An honest response to the two questions I posed in my previous post (“What are we trying to accomplish here?” and “How do we know we’re accomplishing it?”) wouldn’t require a test for the children and youth in a religious education program. Rather, it would require a test of the entire congregation. Testing the children and youth reflects a no-child-left-behind mentality, where the quality and the content of a program is measure by the performance of the individuals involved in that program. This emphasis on the individual is a continuation of the “child-centered” religious education model that was the norm for most of the twentieth century in Unitarian Universalist (and mainline Protestant) congregations. The answer to the first question in a “test the children” scenario would be something like, “We’re trying to teach children about world religions (including Unitarian Universalism) and what it means to be an ethical person.” It seems to me that for a long time, these were the kinds of things we thought we were teaching our congregations’ children and youth.
What I’m looking for is a way to see how well a congregation is engaging children and youth in the Unitarian Universalist faith and how well a congregation is doing in allowing children and youth to be full participants in the practices of their religious community. And I have two suggestions on how we might measure that. First, for children twelve and under, I would submit that their identities as persons of a particular faith (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Unitarian Universalist, etc.) depend upon the faith of their families. And if we want the children to be engaged in Unitarian Universalism and be full participants in the practices of their congregation, then the way I would measure that is by counting how many families in the RE program are actually members of the congregation. If one or more of their parents aren’t members, then it’s a good sign that the family isn’t fully engaged in either the faith tradition or the practices of the congregation, or both.
Does this mean that only children whose parents are members of a congregation should be allowed in RE programs? Not necessarily. But there should be some pretty strong incentives for parents to be involved. Many, perhaps most, congregations have requirements that a parent needs to be physically present in the building while their child is at Sunday school. Of course this doesn’t mean that the parent is actually involved in the congregation, and it certainly doens’t require that they’re a member. But it’s a start. Another strategy would be to charge families who are members of a congregation a nominal RE registration fee, and charge non-members a LOT more. At Unity Church-Unitarian, for example, pledging families are charged $30-$35 per children to enroll in the RE program (it’s free if a parent volunteers to be a teacher). Non-pledging families are charged $200 for each child. I personally would change that so pledging members where charged the lesser fee. And the only parents who would qualify for free registration would be members. I’m a strong believer in having only members teach Sunday school.
My test for evaulating whether or not we’re accomplishing the same things with youth (engaging them in the faith tradition and the practices of the religious community) would be the same. I would want to know how many youth who had completed the children’s portion of the RE program (through Middle School OWL and Coming of Age) had actually become members of the congregation. What’s more, I would want to know how many parents of those children are still members of the congregation. My goal here is pretty straightforward: to know that an RE program is retaining a majority of the children as Unitarian Universalists by sampling the membership rates of families and youth. The first sample is when a family first attends. The second sample would be after Coming of Age. And the final sample would be when a youth turns 18.
How does sampling like this constitute a test for the entire congregation? Because it seems to me that only a congregation which thoroughly engages entire families in the faith tradition and religious community is going to be able to make a case for membership being important. That means thinking in terms of more than just age-segregated Sunday school. Which is partially what my presentation (with Kerri Meyer, Unity Church-Unitarian’s DRE) at the LREDA Fall Conference a couple of weeks ago was about. And I’ll definitely write more about that next week.
Phil's Little Blog on the Prairie 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 19, 2008 at 3:54 am
Kathy Burek
Phil,
I like the gist of what you’re saying about needing to involve families. I think part of the reason we don’t keep our children is so many of us adults were not raised as UUs and have no idea how to inculcate a sense of what being a UU means. If the congregation as a whole gets involved in helping the adults, we’re more likely to keep the children as they grow.
I don’t like the idea of fees for Children’s and Youth RE enrollment, especially if we don’t charge for Adult RE or other congregational programming. Support for the RE program should be a community responsibility, funded by pledges and the congregational budget. I understand the idea that if people pay something, they’re more likely to value it, or make an effort to get their children to church regularly. However, I see Children’s and Youth RE as comparable to the public schools in its aims and hence, funding strategy.
Kathy Burek
November 19, 2008 at 4:32 am
Nancy Heege
You’re giving us lots to think about here, Phil. As a former religious educator, I realize how timid I was back then. I knew we were doing crucial work, but I’m not sure I was as assertive as I could have been about making that point to others.
November 20, 2008 at 12:43 am
psdlund
Thanks for your comments, Nancy and Kathy. I agree, Nancy, that we need to be more assertive about what we’re trying to do in our religious education programs. Parents and other congregants need to understand just how important it is for the future of our faith. As far as fees for enrollment in children and youth RE, Kathy, I brought it up because it is already a practice in many (perhaps most?) of our congregations. Ideally, though, our programs should be of such obvious value that parents would want to fully participate in them whether the were free or not. It’s interesting to note that one of the reasons some congregations give for not offering membership to youth is that they’re afraid the youth won’t pledge anything and the congregation will be responsible for paying the district and association fair share amounts for youth members. I personally think that’s a pretty small investment to make in the future of our faith! (And who’s to say the youth won’t contribute…if they’ve been taught about stewardship as part of their religious education, they may be more than willing to support the congregation and the association.)