Working ON the System

Today, I have been going through past notes and materials from workshops and books over the years. It brings back memories of so many good people that I have learned from along the way. It is impossible to put into words the gratitude for the wisdom and guidance others have shared with me.

One of the items I found was an article written by David Langford entitled "Working on the System." One of his main contentions in the article is that "administrators must spend an increasing percentage of time working on the system, not in the system." This statement, in one sentence, is essentially the reason I desired to become an administrator. I saw an opportunity to work on the bigger processes that drive much of the work teachers do, and in turn much of what students experience on a daily basis.

I am reminded often to think systems. I am also reminded that the results we are getting are exactly what our systems are designed to produce. More importantly, I am reminded that these systems I talk about are made up of people. 

There are some simple facts about us. About people.

We have feelings. We have dreams. We have beliefs. We have perceptions. We have needs.

So, I want to take a minute to be clear that I wholeheartedly believe that we absolutely must address the systems within which we work. That is a critical point!

And...

I would like to be equally as clear that I do not intend to insult individuals within the system by pointing out concerns or outcomes of the system. To do so would miss the purpose of raising the concerns in the first place because it might fix blame on outliers rather than improve the process as a whole. Generally speaking, my blog is not about outliers. I feel like that would be a waste of most people's time, including mine.

I do intentionally use provocative language at times to stress the magnitude of some of the issues I write about. I will continue to do so. There has to be a sense of urgency and seriousness about our business of improving how we teach and raise and disciple the next generation, lest we fall prey to what Martin Luther King, Jr. called the "tranquilizing drug of gradualism." Some improvements require more than minor tweaks here and there to the system. I make no apologies for beating that drum.

I do, however, apologize for anything that I have said or written that gives the impression that I do not respect and admire teachers. Most teachers I know work very hard and care very much. I trust that those educators I have had the privilege to work with most directly know my heart. They know that there is, simultaneously, joy and dissatisfaction in my work at all times. 

Joy, because it is a sacred honor to be called to this kind of work. 
Dissatisfaction, because we can always do better. (Dissatisfaction, by the way, is the prerequisite to any great change that takes place, so there is no need to be scared of it.)

Our school district aims to think students first. A mentoring principal once told the audience at a leadership academy, "I tell my faculty that if there ever comes a time when there is a conflict between doing what is best for teachers and doing what is best for kids, then I will do what is best for kids."

What is best for kids is for all of us in education to continuously reflect on our practices and challenge ourselves to grow. I am the perfect example of why this is necessary. I still have a long way to go, but I am thankful that I am not the educator I was five or ten years ago. There have been countless changes to my practices over the years because of the encouragement and wisdom and honesty of those people that surround me, both those who agree and those who disagree with me. 

Thanks for helping me grow!

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 4: "Purpose-Driven Grading")

The next issue with most grading systems is mis-using grades to achieve the wrong purpose. As you can tell, these issues with grading are all interrelated. The focus of today's topic deals directly with the question of why we use grades at all. What I find is that the purposes of grades tend to fall into one of two categories:

Produce a behavior (compliance) 

vs. 

Reflect mastery/provide feedback (learning)

Many teachers argue that grades should actually do both of the above, especially depending on the age of the learner. Commonly, some teachers and parents will suggest that students need grades to help them gain the value of learning until they later develop the intrinsic motivation to appreciate it on their own without these extrinsic "prompts" (grades).

First of all, this mindset plainly ignores what we know about motivation. It, yet again, is also one of the areas where many people would see the obvious fallacy in this position if they would just step outside of the world of institutional education for a moment. Let's imagine a parent saying, "I am trying to get my child to learn the value of eating healthy snacks instead of candy by repeatedly giving them pieces of chocolate.", or "We would like to get the employees in our company to see the value of the work they do just for the sake of the creativity and joy it provides them, so we will start paying bonuses for new ideas until they appreciate that it isn't about the financial gain of designing new products." 

As absurd as this reasoning sounds, it is the same with grading policies. To be blunt, the idea of making people dependent upon a device to prove that it will help people get to a place where they can function better without that very device is just as dumb as it sounds. And that is coming from a person who used to apply that silly mindset wholeheartedly in my former teaching days.

Secondly, there is no evidence to show it motivates learning even inside the public school system. Kindergartners in public schools and children in Montessori schools (or similar systems) demonstrate an enormous enthusiasm for learning without the "reward" or "punishment" of a grade being constantly put before them. This reality is so apparent, in fact, that my school district has a "backpack vision" (picture a child with a backpack on walking into school for the first time): We want students to exit (graduate) our system with the same passion for learning that they had when they entered our system, without economics determining success. The axiom at work here is that children naturally WANT to learn before they ever encounter a grading system! 

Are we going to say that they are mature enough to understand the intrinsic value or "deeper appreciation" of learning at age 5 more than middle school or high school students? The entire line of reasoning here defies any sense of what is developmentally appropriate.

Here's the catch, though. The biggest problem with this misconception about grading is that it does indeed APPEAR to work. Of course, if you ratchet up the short-term external consequences (positive or negative) - and that is what grades are, consequences, then you will naturally see an increase in short-term compliance. This is why so many people think it is justified to use grades to produce a behavior, whether it be completing homework, turning things in on time, having an organized binder, coming to class prepared, getting a form signed by parents, attempting bonus problems, etc. (the list is endless of what we "bribe" kids to do).

Truth be told, there are appropriate times for extrinsic motivation. The problem with using grades in this way is that it could, in fact, actually have a detrimental, inverse effect on learning. And that is NOT okay!

At this point, it doesn't require a lot of studies (although they have been done) to prove this point. Every teacher already knows this is true because every teacher has heard these famous words asked by more than one student: "Is this for a grade?" Why do they care to know? Because if it's not, then why bother doing it? The value of learning doesn't even cross the student's mind when immersed in a grading culture. Sadly, I am worried that it doesn't cross many teachers' minds either.


Daniel Pink presents some interesting findings about motivation and performance in this video (if you can't view the video above). What connections can be made between his comments and our current grading policies?

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 3-C: "Better Late Than Never")

Another issue with most grading systems happens when there is an emphasis on penalizing students for late work. Rick Wormeli deals with the 'late work' challenge here.




This topic gets to the heart of a much larger problem in our schools. We need to find ways to transition from time being the constant to learning being the constant. I won't dig in to that idea here too much, but I will say that the more asynchronous practices we can introduce, the better. We must begin to deconstruct the factory-model approach.

As far as grading goes, the bottom line is that policies that eliminate hope also tend to eliminate learning. Since learning is our business in public education, this should concern us.

This is my final entry dealing with the problems of grading as they relate to forcing all kids to learn at the same time and in the same way, although one could probably argue that all grading practices somehow connect to that issue.

I will look at another aspect of grading in next week's post.

Priorities

By now, I have shared a lot about how we "do church" simply.

You can see our Mission in a Minute and our Plan on a Page.

You can start to read beliefs about Children and our Measures of Success.

Our theology, evangelism, and discipleship is entirely based on one question: Who is Jesus to you?

In addition, we do have some practices that we want to keep at the forefront of the way we "do church." These are priorities for us, and we do not declare that they should be priorities for any other churches or ministries. Here are a few:

• NO WALLS: Our ministries are not primarily based around buildings. The money, energy, property and personnel required to keep a church building running is not the wisest use of resources for our particular church network.

Scene from Patch Adams movie

• "PATCH ADAMS" APPROACH: The main character (played by Robin Williams) in the movie Patch Adams (based on a true story) is driven by his belief that every person is both a doctor and a patient. Likewise, we believe every person is a teacher and a learner. The expectation is that each follower of Christ can both give and receive ministry. We try to keep a participatory model that involves everyone (all ages) as much as possible so there are no passive spectators. There may be times when one person will teach a lesson or facilitate a series, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

• SOCIAL JUSTICE: In other places, I have reflected on growth barriers vs. impact barriers as a metric of effectiveness. I see a gauge of our community's spiritual health in how well we attempt to break through obstacles so that we can minister to more people in our communities and cities more effectively. Each person is encouraged to foster a cause or need that they are passionate about. One way we try to harness these interests is in meeting needs both Here (locally) and There (globally/internationally).

As I said, these are some of our priorities.

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 3-B: "Practice Makes Permanent")

The next issue with most grading systems occurs when teachers grade students' first efforts or grade practice.

In his work on faulty grading practices that inhibit learning, Ken O' Connor includes the practice of "grading first efforts." As he explains, "learning is not a 'one-shot' deal."

This bad practice ties directly to the notion that all students should learn all things at the same time, which I discussed in my previous post. Instead of rehashing that idea here, I want to move now to the specific, problematic grading practices that result from this faulty thinking, the greatest of which is giving summative scores to people while they are still in the learning process.

The sports world already well understands the learning-performance cycle. Practices are used as opportunities to learn and develop skills while coaches constantly, immediately, directly, and specifically provide feedback for athletes. With good coaches and teammates (peers), athletes are receiving information in an ongoing manner for the purpose of helping them improve.

Athletes work hard and learn from mistakes in practices despite the fact that none of their efforts or stats is counted toward a single game’s outcome! You never see a basketball scoreboard start out with one team having an advantage based on free throw percentages during practice the night before the game. You never see a football team having to start a game down a touchdown because a quarterback had too many incomplete passes in practice that week.

When you watch ESPN’s Sportscenter, you are going to see and hear reports of all kinds of statistics and highlights, but none that come from practices. Why? Because the reporters, broadcasters, coaches, and fans from everywhere all recognize that it is the game where players need to be held accountable for their achievement.

Classroom teachers would do well to take notes from this analogy and refuse to grade students’ practice, including homework. Notice that I am very intentional about distinguishing grading from giving feedback. Feedback that “feeds forward” is a critical part of the practice component of learning a new skill or concept! Formative assessment is ongoing and necessary. Grading should not be mistakenly equated to providing feedback. Indeed, grading often interferes with effectivefeedback and has no correlation to learning.

Practice should be an opportunity for a student to receive timely feedback from teachers, experience peer-assessment, and carry out self reflections. Ensuring that these aspects are key ingredients to the learning cycle will help prevent another poor practice all too often employed, the infamous completion grade.

Completion grading is what teachers use to entice students to do their homework while not destroying their hope with a string of low grades for poor performance. It is most likely done with good intentions. However, it can be quite a destructive practice when it comes to learning. 

What teachers do not often have the chance to do is take a big step back and look at the big picture of practices that they have been using for a long time. With time to do so, I believe many educators would see just how illogical it is to use completion grades to build knowledge or skills.

First, completion grades mis-communicate ability and progress to both students and parents. Many times, a student receives several consecutive 100's on homework assignments only to fail the assessment. This leaves everyone confused.

Second, completion grades discourage critical thinking because there is no need for a student to evaluate his or her work, analyze errors, attempt more challenging problems, etc.

Third, completion grades do not adequately prepare students for assessments. In fact, they can actually interfere with the learning process because of poor practice. Students can repeatedly be doing things incorrectly if they are only graded for completing the task. This is probably the most obvious and harmful negative effect of completion grades.

Imagine a coach telling a baseball player to practice batting for a "completion" grade. No coach would ever tell the player to just practice swinging a set number of times just for the sake of doing the activity, while neglecting to consider form, stance, follow-through, contact with the ball, etc., and expect that to prepare the player for game situations against pitchers.

The above example is only baseball. What if we were to apply the mentality behind completion grades to other serious endeavors, let's say preparing to do surgery or flying a plane or putting a roof on a house? Even the thought of such a thing is unacceptable.

Virtually any activity that requires a particular execution of a skill should never be rehearsed over and over without considering the quality of the action because brain research teaches us that practice makes permanent. Good practice leads to better performance. Poor practice, which can go unchecked with completion grading, can lead to poorer performance. Think about that! A student can actually be "taught" to be worse at something through this type of grading method.

So, what is the solution to the problem of completion grades?

The answer is to not grade practice at all. Only give feedback!

My Simple Church Guide

For those of you that can't handle a church group not having a manual to address all the "big rocks" like doctrine and evangelism and leadership, here you go. This is what ours would look like.

Our Theology & Beliefs

• Jesus is All.
• Be willing to unlearn some things so that you can learn new insights.

Evangelism & Outreach

• Ask and answer one question: Who is Jesus to you?

Discipleship & Ministry

• Let the answer to the question in the previous section dictate how you live.

Church & Fellowship

• Keep it simple!

Leadership & Service

• The Holy Spirit is the Leader. Everyone else follows as they share in His gifts. 

Organization & Policies

• This section is not applicable due to no buildings, budgets, or big shots. 

There you go!

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 3: "All Kids Learn the Same Content in the Same Way at the Same Time - Um, No!")

Another major problem with most grading systems is that they perpetuate the obvious myth that all students learn in the same way at the same time. Clearly, this ridiculous, factory-model perspective is at the heart of many educational ills, but in the next few posts I will focus on the part grades play in exasperating this problem. In particular, I will address concerns associated with re-do/re-take policies, grading homework/practice, and penalties for late work.

Before getting into specifics, though, let’s just deal up front with the absurdity of this paradigm that serves as a driving force behind most of our grading practices.  

It is pretty crazy when we consider what we do to children in our current educational system without even questioning some of the inherent assumptions. One of the assumptions is that if a teacher teaches something, then that automatically equates to a student learning something. Therefore, we (teachers) "cover" an enormous amount of material in our classes. Then, we hold students accountable for knowing, understanding and applying that material (all of it!) right away. To take matters worse, in many cases, students have only a passive encounter with the curriculum.

Some will contend that doing anything different equates with lowering expectations. "It worked for us when we were in school. It should be the same for students now. We didn't get second chances or do-overs. Kids these days are becoming so irresponsible. Besides, the 'real world' doesn't allow 'do-overs'!" The argument goes something like that, and I have heard it way too many times.

The most significant flaw in this argument is that it just isn't true. There are tons of facts and concepts that you "learned" in your K-12 education that I am quite certain you don't know now. Don't believe me? Take a few minutes sometime and Google the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills), or curriculum standards for your state if you are not in Texas, for any grade level and see how many of them you know today. I just did this with the 5th grade TEKS in Language Arts and Social Studies. Prepare to be humbled.

The point is that while your teachers most likely explicitly "taught" all of that material, we cannot assume that much learning took place. (That is not a knock on any of your teachers by the way. The same is true for the classes I taught.) It is simply unreasonable to expect humans to master all content when it is initially introduced. Students of all ages need time to review, rehearse, manipulate, analyze, synthesize, and organize information. None of these things can be rushed.

Moreover, the totally insane idea is to expect all people to advance through new knowledge at the same pace. All it takes is a parent of only two children to tell you that kids learn and develop differently! We readily admit this differentiation exists, but our practices betray us.

So, the traditional cycle of repeatedly and quickly presenting lessons, assigning homework about those lessons, testing on those lessons, grading students based on their achievement on the tests over the lessons, then moving on to other lessons so that we can "get through the curriculum" is an approach that has been shown to be sorely deficient.

It is also false that most of the "real world" does not allow for making corrections or re-doing activities. At least, not in my real world. I recently listed all the jobs that I could recall having in my life. There were about 15 of them, including YMCA membership clerk, fast food cook, grocery bagger, bus driver, youth minister, and teacher, to name a few. I realized that there is one thing all the jobs had in common: I frequently made mistakes and constantly had to learn from my failures. Over and over and over. It is no different in my current position as a school administrator.

In fact, mistake-making and continuous improvement upon initially poor performance are not only practices that I was, and am, not fired, reprimanded or punished for, but they are valuable to my growth as a contributor to the organization. See, my real world has no resemblance to the “real world” for which many teachers fear we are not preparing students.

Furthermore, it is most ironic to hear the argument against re-dos and corrections come from public school educators who are in a profession that makes it extremely difficult to get rid of teachers who perform poorly year after year, much less one time. If teachers in the real world fail to meet expectations, then they do not lose their jobs. They may receive extra training, resources, or time. They may be placed in a professional learning community. They may be put on a growth plan. They may have additional people provide them with feedback. The list goes on and on, and the objective in all these cases is to provide the employee with a way to recover from the loss or failure.

Is it hypocritical to refuse the same opportunities to young people still in their development?

Grades Gotta Go! (Part 2: "100 Degrees of Separation")

The first issue with most current grading systems is the 100-point scale. 
A couple problems contribute to the inappropriate use of the 100-point scale.
One is how we use it to calculate percentage grades. The other is the disproportionate weight that zeros have on grades.

First, this blog post raises the concern of calculating percentages to determine students' averages. Consider the problems described and whether you agree or disagree with them.


Second, Rick Wormeli does a fabulous job of breaking down a number of the difficulties with the 100-point scale and, in particular, giving zeros on this scale. 





If you are a parent, then what questions does this make you want to ask?

If you are a teacher, how would you respond to the claims made in Rob Eberts' blog and Rick Wormeli's video? 


One final thought about taking on the 100-point scale. It may seem impossible to address something so embedded in our assessment practices. The 100-point scale is easily accepted as part of our educational system by parents, teachers, and students alike. Why mess with a "good" thing?

Consider this. If it such a good practice, then why it is abandoned by both "ends" of most educational institutions? None of the schools where I live use it when children are starting out in preschool or early elementary grade levels. On the other end, college students have used 4, 5, or 6-point scales for years. I realize those numbers are sometimes nothing more than conversions from a 100-point scale, but I wonder what the original intent was for doing it that way.

We could argue that it is used all over the world, but that's not true. Denmark is an example of a nation that uses a 13-point scale. Belgium, France, Portugal, Peru, and Venezuela are a handful of countries that use a 20-point scale. Even states in the U.S. are beginning to introduce legislation and policies regarding the communication of student progress on different scales.

I am not arguing that we should model our education programs or policies after any of these nations or even our own American university system, which is fraught with its own problems. The point is to show that there is nothing sacred about the 100-point scale. It is flawed and we can do better for our kids!

As I write this blog, the Winter Olympics are going on in Sochi, Russia. At least maybe the 100-point scale is all they use there. Oh, wait, that's right...oops!

Grades Gotta Go! (part 1)

All right, here we go!

Not much has changed about grading over the decades since this observation was made by Paul Dressel

At the beginning of the year, I wrote a post listing some of the fundamental shifts in public education that could make dramatic improvements for children. One of them was:

• From Giving grades (that generally offer no information on how to improve) to Providing feedback (that feeds forward to further learning)

In the next series of posts that come out on Mondays (my day for focusing on Education reform), I will unpack this idea of transitioning from Grades to Feedback.

Concepts we will address include:

• Purpose of Grades
• Problem with the 100-point Scale
• Student Choice and Assessments
• Connection Between Grades and Learning Targets
• Problems with Grading 'Practice'
• Benefits of Specific, Actionable Feedback

Here are some experts and educational reformers that have influenced me when it comes to this topic:  (not an exhaustive list)

• Ken O'Connor
• Rick Wormeli
• Robert Marzano
• Thomas Guskey
• David Langford
• Susan Brookhart
• Grant Wiggins
• Jennifer Stewart and Leander ISD Facilitators

There are few topics in education that are more controversial and more volatile than this one. I invite you to read with an open mind and I welcome your comments of support and challenge, of agreement and disagreement. We may have more questions than answers when we are done (as if we will ever be done with this discussion!), but it is worth discussing as we pursue to make the world of school a much greater place for all children.

To introduce this topic, I will leave you today with this video:

Here is an interesting blog post on this topic.

Project-based Learning - The Challenge to Getting There

I have become interested in the concepts behind project-based learning, or problem-based learning. Some people use the terms interchangeably, while others object to doing so. I don't want to get into that semantic debate. For me, the simple point is that anything that gets us away from the traditional model of dumping a bunch of information on kids to have them later regurgitate that information back to us on a test is a good thing.

It might be messy and imperfect. There even may be some pedagogical flaws along the way, but the need to approach instruction from a more learner-centered, discovery-oriented, critical, questioning manner is so apparent in our present day. Having kids memorize a bunch of content for their brains to recall in the short-term and then dump so it can move on to the next load of content just won't cut it anymore. (And btw, make no mistake, that is what our brains do.) Students can access that kind of information at the click of a mouse.

But what they can't do in an instant is reflect, problem-solve, manipulate data, and struggle with concepts. These things take time and interaction, and should be the focus of schooling.

The problem is that we know these things have to change, but teachers often feel trapped in an outdated system with outdated metrics. Many teachers would like to transform their classroom practices, but they don't feel they have the freedom to do something new. At least, this is my perception.

I wonder if most teachers feel this way. I would love to better understand the dilemma that teachers face as they attempt to do what is best for kids.

Teachers are left disillusioned and frustrated. 

How can we change the system to encourage, not discourage, risk-taking, innovation, and learner engagement?

What Needs to Change About Education

(I was wrong. I actually do have one more post for this year.)

What the organized Church and public education have in common is that there are several shifts that need to take place in both institutions to most radically and substantially bring about a "much greater" environment for the young people within them. 

Throughout this blog, I have written about some of the shifts needed in organized Christianity in our part of the world. Things like...

• From Emphasis on big events one day a week to Emphasis on making disciples 24/7
• From Measuring seating capacity to draw crowds to Measuring sending capacity to serve others
• From Professional pastors (staff-driven leadership) to Reproducible practices (where every member functions)
• From Publicizing what we are Against to Promoting what we are FOR
• From Ministry (works) done for Jesus to Ministry (miracles) done BY Jesus
• From "GO TO church" (as in a place and time) to BE the church (as an identity)

But what about our schools? Are there fundamental shifts that could make dramatic change for the better in education? I believe there are. Here are a few, in my opinion.

• From Giving grades (that generally offer no information on how to improve) to Providing feedback (that feeds forward to further learning)
• From Time as the constant (prescribed scope and sequence for all students) to Learning as the constant (asynchronous, self-paced)
• From Focus on teaching to Focus on learning
• From Career orientation to Calling orientation (more to come on this in a future post, but you can get a glimpse of this shift here thanks to the work of Adam Saenz) 

This is clearly not meant to be an exhaustive list, but these are examples of the biggest "bang for your buck" transitions that we can make in public schools. The only disclaimer is that they are not easy.

I Will Have Less Slaves Working for Me Next Year

For my 100th Tweet and my last blog of 2013, I have some bad news and some good news.

While I try to keep my radical reform focus in my Monday blogs on Education topics, and in Wednesday blogs on Church topics, I also try to reflect in other posts about how there is something else that needs to be reformed: me. To say the least, I am a work in progress.

Part of my reformation takes place as I learn new things, some of which are disturbing and challenging. Right now (and for some time), I am a little overwhelmed by what I am learning about the modern day slave trade. To be honest, up until a few years ago, I didn't even know slavery still existed on any kind of large scale. In reality, most estimates say there are about 27 million slaves worldwide. Go here to see a world map that breaks down slavery stats across the globe.

The bad news is that many women and children are trafficked across borders, including our own, for the commercial sex trade. More bad news is that forced labor exists in many places to produce items consumed here. Even more bad news is that the amount of exploitation and abuse of these slaves is enormous. It is almost too much to take in. It is easy to feel that there is nothing I could do to make a difference.

BUT...there is good news! There are organizations and ministries working hard on behalf of those enslaved. These groups are getting smarter and more efficient. Churches are beginning to collaborate to counter this problem like never before. Individuals are networking with businesses, law enforcement, and each other to educate people, leverage resources, and promote peace and freedom. I was privileged to attend my first Allies Against Slavery meeting here in Austin earlier this month. I can promise you there are great people making sacrifices to help others.

I personally cannot think of anything else that could be more to the heart of Jesus than setting people free. So, as terrible as the current state of affairs is, I am hopeful that we can make a difference. I believe we can lift people out of devastation and introduce them to a joyful future. I am confident that I will have less slaves working for me in 2014.

Measuring Success - Making Disciples

Metric #3: Building Churches vs. Making Disciples

Most of my "professional ministry" was spent learning about the process of building, or planting, churches. There is a lot that goes into launching a new congregation. It is often time-consuming and very expensive. Interestingly, for all our training on how to build churches, the Bible never orders us to build a single church. In fact, Jesus declares that He will build His own church! When we get into the church-building business, we usurp the Messiah's authority and things can get ugly very quickly. We are not meant to build a church, but simply BE the church (ekklesia - "called out ones") that He builds. Furthermore, it wouldn't hurt for us to read the multiple occasions in the Bible in which God explicitly says He will not reside in a house or temple made by human hands. We do people, especially children, a disservice sometimes when we teach that there is a certain way to speak and act in "the house of the Lord." Theologically speaking, we are the temple of the Holy Spirit! WE are the church. The Church is a WHO, not a WHAT. It is our identity as Christ-followers, not something separate from us.

 

So, if we are not meant to be driven to build or plant churches (which is language still used in the Simple Church, by the way), then do we have another mandate? Yes, we do! The Great Commission tells us that Jesus directs His disciples to "go and make disciples." Making disciples does not necessarily entail planting a church (although it can). Making disciples involves planting Jesus in the lives of others. Another way of looking at this is to think of planting the seeds of the gospel in the different situations that present themselves. Making disciples is usually much more relational and relevant than church planting endeavors, and it is often much messier and more raw, too. Making disciples usually depends much more on God's direction and intervention than church planting, which is sadly often reduced to human planning and man-made strategies.

The question before the simple church in considering this measure, is, "What is a disciple?" We must wrestle with what it means to be a disciple, and how to reproduce our faith in those around us. One thing to keep in mind with this metric is that while a churchgoer can be a disciple, it should not be assumed that one automatically equates with the other.

What will changing the scorecard with this measure look like in your context?

What are the ramifications for children if the church shifts its focus in this area?

 

Measuring Success - Radical Generosity

Metric #2: Money In vs. Money Out  (Fundraising vs. Radical Generosity)

Most conventional churches cannot help but be preoccupied with the amount of money in the bank account. This doesn't mean that church leaders are corrupt or have bad intentions. It is just a matter of running a business. And church in America is very much a business! Bills must be paid, services are provided, staff members earn salaries, and many of the operations of the organized church deal with a religious version of "customer service." Since typical North American churches use 50-90% of their budget on internal costs to simply maintain the organization, they need a sustained system of bringing in revenue. For most churches, this system is the Old Testament practice of tithing. In many cases, members are instructed to give a tithe, or one-tenth, of their income to the local church. Some churches take pledges or hold campaigns to raise money. As 501c3, non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organizations, most churches are consumed with the task of raising and spending money. Quite frankly, as good businessmen and women, they have to be.

 

A simple church approach to finances differs sharply from the organized, institutional church. First of all, large amounts of funding for buildings, property, programs, and/or staff are not required. Since the expression of the church is in the ordinary places of life that we already frequent, there is no need to construct other places to worship or serve. Secondly, while the Old Testament practice of bringing a tithe to the storehouse is now obsolete because of what Jesus accomplished through the cross and Resurrection, the underlying principles related to caring for the orphans, widows, strangers, and poor still apply. In the New Testament, we never read of believers continuing to tithe, but we repeatedly read mandates to care for those less fortunate and defend the cause of the fatherless.

Our hope, then, lies in a commitment to radical generosity. The metric for effectiveness is not based on how much money we are raising or bringing in, but it is based on our willingness to sacrifice and give to others. Simple churches can discuss and agree upon how to carry out this commitment, individually and corporately. Without the overhead costs associated with conventional church structures, there should be more freedom and ability to give money toward direct acts of service. Money and time are best spent on blessing others.

What would changing the scorecard in regard to money look like in your situation?

How would a commitment to radical generosity instead of fundraising shape this generation’s understanding of church?