MK Schools—Start-ups, Adjusting & Closing, A Response to Bob Pittman’s paper
Barry McKessar, OMF
Rapidly changing mission strategies have produced an increasingly fluid state in mission demographics as mission organizations respond to emerging and changing opportunities. MK schools and mission administrators therefore need to think carefully about when to start schools, when to adapt or restructure and when to close them. Bob Pittman presented for IMKEC (the Intermission MK Education Consultation) a comprehensive outline of the issues that need to be considered and worked through if decisions are to be made that best meet the educational needs of missionary families. Bob’s paper is a working document that presents an excellent and detailed list of steps to be taken by schools and mission organizations when considering change in schooling options. That document is available upon request from ACSI at anne_jones@acsi.org>. By taking a deliberate and consultative approach, Bob suggests families, schools and mission administrators will be able to live confidently with decisions that will result in good schooling provisions.
For many years MK schools have been the flagships of mission organizations, providing tangible evidence of a mission’s commitment to quality education and the care of their families and MKs. Mission groups were justifiably proud of the educational standards in their schools that equaled, and often surpassed, equivalent schools in the home country. Through most of the post-war twentieth century, these MK schools have been clearly defined entities that could reasonably expect a manageable level of stability in student numbers, staffing, curriculum, and institutional identity. Much of that has changed. Bob Pittman has signaled this in two themes that run through his paper and recur in the many details he lists for consideration, namely, issues of control, and the multiple factors impacting the identity and ministry focus of the MK school.
MK schools exist to serve the mission community. Bob rightly emphasizes the role of the school in enabling the sponsoring mission organization/s to achieve their mission objectives in the region the school is located. Mission organizations understandably feel they have a stake to protect in these schools whether they’re in the process of starting a new school or evaluating an existing program with the view to restructuring or possibly closing. Past and present staff, a student alumni and mission leaders provide established schools with a strong heritage. These people may feel the continuation of the school is a critical support for ongoing mission strategy. The reasons for this may be rather mixed. For some, the school is a symbol of stability in the field as it provides the mission with visible presence in the region. That can be valuable for PR both in the missions community and amongst the supporting constituency. Also, missions may want to see a new school established to enhance mission strategy and replicate successful models leaders knew when they were younger missionaries, or even MKs themselves. MK schools are frequently an expression of mission ideology of the supporting mission organizations. This can be a tremendous support for school personnel giving the school a strong identity; but it can also present inappropriate agendas in the control and direction of the school.
Who does the school belong to? Who has educational, legal, and administrative ownership and control of the school? In practice, who is the driving force in shaping opinion regarding the starting, restructuring or closing of the school? Bob Pittman has been involved in MK education MK Schools long enough to know that any steps taken to initiate, adjust or close educational provisions must be taken in the knowledge that players in the process come to the discussion with their own assumptions and expectations. The need to listen, consult widely, and clearly identify who is making what decisions, is therefore of utmost importance to prevent the process from being hijacked by vested interests. There is a need to act decisively when confronted with complex and often difficult educational needs that impact morale in both the school and missionary community. However, this must be balanced with an unhurried, comprehensive consultation process that involves all interested parties.
MK schools have traditionally served homogeneous mission communities with most of the students being of the same nationality and coming from families serving in the same mission organization. Running schools for such mission communities was relatively straightforward. We no longer have this luxury. Change has crept into the mission community in incremental yet persistent steps over the past two decades. Today we can scarcely recognize the landscape. Even the concept of an “MK school” is losing currency in a day and age when MKs may attend an MK school with national students from the local community, MKs from other missions and countries, and business kids. Alternatively they may be attending an international school that has a Christian superintendent and a significant proportion of students whose parents are in the country working as Christian professionals. It becomes difficult to know what constitutes an MK school when the characteristics are increasingly diverse and relative. As institutional loyalty declines, who will deliver education to Christian workers who stampede into fields and countries that were previously off-limits to the missionary community? Does an MK school need to be well funded with a broad cross-section of nationalities and students from the business community to serve its constituency best? Does it also need to support distance learning and home schoolers? Should a multi-mission board govern the school with representation from local government and ex-pat business interests?
Faced with increasing educational expectations in this new educational environment, mission organizations are beginning to divest themselves of schools in rural locations and establish or join multi-mission run schools in urban settings. This can result in bigger schools, more sophisticated urban programs, more expense and, perhaps, less boarding. It also provides a more professional school environment that can respond positively to rising standards of education, including high-tech learning environments, and deliver special needs programs. In this emerging environment a school can reconstitute itself through consultative decision or organizational evolution to become an international school. This permits a school to present a more acceptable image in countries where host governments may be intolerant of what appears to be an exclusive ex-pat school run for the mission community.
New mission strategies result in workers being placed in new locations. Providing schooling for the families in these locations calls for us to take a creative look at the possibilities. We can no longer simply replicate the tried and tested model of MK schooling. New initiatives are likely to be a cooperative effort, not just of the doctrinally diverse, but also of diverse educational needs in a multinational missions community. Business and national communities may well be key players in any workable plan. At the same time it is unlikely that any existing MK school is immune from the healthy storms of educational diversification. While it is unwise to take the defensive position when faced with change, it is equally unwise to invest finance and personnel in exciting but poorly considered new schooling options. Bob Pittman’s guidelines need to be affirmed and debated in a diverse consultation process as we work through the factors and issues to bring about a successful response to change.
The Changing World of MK Schools Q1 2000