Developing Culturally Sensitive Curriculum for International Christian Schools
Dale Linton, Adjunct Professor of Education, Philadelphia Biblical University
In the last century the necessity of creating missionary schools abroad spawned a new era of providing educational services for missionary organizations. As more and more missionaries responded to the call to serve in overseas countries, so did the necessity of providing educational options for their children. In the beginning of the great missionary movement that spanned the closing years of the eighteenth century and well into the twentieth century, missionary parents had few options when it came to educating their children. Some were able to provide limited education to their children through home-styled schooling. Others benefited when the colonial governments established schools for the growing families of their government workers and settlers. Yet many were left with little recourse than to send their children to live with relatives or in specified missionary children homes back in their home country to complete their education.
As the missionary force expanded after World War II, changes in attitudes toward missionary provisions for education occurred. The mission school, or at the very least the provision for educational opportunities by the mission organization, became the expected norm. As a result, missionary organizations strategically planned and built schools, or partnered with other mission-sponsored schools to better accommodate the educational needs of their missionary families. Today, multitudes of these schools operate on every continent, providing educational opportunities to the children of missionaries. However, there is a growing recognition that a new change is coming to these schools. A new wave of missionaries from nontraditional missionary-sending countries is forcing many schools to rethink their curriculum offerings and orientation. Many are being asked to change their curriculum to better suit the needs of these new missionary kids from newly sending countries.
The purpose of this article is to outline the curriculum patterns adopted by these schools in the past, the difficulties those curriculum models have presented to various international populations, and practical methods for addressing the internationalization of curriculum in these schools.
Twenty years ago, few missionary organizations would have seriously discussed the aspect of internationalizing the curriculum of their missionary schools. For the most part, their schools were established by necessity because of large numbers of missionaries from particular countries, namely, the United States, Canada, or Great Britain. As a result, the curriculum they adopted, as well as the materials of instruction and the teaching methodologies employed, distinctly reflected the educational practices of the nation from which the school was founded. Students of other nationalities attending the school had little recourse but to adjust their learning to the curricular expectations of the school. Although this was not ideal and presented difficulties to other nations’ students, little was done to accommodate their learning needs. In fact, it is not uncommon today to identify international Christian schools that have multinational student bodies and that state openly their purpose of offering only a certain type of national curriculum within their school. Many international Christian schools limit their curriculum to that of one particular country without giving much thought to delivering their education in any other way. However, this limited curriculum adoption by international Christian schools has generated a growing debate within the international missionary education community.
The development of creating culturally sensitive curriculum, once dismissed as impossible to develop by many missionary educators, has become a primary topic of discussion in recent years (Cochrane 2000; Wilcox 2001/2002). To understand why this issue has suddenly become important, one must understand the limitations of the current systems of education to meet the growing educational challenges of the international mission community. Dick Derksen (2001/2002), writing for ACSI’s World Report, outlines the difficulties faced by European missionary children attempting to enter a European university after having attended a non-European–based missionary school. These missionary children, like those from Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, have found that it is far easier to have their higher educational needs met by attending college in the country from which the missionary school they attended adopted its curriculum than by returning to their home country for higher education studies, which is often impossible after graduating from an international Christian school such as a missionary school. If students seriously wish to attend university in their home country, they are often required to leave the international Christian school and to return to their home country and enroll in the local educational system well before they would have graduated from the missionary school. Some countries require students to take an additional year, or years, of studies after graduating from an international Christian school to be eligible for entry into a university in their home country.
The many national and cultural differences and the expectations of the educational criteria set by the individual countries from which their students come make it difficult for international Christian schools to make their curriculum more culturally sensitive. For instance, because Australia and New Zealand are located in the Southern Hemisphere, their schools operate on an entirely different school calendar than North American and European schools. Therefore, students from these countries attending an international school in Africa that favors an American curriculum and school calendar can never attend school during the same time period as their peers back home. When the time comes for their parents to return to their home for purposes of reporting to local churches and/or fund-raising, the children are naturally out of sync with the local school system. For many of these students, they have no recourse but to enter a grade level behind their peers. To offset this unnatural balance, some parents withhold the child from entering school until the next school year begins. But this only benefits the child whose family remains in the home country for an extended period of time. If the parents return to the country where they serve, their children face a similar transitional difficulty into the international Christian school because of reverse calendar adjustments.
A new wave of missionaries from nontraditional missionary-sending countries is forcing many schools to rethink their curriculum offerings and orientation.
Similarly, the course offerings of North American-style curriculum schools do not benefit the educational needs of European students. “Significant curriculum differences exist between the American and European systems, and these differences are part of the reason admission to European university is problematic” (Derksen 2001/2002, 4). In Great Britain, students are expected to pass levels of exams in order to progress with their education. The British General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) and its international equivalent (IGCSE) exams are administered in what is considered the end of the tenth grade in the American educational system. Students doing well on these tests are then promoted to upper achievement courses identified as Advanced Levels (A Levels) or the International Baccalaureate (IB) system. Successfully completing these exams permits the student to enter into university studies. Students who do not pass the IGCSE, A Levels, or IB’s are typically tracked into technological and/or service industry training. Although there has been some loosening of this structure within the British system, the basic premise for advancement into university remains the same. Continental European students find a Canadian or American system of education lacking essential courses and examinations that would allow them to enter into their home country’s universities as well. Courses such as history, math, and foreign language rarely meet the requirements of their home country’s educational system (2001/2002).
The newest missionary-sending group that presents the greatest challenge for international school education comes from nontraditional missionary-sending countries of which the Korean missionary population is most significant. Over the past several decades the non-Western missionary-sending force has grown exponentially (Johnstone 1998). However, many Korean parents answering the call to serve in missions also know the difficulty this will present to their children. First is the need for the children to learn the instructional language of the international Christian school, usually English. Second is the loss of both a cultural awareness of their home country and a growing understanding of their country’s language. It is not uncommon for Korean parents returning to their home country to be severely chastised because their children are unable to practice culturally sensitive and revered traditions (Pollock 1998). Simple traditions such as properly greeting either a peer who is slightly older than the student or various family members of differing age status is complicated by the number of traditional proper greeting forms within the language. For this reason, some Korean missionaries serving in regional localities have banded together to form “Korean Schools,” informal settings where Korean students study the Korean language and culture. These schools are often held after the regular school day or during holiday breaks from the international Christian school they attend. Even with these additional “schools,” the students of Korean missionaries typically are not adequately prepared to attend university in their home country. This is due in part because Korean students attending English-speaking international Christian schools over a period of years lose their grasp of the complex nature of the Korean language and until recently, all university studies in Korea were conducted exclusively in the national language (Kim 2001).
Yet, despite such glaring difficulties and differences within the curriculum of international Christian schools, many within the missionary education community are examining what international Christian schools can do to intentionally create culturally sensitive curriculum. One of these leaders is Richard Edlin, former director of Carachipampa Christian School in Bolivia and author of The Cause of Christian Education. In this book, Edlin writes, “In an attempt to reduce missionary attrition, missionary schools have been encouraged to become more culturally sensitive. In particular, they have been encouraged to develop a higher degree of responsiveness to MK [missionary kid] schools’ minority cultures” (1999, 206). Dr. Betty Englehardt, lifelong missionary school educator and researcher of international curriculum models, believes that the ideal of preparing students with an education that would allow them to return to their home country’s educational system at or above their peers’ grade level is impossible. However, she writes: “There are a number of ways that integration of each of the cultures [within the school or classroom] can be accomplished.” (Englehardt 2001/2002).
Schools can also foster a sense of cultural sensitivity by recognizing and respecting international pedagogical and learning differences.
It is the belief of this educator that more international Christian schools will begin investigating and refining their curriculum to reflect principles of internationalization within their curriculum, due in part to the growing call and need for globalizing education, but mostly as a direct result of the expanding demographics of their student populations.
Traditionally, missionary schools have based their curriculum on one or two of the dominant nationalities represented in their school’s student body. With a growing trend of more non-North American/Western missionary children entering into the missionary schools, coupled with a reduction of the missionary-sending force from traditionally Western nations, internationalization of the curriculum will become a necessity. Yet, for a mission school to create a universally accepted curriculum that would prepare students to return to their home country fully prepared to enter into a national classroom or university at the same level of learning as their peers is a daunting and improbable task. For missionary schools, the task is almost impossible given the lack of resources and staff limitations they repeatedly face year after year.
However, there are practical means schools can employ to implement international aspects within their curriculum that will be advantageous for all their students. First, mission schools need to be honest about what they can and cannot offer their students in the way of nationally recognized curriculums. Few, if any, mission schools are capable of offering multiple national curriculum tracts. However, according to Betty Engelhardt (2001/2002, 13), “MKs from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and those from most European countries are a bit easier to accommodate” when working with a U.S. curriculum. Engelhardt notes that provincial differences which exist between Canadian and U.S. curriculums must be adjusted for and that Australian students can also fare well if the school keeps pace with changing curriculums in Australia. Such adjustments require someone at the mission school to stay abreast of these changes and to relay them in practical teaching manners to the teaching staff. Likewise, schools can employ British teaching methodologies and curriculum integration to accommodate the learning needs of their United Kingdom students.
Another way that schools can deliberately move toward internationalizing their curriculum is to think internationally. For years I have advocated for schools to celebrate the international makeup of their student body as a means of heightening awareness of the staff and student body to the international diversity present in the school (Linton 2001). Displaying the national flags representing members of the student body and faculty, recognizing various national holidays, allowing students to sing their national anthems, encouraging students to wear traditional dress, and serving food not only celebrates cultural diversity but assists in creating cultural sensitivity and awareness throughout the school.
Schools can also foster a sense of cultural sensitivity by recognizing and respecting international pedagogical and learning differences. Teachers typically deliver their instruction in two ways: (1) according to how they were taught, and (2) employing instructional methodologies that reflect their personal learning style. Neither way is wrong, but they are also not the most effective means for delivering instruction to a multinational student body. Culturally diverse students require a variety of learning experiences to maximize their learning, and effective culturally proficient teachers know how to vary their instruction accordingly.
A starting point for a school desiring to deliberately approach the task of internationalizing its curriculum is to recognize that pedagogical methodologies and educational jargon differ around the world. Sensitizing teaching staff to these differences can be enlightening and useful. A school always benefits when all staff are committed in unity as well as to the purposes and goals of the school. Learning to understand and respect educational differences can help create that commitment. Furthermore, all teachers should learn to reflect on how they can become more sensitive and knowledgeable in delivering instruction to maximize learning for all students in their classrooms. Teaching to the various learning needs of the culturally diverse students within their classrooms is imperative.
In recent years several good resources have been published to assist teachers in this area. Christine Bennett (2003), noted advocate of multicultural education, provides valuable insights pertaining to learning styles and cultural differences in her book Comprehensive Multicultural Education. Likewise, the authors of Culturally Proficient Instruction (Robins et al. 2002) present numerous activities to help teachers become more reflective and effective in how they deliver instruction to culturally diverse individuals and groups. Other such information can be obtained through web-based educational clearinghouses and search engines.
Knowing how to teach to culturally diverse student populations is important if we are going to accomplish our goals of providing quality care and education for all our students. Richard Edlin (2001, 19), citing Nelson and Brown's 1994 manuscript from Georgia State University, writes: “Studies indicate that when the culture of the school is different from the culture of the learner, students experience less satisfaction in school, tend to learn less, and often fail. In contrast, when teachers adjust their teaching to the cultures of the learners, student satisfaction and learning increases.” Effective international Christian school teachers need to learn how to teach across the international diversity within their classrooms. They need to be aware of their own cultural perceptions regarding other cultures and instructional methodologies. They also need to deliberately integrate proven instructional strategies that reach across the spectrum of the student learning needs within their classrooms. By incorporating these actions, teachers not only increase the probability for meaningful learning for all the students, they also help to reduce the anxiety and confusion minority culture students often experience in their schools.
Another way that schools can seek to become intentionally international is to find ways to purposely integrate international principles into the classroom. Selecting textbooks that are relevant to the section of the world where the school is located is helpful. However, since many textbooks in our schools originate from publishers outside the school’s locale, it is important to select texts that contain as little bias as possible from the publishing country. Allowing British Commonwealth students to use appropriate British-style spelling is another way of providing a culturally sensitive classroom. Pursuing a social studies curriculum that provides learning about the geography, history, and culture of the various nationalities represented in the school has become easier with minor curriculum modifications to Prentice Learning’s Core Knowledge Geography and History. Richard Edlin (2001) proposes the incorporation of thematic units as a means of creating meaningful learning for multinational students in a classroom. Approaches such as these not only make learning meaningful for the individual students, but they also broaden the exposure of learning for all students. Similarly, lessons can be adapted in the science classroom where a study of mammals would result in students learning about a multitude of animals including those indigenous to their home countries. Language arts can readily incorporate poetry and writings representative of the student population of the school. As one can see, creating culturally relevant learning opportunities can be done in most, if not all, subject areas. It is only a matter of creativity and determination on the part of the teacher to make it happen.
Lastly, schools can deliberately blend multinational curriculum models to provide the best maximum benefit for the international makeup of their student body. Murree Christian School in Pakistan adopted a two-track curriculum to meet the needs of its secondary students. The Cambridge International Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) and the Scottish Certificate of Educations (SCE) at the Higher Level was adopted for students in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, and the European Economic Community. The school discovered that the examinations from this curriculum blend was accepted by universities in the above-stated countries and thus made a perfect fit for a number of their students. For the American and Canadian students, a modified North American curriculum was adopted, which assisted these students to attend North American universities and colleges.
Another possible model curriculum for schools to adopt would be a combination United Kingdom/North American curriculum. One New Tribes Mission school offers the following types of curriculum:
- Grades K–6 use American curriculum supplemented with British worksheets.
- Grades 7–8 use American curriculum for most subjects but British curriculum for math and science.
- Grades 9–10 use the British IGCSE program.
- Grades 11–12 may use either the American (AP) advance placement or British (A Levels) courses, which are now available through correspondence. (Engelhardt 2001/2002)
Another option would be for schools to consider a “school within a school model.” Although this model would be difficult to create, the benefits to a number of nationalities would be favorable with the general school population. In this model, mission agencies would commit to providing multiple schooling opportunities for their students. The addition of one or two English-speaking Korean educators would help bridge the studies and cultural adaptation for Korean students attending the school. Furthermore, specific Korean course work or additional work could be added to the existing curriculum to assist these students. Having an Australian or New Zealand teacher on the staff and running a separate track for students from Australia or New Zealand would help to alleviate the calendar discrepancies these students experience when returning to their home country. Adopting blended curriculums is also a choice for schools to pursue. By blending aspects of the curriculum from the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States in the elementary and middle grades, offering the IGCSE for grades 9 and 10, and offering a split of the United Kingdom’s A Levels and the United States’ advance placement courses for grades 11 and 12 would benefit multinational students attending the school.
There are many ways that international Christian schools can intentionally make their schools culturally sensitive to the international makeup of their student bodies. By deliberately choosing to seek ways to meet the learning needs of international students in missionary schools, all students benefit in an expanded learning process. Although there are various levels of involvement that can be chosen by each school seeking to be intentionally international in its scope of instruction, the global demands of education will no doubt force schools to create cultural sensitivity that is both necessary and desired in our schools.
References
Bennett, Christine. 2003. Comprehensive multicultural education:Theory and practice. Boston, MA (US): Allyn and Bacon.
Cochrane, Paul. 2000. Working together as mission agencies for MK education in the twenty-first century. Paper presented at the Inter-mission MK Education Consultation, Colorado Springs, CO, (August 18–21).
Derksen, Dick. 2001/2002. Broadening vision and curriculum: Why do our kids have problems entering European universities? World Report (Winter): 3–5.
Edlin, Richard. 1999. The cause of Christian education. Blacktown, Australia: National Institute for Christian Education.
———. 2001. The culture and learning style connection. Paper presented at the SIM MK Education Consultation, Herford, England, (March 31–April 6).
Englehardt, Betty S. 2001/2002. Some thoughts concerning internationalization of curriculum. World Report (Winter): 13–14.
Johnstone, Patrick. 1998. The church is bigger than you think. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications and WEC.
Kim, Shin Ja. 2001. Asian MKs. Paper presented at the SIM MK Education Consultation, Herford, England, (March 31–April 6).
Linton, Dale. 2001. Adapting curriculum to international student populations. Paper presented at the SIM MK Education Consultation, Herford, England, (March31–April 6).
Pollock, David. 1998. Korean missionary kids. Presentation given to the faculty of Rift Valley Academy, Kijabe, Kenya (March).
Robins, Kikanza Nuri et al. 2002. Culturally Proficient Instruction: A Guide for People Who Teach. Thousand Oaks, CA (US): Corwin Press.
Wilcox, David. 2001/2002. Missions working together: Challenging themselves and international schools to change for better education and care. World Report (Winter): 15.
Intentionally International Q3 and Q4 2003