ACSI Research Fellow Program

The first two installments of the Bible Program Survey blog series provided an overview of key findings and a closer look at the strengths and challenges shaping Bible programs across ACSI member Christian schools. Those insights reflect both the strong commitment schools demonstrate toward holistic integration and the deep complexity of implementation involved when administering and operationalizing a Bible Program. This third reflection shifts the focus from what schools do, what their programs entail, and how ACSI member schools self-rate their programs’ effectiveness to perhaps a deeper question: How are ACSI member schools’ Bible programs designed?  

This third blog installment of the 2025 Bible Program Survey series identifies two Bible program design features that emerged clearly in the survey data: 1) decision-making structures, and 2) intentional skill formation across grade levels. These aspects appear to individually and collectively shape whether a Bible program emerges as either a collection of somewhat disjointed biblically reinforced activities or a truly intentional and immersive student spiritual formation and biblical worldview roadmap. 

When schools begin to reflect on and evaluate their Bible programs, a primary consideration is their current curriculum. ACSI member schools have shared that curricular decisions do matter, as the quality of teaching materials reflects theological/doctrinal soundness, thematic sequence, and holistic structure. However, findings from the 2025 ACSI Bible Program Survey suggest a second question may be just as important: How is your Bible program designed? When we consider the ‘how’ behind the ‘what’, we’re considering who shapes the program and to what aim, how the program seeks alignment across grade levels, and how intentionally it seeks to spiritually support students in both faith formation and biblical knowledge and worldview development. 

Across survey responses, ACSI member schools described Bible programs that engage in far more than instructional content delivery. Many schools seek to build students’ capacity to read Scripture thoughtfully, interpret Bible passages contextually and responsibly, reliably posture students toward biblical application, and articulate their convictions with clarity. In short, administrators, heads of school, Bible department leaders, and curriculum directors intentionally seek both opportunities to make that spiritual formation and biblical worldview development intentional, aligned, and sustainable. Exploring both of the Bible program design features allows us to glean emerging best practices toward intentionality within this field of study. 

Decision-Making Structures: Who Makes Bible Program Decisions and Why That Matters 

Survey respondents described a range of decision-making approaches for Bible curriculum and program direction. In many schools, Bible teachers, Bible Program directors or spiritual formation directors, and administrators collaborate closely to arrive at program structural decisions. Other schools tend to rely on committees or councils that can often include teachers and leadership, while some schools operate primarily through curriculum directors or instructional specialists guiding the process. Some schools report that Bible department chairs typically provide oversight, or that decisions are made by a single leader such as the head of school, principal, or Bible director, while other schools allow teachers to operate more independently. A small number of schools also intentionally involve church or denominational leadership in decision-making processes. 

While some approaches are reported more frequently, each model must be considered in the context of the individual school in question. What may be the best approach for one school may not work well for another. Contextually, each approach reflects decisions in light of specific school governance structures and superstructures, inclusive of existing relationships with boards and affiliated churches, and most approaches consider staffing structures and denominational context. However, the Bible program model a school chooses to adopt often influences several key outcomes that are mentioned repeatedly in the survey, including vertical alignment across grades, instructional consistency, program resilience during staffing transitions, and clarity around outcomes and assessment. 

For example, collaborative models tend to foster strong ownership while balancing relational investment among key staff. By contrast, Bible/curriculum director involvement can strengthen instructional coherence and content delivery across classrooms. Chair-led approaches were reported to protect content integrity and continuity, while committee models were associated with school-level buy-in, but require clearly defined roles and responsibilities to function effectively. Individual leadership models can foster nimble and decisive clarity, but they may also introduce fragility if too much institutional knowledge is concentrated in one person and an increased risk of reactionary, rather than intentional, program administration and operationalization. 

The deeper issue is not necessarily which Bible program structure a school chooses to use, but whether that structure consistently produces alignment, shared language and understanding of roles and objectives, and horizontal, programmatic continuity across grade levels. Strong Bible programs seem to rarely depend on personality alone, but rather, among ACSI member school responses collected, they depend more on intentional design, which can vary depending upon institutional characteristics and existing governance norms and structures. 

Skill Formation: Horizontal Alignment of Bible Program Objectives Across Grade Levels 

A striking pattern across responses is that Bible classes frequently develop academic skills, sometimes intentionally and sometimes implicitly. Bible instruction is not simply theological formation; it can also serve as one of the primary learning environments where students may read deeply, think critically, write clearly, speak confidently, defend persuasively, and study independently. 

In the area of reading and comprehension, schools most frequently described teacher-led classroom Bible reading, independent reading assignments, memorization practices, discussion-based comprehension, and the use of interpretive tools and structured study methods. Many programs intentionally balance group reading with independent engagement, creating a rhythm of classroom practices that supports both individual and group discipleship and biblical literacy. Students are not merely hearing Scripture; they are learning how to engage it, discuss it, and defend it, as iron sharpens iron. Schools also emphasized age-appropriate progression, with early grades focusing on guided exposure and comprehension, and secondary levels emphasizing independence and interpretive maturity. 

Writing development showed a similar progression. Schools described a range of approaches, from personal reflection and journaling to short-answer responses, worksheet-based writing, and eventually analytical essays, research papers, and capstone projects. In many schools, Bible classes serve as a primary context for reflective writing in younger grades and theological or analytical writing in upper grades. When this progression is intentional, it builds both spiritual depth and intellectual clarity. 

Public speaking and articulation also emerged as important components of Bible programs. Students are often given opportunities to present in class, recite Scripture, participate in group discussions or debates, lead in chapel settings, and engage in apologetics-focused presentations. Some schools have begun to employ creative formats such as podcasts or multimedia presentations. These learning experiences may help students move from an individual understanding of biblical concepts to a public expression of their faith, while equipping maturing Christian students to employ apologetic arguments to articulate their faith with clarity and confidence. 

Critical thinking and passage study form another central dimension. The most common approach reported was discussion-based learning, particularly through Socratic dialogue. Schools also emphasized contextual analysis, including historical, literary, and cultural frameworks, alongside formal instruction in hermeneutics and exegesis. Many use structured methods such as Observe–Interpret–Apply, while others incorporate apologetics and worldview exploration. When these practices are developed progressively, students learn not only what Scripture says but also how to interpret it responsibly and apply it wisely. 

Where Design Gaps Appear 

Alongside these strengths, schools identified recurring challenges, including student engagement and motivation, difficulty moving from knowledge to heart transformation, curriculum gaps in middle and high school, inconsistent alignment across grades, teacher capacity, and challenges in measuring spiritual growth. Lack of standardization of practices at grade level extremes was a common theme where the very young and higher grade levels reportedly relied more heavily on instructor-created curriculum than publications or existing lesson plans.  

These issues are rarely the result of a lack of commitment. More often, they reflect gaps in design. When expectations are unclear, students may experience repetition in some grades and gaps in others. When shared definitions are absent, terms like interpretation or application can vary significantly from one classroom to another. When governance structures are informal, continuity can weaken during leadership or staffing transitions. 

Coherence does not require uniformity, but it does require clarity. 

Designing for Coherence: A Practical Blueprint 

For heads of school, teachers, and Bible or curriculum leaders seeking next steps, intentionally integrating a basic framework may help bring clarity and alignment. 

Based on the survey findings, first, clarifying an underlying governance structure should be prioritized. Schools from our survey benefited by intentionally appointing a curriculum decision-maker (whether an individual, group, or committee), clearly outlining how often those decisions are reviewed, and defining the roles all involved constituents in the process. Clear ownership is likely to strengthen sustainability and ensure continuity over time. 

Second, ACSI member schools should commit to defining Bible program student matriculation expectations and success outcomes. By defining the objectives and goals for Bible program graduates, the conversation transitions from an emphasis on materials and curriculum used by the school to a discussion of administration and operationalization in light of missional alignment. Instead of describing Bible programs primarily through the lens of publications or textbooks used, schools can arrive at consensus on the program objectives and goals, who is responsible for arriving at key decisions, and how the program is administered and operationalized in a uniform manner by grade level. Success features might descriptively include Scripture reading, biblical interpretation with attention to context and genre, contextually appropriate application of biblical truth, verbal and written faith proclamation, and confident apologetic defense. Clearly defined goals and outcomes help guide school leadership and Bible program content specialists through instructional content and delivery decisions. 

Third, defining and mapping Bible program skill progression across grade levels can unify curricular and content delivery decisions with intentionality. Bible reading habits, interpretation skills, writing development, speaking opportunities, and application through service can all be structured to grow in complexity from elementary through high school. Defining and scaling this progression strengthens alignment and reduces gaps. Some important and lingering questions remain regarding the intersection of grade-level progress versus student- and others-reported faith progression, where students of the same age and grade may be at distinctly different levels of spiritual formation and biblical worldview cultivation, and these aspects must be treated holistically. The scope of this blog cannot begin to address those components, but we may devote a follow-up blog to addressing healthy benchmarking of student faith formation and biblical worldview development, noting that disparities will exist. 

Finally, adding meaningful growth markers helps leaders steward programs wisely without reducing spiritual formation to simple metrics. Schools may incorporate shared rubrics for passage analysis, writing prompts that demonstrate interpretive clarity, capstone projects, apologetics presentations, service reflections, or teacher observations tied to defined outcomes. The goal is not measurement for its own sake, but thoughtful stewardship of student growth. 

Recalling School Strengths  

Encouragingly, the data from the ACSI 2025 Bible Program Survey does highlight some common strengths noted across Christian schools. Respondents consistently pointed to deeply committed Bible teachers, strong emphasis on biblical literacy, intentional worldview formation, comprehensive curricula, and a clear focus on life application. Many programs integrate service and discipleship, emphasize apologetics and critical thinking, and cultivate strong relational mentorship between teachers and students. 

These strengths form a powerful foundation. For many schools, the next step is not reinvention, but intentional integration. 

From Curriculum and Activities to a More Comprehensive Bible Program Architecture 

Bible programs often include chapel, memory verses, service projects, discussion, writing, apologetics, and contextual study. Each of these elements is valuable. However, without intentional design, they can function as individual-but-parallel efforts rather than a unified program strategy and architecture. 

When governance is clear, outcomes are defined, skills are scaffolded, alignment is intentional, and Bible programs begin to be viewed as intentionally defined, unified operations. They become coherent across grade levels, sustainable through leadership transitions, clear in purpose, and strong in both spiritual formation and academic development. 

Most importantly, they position students not only to know Scripture, but to read it, understand it, apply it, defend it, and live it. 

Final Thoughts 

If you could improve just one dimension of your Bible program this year, consider this question: Is your school’s current architecture cohesive and intentional? 

Curriculum certainly matters, but Bible programs are not successfully defined by curriculum. Passionate teachers unquestionably matter, but the efficacy of the Bible program cannot depend entirely on the individual conveying the message. Chapel and service do matter, but a unified program must look beyond merely the frequency of these practices to the efficacy while reflecting on true heart change. The architectural framework, structures, and sequencing that hold these elements together often determine whether a Bible program produces short-term engagement or long-term spiritual formation and biblical worldview outcomes in students and program graduates. 

The survey findings support the idea that Christian schools are deeply committed to forming students in faith. However, with thoughtful alignment and intentional design of Bible programs, that commitment can translate into even greater coherence, clarity, and impact from early education through program matriculation, benefiting students, the school ecosystem, and the surrounding community.