Building a Christian Worldview Faculty Development Program

In recent years, I’ve had the privilege of walking alongside several schools who are in the early stages of building programs to drive their attempts at being more gospel-centered throughout their whole school cultures. I’ve also studied several schools which have made concerted efforts to grow their faculty and student communities to be more consistent with biblical, gospel living. While there’s no single model ready-fit for every school, there are some attributes these schools share in common, and we can learn from them. My hope is to provide a resource here for those schools who are considering what it takes and what it should look like to build a faculty development program that’s specifically focussed on the Christian Worldview. This is intended to provide reflection on the structure of the program and some “how to.” My book Jesus Above School was written with the same idea in mind (of equipping teachers with resources in their own Christian worldview journey), and it could provide some resources for some of the content of schools’ programs.

Why our schools need a worldview program 

Not only is a renewed emphasis on worldview development consistent with biblical Christianity, it’s also consistent with most Christian schools’ mission.  

Our mission statements are likely riddled with terms which need to be defined. In the same way phrases like “collegiate success” need clearer definition, the more abstract phrases like “biblically-directed” or “Christ-centered” need clarity too. In a culture where language and word meanings have become increasingly confusing, schools can no longer assume all of their stakeholders understand what’s central to our schools. As a result, we need structures to bring everyone on the same page.

Similarly, in the same way Christian schools work to build programs to further their abilities to promote excellence, leadership, service, character or any other ideas in their mission statements, Christian schools must define paths toward improving the parts of their missions which speak toward the Christian worldview.

In his book on ethics, Aristotle uses the analogy of shooting an arrow to emphasize the necessity of having clear targets. It’s quite dangerous to fling arrows through the air without having confidence in both what and where the target is. It’s also important to have clarity of sight and sharpness of ability to hit the target. There’s actually no point in even shooting an arrow if the archer doesn’t have the target in mind.

In one of the schools I recently visited, a teacher asked the Head of School what the school’s hedgehog principle was (using Jim Collins’ concept in Good to Great), and this highly-respected school leader (who had held that position for over 20 years) said, “to be all things to all people in our Christian community.” While this sounds open minded, apt for growth, and flexible to fit cultural changes, it left the teacher very concerned. He wanted something to rally around. He wanted a core value or a goal which he could work toward, one which would make sense of decisions made by the Board and administration.      

We all understand the danger of mission-drift. Schools without clear direction (without a clear target) will obviously stray from center because all members of the school don’t know where it’s going. Staying on target requires effort. Like the archer, we must keep the target in sight, align all moving parts toward hitting that target, and keep our skills sharp through constant work. If our schools aim to pursue “Christ-centered” or “biblically-directed” education “unto the glory of Christ,” we must revisit these ideas in our mission statements with thoughtful questions and the courage and fortitude to follow-through. I would also suggest that, until we do this hard work, these Christian concepts are likely aspirational values, rather than core ones. 

For starters, this decision needs to be made and supported at the highest level of the school. I’ve seen far too many school administrators push to create traction toward gospel-centeredness only to be thwarted. I’ve rarely seen administrators fail to get traction in this area due to faculty unwilling to grow. Most faculty members want to get better both at the practice of teaching and at the philosophical components. Yet, it seems like the most common road-block has been convincing the Board of the necessity.

There has to be buy-in from the Board, because building a program will require resources ... additional personnel, funding for professional development, or space created in the school schedule where teachers can have meaningful training. All this goes to say, faculty are not the only members of the school community who need to grow in their development of the Christian worldview. Administrators do. Parents do. Board members do.

But, it’s critical that you start with your faculty. Since faculty are on the “front lines,” it’s overwhelmingly critical that you have your faculty on the same page, considering that as Frank Gabelein says in The Pattern of God’s Truth, we can only be as strong as our faculty are. Therefore, I cannot understate home important it is to insist that the faculty is growing in their capacity to understand and articulate the fundamentals of a Christian educational philosophy and that it’s the same message students will hear from all of their teachers.        

The Five C’s 

Because it’s become common-place to talk about the four C’s of 21st century learning, I’m offering five C’s to validate the need for an intentional program which enhances the school’s capacity for gospel-growth. These reasons may double as outcomes which should be expected from any program designed for the internal members of the school community and external onlookers to better understand our distinctiveness. One of our Podcast episodes further unpacks the 5 C’s. 

 Common Vocabulary: Wouldn’t it be nice if staff, students, and parents spoke about the Christian worldview in exactly the same way? Language is a powerful thing; we are all aware of ways it has been used to redefine concepts. One of the greatest ways for Christian schools to ensure that both the internal and external community members understand the distinctiveness of the school and mission of Christian education is by shaping the language of the school community, done by intentionally providing definitions, essential questions, categories, and even talking points. While there are numerous ways to talk about the Christian worldview, school leaders need to decide what verbiage the school will use and then train the faculty to use said vocabulary … and understand it. Once the employees of the school use the same language, the students, parents and external members will have greater understanding of what really makes the school tick. In some ways, it’s like creating liturgy. 

I remember once standing outside my “Worldview Director” (yes, that actually was my title) office as the Director of Admissions was touring a handful of parents around the school. She stopped at my office, introduced me, and then proceeded to explain essentially what I do and what our school means by Christian worldview. It took everything inside me to not wince as she spoke, because much of what she was saying was far from what I would say. As I walked back into my office, I eventually got past my frustration with her and reflected on how essential that our school did a better job (for me to do a better job) of making sure everyone was on the same page. I felt renewed in my passion to figure out better ways to institutionalize some common vocabulary among all of our stakeholders.

Clarity: We all know what people do when they don’t understand what they’re supposed to do: Nothing. They freeze. Clarity provides people with the ability to move, to live, to flourish.

A common vocabulary provides the starting point for the school to offer a clear articulation of what the school’s really about. It is essential that Christian schools have the capacity for articulating what’s distinctive about the school – in terms of what they’re “for.” The Christian worldview provides a truer framework for understanding the purpose of education. In a world where people are wanting answers … wondering what it’s all about … the school which can give clear articulation of the goal of education (and one which isn’t likely to change, because it stands upon the nature and character of God) while producing confident and passionate learners. 

Coherence: A significant goal of the Christian school is for students to see everything “stick.” Not only do we want things to stick into the minds and hearts of our students, we also want them to leave our schools understanding how everything sticks together. Having a well-defined approach toward Christian worldview development provides the glue and sense of belonging students need. It prevents them from seeing the “Christian” components of the school as add-ons, because they all fit together into a unified whole under the lordship of Christ. They fit together in consistency (and there’s another C), because taught from a biblical perspective the truths taught in a Christian school are restored to their right place. And, because there is a right place where things fit, there’s a firm bond which unites the information learned. A consistent message is heard, regardless of the material taught. This must happen. 

Comprehensiveness: Properly understood, the Christian worldview is a cosmic view, because there is nothing outside of the preeminence of Jesus Christ. When the school moves to consider everything it does from a framework driven by the truths of the Gospel, students’ perspectives become de-fragmented. There are no islands; there is no isolation. Fundraising, teacher training, kick-ball, and college placement are all touched and shaped by the Gospel. When both internal and external members see a comprehensive Christian commitment they see its vibrancy; they realize they are seeing something that stands upon “something” bigger than themselves. Whatever program a school decides to create, it cannot be so narrowly constructed that it only addresses content taught in classrooms. It needs to be fashioned in such a way that it will speak to every area of the school. 

Centripetal patterns: I owe this fifth “C” to one of my mentors, Steve Collums – a true wordsmith, who radically influenced my approach toward Christian education. When something is centripetal, it moves in a circular way as it’s sucked into the circle’s center.

The goal of a renewed focus on the Christian worldview is to move every aspect of the school toward enabling all of its members to see Jesus because of it. The goal of Christian education isn’t just to offer a better way of doing school or a religious option; it’s to enable our students to see, need, and love Jesus more because of everything they’ve learned.

Our schools certainly need a framework which takes every conversation back toward Jesus. Because of our sin, we naturally make things about ourselves, rather than making them about Jesus. Yet, we need a structure to empower us to ask questions which direct the content back to the center of that content.

And, isn’t Worship ultimately the goal of our efforts in our schools? By being a school that’s constantly looking at our school programs through a centripetal lens, it makes us better worshipers.

Yes, an Actual Program

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that I believe having an actual program or intentional structure for worldview development is imperative. Isolated events, workshops, or sessions cannot and will not provide the fix you need.

Whenever I visit schools to facilitate worldview-themed workshops, I leave hoping to have raised questions which will prompt further exploration. Yet, I often wonder if I’ve accomplished much more than granting administrators the ability to say “check.” They can now sleep better after bringing in some hack who could define the Christian worldview a bit more and help teachers get ACSI-approved professional development hours. Personally, I have felt at times like a bit of a mercenary … a hired gun who swoops in to remedy a problem, yet without any communal commitment. 

This is not what I mean by “program.” If there is not a thoughtful, patient program, worldview sessions, “integration” conversations, or assigning books will continue to be add-ons. They aren’t housed anywhere. And, because they are siloed off from the day-to-day, they will continue to be treated as afterthoughts, even if you get the Bono of worldview presentations (and that’s not me) to speak at your school. Like clockwork, as soon as the person who is ultimately pushing these initiatives leaves the school or moves on to other initiatives, it dies.

Every school is in a different place in this area, but I’m fairly certain all Christian schools feel a bit of tension about where they are when it comes to developing their faculty, staff, students, board members, and parents. Some already have a lineup of staff-development meetings which incorporate biblical standards. Some have sessions and books to read. Others have thought-leaders on staff who could lead their peers but don’t know where they fit programmatically. Significantly more schools realize they are more dependent on outside institutions to help them. Regardless of where a school is, I’ve noted that schools who seem to be making real progress in this area have done a version of the following principles.

I realize that these principles are out of order in terms of good pedagogy. Yes, it’s always good to start with the end in mind, and then work backwards from there. However, I’ve noticed that many schools get bogged down by the theory, philosophy, and mission they’re aiming toward. They spend so much time on the nuances involved in shaping perfect statements that they run out of steam before they can figure out what implementation looks like. As I’ve worked with my mentors to try to help schools build programs, we’re realizing it’s been easier to start with more digestible steps which move toward the goal in mind.

1. Put a framework of questions and vocabulary in place

While the seven questions of the grid have shaped my own ability to consider the effect of the gospel in the life of the school, I don’t think this is the only framework which works. It’s what I gravitate to whenever I work with schools, but I realize that it may not be the best structure for every school. However, I do believe that the grid has the necessary components which schools need to consider. 

I would still insist that there are essential questions every school needs to be asking. For instance, if there is no category in a school’s program which addresses the school’s approach to truth and knowledge, I would have significant concerns. I prefer having some categories where the questions would fit, rather than having a list of twenty-something questions core to the school’s ethos. In the same way we learn in the classroom, it’s easier to remember and conceptualize the questions when they’re grouped together into an organizing scheme.

Christian schools need to establish core questions which will be central to the school’s mission … not for marketing reasons, but to guide decisions. Defining the standards and framework will require input from a broad representation of the thought-leaders in the school. If it’s a framework that only the administration determines and owns, it will likely fail.

Within the discussions which move toward shaping this framework, the school needs to develop the vocabulary of the school. Most schools use “worldview” in their language quite often. What does it mean in your school? How many different definitions would you get were you to poll teachers? Parents? Students?

“Worldview” isn’t the only term which gets thrown around a lot without a common understanding of its meaning. I once had a friend talk about schools needing to establish the “elevator conversations” all members of the school should memorize. He was speaking from a marketing standpoint. But, he understood that the greatest P.R. for a school is the way the members of the school speak about it. To get there, he realized there had to be a script which could be easily reproduced. In the same way, schools need to understand the importance of having everyone on the same page about commonly-used concepts like the goal of education, how we define success and excellence, what we mean by learning, and what we mean by the gospel and the distinctives of Christian schooling.

Maybe a good starting point requires a conversation about all of the key words and phrases used repeatedly throughout the school and asking whether or not the school has a definition for those. Get in front of a white board with a leadership team or thought leaders in your school and list all of those core themes in your school. Figure out some definitions you can agree on, and then be brave enough to do a bit of a self-autopsy and consider what difference the gospel makes in those definitions. Maybe there needs to be a list of both actual and aspirational terms and phrases. 

Eventually, the goal has to be to establish working definitions for all of the terms which are necessary values of the school ecosystem and then establish a way of organizing them into a structure that’s teachable, digestible, and capable of being revisited.

2. Define who the champion(s) of the framework will be

If the Board, Head of School, or another senior administrator is the primary driver of the program, there will always be a bit of a disconnect – as the faculty, students, and families perceive it. I would highly suggest a faculty leader (or an administrator who still has a foot in the classroom and is not seen as a supervisor) who is the primary champion … or part of the team which is collectively championing the curriculum and program.

This champion needs to be able to speak the vernacular of the faculty and students by staying close enough to the classroom that she can stay on top of current strategies. She also needs to be someone the faculty can go to for help without feeling their job is on the line for feeling inadequate in the area of Christian worldview. 

At the same time, if the only driver of the program is a faculty member who has the energy and passion to make it happen, she will become frustrated with trying to encourage participation from her peers. The program will only be sustainable if the Head of School (and even the Board) drives a stake in the ground and mandates the furthering of the work the “champion” is doing. This person needs to feel empowered to ask the questions and take on initiatives which will create dissonance along the way. And, the rest of the school community needs to be able to recognize the role this leader has. In short, this champion needs to have some administrator-backed authority. 

Eventually, this champion needs to be given space to further this role. She’ll need to have the time and mental bandwidth to consider what the program needs to look like, diagnose gaps, build curriculum, study, and consider the best way to help her peers grow. Such a role will also move toward needing time to meet with teachers as a coach and mentor and even get into classrooms – not for evaluative purposes, but as a resource. Remember, there’s no mission without margin. So, if this champion doesn’t have the space to work on this, you won’t really see your plan furthered. 

3. Establish a plan for teaching the framework to members of the school community.

What does the plan look like? What's required? What is optional? What is non-negotiable? Is it going to go to the depth of something like ECS' course? Will it have the mechanism for teaching new faculty that Westminster Christian Academy in St. Louis has? Or is it just going to be a general session where things are defined and then revisited multiple times in the roll-out year so everyone is on the same page?

Starting from scratch, there must be a patient roll-out plan. I’ve never seen a model where a school succeeded by putting a heavy program on faculty all in the first year. The two models I’ve seen work best are: giving a grace period of a few years in which the current faculty have options of when to take the course(s) or divide up the framework into bite-sized pieces and teach to the entire staff in spread out sessions over a couple of years.

Ultimately, the goal should be to have a curriculum which only needs to be taught to new teachers and staff after all current employees have been brought up to speed, everyone is on the same page. Then, create a plan to ensure that all newcomers are properly assimilated into the way of the school.

While it could be appropriate to give a little bit of introduction during new teacher orientation, I would not recommend cramming the entire curriculum into one or two sessions at the beginning of the school year. Typically, they have a greater need to know all of the day-to-day uniquenesses to the school. I wouldn’t ask them to add something so important when their capacity is likely maxed out by merely thinking about all of the things needed before the first day of class.

The two most successful models I’ve seen are a summer intensive that’s required after their first year of employment or a weekly requirement for all new employees to meet together before or after school regularly during that first year.  Either way, it’s something additional asked of new employees, but if explained at the point of hire, it ends up just being “something we do” at the school. Plus, it’s essential to get this information covered early, because the other faculty and staff are already using it, and it’s unreasonable to expect new employees to pick up on it.

In these sessions, it’s important to use multiple members of the school community to teach or facilitate the curriculum. New employees need to hear from multiple angles what these terms and questions mean. Even though a new teacher might teach only in the humanities, it’s good for her to hear how these concepts affect the way science is taught or how the school approaches athletics.

A similar model could be used for Board members, where maybe there is an appropriately abbreviated version of the curriculum which is taught as part of a new Board member training.

School leaders also need to realize the cost which comes along with this commitment. For example, there’s a sacrifice to having a newly-hired Athletic Director in a week-long session during the summer or a meeting every Tuesday after school; but it’s worth-while. Also, the people who are doing the bulk of the teaching need to be given either space in their teaching load so they can properly teach and build the curriculum, or there needs to be compensation for the extra time they put in. 

 4. Establish a plan for how the curriculum/framework will be used in the school.

 In some schools, this could be the first step. Because, in many ways, it’s the “end” the school is seeking. Helping teachers and staff formulate a proper understanding of Christian education and having a consistent language across all levels of the school is still only a means to an end. Though, because it’s a little easier for a school to digest the practice of establishing a common vocabulary, sometimes the process doesn’t get as bogged down as it would if the conversation starts with the ends in mind.

Building a common vocabulary which helps get everyone on the same page and enhances understanding about the philosophy of the Christian school is a huge step forward. Yet, it’s not enough. Unless the curriculum fits within a program which utilizes it, the school’s worldview development course will still be an added-on.

It was clear we had started to make some headway in our attempts at building a program in Memphis when we decided to do a series of professional development sessions to go to the next level. We spent a semester’s worth of sessions talking about a truly Christian approach toward student assessment and how the gospel affects our practice. Because we had brought our community to the same place of working definitions for critical concepts for the series (e.g. seeing education redemptively and the implications of the image of God), we were able to go much deeper. There always has to be a dynamic goal when seeking to establish a common vocabulary. We don’t want to have everyone on the same page just so everyone has static awareness, even though this would be far better than where many of us are.

The purpose of a foundation is to build something upon it. There are all sorts of questions a school needs to consider as part of the process. What is the desired impact you want to see regarding students, and how will it be measured? How will you ensure that this course is part of an ongoing conversation? How will it be communicated to parents?  

Some schools will use a curriculum like this to be the foundation for philosophy papers or projects where teachers implement some of the ideas they gained from the conversations which come out of the program. Other schools use it to shape mission statements for academic departments or frame pillars of an athletic department philosophy. While all of these are demonstrations of growth, they are still means to an end.

The painful reality of building a development program like this is that the “end” is never attainable … as though a school can say it succeeded and arrived. It has to be an ongoing process, where a school is looking to use these different initiatives to bring the whole community to see the gospel present in everything that the school is doing. As I said; it won’t ever happen. 

5. Decide on a way of determining whether or not the program is working

While I’d be very concerned about the school which declared it had “arrived,” a school should be able to expect to measure growth. If there wasn’t any hope for improvement, why would we bother?

Comparing exit interviews with graduating seniors over the years would be pretty revealing. Do students notice any changes in the faculty? Can students articulate a clearer understanding of their experiences upon matriculation?

A school could benefit from a well-done survey where students provide feedback on the teacher’s performance. I was so thankful that one of my supervisors allowed me to develop my own surveys. Of course, he wanted to see certain items included in mine, but I had the freedom to ask questions which would help me figure out if I was accomplishing my own goals. There are many “faith formation” or “spiritual health” surveys for students and schools out there. I’d recommend using one that allows you to see where you school is prior to starting your program and then re-survey after your program is up and running to see if you’re noticing any improvements or gaps which need to be explored at greater depth.  

What do you want your program to accomplish? Start there. Determine all of the groups which could help you figure out if it’s seen. Remember, just because you’ve spent time talking about a topic doesn’t mean you’ve accomplished anything - other than spent time on a topic.

Be willing to be results oriented, and accept what the results tell you. When I was building a student leadership program, we made major changes to the program every year over an eight year period because we would assess how it’s going, scrap things, and try something else. We knew what we were after, and would evaluate our program based on that. 

At base level, your program needs to get everyone on the same page and it needs to be able to ensure ongoing conversation and growth. You may want it to drive a strategic plan; you may want it to cause curricular changes in Bible or other departments; you may want to become a resource for other schools. 

Simply, know where you want to go with the program, and be willing to accept what the results tell you. There’s a lot of reason to be hopeful about where you can go with this. Along the way, you’ll likely step on some landmines; you’ll probably realize that some of it didn’t go over nearly like you hoped. You might blow it. All I can say is … those are all reasons why Jesus came. And, we all need Him too. Even for this.