:
The charter school movement and to a lesser degree, the online K-12 movement has
tended to weed out those who went to Christian schools mainly for a better education,
and not for the emphasis on discipleship. One can now often get a “quality” education for
free, if that is all you are looking for.
However, as was the case with the ongoing rise of the charter school movement, Christian school
leaders may again be underestimating the effects that the ongoing rise of online K-12 schools
will have on Christian schools in the future. If the predictions by some scholars come to pass or
even come close to fruition—that upwards of 50% of all high school courses will be delivered
online by the year 2019 (Horn & Staker, 2011; Christensen, Horn, and Johnson, 2008)—then
Christian school leaders will have missed yet another warning sign, causing their schools to be
further at risk. However, this study also suggests that Christian schools that are able to overcome
resistance to change issues could innovate to incorporate online classes as part of their
educational offerings, helping mitigate the impact on enrollment by online K-12 schools.
#15—Loss of homogeneity of vision and culture at the school site level. Participating
Christian educators identified loss of homogeneity of vision and culture at the school site level as
the fifteenth-ranked factor (M = 3.27) continuing to threaten the movement, with 54.27% of
respondents indicating either likely a factor (21.17%) or somewhat likely a factor (32.56%). It
was interesting to note that survey participants identified this factor as presenting an ongoing
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

160

danger to the movement (fifteenth-ranked, M = 3.27), but were undecided regarding whether or
not it was a causal factor in the movement’s decline (sixteenth-ranked; M = 3.59). As was
previously discussed regarding the ranking of this factor in response to Research Question #1, it
should be noted that according to the literature, loss of homogeneity of vision and culture at the
school site level is a precursor to school collapse (Fellers, 2013; Nichols, 2006; Fitzpatrick,
2002). Fellers (2013) concluded it was just as important a factor as leadership failure, challenges
to sustaining school mission, and marketing and competition issues in predicting school closure.
One school administrator said:
In my opinion, the greatest reason for the downward trend in the Christian school
movement was…a loss of vision for Christian education on the part of pastors and
churches. Many of the schools that have closed were supported by a church that was no
longer willing to support the school financially.
Fellers (2013) posited that the ability to stay on mission and maintain homogeneity of vision and
culture was an essential element of institutional stability. Walner (2000) concluded that a lack of
vision, if protracted, could endanger a school’s existence. Once again, the loss of homogeneity of
vision and culture within a Christian school beats a path back to the door of its leaders, and this
was reflected in the literature and the study. Kouzes and Posner (1995) determined that one of
the exemplary characteristics of successful leaders in any organization is inspiring a shared
vision. Bennis stated it plainly: “The first basic ingredient of leadership is a guiding vision”
(Bennis, 2003, p. 33). This study suggests that the loss of homogeneity of vision and culture is an
ongoing danger to Christian schools, and that school site leaders are responsible for conceiving,
casting, and inspiring a shared, guided vision, or risk school closure.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

161

#16—Competition from other Christian schools. Survey respondents identified
competition from other Christian schools as the sixteenth-ranked factor (M = 3.50) continuing to
endanger the movement, with 27.91% of participants indicating it was somewhat likely a factor.
This was consistent with responses to Research Question #1 (fifteenth-ranked, M = 3.47).
However, as with their responses to Research Question #1, respondents did not indicate
competition as a more prominent factor; this was in disagreement with Fellers (2013), whose
research indicated it was one of the four greatest causes of institutional stress, subsequently
leading to school closure. One associational leader at the regional level recognized the factor of
competition during an interview:
There are 20-some Christian schools here, within 25 miles of my house. None of them
have anything to do with each other, and two of them are almost, I would say, pretty
close to enemies. The philosophy of one of the schools is ... I went and visited him. He
flat out looked at me, straight in the eye, and said, “We keep our tuition $2,000 below
XYZ school in order to attract parents away from their school.” We had parents drive an
extra 12 miles to save $2,000 per kid on tuition. We're not going to get stronger together
that way.
Data (or a tracking mechanism) could not be found during the course of this study indicating
whether or not students leaving one Christian school go to another Christian school, if so which
Christian school, and if not to what type of school did they transfer.
Of the 21 possible factors continuing to endanger the movement, there were two factors
that survey participants were undecided about regarding each factor’s influence (or non-
influence) as an ongoing threat to the movement. These were the factors of racial and
demographic shifts—social changes (#17; M = 3.67) and resistance to change at the association
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

162

level: Lack of innovation, reinvention, and retooling for 21
st
century educational challenges
(#18; M = 3.79). Statistically, these were in the undecided range (M = 3.51 to 4.49). While the
survey results for these factors leaned toward being somewhat likely a factor, participants’
collective uncertainty eliminated these factors from consideration as clear and present dangers to
the Christian school movement.
The three remaining possible causal factors of failure of leadership at the association
level (#19; M = 4.22), diversity issues (#20; M = 4.35), and eschatological inevitability: With the
approaching return of Christ, certain changes and events—including an eventual downturn in
Christian schools—may be inevitable (#21; M = 4.39) were not considered to be factors
continuing to endanger the movement’s decline now or in the future, according to survey
respondents. These three factors fell within the undecided range (M = 3.51 to 4.49) and clearly
leaned toward somewhat unlikely a factor; thus, they were not considered ongoing threats to the
movement, either now or in the future. Although the responses from survey participants as a
whole did not indicate racial and demographic shifts—social changes and diversity issues as a
threat now or in the future, the literature and post-survey interviews tended to paint a different
picture. In addition to a discussion of this at the end of section one (and applicable here regarding
ongoing threats to the movement), Frey (2015) strongly posits that the future of America is
diversity, with Whites soon becoming a minority in America, a concept echoed by Orfield (as
cited by Reardon & Yun, 2002). A broader definition of diversity would seem to indicate that the
ongoing rise of gender identification issues and legislation regarding sexual ethics, same sex
marriage, LGBT hiring guidelines, transgender school restrooms, and related tensions could lead
to future conflicts with traditional Christianity in general and private faith-based schools in
particular (Kinnaman & Lyons, 2016), thus elevating this factor as a potential danger to the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

163

movement as time passes. This perspective emerged during an examination of survey comments
and post-survey interviews. In this regard, it should also be noted that some respondents
appeared to have considered these factors as being related more closely to cultural changes than
to diversity issues in their responses. Regarding eschatological inevitability, the literature would
indicate that there is a segment of the Christian community in America that remains convinced
that the approaching return of Christ means that an eventual downturn in Christian schools may
be inevitable. While this factor was considered the least of all factors in the overall survey, both
as a cause of the decline and as an ongoing threat, three in ten respondents held to this conviction
in the survey.
In summary, survey respondents identified and rank-ordered 16 factors as continuing to
endanger the Christian school movement in the US now and in the future, one factor more than
educators identified as having caused the crisis. Although financial stresses were identified as the
highest-ranking factor continuing to threaten the movement, participants once again
demonstrated through the survey data, subsequent interviews, and examined documentation that
there are numerous additional factors at work, all of which are combining—and converging and
intersecting—to endanger Christian schools. Once again, the literature suggests—and these
findings strongly support—a conceptual framework (Appendix P) demonstrating that multiple,
interrelated, and converging factors are continuing to work in combination to threaten the
Christian school movement in America. As one experienced head of school summed it up:
In the first couple of years following the Great Recession, the number of schools in the
Southeast decreased significantly, but I think overall enrollment essentially remained flat,
which suggests that the market weathered the financial storm but some individual schools
could not. However, in the years that have followed total enrollment has also declined.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

164

So, I make a couple of extrapolations from that. First, I think there are numerous factors
that will continue to shrink demand for Christian school education, including the
changing educational landscape (e.g., charter schools, homeschooling, etc.), changing
mindsets within evangelicalism, and dramatic cultural shifts. Second, as that happens we
will continue to see some schools close, and I think the most vulnerable schools are those
that operate on thin margins financially.
Echoed an associational leader:
I believe the downward trend in the US is multifaceted and requires diligence on the
behalf of school leaders to be in tune with the changing demographics of their school
population and shifts taking place within the broader culture. Financial sustainability is
one of the largest threats to the Christian school movement and school leaders have to
ensure safeguards are in place to ensure viability of the school.
Reminiscent of the responses to Research Question #1, collected data and the literature related to
Research Question #2 demonstrate that American culture has continued to change dramatically
since the phenomenon of Christian school decline started in 2006. These accelerated shifts in the
cultural context continue to drive America into uncharted social territory. After 10 years, the
same challenges still face Christian schools, but the perceived dangers to the movement have
expanded and now loom larger than ever. Though facing catastrophic consequences if the crisis
continues, associational and school leaders—the navigators of the movement at the macro and
micro level, respectively—have made little progress in the past decade to reduce or eliminate the
effect of the factors that continue to endanger the movement. This failure has amplified the
crisis; schools continue to close.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

165

Research Question 3 (Survey, Section Three): What are associational and school leaders in
the movement doing—or recommending be done—regarding the factors that continue to
endanger it, in order to reverse the movement’s downward trend?
Just as participants identified multiple causes of the movement’s decline and multiple
threats continuing to endanger Christian schools, so they also offered a wide array of actions
being taken and recommendations being made by associational and school leaders in the midst of
the crisis, in order to attempt to reverse the movement’s decline. In addition, the multiplicity of
overlapping and interrelated factors identified by participants generated overlapping and
interrelated actions and recommendations on the part of educators. From among these reported
actions and recommendations emerged numerous themes, patterns, and trends. Many
respondents gave passionate calls to action, but not all actions or recommendations on the part of
respondents were necessarily congruent with one another. Here are the predominant, re-emerging
themes based on respondents’ survey data, interview input, and examined documentation.
Embody “Stronger Together.” During the course of this research, ACSI released a
revised organizational logo, altering their branding symbol ever-so-slightly—but very
intentionally—with the added words, “Stronger Together.” It encapsulated an internal ACSI
change of philosophical emphasis, that Christian schools are, indeed, stronger together. This
philosophical refocusing was reflective of comments made by this study’s nationwide survey
participants and interviewees—a sort of emergent call—that Christian schools need to draw
closer to one another and operate in a more united fashion and less like silos. One educator said:
“Christian schools should work more closely together, emphasizing their common goals rather
than competing with each other for the same market pool of students and adhering to their
independent goals.” One associational leader commented there was a need to: “Offer support as
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

166

an association, to reinforce the truth that we are stronger together.” One survey respondent and
long-time Christian educator wrote there needed to be: “Stronger cooperation between
neighboring schools. Neighboring schools should consider combining to produce a better product
at a lower cost (and) be willing to sacrifice small tenets for the larger good and goals.” Another
participant shared: “…schools cannot be an island to themselves. They need to be active
participants in the community and serve the community.” One high-ranking associational leader
expressed that the philosophical shift embodied in “Stronger Together” was also designed to help
retrieve and reunify member schools that became lost in transition:
It's mostly the mature schools that are disillusioned, disenchanted…had felt alienated on
the sidelines. I've heard words like dismissed, demeaned, disrespected. That was not my
experience globally. It was 180 degrees (the) opposite. To take a tour (of US Christian
schools) and hear that, I wasn't sure we were going to get out of it. I thought, man this
ship is really taking on water, I'm not sure this can be corrected. I'm telling you now: The
winds have shifted. There are still pockets of dissention, but the winds have shifted
dramatically across the country…this tagline of “Stronger Together” really means
something. People really are embracing it and are moving forward with that.
Another aspect of “Stronger Together” has to do with ACSI reaching out to other Christian
school associations in the US and around the world. The same associational leader explained:
“We’re going to have this global Christian school leadership summit in February next year
(2017), in Orlando. It’s going to be a historic event.” Then he paused to explain further:
We had (the) Thought Leadership (Discussion in 2015); one thing that we did is we asked
our Education Foundation to help us with this. The idea was to convene thought leaders
from outside our movement and talk about the future of Christian education. One of the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

167

things they shared with me was, please, can ACSI wear a mantle of humility and become
more of a convener rather than a container? Just a convener rather than a container.
That's kind of haunted me a lot. I've got this message that I'll be sharing at that Global
Leadership Summit, and I shared it with somebody for the first time, kind of a different
variation of it, but it's this whole message of unity, (that) comes out of John 17; I feel
deeply convicted about it. I want to demonstrate it at this event because it's not an ACSI
event, it's a convening. We're bringing…all these other groups just humbly…. They've
asked me to share about this message of unity.
This convening of Christian school associations at the Global Christian School Leadership
Summit planned for February of 2017 represents an unprecedented event in the history of not
only the Christian school movement in America, but in the history of the third Christian school
movement worldwide. This event is a reflection of the heart and views of ACSI’s new executive
leadership (in place since 2013), according to respondents and interviews conducted for this
study. Such an openness to collaborate with other associations may be the beginning of a new era
of cooperation in the American Christian school movement. Further evidence of this was the
announcement on April 19, 2016—during the course of this research—that ACSI and Christian
Schools International (CSI) had formed an unprecedented cooperative partnership to better serve
member schools from both organizations (ACSI, 2016). “By embracing unity, not uniformity,
ACSI and CSI can better harness our expertise and resources to assist schools in achieving their
transformational missions,” said ACSI president, Dr. Dan Egeler, in the announcement. “Both
ACSI and CSI believe that Christian schools will be strengthened if our organizations thrive
independently and work together cooperatively.” This announcement was yet another
demonstration that “Stronger Together” is not simply a slogan, but a philosophy that has taken
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

168

shape as a tangible change of direction for ACSI and perhaps other associations—and the entire
Christian school movement—in America.
Improve the Quality of Leadership at the School Site Level. When asked what kind of
responses associational and school leaders in the movement are making or recommending
regarding the factors that continue to endanger it, in order to reverse the movement’s downward
trend, respondents made strong recommendations regarding improving the quality of leadership
at the school site level. Participants especially addressed the need for leadership improvement
related to school board members, pastors, and inexperienced or underequipped administrators.
One respondent stated: “Educational leaders must be leaders and visionaries not just degreed
instructors.” Another participant stated: “I believe that investing in leadership and leadership
mentoring is a key to developing the type of Christian School leaders who can address the
issues” that have been identified as challenges to the movement. One educator offered a list of
leadership actions and recommendations: “Training and cultivation of school board health and
strategic thinking; support and development of emerging leaders in schools” and “broader
financial training options for school leaders to better understand the business side of school
operations.” Another respondent remarked that leaders need to be trained in “creating policies
that allow for the continued existence of the school through times of growth and (decline).” One
leader explained:
Schools must develop stronger academic leaders that are able to articulate and inspire
others to care greatly and deeply about Christian education. This leader must be able to
engage the faculty, staff, parents and community to ensure that the mission and vision of
the school truly resonates with all shareholders. Leaders need to continuously grow and
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

169

refine their skills as a leader. They need to become stronger in the areas of applying
Scripture and business principles to their Christian schools.
Another program already in development by ACSI in response to the need for improved
leadership is “Leadership U.” Explained an ACSI leader:
It's two summers and it's a cohort. We'll bring in 20 to 30 (administrators). I think we've
got another 30 slots this summer that come in and take classes for a summer. I think it's a
week or two weeks for credit. You can get up to six graduate credits. The core, key
variable that's different: It's a yearlong mentorship. We assign you to a hand-picked
mentor that you have conversations with and even visits to their school and back and
forth throughout the year, and then you come back and wrap up with training the last
summer. That mentoring is the heartbeat that sets it aside (from the rest). It's real life
discipleship and mentoring that's taking place throughout a year. It's not just a classroom
experience. It's that mentoring component built in. It's a lot of work for us because we've
got to identify mentors that are willing to invest their time and take one of these students
under their wings and walk them through a year and they wrap up with teaching the
second summer. We feel pretty strongly about it. Our first one was just launched last
summer. We just started this. Rave reviews. I mean, fantastic. This is the first year to go
through the mentorship program and now we’ve got the first follow-up, concluding
cohort, and another one beginning. We want to keep rolling. It's just another one of these
initiatives that not a lot of people know about, but we're intentional about trying to
address some of these needs.
These new programs for Christian school leaders align with numerous theories and models of
leadership, including: Sanders’ (1994) 18 essential qualities of spiritual leadership; Kouzes and
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

170

Posner’s (1995) exemplary characteristics of successful leaders model; Bass’ (1998)
transformational leadership model; Abbott’s (1999) model of biblical leadership; Bolman and
Deal’s (2013) frames of leadership for effective practice— the structural frame, the human
resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame; and Northouse’s (2016) theories of
transformational leadership, authentic leadership, servant leadership, team leadership, and path-
goal theory, as well as utilization of a situational approach and skills approach.
Understand the Changing Culture and Social Structures and Respond Accordingly.
When asked what kind of responses associational and school leaders in the movement are
making or recommending regarding the factors that continue to endanger it, in order to reverse
the movement’s downward trend, respondents were overwhelming in their call to not only be
aware of the cultural changes and social shifts sweeping across America, but to respond
accordingly and effectively. This included considering the revision of mission statements,
reevaluating organizational purposes and approaches, and understanding Millennial parents and
their changing expectations. One educator commented:
We are educating in a culture that considers diversity a virtue, therefore, to get
communities interested in funding your school, the “separatist movement” that created so
many schools must be actively reversed. Covenant schools (i.e., schools that generally
only admit students from Christian families) have got it wrong and will continue to
diminish in number. Schools cannot be about creating and maintaining Christians— that's
the job of the Church and the Holy Spirit at work. Rather schools must be about
presenting a right worldview— a Biblical worldview.
Another respondent:
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

171

We see ourselves as a mission school (i.e., a school where families are typically not
required to be Christians for their students to attend). As less and less people follow Jesus
there is more of a market for us to pursue those who don't know the Lord in any real way.
We use high academic quality, lots of social activities, and sports to attract families to the
school; all at a very reasonable tuition cost. While they are here we reach out to the entire
family to share the Good News of Christ with them and show God's love with our
actions.
One participant commented that evangelical schools need to stop insulating themselves from the
culture, and instead engage it:
As the culture changes, Christian schools have to adapt so they can become a stronger
light in the culture. Christian schools need to get out of the “bubble” mentality and truly
engage the world so that the students see world-engagement modeled.
As one associational leader said encouragingly:
I am hopeful that the Christian school movement will continue to grow and flourish in the
United States, despite some decline in recent years. Many established schools are thriving
and making a difference in their local communities. Current research regarding the
millennial population shows that there is a segment of this population with strong faith
values and they are looking for schools with these same values. Research on parents of
Christian schools show they are very satisfied with their choice of school.
In responding to the culture, one leader offered this caveat:
We cannot get into a “circle the wagons” mentality, an approach that engenders desperate
clinging to survival… We need to engage the culture and continue to be outwardly
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

172

missional. This (approach of reaching out to the culture) is not something that will
endanger our discipleship or our mission, but will actually protect it.
A recurring theme within the discussion of the cultural challenge was this: Now that there is
evidence that Christianity—which used to represent the majority view in America—has now
become or is on its way to becoming the minority view, associational and school leaders must
determine how that requires Christian schools to change, adapt, and make the necessary
adjustments in order to be viable and influential centers of academic and spiritual learning.
Engage in Improved Marketing and Communications, Including Understanding
and Addressing Changing Parental Expectations. Engaging in improved and effective
marketing and communications activity was also a predominant and continually recurring theme
as respondents were asked what kind of responses they were making—or recommending—
regarding the factors that continue to threaten the movement, in order to reverse its downward
trend. Representative examples emerged continually during the research. One school leader
noted: “We have paid more money to market our school, including radio and movie theater
commercials and videos” and postcard mailers; built “a connection to preschools as feeder
schools”; conducted “surveys of our families to continue to (inform and) meet leadership; (and
are) offering credit to parents who recommend a new family that registers.” Another
administrator noted: “Effective marketing of the school is important… Marketing that shares our
vision is key…the key issue is effectively sharing our vision, mission, and goals.” One head of
school offered a reflective and substantive recommendation:
Christian schools must market themselves more. It is no longer enough to simply open
the doors and see who shows up. We must compete in the market place of ideas and
education. In a world where there are abundant misconceptions about Christianity, there
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

173

are even more misconceptions about Christian education. We must aggressively dispel
those misconceptions and make a strong, coherent, and compelling case for Christian
education.
One respondent said that there is a need for “Clearer branding and marketing of schools related
to their faith-based distinctive.” Another educator said: “Beyond the mission, schools must
effectively utilize marketing strategies that are current, appropriate, and data-based.” Another
head of school noted:
Communication is key. Through personal contact and publicity, we have increased
enrollment. We have recently adopted and implemented six core values that we have
placed on our literature and emphasize when recruiting. Teachers have discussed ways
the values are and can be implemented.
One school administrator commented that an effective marketing plan needs to include bringing
the worth of a Christian education personally to parents:
We are working at educating our parents from the time they enter our school regarding
the value of Christian education. Someone said we have six years to educate our parents.
(We now believe part of our job is the) reeducation of parents as to their primary duty:
The education of their children.
Some of the most aggressive progress in the area of marketing and addressing changing parental
expectations appeared to have already started at the associational level. One high-level
associational leader described a partnership that was recently forged with the Barna Group
research firm to examine the views of Millennial parents and gather and interpret data that will
assist marketing efforts throughout the movement in the US, not only at the national level, but
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

174

eventually at the regional and even school site level. Recalling a conversation with a Barna
Group research leader, he said:
The Millennial generation. They think differently, they act differently. Has anybody ever
explored what they think when they make their educational choices? I go, no, we've
never thought about it. Well, if anybody's going to do it, he says, it probably should be
you… That's what we did. That's why we did this research (with the Barna Group).
They're the ones that had the focus groups, they're the ones that have all this data, and so
we hired them to do a national benchmark sample.
The high-ranking associational leader then shared:
The next step, my dream, is to have shorter, skinny market surveys that will then
benchmark with this data. Similar type questions, if not identical. Then you can survey
your community and see what they think and compare and contrast to the national data.
Then you would have real valuable, timely information as to what families are thinking
when they look for educational choices.
He continued explaining this fledgling process:
We do a presentation, only just a rough data at our national board. I’ve got three of the
top leaders from the exemplary school segment (say to me): We want it tomorrow. One
of them comes up to me, he goes: You know what? I just listened to that and I realize that
my admissions office needs to understand how to do tours. They get the age of the
family, the demographics; we're going to talk different vocabulary to this family. We're
going to show them different things. That is, to be able to customize that at a local level,
at the super local level based on that (data).
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

175

One of the hopes of associational leadership is to bring highly useful, segmented market data to
the local Christian school by engaging in strategic partnerships (e.g., with the Barna Group). The
providing of such data has never before been attempted, and is illustrative of a significant change
in the movement on the part of associational leaders. The high-ranking associational leader
continued discussing the new marketing approach and the current Christian school landscape in
the US:
What's interesting about this…is that when we look at the data, there's a recognition that
there are changing parental expectations. I realize that it's a perfect storm of everything
here. It's a web, everything is connected. There's clear recognition across the board,
doesn't matter who you're asking in the Christian school movement (they know things
have changed). This is where Barna's expertise comes in. Their big passion is the
Millennial generation and the new generation. When you do research, you've got this
figured out, but you know talking to the average school head, when you do research the
powers and the type of questions you ask, and understanding the context, and then now
we're contracting with them. It's more money but we're going to have them help us
unpack it and write a plan out of it. You got to have a research firm that understands our
language, that understands our community, and can take what the data is and extrapolate
it to the wider new view of what's happening culturally. That's Barna's expertise. They
understand the millennial generation. Our data is being interpreted in the context of wider
surveys they've done. It's going to be really powerful.
The associational leader admitted:
We should have done this a long time ago. We should have been doing this kind of a
thing in terms of research and we're getting real answers and using our bully pulpit and
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

176

looking over the horizon… We're making a major investment in this area and I just feel
it's timely. This is how we can serve our schools… I'm excited because there's some
really significant initiatives that are coming down the pike, that I think are really
strategic, that are really going to make a difference… I'm very optimistic and hopeful for
the future.
These actions and the attitude of excited hopefulness exuding from associational leadership
observed during the interview process and through an examination of documents represents a
change of quantum proportions—nothing less than a paradigm shift—at the associational level.
Embrace Technology, Innovation, and Instructional Techniques to Develop 21
st

Century Skills in Both Students and Staff Members. When asked what kind of responses
associational and school leaders in the movement are making or recommending regarding the
factors that continue to endanger it, in order to reverse the movement’s downward trend,
respondents offered another recurring emergent theme: The need to embrace advances in
technology and instruction and related innovation, in order to develop the skills needed for the
21st century on the part of students and staff members alike. One school leader said:
Christian schools also need to be using 21st century learning and teaching techniques
since they play a big role in the development of our students. We emphasize STEM
competencies as a way to prepare students to serve God and others once they are in the
workforce.
Another leading educator commented:
There will never be a perfect school but successful schools consistently teach the gospel
and the teaching of Jesus Christ in a loving family environment, while keeping up with
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

177

the latest teaching techniques and innovative ideas and philosophies. It is not easy but
keeping God first with staff parents and students is the key.
Another respondent voiced a similar sentiment:
Schools also need to embrace the use of technology throughout their school and remain
on the cutting edge of quality instruction. I believe this will continue to be a season of
"weeding out" the programs and schools that are not committed to providing a quality
educational experience.
One educator said:
Focus on providing a cutting-edge, 21st century education that is Christ-centered. Parents
must know the value-added of Christian education not only spiritually but academically
for their children. This value needs to be real, and communicated effectively to
prospective families. Many innovative programs are fundable (through private donations,
grants, etc.) so cutting-edge programs cannot only attract new families (and retain
existing families) but also help to pay for themselves. Continuous school improvement is
key to survival.
Respondent comments typically reflected the importance of technology being utilized effectively
and strategically by Christian schools, not simply acquiring technology for technology’s sake.
Responses from most school administrators reflected a deep commitment to using technology to
help forward their visions and school missions, and to genuinely preparing their students for life
in the 21
st
century by developing the skills they will need to effectively compete in a rapidly
changing global economy. The attitude of heads of school was that the more prepared students
and staff members were to use and master technology—and to think creatively and
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

178

innovatively—the more useful they would be in service to God and others, thereby making a
greater difference for good both now and for eternity.
Remember, Return to, and Reinforce Christian School Distinctives. Yet another
emergent theme offered by associational and school site leaders in responding to the crisis in the
Christian school movement—in order to reverse its decline—was to remember and return to the
unique distinctives of Christian schools, and reinforce them. These recommendations were both
educationally and spiritually focused. One Christian school educator said: “I am confident that
the decline is in large measure due to a lack of distinctiveness and poor standards and
performance in the average Christian school.” Another head of school passionately explained:
We have lost our Christian distinctive in the Christian school. Parents don't see a
difference, so why pay the high price of tuition if you are going to get the same thing in a
free public school? We have to get back to Jesus Christ and the truth of God's Word. We
are trying to improve our schools by hiring teachers in a system built to produce public
school teachers and trying to use the same methods and philosophies that are designed to
work in a public school classroom. We are different, we should teach differently, we
should train differently, we should think and believe differently. Parents and the church
should see that they cannot get what we offer anywhere else. All truth, all wisdom, all
knowledge, all understanding, come from the Lord. A child cannot be educated without
the knowledge of God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. We do not
educate a child to get a great job, or to make a lot of money, or even for this life. We
educate a child to live with God for all eternity.
This perspective was reflective of many respondents’ thoughts and feelings. There has been a
temptation for Christian schools—especially since Christian schools began their free fall in
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

179

2006—to compromise on the more overtly Christian aspects of their organizations, their mission
statements, their admission standards, the ultimate goals for their students (e.g., “we educate a
child to live with God in eternity” v. “to make lot of money”) and a host of other elements that
make Christian schools truly distinctive. A close look at Nichols’ (2015b) 33 danger signs
warning of impending institutional doom revealed many danger signs were connected to a loss of
Christian school distinctives, to a watering-down of clear, biblically-based, characteristics found
only at a Christian school. In other words, Christian schools must decide whether to slip into
“less Christian” ways of operating, or to do everything they do “Christianly,” with a deeper
commitment to the uniqueness of a Christian orientation. This study would suggest that the latter
course of action would be well advised— as indicated in the foregoing quotation. An
administrator at one of the nation’s leading Christian schools reinforced this perspective, and
described it this way:
The decline in Christian schools over the years seems to be a compilation of things, but
leadership, strong Christian values, and staying up with the changing times as far as
education (STEM, differentiated instruction, conservatory opportunities, athletics) are a
must. Christ is bigger than we are, so we can weather the recession storm, the changes in
values in society, and the advancements in education as long as we have the firm
foundation of Christ.
Another survey respondent commented:
Christian schools need to continue to emphasize their difference. Public schools cannot
take sides and therefore cannot help in "training up a child in the way (he should go)." I
believe those schools who can successfully combine true discipleship training with
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

180

excellent academics will continue to thrive. There may be fewer schools in number, but
those who remain will be doing a better job and will find people willing to support them.
Another Christian school leader noted that “Defining our distinctives, not trying to simply be an
elitist Christian prep school in the secular model that most financially successful Christian
schools have become” is vital. Yet another participant vowed: “I am committed to helping
Christian schools get back to a distinctive, biblical philosophy of education. Christian schools
must maintain distinctiveness that sets them apart from secular educational programs.”
Be Willing to Change. When asked what kind of responses associational and school
leaders in the movement are making or recommending regarding the factors that continue to
endanger it, in order to reverse the movement’s downward trend, another re-emergent theme
surfaced: The need for Christian schools and their leaders to be willing to change. A school
administrator explained:
Christian schools often are so focused on the institution or tradition of their school that
they lose sight of what will most effectively reach the student. If the key is effective
education and effective ministry to the student, then there should be a willingness to
change and adapt at the methods and organization level.
One head of school stated:
Christian schools need to do the hard things. They need to constantly improve, place
more emphasis on development and fundraising from major donors (to take the pressure
off of larger tuition increases), and think outside the box— embrace change not resist it.
We also as leaders must not be afraid of change, of innovation, and of failure. Schools
afraid of these things will become stagnant and will die slowly.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

181

As discussed in the first two research questions, resistance to change at the school site level—
including a lack of innovation, reinvention, and retooling for 21
st
century educational
challenges—was both a cause of the Christian school movement’s decline and a continuing
threat endangering evangelical schools now and in the future. The recognition on the part of
school site leaders that they must embrace change as a way of organizational life is a step toward
facing the facts of a changing world. While Christian schools and other ministries were identified
by respondents as struggling with the need to change, the realization has hit home that without
change, Christian schools will continue to wither and die.
Diligently Pursue Excellence in Academics. Another re-emerging theme of
respondents—when asked what kind of responses they were making or recommending regarding
the factors that continue to endanger the movement—was the absolute necessity of providing
high-quality academics without excuses. As one leader put it:
For many parents at our school, their top priority in sending their student to our Christian
school is to receive the best education possible. Excellence in education is paramount.
Most also love that their student is being taught values and character. Many also love that
we teach from a Christian worldview. But for the vast majority, they want their students
receiving the best education possible. I believe if Christian schools in general were
known more for their high level of academics, we would not be seeing so many close
their doors. In fact, many have survived because they have indeed provided a top-level
academic experience for their students.
One educator said:
I believe that the Christian school movement must redefine its purpose and offer
something more than just a Christian mission and character building. Christian schools
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

182

need to become known for academic excellence as well— offering something that the
public schools cannot.
This was reflective of the literature and the survey results of this study, which revealed that
changing parent expectations have elevated academics to a place of greater prominence when
considering the educational setting for their child (Giglio, 2009). It should also be noted that
respondents pointed out that there have, at times in the past, been debates among Christian
educators regarding which is more important for Christian schools: To provide a solid spiritual
education, or to ensure a quality academic experience. In recent years, it has become clear among
many respondents that Christian schools are to deliver both a genuine biblical education and an
academic program marked by equal rigor and excellence, ensuring that both are presented at the
highest quality level possible and not choosing one at the expense of the other. As numerous
respondents emphatically remarked, there is no room for mediocrity in the Christian school
movement.
Resurrect Pastoral and Church Support. When asked what kind of responses
associational and school leaders in the movement are making or recommending regarding the
factors that continue to endanger it, in order to reverse the movement’s downward trend,
respondents often spoke of the need to re-develop lost pastoral and church support, both directly
and indirectly. Commented one educator: “Pastor training would be an avenue we have not
heavily used. Pastors supporting and encouraging Christian education is critical for the continued
existence of Christian schools.” One high-ranking associational leader was asked if pastors that
are very supportive of Christian schools in the US were now in the minority among those in the
pastorate. He responded:
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

183

Absolute minority. I would like to know who they are. Maybe that's a strategy we need to
do. Instead of going after the (pastors) that are hostile, let's just find out who the converts
are, the people of peace I call them, and let's bring them together to encourage them
because they're a dying breed… I'm just right now thinking, maybe we need to host a new
event for those pastors to get together so they can encourage each other and maybe that's
where we get those embers to start.
Another leader remarked:
Local churches also need to be challenged to actively support Christian education as a
powerful tool to preparing the next generation of leaders. Unfortunately, I have
discovered that many leaders in the Christian community are neutral at best towards
Christian schools. This is an interesting phenomenon to me. Perhaps we as school leaders
need to consider what "wows" others in areas that are distinctive from the world. Thus,
not so much as having championship teams and academics, but in areas of discipleship,
outreach, service, etc.
This is an honorable goal and a worthy objective, but a recommendation replete with significant
challenges (thus the use of the word resurrect regarding pastoral and church support, correctly
implying the need to raise something from the dead). Respondents repeatedly said pastoral and
church support needed to somehow be reignited and re-cultivated, yet, as indicated by survey
participants and interviewees, support for Christian schools among pastors appears to be
seriously waning. Even so, the concept of bringing together pastors who are supportive of
Christian schools appears worth pursuing, especially at the association level. This might be the
spark of life needed to resurrect the support that Christian schools so long for from the clergy
and their congregations.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

184

Consider the Consolidation of Schools. Another theme that emerged from associational
and school leaders when asked what kind of responses they were making or recommending in
order to reverse the movement’s downward trend, was the recommendation that some Christian
schools need to consider consolidating. Posited one educational leader:
Many communities may be better served by Christian schools working to create multiple
PK-8 schools that then feed into one or a small number of Christian high schools due to
the cost of running high school and the need for a significant high school student
population to allow for a healthy diversity of class offerings, extracurriculars, and teacher
specialization.
Another respondent stated that “cultivation of a more collaborative environment in areas where
multiple schools operate” should be a serious consideration. One school leader noted with
conviction:
We need to become strategic about Christian schooling. We need to come together
demographically and look at where we should put elementary, junior high, and high
schools and create districts of Christian schools that are effective because of strong
leadership and vision, effective stewardship and marketing and true biblically integrated
academic curriculum that holistically prepares students to impact the world for Jesus. We
have lots of words and little impact right now.
Similar thoughts were shared by other respondents, including one school administrator: “I think
smaller schools should combine to make a larger Christian school that is better able to sustain
itself.” It would appear this approach is more structural and organizationally strategic than many
of the other emergent recommendations presented by participants in this study. While most
Christian schools would rarely have considered consolidation a decade ago, respondents shared
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

185

recent instances of school consolidations—not just one school being absorbed by another—in
order to provide a stronger Christian school for the community. Almost inconceivable just ten
years ago, the idea now merits serious attention.
Improve Fiscal Management. When asked what kind of responses associational and
school leaders in the movement are making or recommending regarding the factors that continue
to endanger it, in order to reverse the movement’s downward trend, numerous comments were
made by respondents regarding the need to improve fiscal management. This was usually related
to leadership, but warranted its own emergent category. One school leader’s comments reflected
the nature of this emergent theme:
Christian schools must effectively capture additional sources of funding through solicited
donations and school sponsors. Schools must also be willing to modestly increase tuition
in an appropriate manner in order to add to the operations, salary, and benefits of current
staff…. Schools must also be fiscally innovative. Christian schools need to determine
appropriate measures to begin building and endowment fund and financial aid programs
that generate revenue. The old adage of giving a little to receive much more from the
client is resoundingly true. Giving a family a few thousand dollars in aid in order to
receive a reduced amount of tuition is not only effective, it is good business sense.
However, the amount of aid must be consistent, fair, and managed through a 3rd party
group.
The reality is that most Christian schools that did not improve their fiscal management since the
phenomenon of school closures began in 2006 are no longer in existence. There is great wisdom
in attempting to improve fiscal management at the school site level. As respondents clearly
noted, fiscal stresses seem ever-present at Christian schools, and attempts to improve fiscal
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

186

management could only bolster schools’ abilities to maintain healthy financial standing and
sustain organizational growth.
Help Families Better Afford Christian Schooling. When asked what kind of responses
associational and school leaders in the movement are making or recommending regarding the
factors that continue to endanger it, another theme that resurfaced throughout the study was the
need to find ways to help families afford to attend Christian schools. This included greater
financial assistance, parental choice, vouchers, tax credits, and other publicly funded methods
empowering students to attend a private Christian school. One educator said:
And somehow—I don't know how, and I have struggled with this for a long time—we
have to find a way to include families on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. We
have to find a way for those who long for Christian schooling but can't afford [it] to
consider it to be able to attend.
Said another:
I think charging tuition to cover the actual cost of a Christian education, and then offering
a need-based tuition assistance program to keep the school accessible to the broader
Christian community is essential to the financial stability of Christian schools. School
choice initiatives that allow parents tax deductions for attending private schools would
make a huge difference if there were not strings attached that made Christian schools
nervous about government intervention in curriculum and instruction decisions.
One survey participant wrote: “Rethinking and retooling the funding model for Christian schools
away from a purely tuition-based system; expansion of school choice funding at the state/federal
level.”
Yet another respondent said:
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

187

There are underlying financial stresses families are feeling which are causing many to
look for ways reduce monthly expenses. Christian schools have to price themselves in a
way that allows for tuition assistance to be provided for parents who would like to attend
their schools but who cannot afford it or believe they cannot afford it.
One other educational leader explained:
I believe that unless more Christian schools can get away from a tuition-based model for
education there will continue to be a decline in enrollments and more closures. Telling
the "stories" of Christian education and making it affordable for anyone desiring it for
their children are the two areas that need to be addressed in the near future for the health
of the movement. Having said this, however, I do believe that God is able to provide
whatever a school needs to survive the current downturn and perhaps we aren't spending
enough time "waiting on Him" but using our own devices/schemes to keep something
going that isn't in His plan.
Other participants echoed the need for alternate funding methods. One said, “Pursue legislative
initiatives to make vouchers usable in faith-based schools.” Another stated that the Christian
school movement needs to be “seeking the reversal of the Blaine amendment in state
constitutions.” Yet another posited, “There needs to be school choice and vouchers to allow
parents the option of where to send their kids to school.” One respondent, in an associational
leadership position specializing in the support of urban schools, believes strongly that there
needs to be an entirely different funding paradigm for Christian schools, especially evangelical
schools in urban settings. He explained that:
Christian schooling in of itself does not have a funding appeal. But when you talk about
the disenfranchised and the disadvantaged, again, the children who are at the heart of
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

188

education reform, you have a funding appeal. We have several schools in the pipeline that
are geared up to start. All of these schools will be based on the philanthropic model. But
we have the most funders... It's the 4th funding paradigm, which is public funding. We
now have some 28 states that have some form of parental choice. In the states that have
the most generous parental choice, Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, we're seeing
Christian schools actually turning around. I was in Philadelphia, visiting those schools in
Philadelphia back in November, and the excitement where one guy said, “Our school, for
the first time, is not only growing, but we're operating in the black. (This is) largely due
to public funding.”
Helping families better afford Christian schooling was a significant recommendation with
demonstrated momentum in many regions of the country. As the foregoing statement revealed,
there was an effort underway to help finance a private school education for the educationally
disenfranchised that echoes both a service model and a social justice model. Although this
represented an outlying perspective among respondents in this study, there has been a very
determined effort to bring Christian school education to children via public funding, especially in
the 28 states that had some form of parental school choice at the time of this study. This not only
appeared to be an honorable effort, but an intriguing one, with successes already secured. It
would seem prudent to afford this effort more attention and support in the future.
Conduct Thought Leadership Discussions. Interviews with key association leaders and
a subsequent examination of documents obtained during this research revealed that in 2015, the
ACSI Education Foundation invited experts from various fields primarily outside of Christian
school education—“thought leaders”—to convene the first Thought Leadership Discussion. This
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

189

gathering was specifically designed to assist in formulating approaches to deal with the
movement’s crisis. Explained a high-ranking associational leader:
We…assembled a group of leaders within the Christian school movement as well as
those in the realm of culture and Christianity to begin to marshal wisdom and insights
concerning the major issues facing Christian schooling and the broader Christian
community. This was a part of an initiative to position ACSI to be a stronger, more
vocal, and more visible advocate for the Christian school movement, particularly in the
US.
The two-day Discussion was attended by19 guest panelists, 19 ACSI staff leaders, and three
leaders from the ACSI Education Foundation Board. Prior to the Discussion, the panelists were
asked key questions, with their responses written and distributed to those attending the
Discussion in a 30-page document. (In many ways, the Discussion mirrored the same format
pioneered and utilized at the pre-conference California Mind Melds of the 2014 and 2015 ACSI
California Leadership Summits [ACSI, 2015a; 2014a].) Regarding the Christian school
movement in America, panelists attending the Discussion responded as summarized in Table 6.
The summary of the pre-Discussion questions echoes many of the factors identified by
participants in this study regarding the causes of the movement’s downturn and ongoing threats
to Christian schools. It also provides a framework for ACSI and evangelical schools for making
recommendations and taking actions in response. ACSI has already begun using the data to form
a strategic response to the challenges facing the movement. Considering the wealth of
information and fresh perspectives springing from such events as the Thought Leadership
Discussion and the California Mind Melds, more such endeavors could be utilized in the future

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

190

Table
6.
Responses
to
key
questions
and
summary,
ACSI
Thought
Leadership
Discussion
(ACSI

Education
Foundation,
2016).

Summary:
Top
Categories
(descending
order)

What
keeps
you
awake
at
night?

Cultural
challenges;
theological
foundation
and
distinctive
case;

teacher
quality
&
preparation;
generational
challenge;
(the

following
all
equally
noted):
Christian
school
quality
&

effectiveness;
science
education;
technology/media;

affordability/accessibility;
decline
of
church

Barriers
to
be
surmounted
&

opportunities
seized

Quality
&
effectiveness
of
Christian
schools,

affordability/accessibility,
cultural
challenges,
theological

foundation,
teacher
quality
&
preparation,
religious
liberty

technology/media,
decline
of
church

Top
three
issues
facing
Christian

schools

Affordability/accessibility
(14+
comments),
cultural
challenges,

theological
foundation,
teacher
quality
&
preparation,

technology/media,
religious
freedom

Major
societal
issues
facing

families

Cultural
challenges
(20+
comments),
technology/media,

generational
challenges

to infuse new, creative, innovative, and entrepreneurial ideas into the Christian school
movement.
Engage in Multiple Responses Simultaneously. When asked what kind of actions
associational and school leaders in the movement are taking or recommending regarding the
factors that continue to endanger it, in order to reverse the movement’s downward trend,
numerous school administrators provided lists of responses they had either already undertaken,
were planning to undertake, or were recommending other schools attempt. Each of their
responses embodied the need to engage in simultaneous, multiple responses to the crisis at their
schools. Some components of their response lists represented trends as described in the
foregoing, and some elements did not emerge as widespread actions or recommendations. One
administrator provided the following school responses being attempted, which were
representative of numerous comments submitted by respondents in the survey:
1. Refocusing the school around the mission with a sense of urgency and determination.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

191

2. Developing organizational integrity so that all decisions, programs, policies and other
critical realities represent a logical and visible connection to both the larger mission
and the vision for that mission of those in leadership.
3. Aggressively pursue the "best practices" of the industry through networks,
Professional Development and Innovative thinking.
4. Examine and address the internal factors of the organization to determine what
elements may be interfering both with the mission and with an outside-the-box way
of thinking to fulfill that mission.
5. Simultaneously and with fierce determination pursue sound business practices and
policies that maintain fiscal health, while also pursuing new ways of impacting
students with the mission in mind.
6. Strengthen my school's relationship with ACSI as I have watched it reinvent itself in
ways I both believe and hope will enable them to serve my school and its movement
more effectively.
7. Explore alternative sources of revenue, while at the same time ensuring that all
aspects of my school's program are either self-funding or profit-generating.
8. Improve my own communication skills related to sharing the value of the mission in
the lives of my families. There is still much to be done in that area in my leadership.
9. Revisit and revise current policies to prepare my school for the changing cultural and
legal landscape in which my school exists.
Due to the nature of the crisis currently gripping the Christian school movement—caused and
being sustained by multiple factors—respondents recognized the reality that there must be
concurrent actions taken on a variety of fronts in order to try to reverse the decline.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

192

Pray. When asked what kind of responses associational and school leaders in the
movement are making or recommending regarding the factors that continue to endanger it, in
order to reverse the movement’s downward trend, many respondents commented on the need to
engage in fervent, ongoing, and concerted prayer. One head of school said part of the solution
was to “call for more prayer.” Another long-time school administrator explained: “Leaders need
to be willing to do anything that they can to help the school succeed, while always
acknowledging in their prayers that if the Lord does not bless their efforts, they will certainly
fail.” One school leader shared:
Christian school leaders in our area take time every other month to get together to talk,
pray, and encourage one another. This has helped to strengthen our respective schools
and improve our ability to see areas of improvement as individual schools, as well as
recognize possible trends and future challenges and how to address them.
Some survey respondents gave specific recommendations for how to pray and what to pray for.
One school head wrote: “Cultivate a culture of prayer in churches and communities where
corporate Christian alignment and unity is nurtured. Pray specifically for parents to have
convictions strong enough to choose Christian education for their children.” The superintendent
of one of the oldest Christian school systems in the western US recommended that fellow
leaders, “Pray that the Lord brings revival and a spiritual hunger to our land.” One school head
called out fellow leaders and challenged them: “I believe that even Christian leaders seriously
underestimate the power of prayer. We no longer call on God to break strongholds (or) trust Him
to accomplish His work. We need to become again people of faith and prayer.” True to their
calling as leaders of faith-based schools, many respondents voiced their belief that leaders need
to invoke God in prayer more frequently and at a higher level of fervency than may currently
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

193

exist. The many recommendations to pray are a reflection of the understanding of the seriousness
of the movement’s crisis and the literal need for divine intervention.
In summary, data gathered from survey responses, interviews, and examined documents
regarding Research Question #3 identified 15 emergent themes regarding recommendations and
actions on the part of associational and school leaders designed to help reverse the movement’s
downward trend. These emergent responses and recommendations were:
1. Embody “Stronger Together”
2. Improve the Quality of Leadership at the School Site level
3. Understand the Changing Culture and Societal Structures and Respond Accordingly
4. Engage in Improved Marketing and Communications, Including Understanding and
Addressing Changing Parental Expectations
5. Embrace Technology, Innovation, and Instructional Techniques to Develop 21
st

Century Skills in Both Students and Staff Members
6. Remember, Return to, and Reinforce Christian School Distinctives
7. Be Willing to Change
8. Diligently Pursue Excellence in Academics
9. Resurrect Pastoral and Church Support
10. Consider the Consolidation of Schools
11. Improve Fiscal Management
12. Help Families Better Afford Christian Schooling
13. Conduct Thought Leadership Discussions
14. Engage in Multiple Responses Simultaneously
15. Pray.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

194

The literature suggests—and these findings strongly support—the need for multiple types of
responses in order to address and challenge the multiple factors continuing to work in
combination to threaten the Christian school movement in America. The emergent
recommendations of respondents in this study represent some of the most reflective thinking
being conducted in the nation regarding how to reverse the movement’s downward trend, with
some of their ideas already in the process of implementation at the time of this research. While
some actions may or may not initially be successful, and while not all needed types of actions
may be represented here, there is clear evidence that the Christian school movement—at both the
associational and school site level—is no longer in denial about the crisis. Rather, the findings
demonstrate that leaders broadly recognize the problem, understand they must take some form of
ongoing action, have begun reflecting seriously on potential responses, and in some cases have
started to implement actions to reverse school closures and the movement’s downward trend.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

195

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Since 2006, private evangelical Christian schools in the US have been closing in large
numbers for the first time since the third Christian school movement in history began, in 1950. It
is a phenomenon that was unexpected and unprecedented. The sharp decline signaled the end of
over half-a-century of sustained and often meteoric growth of Christian schools in America. The
Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), the world’s largest Christian school
service and support organization, acknowledged that the 56-year trend of annual growth had
ended for US evangelical schools. ACSI asserted that the economic downturn of the Great
Recession had created a new normal for Christian schools in North America, adding that many
unidentified forces beyond schools’ control continued to be the source of struggle (Charter Oak
Research, 2014; ACSI, 2014a; 2014b). Yet there was not an empirical explanation identifying
the causes of the movement’s sharp national decline and the ongoing threats endangering the
movement.
The purpose of this study was to conduct exploratory research regarding the school
closure phenomenon, in order to identify and understand the factors driving the movement’s
decline. Such research was deemed vital if the movement’s educational leaders at multiple levels
(national, regional, district, and school site) were to deal with the heightening crisis from an
informed, research-based perspective. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the
nature and causes of the unexpected decline in the number of evangelical Protestant Christian
schools in the US since 2006, including an examination of factors continuing to threaten and
endanger the Christian school movement now and in the future; provide analysis and determine
the implications that these factors hold for the movement’s future; and develop recommendations
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

196

to address the phenomenon in order to help reverse the movement’s downward trend, based on
analysis.
Key Findings and Implications for Practice
A major overarching finding across all three research questions was that nearly all factors
identified by participants invariably intersected with and were interrelated to either (1)
leadership failure at the school site level or (2) cultural changes, or both. This connectivity was
undeniable and repeatedly permeated the findings (see Appendix P).
Upon an examination of the findings of this study, nine distinct implications for practice
emerged. These implications for practice were drawn from participant responses to the three
research questions and after careful reflection on the survey results, interviews, and examined
documents, all in the context of the literature review and the conceptual framework. Each of the
following implications for practice is directly related to the challenges facing the Christian
school movement in America, both now and in the future.
Improve the Quality of School Leadership at All Levels, in Particular School Boards
The quality of school leadership at all levels—in particular school boards—must
improve. Respondents identified failure of leadership at the school site level as both a causal
factor and an ongoing threat endangering the movement, and made strong recommendations
regarding leadership improvement.
Associational leaders at the national and regional levels should continue providing
current, effective leadership training programs (e.g., ACSI’s Leadership U), while
simultaneously developing new vehicles and methods aimed at improving the quality of
leadership at Christian schools nationwide, including ongoing coaching. These programs should
target school board members, pastors of churches that sponsor Christian schools, and school
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

197

administrators, especially emerging heads of schools. Training should include (1) fiscal
management; (2) how to detect and deal with danger signs threatening school existence; and (3)
understanding Repetitive Inaction Disorder Theory and methods for avoiding such organizational
dysfunction. All three of these factors were identified by respondents in this study as ongoing
dangers threatening Christian schools.
It should also be borne in mind that all of the implications for practice that follow are
contingent upon quality leadership. Without constant attention to developing quality leadership,
the remaining implications for practice cannot be achieved with any level of success.
Study, Understand, and Respond Effectively to the Changing Culture, Changing Parental
Expectations, and Changing Patterns of Church Attendance
Associational and school site leadership must study, understand, and respond effectively
to the changing culture, changing parental expectations, and changing patterns of church
attendance. Respondents in this research identified (1) cultural shifts and cultural changes
impacting Christian thought; (2) changing parental expectations and reasons for considering a
Christian school for their child’s education; and (3) changing patterns of evangelical church
attendance as causal factors in the Christian school movement’s decline and as ongoing threats to
the movement now and in the future.
Respondents in this research were overwhelming in their call that associational and
school leaders understand the changing culture and societal structures and respond accordingly.
As an element of this implication for practice, it is not only paramount to understand these three
factors individually, but to grasp their interrelatedness to one another. As the research
demonstrated, nearly all factors threatening Christian schools have some connection to each
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

198

other, and understanding this relational dynamic is crucial to a proper response that will fully
benefit both individual schools and the movement a whole.
Hold Firmly to Christian School Distinctives as Imperative and Non-Negotiable
Christian schools must hold firmly to their distinctives, and commit to maintaining them
as imperative and non-negotiable aspects of their organizations. Respondents identified the
dangers inherent in compromising their unique Christian school distinctives, both educationally
and spiritually, and expressed great concern that this distinctiveness was being eroded by a
combination of weak school site leadership and cultural pressures.
As recommended by respondents in this research, Christian school leaders should
remember, return to, and reinforce their Christian school distinctives. School leaders must
capitalize on the unique qualities of Christian schools in general and their own schools in
particular, believing and demonstrating that the differences they offer in teaching, training,
thinking, worldview, philosophy, faith, prayer, and so on, are to be celebrated, heralded, and held
onto at all cost. As an element of this distinctiveness, Christian school leaders should make
prayer an ever-more-vital part of the Christian school experience, especially in light of the
current crisis within the movement.
Engage in Effective and Responsive Marketing and Communications Efforts
With an understanding of the changing culture, changing parental expectations, and
changing patterns of church attendance—and holding firmly to its own Christian school’s
distinctives as imperative and non-negotiable—leaders must engage in marketing and
communications efforts that are effective and responsive. The failure of schools to effectively
and strategically market themselves was identified by respondents in this study as both a causal
factor and an ongoing factor endangering the Christian school movement now and in the future.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

199

Respondents in this research recommended that Christian schools engage in improved
marketing and communications, including understanding and addressing changing parental
expectations. Attempting to improve marketing and promotional efforts was a predominant and
recurring theme throughout the research as discussed by participants. Associational leaders are
urged to continue developing marketing tools for its member schools, especially instruments that
can be used at the regional and local levels to “super target” prospective school families with
exceptionally accurate, descriptive data. Associational leaders are also encouraged to considering
developing high-caliber training programs in marketing and communications for Christian school
leaders.
Pursue Excellence in Every Aspect of the School, Rejecting Mediocrity
School site leaders must pursue excellence in every aspect of their school operations and
organization, rejecting mediocrity as an acceptable level of quality or performance in anything
connected to their schools. Respondent comments and interviews pointed to this quest for
excellence in every endeavor the school involves itself in as another non-negotiable commitment
that Christian schools must make.
In the current shifting culture with its accompanying changing parental expectations,
respondents in this study reported there is a rising demand for quality in many segments of
society. This certainly holds true in the field of education, including private, faith-based
institutions. Christian schools must continually improve and professionalize organization-wide,
while still building strong relational ties with school families, which are crucial to this generation
of parents.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

200

Change. Innovate. Think Entrepreneurially.
Christian schools must be willing to change, innovate, and think entrepreneurially. This
includes embracing technology, innovation, and instructional techniques to develop 21st century
skills in both students and staff members. Resistance to change at the school site level, including
a lack of innovation, reinvention, and retooling for 21
st
century challenges, was identified by
respondents in this study as both a causal factor in the movement’s decline and as an ongoing
threat to Christian schools.
The necessity to innovate and embrace change is not only about the integration of
educational technology; it is about a return to institutional creativity and an entrepreneurial spirit
that once marked the Christian school movement decades ago when it experienced remarkable,
meteoric growth. Now in a culture and global community marked by rapid change, Christian
schools must rekindle and reignite their passion for change and innovation, especially in light of
their divine mandate to be transformational change agents in the world.
Set Priorities, Be Systematic, and Engage in Multiple Responses to the Crisis
Simultaneously
Leaders at both the associational and school site levels must engage in multiple responses
to the crisis simultaneously, but this needs to be accomplished by setting priorities and being
systematic in approach. Respondents in the study repeatedly shared lists of simultaneous actions
they saw as necessary at their schools, but they also often expressed feelings of being
overwhelmed in trying to deal with the multiple factors working against their schools.
Respondents in this research identified 16 factors that continue to endanger the Christian
school movement in America. Respondents also recognized the need to engage in simultaneous,
multiple responses to the ongoing crisis. Taking a prioritized, systematic approach at the school
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

201

site level will assist leaders in accomplishing this formidable task. In addition, associational
leaders are encouraged to consider developing processes that could be used by leaders at its
member schools to help them prioritize and systematize responses at the local school site level.
Pioneer Greater Openness, with a Goal of Collaboration
Associational and school leaders must pioneer greater openness—among member schools
and among Christian school associations in the US—with a goal of collaboration. Christian
school associations and their member schools must learn to dialogue and begin reducing the
“island unto ourselves” barrier that has so often been prevalent among private faith-based
schools. Although respondents in this study identified competition from other Christian schools
as a causal factor in the movement’s decline and as an ongoing threat the movement, the growing
challenges facing Christian schools make remaining in individual silos less tenable.
Associational leaders at ACSI and CSI recently made their pioneering public, announcing
an unprecedented partnership between their two organizations. This manifestation of “Stronger
Together” models a collaborative spirit that needs to be adopted by Christian schools, both
within and between associations. It is this spirit of collaboration—marked by humility and an
understanding of the new emergent culture and its challenges—that may make it possible to
resurrect pastoral and church support, and perhaps open up dialogue between Christian schools
whose students would be best served through school consolidation.
Broaden the Intellectual Net
Associational leaders must continue to “broaden the intellectual net” for the good of the
movement, through: Ongoing research as an association; joining in research efforts with other
Christian school associations; endorsing studies by schools of education at research universities;
partnering with professional research firms; and conducting regular think tank discussions; then
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

202

utilizing the results to assist the movement. Interviews and an examination of documents in this
study revealed that such activities provide vital information and insight into the current crisis,
including important recommendations for action.
ACSI’s recent work with the Barna Group is an example of ongoing research that can
provide extremely valuable and highly-focused data—especially about Millennial parent
decision-making and the shifting culture—and place it in the hands of leaders at both the
associational and local school level. This could inform effective marketing campaigns. Another
example is the Thought Leadership Discussion that was convened in 2015. Bringing together
thought leaders from both inside and outside the movement is another way to broaden the
intellectual net and engage people with a wide range of expertise, in order to assist associational
and school site leaders.
Recommendations for Research
The Recent Disparity Between Continuing School Closures and Slight Enrollment Increase
It is recommended that further research be conducted regarding the recent disparity
between the number of continuing school closures across the nation and a slight increase in
enrollment numbers nationwide at ACSI-member schools (which had not yet been published by
ACSI at the time of this study). While the number of EE-12 Christian schools continued to
decline—down from 2,990 in 2014-2015 to 2,905 in 2015-2016, a loss of 85 schools, or a 2.8%
decrease—total enrollment increased slightly by 0.4%, the first increase in nationwide
enrollment since 2006-2007 (S. Dill, personal communication, May 17, 2016).
Why was there a slight uptick in student enrollment (0.4%) for the first time since 2006-
2007, while nearly 100 more schools closed (2,990 to 2,905, a loss of 85 schools, or a 2.8%
reduction of ACSI-member schools nationwide) during the 2015-2016 school year? Does this
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

203

merely represent a shifting of students from closed schools to existing schools? Does it represent
new growth? Does this simply represent a very brief leveling-off in falling student enrollment,
before resuming decline? How long can enrollment be expected to climb if the number of
Christian schools continues to decline across the country? Is this an indicator that associational
and school site leaders are already seeing results from their recent actions to respond to the
crisis? Does this signal the possible end of the crisis, which is entering into its tenth year?
Conducting research to find answers to these questions—in a very timely fashion—could be used
to better inform the efforts of associational and school leaders in addressing the crisis most
effectively.
The Connection Between Christian School Closures in Urban Settings and the Subsequent
Nationwide Crisis of Christian School Closures
It is recommended that further research be conducted into the possible connection
between the decades-long decline of faith-based schools in America’s urban centers and the
current phenomenon of nationwide Christian school closures that began in 2006. From both the
literature and responses given by participants in this study, it would appear unlikely that such a
tie between the two phenomena did not exist. Was the closure of Christian schools in urban
settings a precursor—with causation—to the broader crisis that followed? If so, why, and to what
degree? Since urban school failures existed for decades prior to the onset of the nationwide
phenomenon of closures in 2006, why was this not seen as a potential danger to the broader
movement? Such research could help further explain the cause of—and the ongoing dangers to—
the movement. It might also help (1) raise a broader awareness of the plight of faith-based
schools in urban settings and the families that attend such schools (or attended them prior to
closure); and (2) provide a further exploration and some explanation as to the low-ranking of
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

204

diversity issues and racial and demographic shifts—social changes in the survey responses of
participants in this study.
Effects of the Christian School Movement Crisis on Educationally Disenfranchised and
Economically Disadvantaged Students
It is recommended that further research be conducted to explore how the national
downturn in evangelical Christian schools has affected the educationally disenfranchised and the
economically disadvantaged students in America’s urban settings, particularly its inner cities.
What has happened to these students? What is their story? Are they currently in Christian
schools? If so, how many students are attending? How many Christian schools are serving these
students, and how many of those schools are at risk of closing? Are there any new Christian
schools being established to serve these students. If so, how is this being accomplished? How has
parental choice and new funding options helped or hindered these students? How can new
funding paradigms help these students to attend Christian schools? How can Christian schools
more fully engage these students and their families, particularly through the use of new and
emerging funding paradigms, especially those connected to parental choice? Such research
would help inform the Christian school community about the needs of all its constituent students,
not only those attending schools with traditional funding models or in areas removed from urban
centers. Another potential result of this research might be a greater level of associational
championing of parental choice programs or new funding paradigms that enable families to
better afford Christian schooling for their children, especially the educationally disenfranchised
and economically disadvantaged.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

205

Transferrable Characteristics of Successful Schools—The Outliers
It is recommended that research be conducted investigating Christian schools that have
continued to grow through the Phenomenon Period of Christian school decline since 2006, thus
representing outliers compared to most schools in the movement. How did these outlier schools
continue to grow in spite of the movement’s downturn? What did these schools do in response to
the multiple causes of decline affecting the schools around them and across the nation? What
program changes, if any, did these schools implement? Did they compromise Christian
distinctives to maintain growth? Did they maintain growth because they refused to compromise
their Christian distinctives? How did they respond to cultural changes, changing parental
expectations, and shifting patterns of evangelical church attendance? Did they maintain
attendance and sustain growth due primarily to the closure of other Christian schools? Was the
consolidation of schools involved? What role did leadership play at these successful schools, and
what did these leaders do differently from the leaders of schools that declined or closed? What
principles could be discovered that might be transferrable to other Christian schools? The
potential lessons learned from studying these outlying institutions could be considered and
utilized by other Christian schools across the country to reduce their susceptibility to closure.
Accreditation and School Closure
It is recommended that research be conducted investigating the effect that accreditation
might have in helping prevent Christian school closures, as anecdotal reports suggest that it does.
How does accreditation affect school closure, if at all? How many accredited Christian schools
closed during the Phenomenon Period of decline compared to those that closed that were not
accredited? If there is a significant difference in this number, what factors of accreditation help
inoculate a school against organizational collapse? Is there a difference between schools that are
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

206

accredited solely by a non-Christian accrediting agency, versus dual accreditation with ACSI and
a secular accrediting commission? Depending upon its findings, this research could be used to
encourage non-accredited schools to enter into the accreditation process, both as a means of
continual school improvement and as an instrument to help avoid organizational danger.
Supportive Pastors
It is recommended that research be conducted to examine the thinking, theological
perspectives, and actions of pastors who are supportive of Christian schools. What sets them
apart from pastors who are non-supportive of Christian schools? What can be learned from these
supportive pastors that might be useful in reaching out to other pastors in an attempt to “convert”
them to support Christian school education? How can supportive pastors be encouraged to
continue their commitment? This research could be utilized by associational and school site
leaders to better understand the mindset of pastors supportive of Christian schools, in order to
encourage them while developing methods to cultivate such a mindset in the hearts of pastors not
yet as supportive of Christian schools.
Additional Recommendations for Research
Replicate this study with the leaders of other associations and their member schools.
It is recommended that research be conducted that replicates this study, but utilizes the leaders of
other Christian school associations in the US and the school site leaders of their member schools,
rather than ACSI associational leaders and member school educators. The comparisons of data
could be shared with all associations to verify the results of this study, and expand the base of
educators identifying causal factors and ongoing threats to the Christian school movement in
America, as well as offering responses and recommendations to reverse the movement’s
downward trend, which the literature demonstrates is not an ACSI-exclusive phenomenon.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

207

Replicate this study with different categories of respondents. It is recommended that
research be conducted that replicates this study, but utilizes different categories of respondents.
This could include teachers, parents with students currently enrolled in Christian schools, parents
who have left Christian schools, pastors, and school board members. This would provide an
opportunity to compare findings from associational leaders and heads of school with various
other stakeholders within schools, as these leaders themselves may not be the best source of
information regarding certain causal and ongoing factors.
Charter schools. It is recommended that research be conducted into the continuing
effects of the charter school movement on the Christian school movement, and that such research
would be ongoing. Such research could provide additional insight that could prove useful to
Christian school leaders in responding appropriately to the ongoing rise of charter schools.
Homeschooling. It is also recommended that research be conducted into the continuing
effects of homeschooling on the Christian school movement, and that such research would be
ongoing. As with charter schools, such research could provide additional insight useful to
Christian school leaders in responding appropriately to the ongoing expansion of homeschooling.
Online K-12 schools. It is further recommended that research be conducted into the
continuing effects of online K-12 schools on the Christian school movement, and that such
research would be ongoing. As with both charter schools and homeschools, such research could
provide additional insight into the continuing rise of online K-12 schools for associational and
school site leaders in the Christian school movement.
Regarding this study. Regarding this research study, higher numbers of respondents
would likely have been reached without requiring informed consent forms be signed and
returned (digitally or otherwise), as required in the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB)
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

208

process; that process, for extremely busy school administrators, seemed to impede the process of
securing respondents for study, especially the survey. This reduced the sample population for
this study. During the process of this study, this researcher noted that many potential participants
indicated they receive numerous requests to participate in surveys, but they are only required to
click their consent when taking an online survey. It is recommended that perhaps USC IRB could
consider a process that is less laborious for busy school administrators to complete, in order to
enlarge the sample population for future educational studies.
Conclusions
The third Christian school movement in history has been in crisis in the US since 2006.
Little research into the causal factors and ongoing factors endangering the movement had been
conducted prior to this study. Exploratory research was needed regarding the school closure
phenomenon, in order to identify and understand the factors that drove the movement’s decline,
determine what factors continue to endanger the movement, and examine what kind of responses
or recommendations leaders were making at all levels to attempt to reverse the movement’s
downward trend. Such research was believed to be vital if the movement’s educational leaders at
multiple levels were to deal with the movement’s decline from an informed, research-based
perspective.
It is believed these research findings need to be placed into the hands of leadership
practitioners in the Christian school movement, both at the associational and school site level. It
is hoped the findings will be utilized to gain a greater understanding of the crisis and its ongoing
challenges, and develop multiple, coordinated, strategic, and informed responses.
The consequences of ignoring this research would be to prevent Christian school leaders
from having formal research findings and recommendations that are able to assist them in
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

209

responding to the crisis, prolonging and intensifying the decline. From a Christian worldview
perspective, failure to take this research to heart could prevent Christian school leaders from
fulfilling their God-given calling as Christian school educators, as well as prevent children from
having a Christian school to attend, including all of the spiritual and academic ramifications that
might result.
It is additionally hoped that other researchers will use this study to continue to investigate
the decline in the Christian school movement, develop new approaches to respond to the
challenges facing evangelical schools in America, and consider the recommendations for
research presented earlier in this chapter.
Finally, it has always been the intent of this researcher to ultimately provide findings that
would both glorify God and be used for the good of our kids. May He use this study to
accomplish both.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

210

References
AACS. (2015 May). AACS membership records, 1992-2014. Associational data and information.
East Ridge, TN: American Association of Christian Schools.
Abbottt, C. A. (1999). A model of biblical leadership for administrators of Christian schools.
ProQuest. (UMI No. 9928096)
ACSI. (2016, April 19). Education associations form partnership. Retrieved from:
https://www.acsi.org/about-acsi-and-membership/press-release
ACSI. (2015a, February). California Mind Meld. Proceedings of the second symposium and
think tank comprised of superintendents, heads of school, and academic leaders from
evangelical Christian schools and school systems in California and Hawaii, conducted in
conjunction with the California Leadership Summit of the Association of Christian
Schools International (California/Hawaii Region): Tenaya Lodge, Fish Camp (Yosemite),
CA.
ACSI. (2015b). ACSI 2013–14 tuition, salary, and benefits survey results. Retrieved from
http://www.acsiglobal.org/acsi-2013-14-school-survey
ACSI. (2015c). ACSI legal and legislative services. Retrieved from
http://www.acsiglobal.org/services/legal-legislative
ACSI. (2015d). ACSI regional offices. Retrieved from http://www.acsiglobal.org/acsi-regions
ACSI. (2015e). School choice. Retrieved from https://www.acsi.org/legal-legislative-and-
advocacy/school-choice
ACSI. (2015f). Dale Phillips at accreditation training December 2015 Brea, CA (200 more
school closures in 2014-2015 school year)
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

211

ACSI. (2014a, February). California Mind Meld. Proceedings of the first landmark symposium
and think tank comprised of superintendents, heads of school, and academic leaders from
16 of the largest evangelical Christian schools and school systems in California and
Hawaii, conducted in conjunction with the California Leadership Summit of the
Association of Christian Schools International (California/Hawaii Region): Tenaya
Lodge, Fish Camp (Yosemite), CA.
ACSI. (2014b). US EE-12 (10 Year) Members Stats. Membership Services data. Colorado
Springs, CO: Association of Christian Schools International.
ACSI. (2013). 2013 annual report. Colorado Springs, CO: Association of Christian Schools
International.
ACSI. (2006). ACSI international membership directory. Colorado Springs, CO: Association of
Christian Schools International.
ACSI Education Foundation. (2016). Thought Leadership Discussion. Documentation of
proceedings from think tank sessions, convened in 2015.
Adizes, I. (1988). Corporate lifecycles: How and why corporations grow and die and what to do
about it. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
ASCD. (2015, May). Five ways to support diverse families. Education Update, 57(5), 1, 4-5.
Baeder, A., Braley, J., Heyman, J., Hopson, J., Kienel, P. A., & Nichols, V. E. (2010,
November). Schools at risk: Biblical essentials for Christian school leadership—a panel
discussion. Part two of a two-hour seminar with research findings and panel discussion
presented at the annual teachers’ convention of the Association of Christian Schools
International, Anaheim, CA.
Barna, G. (2005). Revolution. Carol Stream, IL: BarnaBooks and Tyndale House.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

212

Bartfell, S. (2015). Editor’s note: Learning from the best. Christian School Educator, 18(3), 4.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co.
Beckwith, F. J. & Koukl, G. (1998). Relativism: Feet firmly planted in mid-air. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books.
Beer, M. (1980). Organizational change and development: A systems view. Santa Monica, CA:
Goodyear Publishing Co.
Bennis, W. (2009). On becoming a leader (twentieth anniversary edition). New York: Basic
Books.
Boettner, L. (1962). Roman Catholicism. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(5
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2011). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the
contradictions of economic life. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Brown, M. C. (2009). Closing the achievement gap: Successful practices at a middle school— A
case study. ProQuest. (UMI No. 3355235)
Buddin, R. (2012). “The impact of charter schools on public and private school enrollments.”
Policy Analysis, No. 707.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

213

California Department of Education. (2014). Closing a school best practices guide. California
Department of Education, Learning Support. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolclose.asp
CER. (2015, July 23). CER applauds NC Supreme Court ruling vouchers constitutional. The
Center for Education Reform. Retrieved from http://hosted.verticalresponse.com
/1397421/11ddc01208/542732459/5a043a4eac/
Chabotar, K. (2010). What about the rest of us? Small colleges in financial crisis. Change, 42(4),
6-13.
Chakrabarti, R. & Roy, J. (2011, February). “Do charter schools crowd out private school
enrollment? Evidence from Michigan.” Federal Bank on New York Staff Report no. 472.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517579.pdf
Charter Oak Research. (2014). Enrollment trends and opportunities for private schools.
Informational and marketing webcast focusing on current Christian school challenges to
growth and sustainability, attributing comment on slide titled “New Normal?” to ACSI.
King of Prussia, PA: Charter Oak Research.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. New York: Harper Business.
Christensen, C. M., Anthony, S. D., & Roth, E. A. (2004). Seeing what’s next: Using the theories
of innovation to predict industry change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Christensen, C. M. & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining
successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

214

Collins, J. (2015). Seven questions beyond good to great. Presentation at the Global Leadership
Summit. South Barrington, IL: Willow Creek Association.
Collins, J. C. (2009). How the mighty fall: And why some companies never give in. New York:
HarperCollins.
Collins, J. C. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: Why business thinking is not the
answer—a monograph to accompany good to great. Boulder, CO: Jim Collins.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t.
New York: HarperBusiness.
Collins, J. C. & Hansen, M. T. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and luck— Why
some thrive despite them all. New York: HarperCollins.
Collins, J. C. & Porras, J. I. (2011). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New
York: HarperBusiness.
Colson, C. & Pearcey, N. R. (1999). How now shall we live? Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.
Cooper, B. S., McLaughlin, D. H., & Manno, B. V. (1983). The latest word on private-school
growth. Teachers College Record, 85(1), 88.
Cooper, M. (2012, December 12). Census officials, citing increasing diversity, say U.S. will be a
‘plurality nation.’ The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
/2012/12/13/us/us-will-have-no-ethnic-majority-census-finds.html?_r=0
Council for American Private Education. (2012). “Charter schools causing collapse of religious
schools.” CAPE Outlook, Number 373. Retrieved from
http://www.capenet.org/pdf/Outlook373.pdf
CSI. (2015, May 18). Personal communication from Christian Schools International. Grand
Rapids, MI.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

215

Cubberley, E. P. (1920). The history of education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Davis, J. (2014, January 20). Our changing population: Diversity soaring, reshaping schools. The
Poughkeepsie Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1490667590?
accountid=14749
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five
skills of disruptive innovators. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Eby, F. & Arrowood, C. F. (1934). The development of modern education. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Economic Policy Institute. (2015). The state of working America: The Great Recession.
Retrieved from http://stateofworkingamerica.org/great-recession/
Education Week. (2000, November 15). Voucher initiatives defeated in California, Michigan.
Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2000/11/15/11vouch.h20.html
Egeler, D. (2015, February). United—stronger together. Conference keynote address presented
at the California Leadership Summit of the Association of Christian Schools International
(California/Hawaii Region): Tenaya Lodge, Fish Camp (Yosemite), CA.
Egeler, D. (2014, November). Closing address and comments. Conference address presented at
the ACSI NEXUS Live 2014 professional development conference simulcast by the
Association of Christian Schools International: Colorado Springs, CO.
Ewert, (2013, January). The decline in private school enrollment. SEHSD Working Paper,
Number FY12-117. US Census Bureau: Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics
Division. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/school/files/ewert_private_school_enrollment.pdf
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

216

Fairlie, R. W. (2006, February). Racial segregation and the private/public school choice.
Research Publication Series, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education,
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Retrieved from
http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP124.pdf
Faith in the Future. (2015). 2015 summer progress report: Today’s spirit of Catholic education.
Retrieved from http://faithinthefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FIF-Progress-
Update-7.27.15.pdf?utm_source=August+2015+Newsletter&utm_campaign=
July+28+Email&utm_medium=email
Fellers, R. M. (2013). Recognizing warning signs of K-12 Christian school distress that lead to
school closure. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3572828).
Fitzpatrick, J. B. (2002). Why Christian schools close: a model. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63(08), 2826. (UMI No. 3062346)
Flaxman, E. & Passow, A. H. (eds.). (1995). Changing populations, changing schools: Ninety-
fourth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (part II). Chicago: The
National Society for the Study of Education & University of Chicago Press.
Frey, W. H. (2015). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America.
Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Frost, G. (2015). Does your Christian school have a future? Christian School Educator, 18(3), 6.
Frost, G. (2014). Learning from the best, volume two: Growing greatness that endures in the
Christian school. Colorado Springs, CO: ACSI.
Fullan, M. & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

217

Futter, I. C. (1957). A rapidly changing population and the school. National Elementary
Principal, 37(1), 88.
Gant, V. T. (2014). Urban school services: Is Christian schooling good for all children? Christian
School Education, 17(3), 28.
Gant, V. T. (2013). Urban school services: Assimilating urban students. Christian School
Education, 17(1), 19.
Gant, V. T. & Tillman, T. M. (eds.). (2001). How to start an urban Christian school. Colorado
Springs, CO: Association of Christian Schools International.
Giglio, M. P. (2009). Leadership attributes in minority urban Christian schools having high
reenrollment rates. (Order No. 3374326, Columbia International University). ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, 116. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
305064307?accountid=14749. (305064307).
Given, D. (1989, November). Church and school: Blest be the tie that binds…or chokes?!
Seminar presented at the annual teachers’ convention of the Association of Christian
Schools International, Anaheim, CA.
Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee. (2002). Primal leadership: Learning to lead with
emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Good, H. G. (1960). A history of Western education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Greene, A. E. (2003). Reclaiming the future of Christian education: A transforming vision.
Colorado Springs, CO: Purposeful Design Publications.
Gutzwiller, B., Kitchell, J., & Rietze, A. (2014, February). Building positive momentum in your
school. Conference address presented at the California Leadership Summit of the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

218

Association of Christian Schools International (California/Hawaii Region): Tenaya
Lodge, Fish Camp (Yosemite), CA.
Haddock, J. (2005). Welcome to ACSI’s Southern California region. Retrieved from
http://www.acsi.org/web2003/default.aspx?ID=1678
Haddock, J. (2002, October). Regional director’s report. Presentation [including status update of
ACSI-member schools in California and the United States] delivered at a Southern
California district meeting of the Southern California Region of the Association of
Christian Schools International, San Bernardino, CA.
Harden, R. N. (1988). Why Christian schools fail: A model for beginning and establishing a
Christian school in an Assembly of God church. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN.
Harnack, A. (1908). The mission and expansion of Christianity in the first three centuries. New
York: G. P. Putnam and Sons.
Heyman, J. (2015, February 12). Personal communications with Dr. James Heyman, graduate
program director in educational leadership for faith-based institutions, California Baptist
University. Notes in possession of the researcher.
HighScope. (2015). State-funded preschools. Retrieved from http://www.highscope.org/
Content.asp?ContentId=225
Hightower, A. M., Knapp, M. S., Marsh, J. A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2002). School districts
and instructional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hindson, E. (2014). 15 future events that will shake the world. Eugene, OR: Harvest House.
Hitchcock, M. (2012). The end: A complete view of Bible prophecy and the end of days.
Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

219

Hochschild, J. & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J. C. (1982). A comparison among Black, Hispanic and White parental expectations of
the evangelical Christian school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44 (01), 128A.
(UMI No. 8313110)
Horn, M.B. & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Retrieved from
http://www.leadcommission.org/sites/default/files/The%20Rise%20of%20K-
12%20Blended%20Learning_0.pdf
Horton, M. (2008). Christless Christianity: The alternative gospel of the American church.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Huus, K. (2011, June 13). Islamic schools on the rise in US, struggle for acceptance. msnbc.com,
June 13, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43331744/ns/us_news-
life/t/islamic-schools-rise-us-struggle-acceptance/#.VVj7qkZavsA
Infoplease. (2003). Parents’ Reasons for Homeschooling, 2003. Retrieved from
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933997.html
Janicak, C. (2015). “Accident investigation, module 1.” Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Retrieved from http://www.hhs.iup.edu/CJANICAK/SAFE541CJ/Module1Right.htm
Jeremiah, D. (2008). What in the world is going on?: 10 prophetic clues you cannot afford to
ignore. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
K12.com. (2015). Online public schools. Retrieved from http://www.k12.com/schools-
programs/online-public-schools.html
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2
nd
ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

220

Kienel, P. A. (2014). A special message to Christian leaders about Christian school education.
Riverside, CA: Dr. Bonnie G. Metcalf School of Education, California Baptist
University.
Kienel, P. A. (2009). The gift of crisis. Christian School Education, 13 (1), 20-21.
Kienel, P. A. (2005). A history of Christian school education (Vol. 2). Colorado Springs, CO:
Purposeful Design Publications.
Kienel, P. A. (1998). A history of Christian school education (Vol. 1). Colorado Springs, CO:
Association of Christian Schools International.
Kienel, P. A., Moran, J., & Nichols, V. E. (2011a, November). Survive and thrive through
organizational disaster (part 1): Identify the danger signs, survive the nightmare. Part
one of a two-hour, team-taught seminar and research findings presented at the annual
teachers’ convention of the Association of Christian Schools International, Anaheim, CA.
Kienel, P. A., Moran, J., & Nichols, V. E. (2011b, November). Survive and thrive through
organizational disaster (part 2): Navigate the waves of catastrophe, thrive in its wake.
Part two of a two-hour, team-taught seminar and research findings presented at the annual
teachers’ convention of the Association of Christian Schools International, Anaheim, CA.
Kienel, P. A. & Nichols, V. E. (2006, November). Schools at risk: Why Christian schools
close—a new study (part 2). Seminar and research findings presented at the annual
teachers’ convention of the Association of Christian Schools International, Anaheim, CA.
Kinnaman, D. (2011). You lost me: Why young Christians are leaving church…and rethinking
faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Kinnaman, D. & Lyons, G. (2016). Good faith: Being a Christian when society thinks you’re
irrelevant and extreme. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

221

Kinnaman, D. & Lyons, G. (2007). Unchristian: What a new generation really thinks about
Christianity…and why it matters. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Laderman, (2013). America’s religious future: Dechristianization (not secularization). Posted
07/22/2013. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-
laderman/religion-in-america_b_3632516.html
LaHaye, T. (1999). Revelation Unveiled. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
LaHaye, T. & Jenkins, J. (1999). Are we living in the end times? Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.
Lockerbie, D. B. (1994). A passion for learning. Chicago: Moody Press.
MacArthur, J. (2004). The book on leadership: The power of a godly influence. Nashville, TN:
Nelson Books.
MacArthur, J. (2007). Because the time is near: John MacArthur explains the book of
Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press.
Marsh, J. A. (2007). Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics, and community.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership: Follow them and people will follow
you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
McAlpine, C. (1985). The leadership of Jesus. Tonbridge, Kent, England: Sovereign World
International Books.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Moll, R. (2009). Hard choices for higher ed. Christianity Today, 53(9), 36-39.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

222

Moran, J. & Nichols, V . E. (2014, February). Game changers: Turning around Christian schools.
Conference address and research findings jointly presented at the California Leadership
Summit of the Association of Christian Schools International (California/Hawaii Region):
Tenaya Lodge, Fish Camp (Yosemite), CA.
Moreland, J. P. (1997). Love your God with all your mind: The role of reason in the life of the
soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.
Morris, K. F. (1995). The fundamentals of change management. In D. A. Nadler, R. B. Shaw, &
E. A. Walton (Eds.), Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation (pp.
3-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
NAEP. (1978-2011). The nation’s report card. Achievement levels, 1978-2011. National
Assessment for Educational Progress. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
NAPCS. (2015). The national public charter schools dashboard: Total number of public charter
schools 1999-2014. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Retrieved from
http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/ schools/page/overview/year/2011
NCEA. (2015). About us. National Catholic Education Association. Retrieved from
http://www.ncea.org/about-us
NCES. (2015a). Number and enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools, by school
level, type, and charter and magnet status: Selected years, 1990-91 through 2012-13. U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of
Data (CCD), "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey," 1990-91 through
2012-13. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_216.20.asp
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

223

NCES. (2015b). Private school universe survey. U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 2011-2012. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cgc.pdf
NCES. (2012). Data tables. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables1112.asp
NCES. (2010). Data tables. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables0910.asp
NCES. (2008). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables0708.asp
NCES. (2006). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables0506.asp
NCES. (2004). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables0304.asp
NCES. (2002). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables0102.asp
Newswire. (2015). Catholic school comeback. Newswire. Vol. 17, No. 31, p 1, August 11, 2015.
The Center for Education Reform. Retrieved from https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=
2&ik=84c267255e&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14f1ed4adb3d9491&siml=14f1ed4adb3
d9491
Nichols, V. E. (2015a). Schools at risk: Why Christian schools close and what to do about it.
Manuscript in press.
Nichols, V. E. (2015b, February). Schools at risk: The danger signs—Introducing Repetitive
Inaction Disorder Theory. Conference address and research findings presented at the
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

224

California Leadership Summit of the Association of Christian Schools International
(California/Hawaii Region): Tenaya Lodge, Fish Camp (Yosemite), CA.
Nichols, V. E. (2015c, February). Against all odds: How heads of school are successfully
navigating the threat of Christian school closure. Conference address presented at the
California Leadership Summit of the Association of Christian Schools International
(California/Hawaii Region): Tenaya Lodge, Fish Camp (Yosemite), CA.
Nichols, V. E. (2014, June). Schools at risk: Biblical essentials for Christian school leadership
and the danger signs—the latest findings. Guest lecture and research findings presented
at California Baptist University, Metcalf School of Education, Educational Leadership for
Faith-Based Schools master’s degree and administrator certification program,
“Management and Organizational Behavior of Faith-Based Schools” course, Riverside,
CA.
Nichols, V. E. (2007, November). The pastor’s influence and impact on the Christian school.
Seminar with research findings presented at the annual teachers’ convention of the
Association of Christian Schools International, Anaheim, CA.
Nichols, V. E. (2006). Schools at risk: A qualitative analysis of factors leading to the closure of
evangelical Christian schools. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No.
1692141)
Nobel, D. (2008). Understanding the times (2
nd
revised ed.). Manitou Springs, CO: Summit
Ministries.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7
th
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

225

National Public Radio. (2014, June 3). New Orleans District Moves to All-Charter School
System. National Public Radio. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/03/318471461/new-orleans-district-moves-to-all-charter-
school-system
Oates, J. K. (1989). The survivability of urban parochial schools: An analysis of five factors.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 50 (11), 3542. (UMI No. 9009676)
Oxford Reference. (2014). Multiple cause theory. Oxford Reference. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195314496.001.0001/acref-
9780195314496-e-1252
Painter, F. V. N. (1886). Luther on education. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing. Available
through http://www.cph.org/p-6579-luther-on-education.aspx?REName=Books%
20&plk=0&Lk=0&rlk=641
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pearcey, N. R. (2010). Saving Leonardo: A call to resist the secular assault on mind, morals, and
meaning. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing.
Pearcey, N. R. (2005). Total truth: Liberating Christianity from its cultural captivity (study guide
edition). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Pennings, R., et al. (2011). Cardus Education Survey: Do the motivations for private religious
Catholic and Protestant schooling in North America align with graduate outcomes?
Hamilton, ON: Cardus.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

226

Phillips, D. (2016, December). Remarks presented at the ACSI Southern California regional
accreditation training session for visiting committee chairpersons for ACSI and WASC,
Association of Christian Schools International, Brea, CA.
Platt, D. (2010). Radical: Taking back your faith from the American dream. Colorado Springs,
CO: Multnomah Books.
Price, S. H. (1992). Factors that relate to changes in enrollment for private, non-profit schools.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (01), 50. (UMI No. 9312941)
Psychology Dictionary. (2015). What is multiple causation? Psychology Dictionary. Retrieved
from http://psychologydictionary.org/multiple-causation/
Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Putnam, R. D. & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us.
New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks.
Ray, B. D. (2011). “2.04 million homeschool students in the United States in 2010.” National
Home Education Research Institute. Retrieved from
http://equipeducation.org/Downloads/HomeschoolPopulationReport2010.pdf
Reardon, S. F. & Yun, J. T. (2002). “Private school racial enrollments and segregation.” The
Civil Rights Project. Harvard University. Retrieved from
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-
diversity/private-school-racial-enrollments-and-segregation/Private_Schools.pdf
Ritzema, R. (2013, October). Regional director’s report. Presentation [including status update of
ACSI-member schools in California and the United States] delivered at a Southern
California district meeting of the California and Hawaii Region of the Association of
Christian Schools International, Temecula, CA.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

227

Rodriguez, D. H. (2014). Caregivers’ highly valued factors for enrolling their children in
California ACSI schools. ProQuest LLC. (UMI No. 3644526)
Roth, D. L. (1981). A Historical Study of the Association of Teachers of Christian Schools, 1958-
1979. Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL.
Rothwell, J. (2012). Housing costs, zoning, and access to high-scoring schools. Brookings
Metropolitan Policy Program, April 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/04/19-school-inequality-rothwell
Russell Sage Foundation. (2012). The social and economic effects of the Great Recession.
Retrieved from http://www.russellsage.org/research/social-effects-great-recession-
description
Ryan, J. E. (2004). "Brown," School Choice, and the Suburban Veto. 50 Years of Brown v.
Board of Education. Virginia Law Review (90)6, 1635-1647.
Sanders, J. O. (1994). Spiritual leadership. Chicago: Moody Press.
Schaeffer, F. (1981, April). Address at the University of Notre Dame. In N. R. Pearcey, Total
truth: Liberating Christianity from its cultural captivity (study guide edition), (p. 15).
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Schick, M. (2014, October). A census of Jewish day schools in the United States 2013-2014.
New York: AVI CHAI Foundation. Retrieved from http://avichai.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/Census-2013-14.pdf
Schultz, G. (2002). Kingdom education: God’s plan for educating future generations (2
nd
ed.).
Nashville, TN: LifeWay.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

228

Scott, P. (2012). Upon a solid foundation: The ACSI response to and expansion on the Cardus
education survey. Retrieved from: http://www.acsiglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/ACSI-
Cardus-Report_Final.pdf
Shashkin, M. & Burke, W. W. (1990). Understanding and assessing organizational leadership. In
K.E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 297-316). West Orange,
NJ: Leadership Library of America, Inc.
Shattuck, K. (2013). 7 startling facts: An up close look at church attendance in America.
Churchleaders.com. Retrieved from http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-
articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html
Simpson, S. (2010, November 12). 5 long-term consequences of the recession. Forbes.
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2010/11/12/5-long-term-
consequences-of-the-recession/
Sinek, S. (2009). How great leaders inspire action. TEDx Puget Sound. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action#t-267468
Shelton, J. R. (2001). Factors influencing enrollment in Virginia’s Protestant Christian schools.
Dissertation Abstracts International,62(10), 3336. (UMI No. 3027902)
Short, C. R. (2001). The stated goals and purposes of Christian schools and the reasons parents
give for choosing them. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(02), 418. (UMI No.
3003496)
Stonestreet, J. (2008). Postmodernism. Video presentation from Understanding the Times
curriculum. Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Ministries.
Tackett, D. (2006). The truth project. Video series. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

229

Tellis, G. J. (2013). Unrelenting innovation: How to build a culture for market dominance. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau Projections Show a Slower Growing, Older,
More Diverse Nation a Half Century from Now. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/ population/cb12-243.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Preserving a critical national asset: America’s
disadvantaged students and the crisis in faith-based urban schools. Washington, D.C.
U.S. News and World Report. (2014, November 3). Number of U.S. Charter Schools Up 7
Percent, Report Shows. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/03/number-of-us-charter-schools-up-7-
percent-report-shows
Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved
from http://rpgroup.org/sites/default/files/Surveys%20Interactive%20Activity%20-
%20Examples%20of%20Likert%20scales.pdf
Walberg, H. J. (2007). School choice: The findings. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
Walner, W. D. (2006, March 15). Interview by V . E. Nichols. [Digitally recorded notes.] Copy in
possession of interviewer.
Walner, W. D. (2000). Sustaining the mission of the Protestant evangelical Christian school.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(08), 3019. (UMI No. 9983689)
Walton, A. E. (1995). Staging discontinuous change. In D. A. Nadler, R. B. Shaw, & E. A.
Walton (Eds.), Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation (pp. 82-
96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

230

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Ed.). (A. M.
Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
Wepner, S. B., Ferrara, J., Rainville, K. N., Gómez, D. W., Lang, D. E., & Bigaouette, L. (2012).
Changing suburbs, changing students: Helping school leaders face the challenges.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Wilds, E. H. (1936). The foundations of modern education. New York: Rinehart and Company.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New
York: Basic Books. In J. A. Marsh Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics,
and community, (p. 101). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Wirt, F. & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Zacharias, R. (1996). Deliver us from evil: Restoring the soul in a disintegrating culture. Dallas,
TX: Word Publishing.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

231

Appendix A: Survey Instrument

Schools
At
Risk:
An
Analysis
of
Factors
Endangering
the
Evangelical
Christian
School
Movement
in
America

Survey/Questionnaire

Thank
you
for
agreeing
to
participate
in
this
research
study.
This
questionnaire
is
designed
to
provide
you
with
an
opportunity

to
share
your
views
on
various
aspects
of
the
evangelical
Christian
school
movement
in
America
regarding
its
recent
decline,
a

phenomenon
that
began
in
2006.

44
descriptive
phrases,
statements,
and
opportunities
for
responses
are
listed
in
this
survey.
Please
respond
to
each
item
in
a

way
that
best
reflects
your
belief,
experience,
observation,
and
understanding,
especially
as
it
applies
to
the
unprecedented

decline
in
the
number
of
evangelical
Christian
schools
in
America
and
the
endangering
of
the
Christian
school
movement.

There
are
three
sections
to
this
questionnaire:
1.
Section
One
asks
for
your
views
regarding
the
reason(s)
Christian
schools

began
closing
in
large
numbers
across
the
U.S.
in
2006,
leading
the
movement
into
decline.
2.
Section
Two
asks
for
your
views

regarding
factors
that
may
continue
to
endanger
the
Christian
school
movement
now
and
in
the
future.
3.
Section
Three
asks

for
your
recommendation(s)
regarding
how
to
reverse
the
movement's
downward
trend.
You
will
also
have
the
opportunity
to

provide
additional
comments.

Thank
you
again
for
your
participation.

What
is
the
name
of
your
school
or
organization?

What
is
your
job
title?

What
ACSI
region
or
division
best
describes
your
location?

m California/Hawaii
(1)

m Florida/Caribbean
(2)

m Mid-‐America
(3)

m Northeast
(4)

m Northwest
(5)

m Rocky
Mountain
(6)

m South-‐Central
(7)

m Southeast
(8)

m ACSI
HQ/Home
Office
-‐
Colorado
Springs
(9)

How
many
years
have
you
been
in
education
(including
the
current
school
year)?

m 1-‐2
(1)

m 3-‐5
(2)

m 6-‐10
(3)

m 11-‐15
(4)

m 16-‐20
(5)

m 21-‐25
(6)

m 26-‐30
(7)

m 31-‐35
(8)

m 36-‐40
(9)

Over
40
(10)

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

232

Section
One.
Please
select
the
rating
that
best
reflects
your
belief,
experience,
observation,
and

understanding
regarding
whether
or
not—and
to
what
degree—the
items
below
were
a
factor
in
the

unprecedented
drop
in
the
number
of
evangelical
Christian
schools
in
America
that
began
in
2006,

leading
to
the
movement's
decline.

Factor

Very

Likely
a

Factor
(1)

Likely
a

Factor

(2)

Somewhat

Likely
a

Factor
(3)

Undecided

(4)

Somewhat

Unlikely
a

Factor
(5)

Unlikely
a

Factor
(6)

Very

Unlikely

a
Factor

(7)

The
Great
Recession
(1)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

The
rise
of
charter
schools
(2)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

The
rise
of
online
K-‐12
schools
(3)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

The
rise
of
homeschooling
(4)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Changing
patterns
of
evangelical
church

attendance
(5)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Racial
and
demographic
shifts—social

changes
(6)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Cultural
shifts—cultural
changes,
impacting

Christian
thought
(7)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Changing
parental
expectations
and
reasons

for
considering
a
Christian
school
for
their

child's
education
(8)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Failure
of
leadership
at
school
site
level
(9)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Failure
of
leadership
at
association
level
(10)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Loss
of
homogeneity
of
vision
and
culture
at

school
site
level
(11)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Financial
stresses
(12)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Competition
from
other
Christian
schools

(13)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Failure
of
schools
to
effectively
market

themselves
(14)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Failure
of
schools
to
detect
and
effectively

deal
with
danger
signs
threatening
their

existence
(15)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Ongoing
failure
of
schools
to
act
on
threats

to
their
existence
in
a
timely
manner,
leading

to
an
organizational
pattern
of
repetitive

inaction
(16)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Challenges
to
sustaining
school
mission
at

school
site
level
(17)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Resistance
to
change
at
school
site
level:

Lack
of
innovation,
reinvention,
and

retooling
for
21st
century
educational

challenges
(18)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Resistance
to
change
at
association
level:

Lack
of
innovation,
reinvention,
and

retooling
for
21st
century
educational

challenges
(19)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Diversity
issues
(20)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Eschatological
inevitability:
With
the

approaching
return
of
Christ,
certain
changes

and
events—including
an
eventual
downturn

in
Christian
schools—may
be
inevitable
(21)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

233

Section
Two.
Please
select
the
rating
that
best
reflects
your
belief,
experience,
observation,
and

understanding
regarding
whether
or
not—and
to
what
degree—each
item
below
continues
to
be
a

factor
endangering
the
Christian
school
movement
now
and
in
the
future.

Factor

Very

Likely
a

Factor
(1)

Likely
a

Factor

(2)

Somewhat

Likely
a

Factor
(3)

Undecided

(4)

Somewhat

Unlikely
a

Factor
(5)

Unlikely

a
Factor

(6)

Very

Unlikely

a
Factor

(7)

Lingering
effects
of
the
Great
Recession
(1)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Continuing
rise
of
charter
schools
(2)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Continuing
rise
of
online
K-‐12
schools
(3)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Continuing
rise
of
homeschooling
(4)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Changing
patterns
of
evangelical
church

attendance
(5)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Racial
and
demographic
shifts—social
changes

(6)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Cultural
shifts—cultural
changes,
impacting

Christian
thought
(7)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Changing
parental
expectations
and
reasons

for
considering
a
Christian
school
for
their

child's
education
(8)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Failure
of
leadership
at
school
site
level
(9)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Failure
of
leadership
at
association
level
(10)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Loss
of
homogeneity
of
vision
and
culture
at

school
site
level
(11)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Financial
stresses
(12)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Competition
from
other
Christian
schools
(13)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Failure
of
schools
to
effectively
market

themselves
(14)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Failure
of
schools
to
detect
and
effectively

deal
with
danger
signs
threatening
their

existence
(15)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Ongoing
failure
of
schools
to
act
on
threats
to

their
existence
in
a
timely
manner,
leading
to

an
organizational
pattern
of
repetitive

inaction
(16)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Challenges
to
sustaining
school
mission
at

school
site
level
(17)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Resistance
to
change
at
school
site
level:
Lack

of
innovation,
reinvention,
and
retooling
for

21st
century
educational
challenges
(18)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Resistance
to
change
at
the
association
level:

Lack
of
innovation,
reinvention,
and
retooling

for
21st
century
educational
challenges
(19)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Diversity
issues
(20)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Eschatological
inevitability:
With
the

approaching
return
of
Christ,
certain
changes

and
events—including
an
eventual
downturn

in
Christian
schools—may
be
inevitable
(21)

m
m
m
m
m
m
m

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

234

Section
Three.
Please
respond
to
each
item
below
by
entering
your
comments.

What
actions
have
you
taken—or
recommendations
do
you
have—regarding
how
to
reverse
the

Christian
school
movement's
downward
trend
in
the
U.S.?

Please
enter
any
additional
comments
or
clarifying
statements
you
would
like
to
share,
particularly

regarding
the
answers
you
provided
in
this
survey
or
other
insights
about
the
phenomenon
of
Christian

school
closures
and
the
decline
of
the
evangelical
Christian
school
movement
in
America.

Would
you
be
willing
to
participate
in
a
possible
follow-‐up
interview?

m Yes

m No

(If
respondent
indicated
“yes”
above)

Your
Name:

Q15
Your
Email
Address:

Q16
Best
Phone
Number(s):

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

235

Appendix B: Letter of Endorsement from ACSI

Mailing: PO Box 65130, Colorado Springs, CO 80962-5130 Shipping: 731 Chapel Hills Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80920-3949
Phone: 719.528.6906 Fax: 719.531.0631 Web: www.acsi.org Customer Service: 800.367.0798

January'2016'
Office'of'the'Vice'President,'Academic'Affairs'
'
Invitation'for'Participation'in'Research'Study'for:'''
Vance'Everett'Nichols'(BS,'MS,'EdD'Candidate)'and'faculty'advisor'Dr.'Sylvia'G.'
Rousseau'at'the'University'of'Southern'California'

Study'title:'
“Schools'At'Risk:'An'Analysis'of'Factors'Endangering'the'Evangelical'
Christian'School'Movement'in'America.”'
!
Dear!School!Administrator,!
!
This!letter!is!to!urge!your!positive!response!to!the!request!to!complete!a!research!study!for!this!
doctoral!candidate.!Vance!is!conducting!this!study!to!complete!the!requirements!for!his!doctoral!
studies!at!the!University!of!Southern!California.!!The!results!will!be!published!and!will!benefit!the!
Christian!school!movement!in!the!challenging!days!in!which!we!are!serving.!
!
I!am!well!assured!and!have!documented!the!professional!standards!and!confidential!manner!in!which!
this!research!will!be!conducted.!The!collection!of!data!and!the!reporting!of!such!data!will!meet!all!
appropriate!standards!of!academic!research.!
!
I!would!encourage!you!to!participate!in!this!study!as!a!great!value!to!your!school!and!the!Christian!
school!movement.!!It!will!also!make!a!significant!contribution!to!the!research!base!for!the!Christian!
school!movement.!!ACSI!heartily!endorses!this!research!project!and!we!appreciate!you!giving!your!
participation!serious!consideration.!
!
Sincerely,!
!
!
Derek!J.!Keenan!Ed.D.!
Vice!President,!Academic!Affairs!

______________________________________________________________________________________________
A S S O C I A T I O N O F C H R I S T I A N S C H O O L S I N T E R N A T I O N A L
Enabling Christian

Educators and Schools

Worldwide
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

236

Appendix C: Principal Investigator Cover Letter

VANCE &NICHOLS & &
DOCTORAL &CANDIDATE/RESEARCHER &
USC &INNOVATION &SCHOLAR &
!!!!!!!!!
Vance!Nichols,!Principal!Investigator!!!Schools'At'Risk:'An'Analysis'of'Factors'Endangering'the'Evangelical'Christian'School'Movement'in'America''!!venichol@usc.edu!!!!!
University!of!Southern!California!!!!Rossier!School!of!Education!!!!3470!Trousdale!Parkway!!!!Los!Angeles,!CA!90089K4033!!!!(213)!740K0224!
!
!
!
Dear!Christian!School!Educator,!
!
Since!2006,!evangelical!Christian!schools!across!the!nation!have!been!closing!in!unprecedented!
numbers,!endangering!the!future!of!the!Christian!school!movement!in!America.!!
!
As!a!professional!in!faithKbased!education,!you!are!being!invited!to!participate!in!a!research!study!being!
conducted!by!the!University!of!Southern!California!investigating!this!phenomenon.!It!is!believed!that!
your!knowledge,!experience,!and!valuable!insight!may!provide!data!vital!to!this!study.!!
!
The!purpose!of!this!study!is!to!(1)!examine!the!nature!and!causes!of!the!unexpected!decline!in!the!
number!of!evangelical,!Protestant!Christian!schools!in!the!U.S.!since!2006,!including!an!examination!of!
factors!still!endangering!the!Christian!school!movement!in!America;!(2)!analyze!and!determine!the!
implications!these!factors!hold!for!the!movement’s!future;!and!(3)!develop!recommendations!to!address!
the!phenomenon!and!help!reverse!the!movement’s!downward!trend,!based!on!analysis.!
!
If!you!volunteer!to!participate!in!this!study,!you!will!be!asked!to!complete!a!survey/questionnaire.!The!
questions!in!the!survey!describe!possible!factors!that!have!contributed!to!the!decline!of!evangelical!
Christian!schools!in!America.!You!will!have!the!opportunity!to!answer!each!question!by!giving!your!view!
of!how!much!of!an!impact!each!factor!has!had!in!the!decline!of!Christian!schools.!
!
After!the!answers!from!the!survey/questionnaire!have!been!collected!and!analyzed,!a!small!number!of!
participants!will!be!selected!and!contacted!for!interviews!regarding!their!survey!responses.!Questions!
will!be!directly!related!to!the!decline!of!the!Christian!school!movement.!
!
Participants!will!not!be!identified!by!name!in!the!study.!
!
If!you!would!like!to!participate!in!this!study,!please!sign!and!return!the!attached!consent!form!to!the!
following!email!address:!venichol@usc.edu!!!You!will!then!be!contacted!and!given!details!for!taking!the!
survey/questionnaire.!Please!also!use!this!email!address!if!you!would!like!more!information,!or!call!me!
directly!at!(951)!743K4322.!
!
Please!also!note!that!Dr.!William!Walner,!longKtime!Christian!school!educator!and!former!Associate!
Director!of!ACSI’s!Southern!California!Region,!is!one!of!my!three!dissertation!committee!members.!
!
Thank!you!for!your!time!and!consideration.!
!
Sincerely,!
!
Vance!Everett!Nichols!
University!of!Southern!California!
Rossier!School!of!Education!
!
Study ID: UP-15-00681 Valid From: 12/23/2015
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

237

Appendix D: Informed Consent Materials

Informed Consent Form—Schools At Risk: Factors Endangering Christian Schools Page 1 of 3
Last edits made on: 12/23/2015 – Information Sheet for Exempt Research
USC UPIRB # UP-15-00681
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University Park Campus, Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, California 90089-4033
(213) 740-0224
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
SCHOOLS AT RISK: AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS ENDANGERING THE
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL MOVEMENT IN AMERICA
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by principal investigator Vance
Everett Nichols (BS, MS, EdD Candidate) and faculty advisor Sylvia G. Rousseau (BA, MA,
EdD) at the University of Southern California, because you have knowledge, experience, and
valuable insight regarding the evangelical Christian school movement in America. You must be
aged 18 and up to participate.
Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your
family or friends.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to (1) examine the nature and causes of the unexpected decline in the
number of evangelical, Protestant Christian schools in the U.S. since 2006, including an
examination of factors still endangering the Christian school movement in America; (2) provide
analysis and determine the implications that these factors hold for the movement’s future; and (3)
develop recommendations to address the phenomenon and help reverse the movement’s
downward trend, based on analysis.
STUDY PROCEDURES
Phase 1—All Participants. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to
complete a survey/questionnaire. The questions in the survey describe possible factors that have
contributed to the decline of evangelical Christian schools in America. You will have the
opportunity to answer each question by giving your view of how much of an impact each factor
has had in the decline of Christian schools. At the end of the survey, if you want to participate in
a follow-up interview, you will have the chance to provide your contact information.

Study ID: UP-15-00681 Valid From: 12/23/2015
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

238

Informed Consent Form—Schools At Risk: Factors Endangering Christian Schools Page 2 of 3
Last edits made on: 12/23/2015 – Information Sheet for Exempt Research
USC UPIRB # UP-15-00681
Phase 2—Small Number of Selected Participants. After the answers from the
survey/questionnaire have been collected and analyzed, a small number of participants will be
selected and contacted for interviews. If you are selected and volunteer to be interviewed, you
will be asked various questions regarding your survey responses. These questions will be directly
related to the decline of the Christian school movement in America. Participants will be
interviewed twice. The first interview will last approximately one hour. A second follow-up
interview will be conducted seven to 10 days thereafter, running between 45 minutes and an hour
in length. This second interview will include questions stemming from responses given by the
participant during the first interview. Interviews will either be conducted in person or via Skype,
FaceTime, or a similar visual and audio enabled online technology. These interviews will be
audio recorded for accuracy (and is a requirement of the interview process).
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks regarding your participation in this research study. If you are
uncomfortable answering any of the questions, you can skip them or end your participation at
any time without consenquence.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Through an analysis of the data from the research questions and the interview questions
stemming from them, the researcher will present recommendations for actions. The goal is that
leaders of the Christian school movement at all levels will utilize these recommendations in an
attempt to reverse the movement’s decline.
CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
Survey responses will be collected anonymously. If you choose to provide your contact
information for purposes of participating in the follow-up interview, this information will be
collected separately from your survey responses. Your interview responses will be linked via a
code so that your identifiable information is maintained separately from your responses.
The data will be stored on computers, digital data storage devices, and Internet-based data files
under the control of the principal investigator. One of more transcribers will have access to the
audio recordings during the process of transcription. At the completion of the study, direct
identifiers will be destroyed and de-identified data will be retained for future use. If you don’t
want your data used in future studies, you should not participate.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
Study ID: UP-15-00681 Valid From: 12/23/2015
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

239

Informed Consent Form—Schools At Risk: Factors Endangering Christian Schools Page 3 of 3
Last edits made on: 12/23/2015 – Information Sheet for Exempt Research
USC UPIRB # UP-15-00681
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will involve no
penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent
at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims,
rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the
following research personnel:
Principal Investigator:
Vance Everett Nichols
(951) 743-4322
venichol@usc.edu
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University Park Campus, Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, California 90089-4033
Faculty Sponsor:
Dr. Sylvia G. Rousseau
(213) 821-1563
sroussea@usc.edu
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University Park Campus, Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, California 90089-4033
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu
Study ID: UP-15-00681 Valid From: 12/23/2015
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

240

Appendix E: Informed Consent Signature Page

Informed Consent Signature Page —Schools At Risk: Factors Endangering Christian Schools Page 1 of 1
Last edits made on: 1-21-2016
USC UPIRB # UP-15-00681

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
University Park Campus, Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, California 90089-4033
(213) 740-0224

SCHOOLS AT RISK: AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS ENDANGERING THE
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL MOVEMENT IN AMERICA

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the informed consent information provided regarding the above-named research
study. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

241

Appendix F: Table
7:
Causal
factors
contributing
to
the
decline
in
the
number
of
evangelical

schools
in
America,
with
highlighted
analysis
(all
respondents).

!#!
Question!(Section!One)!–!!
All!Results!(8!Regions!+!ACSI!HQ)!
Very!Likely!a!
Factor!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Somewhat!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Undecided!
Somewhat!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Very!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Total!
Responses!
Mean! RANK!
1" The"Great"Recession" 55.04%" 27.91%" 11.63%" 2.33%" 2.33%" 0.78%" 0.00%" 129" 1.71" 2!
2" The"rise"of"charter"schools" 29.69%" 24.22%" 30.47%" 4.69%" 5.47%" 3.91%" 1.56%" 128" 2.50" 9!
3" The"rise"of"online"K>12"schools" 11.72%" 14.84%" 42.19%" 10.16%" 15.63%" 5.47%" 0.00%" 128" 3.20" 14!
4" The"rise"of"homeschooling" 16.28%" 31.78%" 31.78%" 5.43%" 10.85%" 2.33%" 1.55%" 129" 2.76" 11!
5"
Changing"patterns"of"evangelical"
church"attendance"
25.20%" 35.43%" 18.11%" 13.39%" 3.15%" 4.72%" 0.00%" 127" 2.48" 8!
6"
Racial"and"demographic"shifts—
social"changes"
4.72%" 14.17%" 25.20%" 20.47%" 22.83%" 10.24%" 2.36%" 127" 3.83" 18!
7"
Cultural"shifts—cultural"changes,"
impacting"Christian"thought"
35.16%" 35.16%" 18.75%" 3.91%" 3.91%" 3.13%" 0.00%" 128" 2.16" 3!
8"
Changing"parental"expectations"and"
reasons"for"considering"a"Christian"
school"for"their"child's"education"
29.46%" 42.64%" 15.50%" 4.65%" 4.65%" 3.10%" 0.00%" 129" 2.22" 4!
9"
Failure"of"leadership"at"school"site"
level"
17.05%" 25.58%" 25.58%" 7.75%" 11.63%" 9.30%" 3.10%" 129" 3.12" 13!
10"
Failure"of"leadership"at"association"
level"
4.65%" 10.08%" 20.93%" 17.83%" 20.93%" 15.50%" 10.08%" 129" 4.27" 19!
11"
Loss"of"homogeneity"of"vision"and"
culture"at"school"site"level"
9.38%" 14.84%" 28.91%" 17.97%" 14.84%" 10.94%" 3.13%" 128" 3.59" 16!
12" Financial"stresses" 60.47%" 28.68%" 8.53%" 0.78%" 0.00%" 1.55%" 0.00%" 129" 1.56" 1!
13"
Competition"from"other"Christian"
schools"
6.98%" 18.60%" 36.43%" 10.85%" 15.50%" 9.30%" 2.33%" 129" 3.47" 15!
14"
Failure"of"schools"to"effectively"
market"themselves"
14.73%" 37.21%" 32.56%" 2.33%" 8.53%" 3.88%" 0.78%" 129" 2.67" 10!
15"
Failure"of"schools"to"detect"and"
effectively"deal"with"danger"signs"
threatening"their"existence"
22.48%" 41.09%" 24.03%" 6.98%" 3.88%" 1.55%" 0.00%" 129" 2.33" 6!
16"
Ongoing"failure"of"schools"to"act"on"
threats"to"their"existence"in"a"timely"
manner,"leading"to"an"organizational"
pattern"of"repetitive"inaction"
23.44%" 47.66%" 15.63%" 6.25%" 4.69%" 2.34%" 0.00%" 128" 2.28" 5!
17"
Challenges"to"sustaining"school"
mission"at"school"site"level"
11.63%" 27.91%" 30.23%" 11.63%" 7.75%" 10.85%" 0.00%" 129" 3.09" 12!
18"
Resistance"to"change"at"school"site"
level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"
and"retooling"for"21st"century"
educational"challenges"
28.68%" 32.56%" 24.81%" 1.55%" 5.43%" 5.43%" 1.55%" 129" 2.45" 7!
19"
Resistance"to"change"at"association"
level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"
and"retooling"for"21st"century"
educational"challenges"
8.53%" 10.85%" 33.33%" 13.95%" 17.83%" 9.30%" 6.20%" 129" 3.74" 17!
20" Diversity"issues" 0.78%" 9.38%" 18.75%" 23.44%" 28.13%" 9.38%" 10.16%" 128" 4.38" 20!
21"
Eschatological"inevitability:"With"the"
approaching"return"of"Christ,"certain"
changes"and"events—including"an"
eventual"downturn"in"Christian"
schools—may"be"inevitable"
7.81%" 6.25%" 16.41%" 18.75%" 17.97%" 14.84%" 17.97%" 128" 4.49" 21!
" " " " " " " " " " " !
Non-‐highlighted
rankings
were
considered
contributing
factors
by
respondents.

Gray-‐highlighted
rankings
represent
contributing
factors
about
which
respondents
were
undecided.

Blue-‐highlighted
rankings
were
not
considered
contributing
factors
by
respondents.

Green-‐highlighted
cells
represent
noteworthy
patterns
of
responses.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

242

Appendix G: Table
8:
Factors
continuing
to
endanger
the
Christian
school
movement
in

America,
with
highlighted
analysis
(all
respondents).

#!
Question!(Section!Two)!)!–!!
All!Results!(8!Regions!+!ACSI!HQ)!
Very!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Somewhat!
Likely!a!
Factor!
Undecided!
Somewhat!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Very!
Unlikely!a!
Factor!
Total!
Responses!
Mean! RANK!
1"
Lingering"effects"of"the"Great"
Recession"
17.05%" 30.23%" 36.43%" 2.33%" 10.08%" 3.10%" 0.78%" 129" 2.71" 9!
2" Continuing"rise"of"charter"schools" 13.28%" 39.06%" 28.13%" 3.91%" 9.38%" 6.25%" 0.00%" 128" 2.76" 10!
3" Continuing"rise"of"online"K>12"schools" 9.30%" 25.58%" 36.43%" 10.08%" 10.08%" 7.75%" 0.78%" 129" 3.12" 14!
4" Continuing"rise"of"homeschooling" 12.40%" 34.11%" 27.91%" 4.65%" 14.73%" 3.88%" 2.33%" 129" 2.96" 12!
5"
Changing"patterns"of"evangelical"
church"attendance"
33.33%" 30.23%" 22.48%" 4.65%" 5.43%" 3.10%" 0.78%" 129" 2.31" 7!
6"
Racial"and"demographic"shifts—social"
changes"
7.75%" 16.28%" 23.26%" 21.71%" 20.93%" 4.65%" 5.43%" 129" 3.67" 17!
7"
Cultural"shifts—cultural"changes,"
impacting"Christian"thought"
42.64%" 27.13%" 19.38%" 4.65%" 3.88%" 0.78%" 1.55%" 129" 2.09" 3!
8"
Changing"parental"expectations"and"
reasons"for"considering"a"Christian"
school"for"their"child's"education"
36.72%" 38.28%" 17.19%" 1.56%" 3.91%" 1.56%" 0.78%" 128" 2.05" 2!
9"
Failure"of"leadership"at"school"site"
level"
21.71%" 27.91%" 27.13%" 6.20%" 10.08%" 5.43%" 1.55%" 129" 2.78" 11!
10"
Failure"of"leadership"at"association"
level"
4.69%" 10.16%" 22.66%" 18.75%" 19.53%" 13.28%" 10.94%" 128" 4.22" 19!
11"
Loss"of"homogeneity"of"vision"and"
culture"at"school"site"level"
10.85%" 21.71%" 32.56%" 10.85%" 14.73%" 6.98%" 2.33%" 129" 3.27" 15!
12" Financial"stresses" 45.74%" 39.53%" 11.63%" 0.00%" 1.55%" 0.78%" 0.78%" 129" 1.78" 1!
13"
Competition"from"other"Christian"
schools"
10.08%" 20.16%" 27.91%" 9.30%" 20.93%" 6.98%" 4.65%" 129" 3.50" 16!
14"
Failure"of"schools"to"effectively"market"
themselves"
21.09%" 39.06%" 27.34%" 3.91%" 6.25%" 2.34%" 0.00%" 128" 2.42" 8!
15"
Failure"of"schools"to"detect"and"
effectively"deal"with"danger"signs"
threatening"their"existence"
25.00%" 39.84%" 25.78%" 3.91%" 3.91%" 0.78%" 0.78%" 128" 2.27" 5!
16"
Ongoing"failure"of"schools"to"act"on"
threats"to"their"existence"in"a"timely"
manner,"leading"to"an"organizational"
pattern"of"repetitive"inaction"
29.46%" 41.09%" 20.93%" 3.10%" 2.33%" 2.33%" 0.78%" 129" 2.18" 4!
17"
Challenges"to"sustaining"school"
mission"at"school"site"level"
12.40%" 33.33%" 27.13%" 8.53%" 11.63%" 4.65%" 2.33%" 129" 2.97" 13!
18"
Resistance"to"change"at"school"site"
level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"
and"retooling"for"21st"century"
educational"challenges"
24.41%" 44.88%" 19.69%" 3.94%" 2.36%" 4.72%" 0.00%" 127" 2.29" 6!
19"
Resistance"to"change"at"the"association"
level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"
and"retooling"for"21st"century"
educational"challenges"
6.20%" 17.83%" 31.78%" 7.75%" 16.28%" 11.63%" 8.53%" 129" 3.79" 18!
20" Diversity"issues" 1.57%" 9.45%" 21.26%" 22.05%" 23.62%" 10.24%" 11.81%" 127" 4.35" 20!
21"
Eschatological"inevitability:"With"the"
approaching"return"of"Christ,"certain"
changes"and"events—including"an"
eventual"downturn"in"Christian"
schools—may"be"inevitable"
9.30%" 5.43%" 15.50%" 23.26%" 15.50%" 15.50%" 15.50%" 129" 4.39" 21!

Non-‐highlighted
rankings
were
considered
contributing
factors
by
respondents.

Gray-‐highlighted
rankings
represent
contributing
factors
about
which
respondents
were
undecided.

Blue-‐highlighted
rankings
were
not
considered
contributing
factors
by
respondents.

Green-‐highlighted
cells
represent
noteworthy
patterns
of
responses.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

243

Appendix H: Figure
E: Causal
factors
contributing
to
the
decline
in
the
number
of
evangelical

schools
in
America
(all
respondents).

FIGURE.(Nationwide(survey(of(Christian(school(leaders,(March(6?20,(2016.(Section(One(results.(Composite(summary(of(all(8(regions(plus(ACSI(
headquarters/home(office.(Bar(graph.( Schools'At'Risk:'An'Analysis'of'Factors'Endangering'the'Christian'School'Movement'in'America.((Nichols,(2016)(
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

244

Appendix I: Figure
F: Factors
continuing
to
endanger
the
Christian
school
movement
in

America
(all
respondents).

FIGURE.(Nationwide(survey(of(Christian(school(leaders,(March(6?20,(2016.(Section(Two(results.(Composite(summary(of(all(8(regions(plus(ACSI(
headquarters/home(office.(Bar(graph.( Schools'At'Risk:'An'Analysis'of'Factors'Endangering'the'Christian'School'Movement'in'America.((Nichols,(2016)(
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

245

Appendix J: Table
9:
Causal
factors
contributing
to
the
decline
in
the
number
of
evangelical

schools
in
America,
with
highlighted
analysis—ACSI
headquarters/home
office
respondents

only.

!
#" Question"(Section"One)"–"ACSI"HQ"ONLY"
Very"
Likely"a"
Factor"
Likely"a"
Factor"
Somewhat"
Likely"a"Factor"
Undecided"
Somewhat"
Unlikely"a"
Factor"
Unlikely"a"
Factor"
Very"Unlikely"
a"Factor"
Total"
Responses"
Mean" RANK"
1" The"Great"Recession" 70.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 10" 1.40" 1"
2" The"rise"of"charter"schools" 40.00%" 30.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 2.20" 3"
3" The"rise"of"online"K:12"schools" 10.00%" 20.00%" 30.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.40" 10"
4" The"rise"of"homeschooling" 10.00%" 20.00%" 40.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.20" 7"
5"
Changing"patterns"of"evangelical"church"
attendance"
0.00%" 22.22%" 33.33%" 33.33%" 0.00%" 11.11%" 0.00%" 9" 3.44" 12"
6"
Racial"and"demographic"shifts—social"
changes"
0.00%" 10.00%" 50.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 40.00%" 0.00%" 10" 4.10" 14"
7"
Cultural"shifts—cultural"changes,"impacting"
Christian"thought"
20.00%" 40.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 10" 2.80" 4"
8"
Changing"parental"expectations"and"reasons"
for"considering"a"Christian"school"for"their"
child's"education"
10.00%" 30.00%" 40.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.10" 6"
9" Failure"of"leadership"at"school"site"level" 10.00%" 10.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 10" 4.10" 14"
10" Failure"of"leadership"at"association"level" 0.00%" 0.00%" 30.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 10" 4.60" 19"
11"
Loss"of"homogeneity"of"vision"and"culture"at"
school"site"level"
0.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 10" 4.50" 18"
12" Financial"stresses" 50.00%" 40.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 10" 1.60" 2"
13" Competition"from"other"Christian"schools" 10.00%" 0.00%" 40.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 10" 4.10" 14"
14"
Failure"of"schools"to"effectively"market"
themselves"
0.00%" 40.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.40" 10"
15"
Failure"of"schools"to"detect"and"effectively"
deal"with"danger"signs"threatening"their"
existence"
0.00%" 50.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.20" 7"
16"
Ongoing"failure"of"schools"to"act"on"threats"to"
their"existence"in"a"timely"manner,"leading"to"
an"organizational"pattern"of"repetitive"
inaction"
10.00%" 50.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 30.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.20" 7"
17"
Challenges"to"sustaining"school"mission"at"
school"site"level"
0.00%" 10.00%" 40.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 40.00%" 0.00%" 10" 4.20" 17"
18"
Resistance"to"change"at"school"site"level:"Lack"
of"innovation,"reinvention,"and"retooling"for"
21st"century"educational"challenges"
20.00%" 20.00%" 40.00%" 0.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 2.90" 5"
19"
Resistance"to"change"at"association"level:"Lack"
of"innovation,"reinvention,"and"retooling"for"
21st"century"educational"challenges"
10.00%" 10.00%" 30.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 10" 3.90" 13"
20" Diversity"issues" 0.00%" 0.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 50.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 10" 4.90" 20"
21"
Eschatological"inevitability:"With"the"
approaching"return"of"Christ,"certain"changes"
and"events—including"an"eventual"downturn"
in"Christian"schools—may"be"inevitable"
0.00%" 0.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 30.00%" 30.00%" 10" 5.50" 21"
Non-‐highlighted
rankings
were
considered
contributing
factors
by
respondents.

Gray-‐highlighted
rankings
represent
contributing
factors
about
which
respondents
were
undecided.

Blue-‐highlighted
rankings
were
not
considered
contributing
factors
by
respondents.

Green-‐highlighted
cells
represent
noteworthy
patterns
of
responses.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

246

Appendix K: Table
10:
Factors
continuing
to
endanger
the
Christian
school
movement
in

America,
with
highlighted
analysis—ACSI
headquarters/home
office
respondents
only.

#" Question"(Section"Two)"–"ACSI"HQ"ONLY"
Very"Likely"a"
Factor"
Likely"a"
Factor"
Somewhat"
Likely"a"
Factor"
Undecided"
Somewhat"
Unlikely"a"
Factor"
Unlikely"a"
Factor"
Very"
Unlikely"a"
Factor"
Total"
Responses"
Mean" RANK"
1" Lingering"effects"of"the"Great"Recession" 20.00%" 30.00%" 40.00%" 0.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 10" 2.50" 2"
2" Continuing"rise"of"charter"schools" 20.00%" 50.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 10" 2.50" 2"
3" Continuing"rise"of"online"K:12"schools" 10.00%" 30.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.10" 7"
4" Continuing"rise"of"homeschooling" 10.00%" 30.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.10" 7"
5"
Changing"patterns"of"evangelical"church"
attendance"
0.00%" 40.00%" 40.00%" 0.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.10" 7"
6" Racial"and"demographic"shifts—social"changes" 10.00%" 10.00%" 30.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.80" 15"
7"
Cultural"shifts—cultural"changes,"impacting"
Christian"thought"
10.00%" 50.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.00" 5"
8"
Changing"parental"expectations"and"reasons"for"
considering"a"Christian"school"for"their"child's"
education"
10.00%" 40.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.00" 5"
9" Failure"of"leadership"at"school"site"level" 10.00%" 20.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 30.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.50" 13"
10" Failure"of"leadership"at"association"level" 0.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 10" 4.50" 19"
11"
Loss"of"homogeneity"of"vision"and"culture"at"
school"site"level"
0.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 30.00%" 0.00%" 10" 4.40" 18"
12" Financial"stresses" 40.00%" 50.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 10" 1.70" 1"
13" Competition"from"other"Christian"schools" 10.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 30.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 10" 4.00" 16"
14"
Failure"of"schools"to"effectively"market"
themselves"
0.00%" 50.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 30.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.40" 12"
15"
Failure"of"schools"to"detect"and"effectively"deal"
with"danger"signs"threatening"their"existence"
0.00%" 33.33%" 33.33%" 11.11%" 11.11%" 11.11%" 0.00%" 9" 3.33" 11"
16"
Ongoing"failure"of"schools"to"act"on"threats"to"
their"existence"in"a"timely"manner,"leading"to"an"
organizational"pattern"of"repetitive"inaction"
10.00%" 30.00%" 30.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 3.10" 7"
17"
Challenges"to"sustaining"school"mission"at"school"
site"level"
0.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 20.00%" 10.00%" 10" 4.20" 17"
18"
Resistance"to"change"at"school"site"level:"Lack"of"
innovation,"reinvention,"and"retooling"for"21st"
century"educational"challenges"
20.00%" 40.00%" 20.00%" 0.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10" 2.70" 4"
19"
Resistance"to"change"at"the"association"level:"
Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"and"retooling"for"
21st"century"educational"challenges"
10.00%" 10.00%" 50.00%" 10.00%" 0.00%" 10.00%" 10.00%" 10" 3.50" 13"
20" Diversity"issues" 0.00%" 0.00%" 11.11%" 11.11%" 33.33%" 22.22%" 22.22%" 9" 5.33" 20"
21"
Eschatological"inevitability:"With"the"
approaching"return"of"Christ,"certain"changes"
and"events—including"an"eventual"downturn"in"
Christian"schools—may"be"inevitable"
0.00%" 0.00%" 0.00%" 20.00%" 30.00%" 30.00%" 20.00%" 10" 5.50" 21"
"
Non-‐highlighted
rankings
were
considered
contributing
factors
by
respondents.

Gray-‐highlighted
rankings
represent
contributing
factors
about
which
respondents
were
undecided.

Blue-‐highlighted
rankings
were
not
considered
contributing
factors
by
respondents.

Green-‐highlighted
cells
represent
noteworthy
patterns
of
responses.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

247

Appendix L: Table
11:
Causal
factors
contributing
to
the
decline
in
the
number
of
evangelical

schools
in
America,
with
ranking
comparisons
of
all
survey
participants
v.
ACSI
HQ/home
office

participants.
1

1.
While
it
did
not
change
the
overall
findings
of
this
study,
a
comparison
of
survey
responses
from
all
respondents

(primarily
comprised
of
heads
of
school,
with
associational
regional
leaders
also
in
the
overall
group)
v.
only
ACSI

HQ/home
office
respondents
revealed
that
respondents
overall
identified
more
causal
factors
and
continuing

factors
endangering
the
Christian
school
movement
than
did
associational
respondents
at
the
home
office.
When

respondents
connected
to
ACSI
were
asked
about
differences
in
survey
rankings
(in
both
Table
10
and
11),
one

high-‐ranking
associational
leader
said:
“That
doesn't
surprise
me
at
all.
...I'm
at
the
30,000
foot
level.
What
I'm

trying
to
do
is
I'm
trying
to
synthesize
anecdotal
data
to
say,
this
is
what
the
core
factor
is.
At
the
end
of
the
day
I

think
it's
a
fact
that
all
education
is
local,
local,
local,
local.”

Preliminary*Nationwide*Survey*Results*—*In*Progress*(Not*for*Public*Release)*
Schools'At'Risk:'An'Analysis'of'Factors'Endangering'the'Evangelical'Christian'School'Movement'in'America!(©!Vance!Nichols,!2016,!University!of!Southern!California)!
!
Survey*Section*One.!Please!select!the!rating!that!best!reflects!your!belief,!experience,!observation,!and!understanding!regarding!whether!or!not—and!to!what!degree—the!
items!below!were!a!factor!in!the!unprecedented!drop!in!the!number!of!evangelical!Christian!schools!in!America!that!began!in!2006,!leading!to!the!movement’s!decline.!
!
!
RANK!Key!=!! NonMhighlighted!rankings!were!considered!contributing!factors!by!respondents.!
GrayMhighlighted!rankings!represent!contributing!factors!about!which!respondents!were!undecided.!!
BlueMhighlighted!rankings!were!not!considered!contributing!factors!by!respondents.!
!
Q# #
#
Question/Factor#(Section#One/Research#Question##1 )##
#
RANK##
All#Respondents##
#
RANK#
ACSI#HQ#Respondents#
Only#
1" The"Great"Recession" 2# 1*
2" The"rise"of"charter"schools" 9# 3*
3" The"rise"of"online"K512"schools" 14# 10*
4" The"rise"of"homeschooling" 11# 7*
5" Changing"patterns"of"evangelical"church"attendance" 8# 12*
6" Racial"and"demographic"shifts—social"changes" 18# 14*
7" Cultural"shifts—cultural"changes,"impacting"Christian"thought" 3# 4*
8" Changing"parental"expectations"and"reasons"for"considering"a"Christian"school"for"their"child's"education" 4# 6*
9" Failure"of"leadership"at"school"site"level" 13# 14*
10" Failure"of"leadership"at"association"level" 19# 19*
11" Loss"of"homogeneity"of"vision"and"culture"at"school"site"level" 16# 18*
12" Financial"stresses" 1# 2*
13" Competition"from"other"Christian"schools" 15# 14*
14" Failure"of"schools"to"effectively"market"themselves" 10# 10*
15" Failure"of"schools"to"detect"and"effectively"deal"with"danger"signs"threatening"their"existence" 6# 7*
16" Ongoing"failure"of"schools"to"act"on"threats"to"their"existence"in"a"timely"manner,"leading"to"an"organizational"pattern"of"repetitive"inaction" 5# 7*
17" Challenges"to"sustaining"school"mission"at"school"site"level" 12# 17*
18" Resistance"to"change"at"school"site"level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"and"retooling"for"21st"century"educational"challenges" 7# 5*
19" Resistance"to"change"at"association"level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"and"retooling"for"21st"century"educational"challenges" 17# 13*
20" Diversity"issues" 20# 20*
21"
Eschatological"inevitability:"With"the"approaching"return"of"Christ,"certain"changes"and"events—including"an"eventual"downturn"in"Christian"
schools—may"be"inevitable"
21# 21*
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

248

Appendix M: Table
12:
Factors
continuing
to
endanger
the
Christian
school
movement
in

America,
with
ranking
comparisons
of
all
survey
participants
v.
ACSI
HQ/home
office

participants.

!
Preliminary*Nationwide*Survey*Results*—*In*Progress*(Not*for*Public*Release)*
Schools'At'Risk:'An'Analysis'of'Factors'Endangering'the'Evangelical'Christian'School'Movement'in'America!(©!Vance!Nichols,!2016,!University!of!Southern!California)!
*
Survey*Section*Two.!Please!select!the!rating!that!best!reflects!your!belief,!experience,!observation,!and!understanding!regarding!whether!or!not—and!to!what!degree—each!
item!below!continues'to'be'a'factor!endangering!the!Christian!school!movement!now!and!in!the!future.!
!
RANK!Key!=!! NonMhighlighted!rankings!were!considered!contributing!factors!by!respondents.!
GrayMhighlighted!rankings!represent!contributing!factors!about!which!respondents!were!undecided.!!
BlueMhighlighted!rankings!were!not!considered!contributing!factors!by!respondents.!
Q# #
#
Question/Factor#(Section#Two/Research#Question##2 )##
"
RANK##
All#Respondents##
#
RANK#
ACSI#HQ#Respondents#
Only#
1" Lingering"effects"of"the"Great"Recession" 9# 2*
2" Continuing"rise"of"charter"schools" 10# 2*
3" Continuing"rise"of"online"K512"schools" 14# 7*
4" Continuing"rise"of"homeschooling" 12# 7*
5" Changing"patterns"of"evangelical"church"attendance" 7# 7*
6" Racial"and"demographic"shifts—social"changes" 17# 15*
7" Cultural"shifts—cultural"changes,"impacting"Christian"thought" 3# 5*
8" Changing"parental"expectations"and"reasons"for"considering"a"Christian"school"for"their"child's"education" 2# 5*
9" Failure"of"leadership"at"school"site"level" 11# 13*
10" Failure"of"leadership"at"association"level" 19# 19*
11" Loss"of"homogeneity"of"vision"and"culture"at"school"site"level" 15# 18*
12" Financial"stresses" 1# 1*
13" Competition"from"other"Christian"schools" 16# 16*
14" Failure"of"schools"to"effectively"market"themselves" 8# 12*
15" Failure"of"schools"to"detect"and"effectively"deal"with"danger"signs"threatening"their"existence" 5# 11*
16" Ongoing"failure"of"schools"to"act"on"threats"to"their"existence"in"a"timely"manner,"leading"to"an"organizational"pattern"of"repetitive"inaction" 4# 7*
17" Challenges"to"sustaining"school"mission"at"school"site"level" 13# 17*
18" Resistance"to"change"at"school"site"level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"and"retooling"for"21st"century"educational"challenges" 6# 4*
19" Resistance"to"change"at"the"association"level:"Lack"of"innovation,"reinvention,"and"retooling"for"21st"century"educational"challenges" 18# 13*
20" Diversity"issues" 20# 20*
21"
Eschatological"inevitability:"With"the"approaching"return"of"Christ,"certain"changes"and"events—including"an"eventual"downturn"in"
Christian"schools—may"be"inevitable"
21# 21*
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

249

Appendix N:

Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max Value 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 3 6 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7
Mean 1.55 2.50 3.24 3.05 2.29 3.71 2.00 2.10 2.88 4.05 3.40 1.45 3.21 2.38 2.26 2.12 2.98 2.17 3.31 4.14 4.12
Variance 0.74 2.35 2.14 1.90 1.66 2.26 1.32 1.36 2.55 2.97 2.44 0.40 2.22 1.56 1.08 0.99 2.12 1.70 2.46 1.98 3.71
Standard
Deviation
0.86 1.53 1.46 1.38 1.29 1.50 1.15 1.16 1.60 1.72 1.56 0.63 1.49 1.25 1.04 0.99 1.46 1.31 1.57 1.41 1.93
Total
Responses
42 42 42 42 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 41
Statistic
The Great
Recession
The
rise of
charter
schools
The
rise of
online
K-12
schools
The rise of
homeschooling
Changing
patterns of
evangelical
church
attendance
Racial and
demographic
shifts—
social
changes
Cultural
shifts—
cultural
changes,
impacting
Christian
thought
Changing parental
expectations and
reasons for considering
a Christian school for
their child's education
Failure of
leadership
at school
site level
Failure of
leadership
at
association
level
Loss of
homogeneity
of vision and
culture at
school site
level
Financial
stresses
Competition
from other
Christian
schools
Failure of
schools to
effectively
market
themselves
Failure of schools
to detect and
effectively deal
with danger signs
threatening their
existence
Ongoing failure of schools to
act on threats to their
existence in a timely manner,
leading to an organizational
pattern of repetitive inaction
Challenges
to
sustaining
school
mission at
school site
level
Resistance to change at
school site level: Lack of
innovation, reinvention, and
retooling for 21st century
educational challenges
Resistance to change at
association level: Lack of
innovation, reinvention, and
retooling for 21st century
educational challenges
Diversity
issues
Eschatological inevitability:
With the approaching return
of Christ, certain changes and
events—including an eventual
downturn in Christian schools
—may be inevitable
Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max Value 5 6 6 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 5 5 6 7 6 7 7 7
Mean 2.48 2.55 3.14 3.07 2.12 3.64 2.12 2.14 2.57 3.71 3.10 1.71 3.40 2.05 2.10 1.98 2.98 2.33 3.43 4.17 3.88
Variance 1.57 1.91 1.98 2.07 1.57 2.38 1.96 1.74 2.10 2.65 2.19 0.89 3.03 1.15 1.11 1.00 2.07 1.93 2.69 2.24 3.52
Standard
Deviation
1.25 1.38 1.41 1.44 1.25 1.54 1.40 1.32 1.45 1.63 1.48 0.94 1.74 1.07 1.05 1.00 1.44 1.39 1.64 1.50 1.88
Total
Responses
42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
Statistic
Lingering
effects of
the Great
Recession
Continuing
rise of
charter
schools
Continuing
rise of
online K-
12
schools
Continuing rise
of
homeschooling
Changing
patterns of
evangelical
church
attendance
Racial and
demographic
shifts—
social
changes
Cultural
shifts—
cultural
changes,
impacting
Christian
thought
Changing parental
expectations and
reasons for considering
a Christian school for
their child's education
Failure of
leadership
at school
site level
Failure of
leadership
at
association
level
Loss of
homogeneity
of vision and
culture at
school site
level
Financial
stresses
Competition
from other
Christian
schools
Failure of
schools to
effectively
market
themselves
Failure of schools
to detect and
effectively deal
with danger signs
threatening their
existence
Ongoing failure of schools to
act on threats to their
existence in a timely
manner, leading to an
organizational pattern of
repetitive inaction
Challenges
to
sustaining
school
mission at
school site
level
Resistance to change at
school site level: Lack of
innovation, reinvention,
and retooling for 21st
century educational
challenges
Resistance to change at the
association level: Lack of
innovation, reinvention, and
retooling for 21st century
educational challenges
Diversity
issues
Eschatological inevitability:
With the approaching return
of Christ, certain changes
and events—including an
eventual downturn in
Christian schools—may be
inevitable
Table
13:
Statistical
analysis
of
survey
section
one
(Research
Question
#1):
Causal
factors
contributing
to
the
decline
in
the

number
of
evangelical
schools
in
America
(all
respondents).

Table
14:
Statistical
analysis
of
survey
section
two
(Research
Question
#2):
Factors
continuing
to
endanger
the
Christian

school
movement
in
America
(all
respondents).

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

250

Appendix O: Figure
G:
Revised
conceptual
framework
for
considering
the
nature
and
causes

leading
to
the
decline
of
the
Christian
school
movement
in
America,
utilizing
Multiple
Causation

Theory.

FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ! ! 246!
!
CONTRIBUTING'FACTORS—
EXTERNAL'EVENTS'&'
INFLUENCES'
CONTRIBUTING'FACTORS—
INTERNAL'EVENTS'&'
INFLUENCES'
Appendix O

Figure'G.!Revised!conceptual!framework!for!considering!the!nature!and!causes!leading!to!the!
decline!of!the!Christian!school!movement!in!America,!utilizing!Multiple!Causation!Theory.

The!Great!
Recession!
'RESULT:'''''''
Unprecedented'decline'in'
the'number'of'evangelical'
Christian'schools'in'
America,'endangering'the'
third'Christian'school'
movement'
The!Rise!of!
Homeschooling!
Racial!&!
Demographic!
Shifts!&!
Social!
Changes!
!
Changing!
Parental!
Expectations!
The!
Rise!of!
Online!
K<12!
Schools!
Changing!Patterns!of!
Evangelical!Church!
Attendance!
The!Rise!of!
Charter!
Schools!
Cultural!
Shifts!&!
Cultural!
Changes!
Repetitive!Inaction!
Disorder!
Eschatological!
Inevitability!
Diversity!
Issues!
Unheeded!
Danger!Signs!
Competition!
from!Other!
Christian!
Schools!
Financial!
Stresses!
Leadership!
Failure!at!
School!Site!
Level!
Resistance!to!
Change:!Lack!of!
Innovation,!
Reinvention,!&!
Retooling!
Challenges!
to!
Sustaining!
School!
Mission!
Loss!of!
Homogeneity!
of!Vision!&!
Culture!
Failure!to!
Effectively!
Market!
School!
Not!considered!a!
causal!factor!by!
respondents!
!
Respondents!
uncertain!if!a!
causal!factor!
FACTORS ENDANGERING CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

251

Appendix P: Figure
H:
Conceptual
framework
for
considering
the
factors
that
continue
to

endanger
the
Christian
school
movement
in
America—considering
combination,
convergence,

and
intersectionality—utilizing
Multiple
Causation
Theory.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

PDF

Secondary school reform in mathematics: a case study of a high school in southern California

PDF

The influence of the historically Black church on the academic achievement of African American students in public schools

PDF

Influences of African American English that contribute to the exclusion of African American students from academic discourse

PDF

A story of achievement in areas where others fail: a case study of secondary school reform in mathematics at Pacific North High School

PDF

An examination of teacher leadership in public schools

PDF

The audacity to teach: creating access to rigor for African American and Latino high school students

PDF

Perceptions about and strategies for African American speakers of Ebonics

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

Spiritual persistence of high school alumni: an evaluation model

PDF

Authentic care in an urban high school

PDF

Developing readers at a high-poverty elementary school: a study of factors that influence teacher performance

PDF

Factors that may lead to an urban high school‘s outperforming status: a case study of an institution‘s achievement in the age of accountability

PDF

A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Wailele

PDF

Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two

PDF

How Latinos ascend to the superintendency

PDF

An examination of public school superintendent response to student mobility and school choice initiatives

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

The relationship between teacher planning, classroom environment, instruction, reflection, and professional responsibilities and teacher retention

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty ubran schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Nichols, Vance Everett (author)

Core Title Schools at risk: an analysis of factors endangering the evangelical Christian school movement in America

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/03/2016

Defense Date 07/29/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag causes of school closure,Christian school associations,Christian schools,cultural effects on American private schools,Educational Leadership,evangelical schools,faith-based schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,Private schools,Protestant schools,religious schools,school closures,schools at risk,third Christian school movement

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee chair), Marsh, Julie A. (committee member), Walner, William D. (committee member)

Creator Email vanceenichols@sbcglobal.net,venichol@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-294584

Unique identifier UC11281368

Identifier etd-NicholsVan-4721.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-294584 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NicholsVan-4721.pdf

Dmrecord 294584

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Nichols, Vance Everett

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA