1. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

The Regents Task Force has met throughout the summer and fall of 2000, and is composed of parents, teachers, a board member and several members of the administration. We have attempted to address, conscientiously and prayerfully, the issue of the continued involvement of Faith Heritage School with the New York State Regents Program. In the course of our discussion and research several factors became apparent. First, the school initially decided to participate in the Regents program in good faith, and for the right reasons; to establish a standardized method of evaluating our students’ progress, and to ensure adherence to an academically rigorous curriculum. Second, we concluded that, while for a time these purposes were quite well served, circumstances have changed as we enter the 21st Century, for various reasons: FHS has made demonstrable progress in establishing a sound educational reputation since its organization, and there have been gradual but critical changes in the Regents program which necessitate reconsideration of our relationship with it. We framed our investigation around the issues listed above. Throughout the process, the task force has been committed to seeking God’s will for our school, establishing a Biblical basis for our conclusions, maintaining or improving academic standards, and doing what is best suited to fulfill our FHS mission. In the course of our analysis, we have solicited extensive input from the faculty and made inquiries of Christian and non-Christian high schools and colleges both in and out of New York State. We conclude with our proposal, and trust you will find the following discussion informative as you consider this serious matter.

2. A BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TASK FORCE

In our opinion there is no sound Biblical basis for FHS to continue participation in the current NYS Regents program. Quite to the contrary, we conclude there is an overwhelming Biblical basis for removing ourselves from the NYS Regents program. That being said, before laying out the reasons for this conclusion, the task force also believes that there are strong and compelling reasons for developing our own academic program at FHS in lieu of the Regents program. We laud a board and administration that has, from the beginning to the present, had a vision for giving families a wonderful opportunity to educate their children within a uniquely Christian context. We do recognize, with appreciation, that in the past FHS has educated many students using the Regents model, who have benefited greatly from the school’s efforts to integrate all learning with a Biblical worldview. We understand that it would be much easier to stay where we are, than to initiate this paradigm shift; such a shift would not be painless. But we are both sobered and excited by the wonderful Christian educational opportunities such a change might afford our school.

In considering this issue, several general principles about Christian education (or “leading out”), learning, and teaching, may be laid out which under gird the FHS mission. First, all Truth is God’s Truth. The Author of Truth teaches His sovereignty over His creation and His creatures; that which is to be studied, and those who are to study it. Second, learning about our world is a wonderful way to know the Creator who made it. Third, there is no “secular” set of truths as opposed to “Christian” truths. If something is true, it is of God and from God and designed to bring glory to God. Fourth, those who take upon themselves the responsibility of teaching God’s Truth as it relates to God’s creation are aware that “we shall incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). In other words, Christian educators must be held to a higher standard.

The Bible lays out some critical guidelines for teachers of the Word that may also be applied to all learning and teaching about the creation and its Creator. Romans 12:4-8 tells us teaching is a gift given by God to some members of the body (Church). Ephesians 4:11-14 also asserts teachers are appointed by God, to serve the purpose of “equipping the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” But in both Romans and Ephesians Paul delineates the goals of teaching: so that those who learn will “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2). Paul also says “as a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the treachery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming . . .we are to grow up in all aspects into Him . . . .” (Ephesians 4:14).

A final principle is that the ultimate purpose of learning and teaching is to know Christ. Christian educators and those they educate are to reach for “the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE (Colossians 2:2-3). Paul’s warning is applicable to educational considerations: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8). FHS has a wonderful opportunity to better use learning as a primary tool to enable our children to know Christ in all areas of learning.

Just how might our continued participation in the NYS Regents program undermine our stated Christian educational goals? The current Regents program seems to have evolved into a values-neutral post-modern mindset. If we are increasingly being pressured (via Regents) to teach a values-free version of creation, we may be unwittingly inviting the enemy into our schoolhouse. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Psalm 127:1). It is historically evident at FHS that the board, administration, and faculty have valiantly striven to train up our children in the way they should go; but as of 2000, beyond the walls of our school, the post-modern cultural mindset evident in the world has superseded the less hostile general Judeo-Christian mindset which was more prominent even 20 years ago. It is strong testimony of God’s keeping and preserving power that education has not strayed further from the truth than it has. We need now to adjust our educational orientation accordingly, even if it means distancing ourselves from a formal relationship with the Regents program. We believe now, more than ever before, in order to equip the next generation, we must work to provide our children with a rigorous academic experience, within the context of a coherent, unified Christian worldview.

Christian educators are responsible, before God, to teach a right understanding of the Creator (God), the creation (God’s revelation of Himself), and the creature (man). Psalm 8 beautifully describes the rightful relationship between these three. And Psalm 14 describes the effects of (non-Christian) man’s failure to understand this: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God” (verses 1-2). By God’s grace, we at FHS do understand, and do seek after God. In determining our educational program, we must be certain our deeds match our hearts and understanding of God, man, and creation.

(Some cautions are in order. Anti-intellectualism is NOT what we are about, nor should be about. Rather, Christian educators are, even more enthusiastically, to embrace RIGOROUS intellectual investigation of creation and Truth as a mandate from God. Such becomes a primary means of training our children to be in, but not of, the world, enabling them to radically transform the culture in all areas of thought. We desire to apprise our children of the awesome privilege of using their learning as a tool for going into the world to share the gospel of Jesus Christ in every sphere. It must be stressed, also, that ALL facts and bodies of information, properly taught, in their God-ordained context, are valid areas of investigation. Any rejection of NYS mandated standards must not be a rejection of learning, but rather of the world’s “spin” on what and how one should learn. Prayer and clear thinking must guide any substituted program here. Unfortunately, we do not believe at this point it is possible to continue trying to extrapolate from the Regents system only that which is “benign” or “good,” leaving alone that which is clearly not; instead we have an all-encompassing Christian educational mandate to be filled at FHS which is better done outside of the state’s values-neutral one. But contrary to our school embracing any tendency to become anti-intellectual, it would be a great relief to be able to instruct our children on how to better “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind” (Mark 12:30), mindful of the critical value of using our minds to know God’s mind better)

Two relevant questions must be considered.

1. What is “biblical” about the Regents program (curriculum, standards, examinations)?

To the extent it encourages academic excellence, it can be a vehicle for helping our students cultivate their minds to know God’s creation. To the extent it emphasizes facts, it can also inform them about some aspects of Truth. Indeed, it was with this in mind that our founders incorporated it into our school.

2. What’s “unbiblical” about the Regents program? It is increasingly, alarmingly, governed by a world view in which God is absent, knowledge is an end in itself, and truth is relative, and values-neutral. Also, with its insistence on one standard for all students, it does not allow Christians to develop the God-given differences in individual students. Perhaps the strongest indictment is that it is now by definition MAN-centered, or humanistic, as opposed to GOD-centered. Lacking a foundation in eternal Truth, it subjects us to whatever “winds of doctrine” (educational, social, philosophical, scientific) are currently under experiment. Core Biblical principles for learning and teaching such as are outlined above are not only discouraged, they are missing.

God, at the beginning of creation, established a covenant with His people, and a mandate to them to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind . . . and to love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22: 37, 39). The best Christian education is one which can wholeheartedly embrace these commandments as its organizing principles, rather than trying to tack them onto a system which has as its core ignorance of God and indifference to His sovereign, loving hand over His creation and His creatures. One thing is certain; if we expect God’s blessing in our school, we must be sure our educational program “does no harm” to the hearts and minds of our children. Quite the converse, our program must be founded on educational principles which are designed to bring our children up knowing all knowledge and wisdom point directly to its Author and Creator, our Lord and Savior.

To sum up: all who labor in Christian education must never forget we labor in the presence of God, in all we think, say, and do. We must never forget we operate in a fallen world, or our mandate to labor under Christ’s lordship and see His sovereignty in all things. In training our children in the way they should go, we must not inadvertently try to serve two masters, on the one hand a Holy God, on the other, a secular state educational system, at heart either consciously or unconsciously hostile to our Holy God.

*Conclusion: there is a Biblical basis for removing ourselves from our dependence on the NYS Regents program as it has evolved in 2000.

3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FHS MISSION AND THE REGENTS CURRICULUM

The task force believes there is at present an inconsistency between the FHS mission (articulated in its mission statement) and the current NYS Regents program, which actively inhibits the school from fulfilling its primary responsibilities to both students and parents.

Our FHS mission statement asserts that “Faith Heritage exists to glorify God by providing a sound, Biblically integrated program in order to assist parents and churches in equipping students for Christian living and service within today’s changing world.” Christian education is further described as “Christ-centered as opposed to being world-oriented or society controlled. The educational program and the methods of instruction in FHS are dependent on a Biblical philosophy to provide the viewpoint, general background truth, and principles for interpreting the facts encountered in the study of any subject.” (FHS Student Handbook revised 2000, pg.5, emphasis added). This is what we say we are doing. The question is, are we truly effectively DOING this today, given our dependence on the New York State Board of Regents’ curriculum and testing instruments? Or does our use of them actually mean we have unwittingly become “world-oriented or society controlled”?

The faculty (in a Spring 1999 faculty meeting designed to obtain input on the spiritual/academic limitations of the Regents program) expressed unanimous frustration with the spiritual limitations brought on by our adherence to the Regents program. Across all disciplines there is a sense of the inability to emphasize the development of a Biblical world and life view.

Christian and Biblical foundations are compromised, while worldly philosophies are not. A moral relativism (“all world views are seen as equally valid”) is propounded in much of the material that must be studied. Faculty comments (in a Fall 2000 faculty survey) provide a telling perspective: “the Regents curriculum celebrates man, exclusive of his relationship to his Creator” - “the Regents curriculum is clearly humanistic, secular, anti-Christian” - “secular thinking is portrayed as truth . . .there is no opportunity to question this stated philosophy . . . .” The task force believes our students are, of necessity, receiving subtly mixed messages because of our continued participation in the Regents program. Thoroughly integrated Christianworld view teaching is almost impossible to do: there are serious time constraints imposed by trying to teach the entire Regents curriculum so our students can do well on the examinations.

As well, the Regents teaching and testing materials SHOW the students what it thinks is important, even though the faculty tries to TELL them there are larger truths which are more important - students are caught in the middle of this, and experience predictable tension and confusion. By teaching children to give the answers which will please the examiner, but which are not necessarily true, teachers unwillingly may be teaching them to lie. State standards reflect current political correctness, which permeates its curriculum and examinations. What is NOT taught and tested is as important as that which IS, when a Christian school seeks to inculcate in its children a Biblical perspective on all of life and learning.

* Conclusion: There is a critical contradiction between the stated mission of FHS and the implicit but clear mission and philosophy of the NYS Regents program.

4. PRACTICAL IMPACT OF THE REGENTS PROGRAM ON INDIVIDUAL AREAS OF THE FHS CURRICULUM

Every area of our academic curriculum is adversely impacted by our involvement with the current Regents program.

What follows is an analysis of the effects of the Regents program on each major academic department. The task force utilized faculty input (as well as anecdotal observations of our students’ responses to the Regents program) in this.

All departments: There is too much emphasis on the results of one standardized test as the sole method of determining mastery of knowledge. There is more emphasis on “wide, but shallow” learning, memorizing endless facts, but not on a thinking synthesis of information into larger pictures. There is little emphasis on developing a higher level of critical thinking and analysis. There is little impetus for cross-curriculum thinking and learning, as students are tested in discrete subject areas. Very significantly, teachers are pressed to “formula teach,” that is, to develop whatever teaching formula will get satisfactory test results, at the expense of the acquisition of true knowledge and wisdom. In addition, the faculty has noted a “dumbing down” of academic material and standards, to levels which are most palatable to the entire state. And many teachers are forced either to eliminate entire curriculum units or else teach them very superficially in order to cover the materials that are deemed important by the board of Regents.

In various subjects, learning is necessarily based very heavily on Regents review books designed to “teach to the test,” rather than on the more substantive textbooks assigned to the course. As a hypothetical example, a history teacher who might wish to deviate from specific Regents materials in order to educate the students about a critical “non-test” issue (such as the constitutional, legal and political dynamics of the 2000 elections) does so knowing it takes time away from teaching the “test-directed” curricula. The students themselves express frustration at such a narrowly focused approach to the material of the course History/Social Studies department: Faith Heritage School embraces diversity and believes that the study and appreciation of this diversity in the people God has created is an important part of our program. Scripture teaches that God loves all peoples and nations and has included them in His plan of redemption (Rev. 7:9). The Regents curriculum, however, evidences a strong intentional bias against Western Civilization and its Christian base. It mirrors the current cultural trend to embrace pluralism and secular humanism in the social sciences. This approach is a direct attack on our Western heritage and the glorious freedoms and privileges that have flowed from the Christian base of our civilization and culture. The breadth of the Regents program prohibits instruction in enough depth in areas deemed critical to a Biblically centered understanding of history and current events.

Further, the secular teaching objectives of NYS clash with those of a Christian school; for example, the Regents philosophy of the birth of our nation totally undermines a Biblical understanding of the firm Christian standards developed by our early Christian leaders. (It should be noted the views stated above are those of two FHS teachers who have had teaching experience in both Christian, non-Christian, public, and private schools and thus reflect a broad engagement with both Regents and non-Regents history instruction.)

Foreign Language (Spanish) department: In order to prepare students to do well on the Spanish Regents Examination, all emphasis must be placed on mastering vocabulary and grammar. This eliminates the possibility of any in-depth study of Biblical vocabulary, which would enable students to read the Scripture in Spanish, or develop skills that would be necessary to witness to Spanish-speaking peoples. Because the Regents sequence ends after Spanish 3, the majority of students discontinue Spanish studies instead of taking Spanish 4, and yet Spanish 4 is the first opportunity the students have to develop Spanish Scripture-reading and witnessing expertise. Thus, FHS participation in the Regents program, ironically, may inhibit our training of students to “go into all the world and preach the gospel” (to the Spanish-speaking millions)!

Mathematics Department: The objective nature of mathematics frees it up from some of the philosophical problems faced by other departments. Several concerns have, however, arisen. Over a period of years, the Regents curriculum has shown an increasing reliance on crutches such as calculators of ever increasing sophistication, which thus does not require students to master the more basic mathematical operations such as multiplication and division. In addition, there is no room in the curriculum for “real life” or practical math, such as that which many of our students will need once they graduate, instead of some of the higher maths. Furthermore, there is consensus in the mathematics department that the Regents mode of organizing mathematics studies into sequences is significantly inferior to the traditional method of organizing math into categories such as geometry, algebra, etc. It is entirely possible our students would do better with the latter. However, again, the state dictates both the method and the means of much of our mathematics instruction, leaving us no freedom to teach in the traditional method of organizing mathematical study.

Language Arts (English) Department: The Regents curriculum is antithetical to the FHS philosophy in approaching the study of English, in that it espouses a view of man that is both post-modern and humanistic. Thus, man becomes the measure, by which the written word is evaluated, exclusive of his relationship to the Creator and Author of the Word. The Regents program also encourages “formula teaching” to the exam, inhibiting the teacher’s ability to teach to a broader and deeper standard. While Christian English teachers seek to enable students to view all of language through the filter of a mature Christian perspective, there is no encouragement to do so in the Regents curriculum; in fact, it is a liability to do so. We must train our emphases along the state’s lines, rather than on those we know to be the true and the best for understanding of literature and expression. Because of the examination, teachers teach those techniques necessary to do well on it, hence doing a disservice to some of the other skills and areas of knowledge we know our students should master for college and/or life. There are also serious practical ramifications for FHS English students: 11th grade English risks becoming “the year that counts” since the exam is at its end; 12th grade risks appearing to be irrelevant because the exam is over. Much of World and American literature course work could be eliminated and replaced with only that which is “useful” - in producing good test results. Entire units teachers know to be valuable must be removed to make room for those which will help students pass the exam. The students themselves seem to suffer from the tension between what the teachers TELL them is important (developing a critical eye and a Christian world view toward literature, writing, and thinking) and what we SHOW them REALLY is important - doing well on the English Regents examination.

One FHS English teacher describes the potential subject matter of the language arts as a “banquet” to serve our students; Christian teachers who have ‘the mind of Christ’ and the Spirit’s daily grace are given the treasures of God to dispense to His children. Parents employ them to make wise decisions about what to “feed” their children and God supervises the table.  But the Regents program forces on us instead a “fast-food” regimen, figuratively and literally: the current politically correct educational fads streaming out of Albany determine what food is currently best to consume, and often spurn the great writers and thinkers in favor of a historically revised menu of contemporary or inferior writers with a fragmented view of man, and no view at all of God Himself. Multicultural propaganda permeates the English Regents program and exam.

Science Department: In general, the Regents science curriculum cannot acknowledge God as the creator and sustainer of all things; rather, its foundation is openly anti-Christian and humanistic. Lacking a Biblical view of the divine origin of all sciences and a knowledge of the Author of Creation, the Regents instead emphasizes facts, rather than facts as aspects of revealed truth in the natural world. It is also “values-neutral” instead of God-centered. The science examinations themselves do not present the best way to evaluate a student’s knowledge in physics, chemistry, etc., because they are largely objective, multiple choice in composition. Too much time is spent teaching to one particular test, with valuable time in class given up to review and practice tests. It is not unusual for a science teacher to stop introducing new material a month before the exam, thus giving up valuable teaching time to review and test preparation. One science faculty member asserts that it is important what is taught not undermine the authority of the Scriptures, or cause the students’ faith to be undermined by seeming contradictions between the science curriculum and the Bible. While it is important to expose students to these issues, there is insufficient time to fully resolve these things in classrooms pressed for time. The Regents science program espouses a post-modern world view, atheistic evolution, completely opposed to that of the Bible. Science becomes a means to an end, and hence a tool to further one’s personal or political agenda, rather than a search for the truth. Practically speaking, the laboratory activities necessary to the Regents curriculum are “cookbook recipe” assignments which do not encourage sustained research and observation by the students.

In general, the Regents state curriculum fails to deal with the three most important philosophical questions our students will deal with: 1) Who am I? The Bible says the student is a dearly loved, special creation of God, created in His image. The Regents curriculum, however, portrays him/her as the product of time + chance + matter, nothing more than a higher animal, without a special plan and purpose; 2) Why am I here? The Bible shows that each child is created to bring glory to God and to enjoy His fellowship forever. The Regents curriculum, however, fosters the concept of personal self-fulfillment in areas of wealth, status, or recognition. Hence, technology alone may be seen as the means of overcoming the eventual exhaustion of natural resources, and the environmental movement alone becomes man’s way of becoming “savior of the world” by preventing overpopulation, toxic waste, pollution, etc. 3) Where am I going? The Bible clearly articulates that all people have an eternal destiny in either heaven or hell. The Regents curriculum, however, expressly ignores this reality; it must, in fact, because of the supposed separation of church and state. By ignoring the reality of eternity, it thus actually teaches there is no hope beyond the grave. Most sobering, the state’s fundamental embrace of Darwinian evolution precludes a creator, leaving the student without a reason for existence or future hope. Many pivotal Biblical truths, such as the flood of Noah, are systematically debunked by the Regents curriculum. In fact, creation science itself is left completely out of the picture.

The failure of the Regents program to address these three fundamental questions from a Biblical perspective seriously undermines its worth to our overall academic program.

* Conclusion: there is a clear tension between the Christian and academic curricular objectives of all FHS academic departments and those of the NYS Regents.

5. LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON OUR STUDENTS AT BOTH ENDS OF THE ABILITY SPECTRUM BY THE FHS ADHERENCE TO THE REGENTS PROGRAM

FHS students in both the high and low ranges of ability suffer significantly by the limits imposed on us by the Regents program. The NYS Regents purports to take into account the needs of all students, requiring the eventual passing test scores of all students. In reality, it aims for the middle, neither meeting the needs of the lower level students, nor those of the upper level. It adopts a one-size-fits-all mentality which does not allow room for the great heterogeneity of the FHS student population.

Such intellectual variety is a central component of our mission to provide a Biblical education for ALL students who wish to receive it, and we have committed to serve them fully in this way.

The Resource Department has noted the feelings of failure and inadequacy which many of the resource students express when they fail the exams despite their best efforts. The unremitting “teaching to the test” across the curricular spectrum serves to reinforce a sense of inadequacy in these children when measured against the state’s objective standards. It should be noted there have been some significant success stories in improving the performance of some students in the Regents examinations; however, there are better and more efficient ways of achieving the same (or even better) ends.

Students of high levels of ability are also at risk within the Regents program, as their needs are moved aside somewhat, by the classroom’s necessary emphasis on teaching to the middle in accordance to the standards delineated by the state curriculum.

For students at both ends of the spectrum (and everywhere in between) in FHS, the pressure to teach to the Regents program, to have our students pass Regents standardized tests, costs us greatly by making it impossible to explore or implement more effective, creative, or meaningful modes of teaching and evaluation. It should be noted that even public school educators are voicing similar concerns. (See Addendum E for examples.)

*Conclusion: Students of both higher and lower levels of ability are seriously and negatively affected by the Regents emphasis on standardized, averaged performance levels.

6. FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN: COLLEGE VIEWS ON THE VALUE OF THE NYS REGENTS PROGRAM FOR ADMISSION OF FHS STUDENTS

Most colleges, Bible schools, and universities consulted assert they do not consider a student’s participation in the Regents program to be a significant factor in considerations for admission as long as there is a strong college preparatory program available. This would include honors and AP courses.

Among colleges and universities chosen by our past graduates, we received responses from Cazenovia College, Cornell University , Grove City College, Houghton College, LeMoyne College, Messiah College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rochester Institute of Technology, State University of New York-Binghamton, and Wheaton College. In general, they seem to consider the Regents program to be college preparatory. A Regents diploma, per se, does not add any other value from an admissions perspective. Their basic concern is that a secondary school offer a rigorous college-prep curriculum and that students take the most demanding courses available in that school. Colleges, across the board, prefer students who have taken AP courses, and give more weight to Advanced Placement and honors courses than to Regents courses.

Cazenovia differed from the others in that they specifically stated that they prefer NYS students to be Regents graduates.

See Addendum B for excerpts of the responses from these colleges.

*Conclusion: most institutions of higher learning do not place value on a Regents diploma from NYS when making admissions decisions. They DO, however, rate as extremely important the quality of a school’s educational program (honors and AP courses offered and taken), and individual SAT scores.

7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE REGENTS PROGRAM AS INSTRUMENTS OF ACADEMIC PREPARATION AND TRACKING OF STUDENT PROGRESS

There are valid alternatives to the Regents program currently available to FHS which are of great value in both educating our students and tracking student progress.

FHS must not sacrifice academic rigor when removing itself from the NYS Regent’s program. Quite the contrary, we believe we will better serve this critical aspect of our education by taking care to offer courses that serve the full range of students in our school and by carefully monitoring and tracking student achievement.

Faith Heritage School will adopt a tiered system of classes offered within any given academic discipline. We believe that such a system addresses more sensitively the heterogeneous needs of the student population than is possible under the current Regents one size-fits-all system. The following points summarize the approach we will take.

1) One section of most major academic disciplines may be dedicated to serve students who need more time to grasp concepts. These classes, conducted at a different pace, will ensure that these students have the opportunity to learn in an environment that addresses their learning needs.

2) We will maintain our current college prep level sections of each course. We believe these sections can be taught in more depth than is currently possible.

3) The addition of Advanced Placement (AP) and honors courses is a critical step in providing a rigorous program for students at the high end of the ability range. The AP courses offer the opportunity to earn college credit. Several AP courses are recommended for adoption in the timetable in section 8.

It is also important that in all academic areas students’ progress and achievement are monitored to ensure a quality program. This can be done by means of developing methods of evaluation internally and by use of objective evaluation through standardized testing.

Faith Heritage School will engage in a careful process of department–by–department evaluation of curriculum and methods of assessing and maintaining student academic progress. The structure of each department will become formalized and department heads will be named. The faculty members in each department, the department head, and the principal, will conduct the evaluation of the curriculum, and develop department standards and final exams for each course within that academic area. This process will insure that Regents exams will be replaced by rigorous, valid exams that reflect the standards established by the departments. It will be necessary for the majority of this work to be done during the summer. A suggested schedule for this review is given in the proposed timetable in section 8.

This model of structured departmental development of standards and oversight of instruments of evaluation is similar to that used by private schools in New York State, (Manlius Pebble Hill) and Christian schools in states that have no required state exams (Charlotte Christian School, Delaware County Christian School).

It is anticipated that the ongoing review of curriculum at FHS will to the development of new courses to replace some required Regents courses. These courses could be designed to better fulfill our school’s mission. Student academic progress will also be evaluated using the standardized testing program already in place. Faith Heritage tests all students in grades K-9 using the Stanford Achievement tests. Score reports from these instruments provide information on how our students’ performance compares with that of students nationally in public schools and in other Christian schools.

In grades 10 and 11, all students take the PLAN and PSAT exams respectively. The PLAN exam tests students in the areas of English, mathematics, reading, and science reasoning and resembles the format of the ACT college entrance exam. The PSAT contains mathematics and verbal sections and resembles the format of the SAT college entrance exam. Item-response summary reports are available for both exams. These summary reports make it possible to identify educational strengths and weakness in the curricular areas measured by these exams.

This program of standardized testing consisting of the Stanford Achievement Tests, the PLAN and PSAT tests will continue to provide an objective evaluation of student academic progress at each level from grades K-11. A careful review of the results will enable us to make adjustments when necessary to strengthen the curriculum. The vast majority of our students in grades 11 and 12 take SAT I and/or ACT exams, and several take SAT II exams (achievement exams in specific subject areas.) The results of these exams also offer an opportunity to track student academic progress.

Faith Heritage School will continue to maintain its accreditation by the Association of Christian Schools International and Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. The periodic selfstudies and evaluation by visiting teams will offer another means of ensuring that a quality program is being offered.

*Conclusion: there are exciting, rigorous alternatives to the Regents program for FHS which, when responsibly developed, will create a learning experience which is superior to its present program.

8. A PROPOSED TIMETABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM THE REGENTS PROGRAM

An orderly withdrawal from the Regents program is possible at Faith Heritage, which also anticipates and addresses the accompanying developmental needs such a withdrawal will necessitate.

A suggested timetable for withdrawal has been developed and included. A five year plan has been proposed to provide sufficient time to inform parents, to allow students presently in the Regents track to complete the requirements, to develop department standards and exams, and to add additional faculty to strengthen the academic program. If it is determined that these areas are not a concern or could be accomplished more quickly, then the withdrawal could be accelerated.

Suggested Timetable for Withdrawal:

Last Class to graduate with regents – 2009

First class to graduate with no regents – 2010

Last year Regents will be given:

Earth Science June 2006

Spanish III June 2007

Biology June 2007

Math A June 2007

Global Studies June 2007

Chemistry June 2008

Math B June 2008

English June 2008

US History June 2008

Physics June 2009

AP Courses Available

English Literature Presently Available

Spanish Presently Available

US History Presently Available

Calculus Presently Available

Biology ~ 2008

Chemistry ~ 2010

World History ~ 2008

SUMMARY REMARKS

The Regents Task Force is both sobered and motivated by the process we have undergone in the last six months. The Regents program was at one time a valuable instrument in building a quality school; thus we do not propose its removal lightly. But over the years it, and our culture, has changed in critical ways, thus reducing its value to FHS, making it in important ways, as of 2000, more of a spiritual and educational detriment than a benefit.

We recognize the significance and consequences of our recommendations to you. There is no question that to remove ourselves from the current Regents program represents a paradigm shift. We recognize that the school is currently embarking on other remarkable ventures at this time: technology integration into all aspects of our school, and deliberate growth on both elementary and secondary levels. To consider such an additional and fundamental change would most definitely stretch all of us.

And yet, it is apparent that God’s blessing has been covering us these many years, that He has heard the prayers of His people in this small corner of His kingdom. If we are confident that withdrawal from the NYS Regents program is Biblically, principally and educationally defensible, we have every reason to expect that once the proposed change is begun, if we “draw near unto Him, He will draw near unto us” (James 4:8). The practical methods and outcomes will become feasible. We have a history of stepping out in faith; our prayers have not yet gone unanswered, nor should we expect they will at this juncture. We will uphold you in prayer as you consider this matter.

The Regents Task Force unanimously proposes that Faith Heritage Schoolremove itself, with deliberation, from the NYS Regents program, and initiate a spiritually and academically more rigorous course of study better suited to meet the needs and goals of our school.

ADDENDUM A: Additional discussion of a Biblical basis for our position:

The tension between “the world” and Christians in the area of knowledge is a longstanding one, the subject of many analyses by Christian theologians and educators. For example, Albert Greene delineates this tension in Reclaiming the Future of Christian Education (an excellent source for a discussion on the philosophy of Christian education): “Modern people suppose that if they have the facts about a given thing, person, or event they have the truth. They forget that facts are not meaningless or value free, and that if we do not associate the meaning with the fact, we do not have the truth. Since every fact involves a created thing, and since all creation bears witness to the living God, every fact points ultimately to Him who is the Truth (I John 14:6…Value-free or meaningless facts are not the truth, however scientifically sound they may seem…when we attach their God-given meaning to what we call facts, they bear witness to Christ and become a part of His truth.” (11-12). (It should be noted Greene correctly uses the term “creation” to encompass ALL areas of knowledge, the sciences, philosophy, literature, the arts, mathematics, history, economics, etc.) The Regents curriculum and tests necessitate that we emphasize “facts” about creation to our students and do a disservice to our efforts to assign their rightful place as aspects of the Truth.

Just how might our continued participation in the NYS Regents program undermine our stated Christian educational goals? After all, there are not two sets of facts about creation - the “secular” and the “Christian”, are there? Of course not; there is only one Truth. But the secular realm (represented here by the Regents) is based on an understanding that facts about creation are values-neutral; this contradicts our understanding that neutral facts simply do not exist. “God makes and maintains the creation to reveal himself to us. The idea that there are realities that exist independently of God is a dangerous delusion. It is part of the idolatry that makes modern people think of themselves as independent, or autonomous.” (Greene 271).

Romans 1: 18-25, 28-32, further clarifies God’s intentional and articulate revelation of Himself to man through His creation (which is what we seek to teach to our children), so that those who deny His hand are “without excuse.” But Paul also unequivocally describes those who DO deny this God-apparent reality: “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved…” Non-Christian educators, for all of their good intentions to educate children, by rejecting the evident Truth of God in their educational formulae, must thus, to a certain extent, be seen as “futile in their speculations,” with darkened, foolish hearts, fools, though “professing to be wise.” It takes a lot of courage (and faith) to assign such negative terms to non-Christian educators. But it is they, by and large, who devise and regulate the Regents program. Thus, we must, at very least, carefully examine the curricula and evaluational instruments such men and women devise for our children, which are, after all, the products of their hearts and minds.

It must be noted that Christians are also sinners, and thus our understanding is tainted as well, but not to the degree of unbelievers who reject God. Thinking Christian educators will note the Scripture is filled with examples of Godly men and women who did avail themselves of theworld’s knowledge, but who nonetheless managed to remain set apart for God’s use. Such can provide models for us. The Church has historically been criticized from without for antiRegents intellectualism; even from within, similar rebukes have been lodged. For example, Mark Knoll (writer and professor at Wheaton College) has noted that many 19th and 20th century Christians have been guilty of abandoning rigorous intellectual activity in favor of an exclusionary emphasis on “other-worldliness.” Knoll asserts that “the search for a mind that truly thinks like a Christian takes on ultimate significance, because the search for a Christian mind is not, in the end, a search for mind but a search for God.” (Scandal of the Evangelical Mind 253). Others such as Ravi Zaccharias and R.C. Sproul have established their ministries on the premise that we are to “love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, strength, and mind,” seeking to fuse thought with faith. Such remind us not to slide into anti-intellectualism, but instead to view learning as a vehicle for knowing God.

ADDENDUM B: EXCERPTS FROM COLLEGE ADMISSIONS OFFICE RESPONSES

College Admissions Offices were questioned about how important they feel it is for a NYS student to have a Regents diploma:

CAZENOVIA COLLEGE: “Our Admissions Policy here at Cazenovia takes many factors into consideration….A student that has a Regents Diploma would be regarded stronger academically than one who does not. However, a Regents Diploma is not required for admittance to Cazenovia College.”

CORNELL UNIVERSITY: “We’re looking to see that students do the most with what is available to them.” (Class rank, SAT scores, college prep course load seem to be most important.)

GROVE CITY COLLEGE: “I do look at students who apply from New York to see if they are part of the Regents program. However, if you are considering offering more AP courses, this would be fine. The vast majority of the students who enroll at Grove City are taking the most academically challenging course their high school has to offer (AP, Honors, accelerated, etc.). With all things being equal, I would accept a student who was enrolled in the Regents program. I would probably accept a student who had more AP courses over Regents courses. When considering GPA, I am very interested in the difficulty of the courses the student has taken to earn the GPA.”

HOUGHTON COLLEGE: A student would not be at a disadvantage if there were no Regents classes in his or her transcript. Since half of our students come from states other than New York, and some from New York come from small Christian or private high schools which do not offer Regents courses, we could not possibly penalize them for the lack of Regents courses….We love to see students taking AP courses. They are an advantage to the more advanced student.”

LEMOYNE COLLEGE: “Le Moyne receives many applications each year from schools not offering Regents programs. The applications are reviewed in a similar manner as those who complete a Regents diploma. We would pay particular attention to any AP/Honors courses taken.”

RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE: “We receive applications and have students coming from all over the United States and the world, from various educational systems. From a college admissions perspective, we do not require a Regents diploma, nor do Regents tests have a bearing on scholarships or other financial aid. Our major concern is that the student has the prerequisite courses (4 years of math through precalculus and 4 years of science including chemistry and physics) and that the student has taken the highest level possible of academic offerings. What the exam offers the admission office is a comparative tool for our pool of applicants coming form New York State, and this is the way we utilize the tests in the admission process, when available….”

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: “RIT looks for a Regents curriculum or above when we are considering NYS students for admission. As long as your students are taking the more rigorous college prep classes they would still be looked at favorably. Our concern when high schools leave the Regents curriculum is that not all students take the more rigorous classes, leaving only general level class as curricula options. These students are sometimes not as competitive as others….”

SUNY BINGHAMTON: “Many private schools have non-Regents courses but offer very strong/competitive academic programs. Binghamton University looks at the strength of the program…any student who challenges themselves with AP or honors courses and does well in them are considered to be strong students regardless of their degree title….”

WHEATON COLLEGE: “Applicants should have followed a challenging college preparatory curriculum. Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses are encouraged if available….We have considered Regents classes to be college preparatory….We have not considered it as anything ‘extra’ beyond that. Also we believe that it is to a students’ advantage to take AP courses….”

ADDENDUM C: Comments from Frederick Coulter

The following is a short summary of the comments made by Mr. Frederick Coulter, Executive Director of the New York State Association of Independent Schools.

NYSAIS is a voluntary association of 156 independent nursery, elementary, and secondary schools enrolling some 58,000 students. Just under 100 of these schools have high school grades. Many of these schools are prestigious, highly regarded schools whose graduates are regularly accepted at highly competitive colleges and universities. Manlius Pebble Hill School is a member of NYSAIS.

Mr. Coulter stated that NYSAIS schools desire to maintain their autonomy. As an organization, NYSAIS is opposed to the state requiring its schools to administer the Regents examinations. Most of its high schools have never given Regents examinations. (A few parochial high schools have chosen to give Regents examinations.) Mr. Coulter said that the reason for this opposition is based on the organization’s view that the Regents program limits the quality of the academic program and hinders teaching with greater breadth and depth. He talked about the danger of teaching to tests, a common concern of those who consider this question. (Manlius Pebble Hill School’s headmaster voiced the same concern too.)

Representatives of NYSAIS have met with Commissioner Mills to voice concerns and to register their opposition to any movement that would attempt to require its schools to administer Regents examinations.

Mr. Coulter believes that NYSAIS as an organization, and most of its member high schools will not acquiesce to demands requiring them to participate in the Regents program. If the schools are faced with the loss of their status as registered schools in NYS most believe that their reputation for quality education and excellent college acceptance history will make this registration unnecessary. Mr. Coulter believes that the state would be left having to explain why so many prestigious, very highly regarded schools are no longer registered by the state.

ADDENDUM D: Comments from Phil Stockton

The following is a short summary of comments made by Mr. Phil Stockin, Headmaster of Houghton Academy and a member of the Commissioner’s Advisory Council for Non-Public Schools. Mr. Stockin believes that there is considerable opposition to non-public schools being required to participate in the Regents program in order to preserve their registration.

(Presently, Houghton Academy does not participate in the Regents program.) Private schools generally fall into three categories.

A. Registered schools who participate in the public school testing programs such as Regents.

B. Registered schools who do not participate in all testing programs (i.e. Regents exams).

C. Those who refuse to become registered schools.

There is a strong desire that the private schools in the “B” category be able to preserve their present autonomy.

Revised Time Table for Withdrawal from Regent’s Program

2005-2006

Class Rest Requirements

Class of 2006 – Graduates with all regents requirements met

Class of 2007 – Take grade 11 required exams

Class of 2008 – Take grade 10 required exams

Class of 2009 – Take grade 9 required exams

AP Courses Added

AP Spanish-in place

Logic Added Curriculum Review and Assessment

Development Develop department standards for Earth Science & Math I and Global Studies 9 to be implemented in 2006-2007.

Develop department final for Earth Science, Math I and Global Studies 9 for 2006-2007

Consider and plan for advancing students in Earth Science.

2006-2007

Class of 2007 – Graduates with all regents requirements met

Class of 2008 – Take grade 11 required exams

Class of 2009 – Take grade 10 required exams

Class of 2010 – Grade 9 take department developed exam in Earth Science, Math I and Global

Studies 9

AP US History

Added-in place

AP Calculus

Added-in place

Develop department standards and exam for Global Studies 10, Biology, Math II to be implemented in 2007-2008.

(Consider summer school curriculum for grade 9, 10)

Develop department standards and exam for Spanish III

2007-2008

Class of 2008 – Graduates with all regents requirements met

Class of 2009 – Take grade 11 required exams

Class of 2010 - Take department developed exam in Span. III, Biology, Global Studies 10, Math II and/or AP World History exam

Class of 2011 – Take department exams in Earth Science, Math I

Goal

Add AP World, History, AP Biology added if enrollment and staffing allows.

Develop department standards and exam for English for 2008-2009

Develop department standards & exam for Chemistry for 2008-2009

Develop department standards and exam for US History for 2008-2009

Develop department standards and exam for Math III to be implemented 2008-2009