Written by Dr. Jeff Wiechman

TEACHER: “I want to be a better teacher, but I’m not sure what to tell the principal when he asks what I’d like him to pay attention to when observing. In the back of my mind I’m wondering what role his visit(s) will play in my final evaluation . . . which has to do with how I look to others on a call list. How can I know that we’re both looking realistically at my abilities as they grow and change with each new year? How can I give him ‘real data’ that shows more than just a one-hour observation once or twice a year?”

PRINCIPAL: “I need a way to assess the ability levels of my teachers while at the same time helping them to improve their professional practice. However, I struggle to find the time to go in and visit. When end-of-year assessments arrive, I feel as if I need more real data that we can look at to make the assessment more realistic. I want a better sample of what’s really going on in their classrooms and not just the ‘snippets’ I get to see when I come around once or twice a year.”

With the demands on school administrators and classroom teachers everywhere increasing, methods for assessing the ability of teachers are fast-growing and ever-changing. In most districts – including WELS schools – the responsibility for teacher evaluation rests with the principal. While classroom observation is a more traditional means of evaluating teacher performance, the use of portfolios for evaluation and professional growth among teachers at all levels is becoming more and more popular.

A teacher portfolio is a purposeful collection of artifacts and experiences that demonstrate a teacher’s talents and approach to learning. The professional portfolio process is practical, studies argue, and can be used for a variety of purposes including teacher preparation (we use it with candidates at MLC), employment, licensure, advancement, and professional growth (what I’m suggesting as a goal in WELS schools). While popular, a similar set of drawbacks continues to be recognized in the use of portfolios for this purpose, namely, time demands in development and analysis. However, these drawbacks can be used to solve other problems faced in WELS schools such as 1) applicable and useful topics for faculty curriculum study or professional learning groups, 2) studying and discussing what it is that we think makes good teaching, using our new WELS teacher standards as a guide, and 3) professional discussions (within a faculty and between a teacher and principal) about the kinds of artifacts to include in every teacher’s portfolio as well as specific artifacts for individual teachers.

To learn more, I have created a synthesis of research studies (available here) about teacher portfolios that validate their usefulness for teacher evaluation. These studies also indicate some of the pros and cons of their use for administrators and teachers alike. The research focuses on four basic questions concerning the use of portfolios:

1) Do teacher portfolios contribute to a valid assessment of teacher performance?

2) Could teacher portfolios provide a value-added factor to teacher evaluation systems in terms of differentiating quality of performance?

3) What are the perceptions of teachers and administrators regarding the use of portfolios in teacher evaluation?

4) How do teacher portfolios contribute to professional growth for teachers?

“Each (question) serves to inform the overarching question of whether portfolios improve the effectiveness of teacher evaluation systems by offering greater accountability for performance of defined expectations and promoting professional development”  (Tucker, Stronge, Gareis, & Beers, 2003).

As teachers, we try to have the best assessments for our students so that we can appreciate their ability, help them improve, and prepare them for greater challenges. As teachers, don’t we want the same for ourselves? In this way we can serve our students even more. Portfolios for teachers are yet another way to improve instruction, assess instructional ability more accurately, and help faculties collaborate on what good teaching looks like.

Jeff Wiechman is a professor of education and academic dean (education studies) at Martin Luther College. His doctorate is in Educational Policy and Administration from the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities.

Written by Kenneth Kremer

The cameras were primed for capturing the thoughts of ten Christian parents—all WELS members.[i] The professional interviewer got right to the point: “Who do you think is responsible for your child’s spiritual education?”

One father shared this view: “I see myself as being in charge of the logistics—getting my kids to school or Sunday school. I believe in letting the experts teach and the parents be the facilitators.” Most of the others nodded in agreement.

The interviewer pressed on. “So what prevents you from being the expert?”

The mother of a five-year-old seemed up for the challenge. “It’s not that I don’t have the knowledge. This is the [church’s] organized thing—the formal process. Our church leaders talk about wanting to try things outside the box. Well this is the box we’re in: you take your children to Sunday school, enroll them in a Christian day school; later you send them to the pastor’s confirmation class. They learn that this is where you go to get the [spiritual] knowledge you will need for the rest of your life.”

Empirical data supports the anecdotal evidence for making this compelling case: Many, if not most, Christian parents no longer function as the primary faith-nurturers of their own children. Barna (2010), for example, reports that fewer than one out of every five [Christian] parents believe they are doing a good job of training their children morally and spiritually; and not even half (46%) of them state that their faith is important in their lives.[ii] The trend is worrisome. One question that clearly needs to be pursued is whether the church culture we’ve created continues to align with God’s model for engaging parents in the faith life of their own children.[iii] This raises the question: To what degree has the church itself contributed to the paradigm shift? Is it possible that we have inadvertently suggested that formal religious training by the church’s so-called experts can somehow replace the influence of parents?[iv] And, finally, has the organized church recognized the threat? If so, what efforts are being made to equip parents for their challenging role?

Cause and Effect

This didn’t happen overnight. More than a century ago the pragmatic humanist John Dewey (1859-1952) saw education as the anvil on which an emerging industrial American society would be forged. Under the structured tutelage of well-trained teachers (experts), Dewey envisioned the classroom as the place where students could more fully realize their potential.[v] Christian education resisted Dewey’s humanistic views regarding morality and religious faith, but it was not altogether impervious to his pedagogy. Several Christian denominations similarly began to regard parochial classrooms as the most effective (or efficient) way to shape their church culture. In many ways it was effective for the nation as well as the church. A largely illiterate population was transformed into a technological juggernaut through high-quality schools and a strong curriculum, especially later in the disciplines of science and math. Many people who made use of Christian schools also shared in the many blessings that resulted both for the children and for the church in general. But, with this view as a given, it is easy to understand how, over time, the influence of the home was quietly being replaced by the influence of the classroom and trained professionals. This unintended outcome still resonates among the attitudes of the current generation of Christian parents.[vi]

As industrial America grew, the workplace also began to change. In an agrarian economy, every family member contributed to the household income as a general laborer. But by the early 1900s the steady introduction of complex new technologies created a growing demand for workers with more sophisticated and specialized skills. The idea spread quickly from one sector of the economy to another. Six generations later, nearly everyone with a job filled a niche that required some degree of specialization. Today nearly everyone in the jobs sector has cultivated a laundry list of specialized skills for specific tasks. From a parental perspective, the take-home message has been that if you want things done right, give the task to people (teachers, coaches, mentors, pastors, surrogates, etc.) who have the right skills for the job. Regardless of what the Bible has to say about the matter, theology has been viewed as just another area in which parents feel they are poorly equipped for the task at hand. As this second shoe dropped, an ever-increasing number of Christian parents quietly abdicated their faith-nurturing role—a role that necessarily engages them in both theology and pedagogy—to trained professionals, whom they now viewed as the primary faith nurturer of their own children.[vii] Though, admittedly, the circumstances were quite different, the apostle Paul would have no truck with those who tried to excuse themselves from sharing the gospel in their personal contacts. Paul wrote: “I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another” (Romans 15:14). The confidence of Christian parents will need to be reconstructed if there is to be any hope for restoring their faith-nurturing role to them.

A Roadmap to the Future

History helps us understand how and why the cultural landscape has changed so dramatically in such a short time. What it cannot do is provide a roadmap for reshaping the church and home culture so that negative aspects of the current paradigm can be addressed. The following three imagined snapshots of a future church culture are meant to serve as the springboard for a discussion aimed at creating a badly needed new map for Christian parents.

RESPECTIVE ROLES: A church culture that acknowledges parents as the primary spiritual nurturers of their own children, and Christian education programs serving in supportive, encouraging, and equipping roles that will also prepare parents for the critical role that God himself ordained.

CHARACTER FORMATION: A church culture that understands that Christian character has its origins in the community of the home, where, as infants, children first learn about love from the actions and behaviors of parents and siblings.[viii] [ix]

HOME CONVERSATION: A church culture that lovingly holds parents accountable for leading an ongoing, honest, open, and meaningful spiritual conversation about Jesus, the Bible, and other faith-related topics in their own homes.[x]

Written by John Meyer

It’s time for action if WELS elementary schools are to survive. The Book of Reports and Memorials (BORAM) for the 62^nd Biennial Convention of the WELS was recently published, and it contains compelling arguments that the time to save WELS schools is now. Long-established trends reveal reasons for concern.

WELS Lutheran elementary school enrollment peaked in 1990 with nearly 32,000 students. Since then, overall enrollment has been consistently dropping. The Commission on Lutheran School reports this year’s K-8 enrollment as 24,254 (2013 BORAM, p. 40)—a drop of 1,781 students and 39 schools since 2006. It’s actually worse. Those aggregate numbers include the rapidly growing, publicly-funded choice schools in Southeastern Wisconsin and Florida, thus masking the true impact of the enrollment decline felt in most schools. The enrollment decline in the other ten districts averages 400 students per year. At this rate, those 253 WELS schools will disappear by 2051.

Also of concern is that the loss of students in WELS schools (7%) is greater than the loss of children in WELS congregations (5%), indicating that more WELS parents are opting out of the Lutheran school (WELS Statistical Reports, 2006; 2012). Excluding districts with choice schools, Lutheran K-8 enrollment is down 13% since 2006, suggesting an even higher opt-out rate for WELS families. (See Table 1 for enrollment comparisons by district.)

Why do institutions die? It is because they fail to adapt to a changing environment. As the outside culture changes, those within the institution fail to notice. They are comfortable doing things the way they’ve always been done. Besides, the memories of the “glory days” tease those within the institution that success is found in the traditions of the past. But as the gap between the institution and its environment widens, increasing decline signals that something is terribly wrong (Agocs, 1997; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Heifetz, 1994; Kuhn, 1962; Reeves, 2009; Van De Ven, 1995; Weick & Quinn, 1999).

While God’s Word is relevant to every age, the process and product of schooling can change. The former “glory days” are gone for WELS schools. The American culture is vastly different from 1990 when the traditional Lutheran elementary school flourished. If WELS schools are to thrive again, they must be reconfigured for the present. But the road to reconfiguration is difficult and messy. The following guidelines should be considered:

1. Avoid seeking a scapegoat. Although assigning blame brings catharsis, it does nothing to change the institution’s path. Everyone shares the blame.
2. Look beyond the institution for new solutions. Those within are limited to the memories and solutions of the past. If something didn’t work before, it won’t now—no matter how hard one tries. Consider why others are successful in today’s environment.
3. Do not attempt to recreate the past. Persuasive leaders will call for a return to what made the institution great in the good ol’ days. While this succeeds in rallying the troops, a return to the past only accentuates the divide between the institution and the modern environment, hastening its death.

The Task Force on Lutheran Schools’ report in the 2013 Book of Reports and Memorials (pp. 45 – 68) is well-written, and everyone who cares about WELS elementary schools should read it. The Task Force report offers many suggestions, including a mission-focused approach to outreach, re-envisioning the principal, and providing adequate funding.

Keeping in mind the above guidelines, these suggestions should be carefully considered and thoroughly discussed at the 2013 WELS convention. The report’s suggestions should be empirically tested to discover which ideas will best help WELS schools narrow the gap between its culture and parental expectations. Most important, actions must be taken to correct the problems before it is too late.

John Meyer is the director of graduate studies and continuing education at Martin Luther College.

References

Agocs, C. (1997, June). Institutional Resistance to Organizational Change: Denial, Inaction, and Repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), pp. 917-931.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational Change: A Review of Theory and Research in the 1990′s. Journal of Management, 293-315.

Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Van De Ven, A. H. (1995). Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 510-540.

By Greg Schmill

While this may sound like the plea of a frustrated American tax preparer and payer on April 15, I regularly hear of another group seeking more time. They are our WELS teaching principals —principals who also carry out significant teaching roles. These educators face the daily challenges of a myriad of urgent and important tasks, of role ambiguity and role conflict and its accompanying stress, and of trying to lead the school from the classroom. It is imperative in this time of great challenge and change for our schools that our congregations provide the time for administrators to administrate, for supervisors to supervise, for leaders to lead, and for the visionaries to cast a vision.

WELS principal facts:

• Of private school systems surveyed, WELS has the highest percentage of principals who are teaching in addition to serving as principals. Ninety-nine percent of WELS principals report being a teacher and a principal (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004).

• Of private school systems surveyed, WELS has the most average hours per week spent by principals on school-related activities at 61 hours per week (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004).

• 38% of WELS principals reported they would rather serve as a teacher only and no longer be a principal (Schmill, 2009).

• In the middle of April 2013, 19 WELS congregations were attempting to fill principal vacancies.

As research demonstrates and as discussed in previous blogs, the principal is central to a school’s success. The principal has a direct impact on a school’s climate, teacher quality, and instructional excellence, and accounts for up to 25% of the variance in student achievement (Clifford, Behrstock-Sherratt, & Fetters, 2012; Liethwood & Riehl, 2005).

But in order for principals to have a positive effect on the students and the school, we must provide them time outside the classroom to carry out their leadership roles. In our circles, we refer to this as Administrative Release Time (ART). In the latest research done on WELS Lutheran elementary school ART in 2009, WELS schools provide only 63% of the WELS School Accreditation standard of 10 hours per week for every 75 students. Ironically, as expectations for principals grow in our schools, the amount of time principals have to accomplish their leadership and management responsibilities has not.

A paragraph from Prof. John Meyer’s earlier blog on school leadership bears repeating:

At one time, the WELS principal’s primary role was to be a resource or task manager. His primary concerns were spiritual guidance and the efficient operation of the school. As such, he was responsible for disseminating information, rules, policies, and procedures in a top-down fashion (Shipman, Queen, & Peel, 2007). Societal pressures, parental expectations, the growing popularity of school alternatives, rapid advance of technology, increasing diversity of students’ abilities and backgrounds, and the complex legal and financial dynamics associated with modern education have created a need for principals with greater knowledge and skills than those of a generation ago. Today’s principals must be visionary leaders who empower others through collaboration and group decision-making. They are held accountable for teacher and student learning, professional development, data-driven decision making, and community relations. They provide instructional leadership, community leadership, and visionary leadership (Shipman et. al., 2007).

To expect all this of a teaching principal given little or no time to carry out this role is completely unrealistic. It is leading to exhaustion, frustration, burnout, and a lack of people willing and able to serve as principals.

What can we do? It is time for all congregations to review the purpose, mission, and vision of their schools and to identify clearly the role of the principal in carrying these out. Then, all involved must recognize the importance of the principal and the need for ART, and all must work together to provide sufficient ART. For starters, all schools should meet the minimum ART requirement of WELSSA accreditation – 10 hours per week for every 75 students. Hopefully, many schools will provide more than the minimum. In addition, let’s commit to providing the leadership and administrative training for our principals so they may best make use of this time.

The 2009 study asked principals how they would use additional ART time, if provided. Top responses included personal spiritual development, promotion of school in the community and congregation, strengthening school spiritual focus, strengthening the school’s culture and climate, curriculum development, supervision of instruction, and staff development (Schmill, 2009). This list focuses on key areas for the health of any Lutheran school.  Students, parents, teachers, and congregation members would be very pleased to have principals who have the time to strengthen any and all of these areas. And I am confident the Lord would bless those efforts. So, please . . . give ‘em more time!

Greg Schmill is the Administrator for the WELS Commission on Lutheran Schools. Greg completed a study of WELS principals and Administrative Release Time as his master’s thesis in 2009. He provides a link in the references below for those who wish to learn more.

References

Clifford, M., Behrstock-Sherratt, E., & Fetters, J. (2012). The ripple effect: A synthesis of research on principal influence to inform performance evaluation design. Naperville, IL: American Institutes for Research.

Liethwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about educational leadership? In W. A. Firestone, & C. Riehl, A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 12-27). New York: Teachers College Press.

Meyer, J. (2013, December). WELS Leadership Crisis? Volume II. Issues in Lutheran Education blog

http://blogs.mlc-wels.edu/wels-educator/2013/02/

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). School and Staffing Survery (SASS) 2003-2004. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from Institute of Education Sciences: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables.asp

Schmill, G. (2009, April). Administrative Release Time (ART) for School Principals of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. https://connect.wels.net/AOM/ps/schools/cpsnews/eNEWS%20documents/ART%20for%20WELS%20Principals%20–%20Summary%2011%202012.pdf

Shipman, N. J., Queen, J. A., & Peel, H. A. (2007). Transforming school leadership with ISLLC and ELCC. Larchmont NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

What year are you getting your students ready for? Are you getting them ready for when they graduate from college, or when you graduated? Was that the 80s when the soda (or pop) world tricked us with NEW Coke? Was that the 90s when grunge meant more than just a dirty man in the garage? Was that the turn of the millennium when Netscape and AOL changed the way we found information?

What have you done to keep up with your changing students? Is the butterfly lesson you’ve presented in your classroom for years still engaging the kids the way it did back in the day? Is the VCR still blinking 12:00 in your home? (You still have a VCR?!) If you seriously reflect on your ministry, is it time for you to take a leap of faith and realize that your education needs “to be continued”?

I don’t have the time! School doesn’t have the money! I’m only a few years from retirement! The list of excuses can go on. And with each excuse, another class of students is denied the special opportunity to receive both high quality and Christian education.

Continuing education of teachers is a core feature of what makes successful students. The single biggest factor in student achievement is the person in the front of the classroom (Rice, 2003). If the teacher in the classroom possesses a 1986 teaching style for a student who will graduate from college in 2025, there is a problem. The need for teachers to be continually learning is evident. And the dividends far outweigh the perceived inconveniences.

Collaboration: Every person in your school should be engaged in some sort of continuing education. That’s right, every person. While some school leaders may cringe at the cost this may incur, it need not be expensive. For some, continuing education may mean formal instruction toward an advanced degree. For others, it may be as basic as an educational book discussion among faculty. The key is this: the more teachers are engaged in continuing their own education, the more they engage with one another in meaningful change within their school (DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2006). The “do-your-own-thing” mentality needs to be replaced by a spirit of collaboration and communication about our most precious commodities, our students and our Lord.

Time: This four-letter word can be friend or foe. We all have the same amount of time; what we do with that time is what determines whether we have enough of it. Formal programs of study, with travel to and from campuses, may pose challenges for some, but with online learning the travel is eliminated, and in most cases classes meet when you’re free. Current models like those from Martin Luther College and Wisconsin Lutheran College offer asynchronous class environments where class is always in session and you’re able to contribute whenever you’re free.

Money: Formal education costs money, but it doesn’t need to be a budget breaker, especially in our technological age. Recently Shoreland Lutheran High School faculty engaged in an MLC webinar series on differentiated instruction. This webinar allowed the faculty to watch a video presentation on their own time, convene with colleagues to discuss their reflections on the video, and finally reflect via a short, individual written assessment. All of this cost $20 per teacher, a small price to pay for incredible, synergized continuing education that will last for many years. For approximately $500, the entire Shoreland faculty engaged in a year’s worth of dialogue that would have cost thousands of dollars if done separately at university or college campuses. Webinars exist in a number of varied settings and are offered by many colleges and educational entities for a minimal cost and, in some cases, no cost at all.

Just ten years ago, the educational world was different. Author Thomas Friedman (2011) humorously quips that in 2003, Google was a number, tweets were the sounds birds made, Facebook was the position our noses were in when we fell asleep in class, the cloud was a place in the sky, and Skype was a typo! Yet these tools are now readily available and inexpensive, allowing us to continue our education without excessive dents in our schedules or pocketbooks.

Is it time we as professionals catch up to meet the demands of our changing learners? Or is it okay to remain satisfied with our antiquated approach to education because “it’s easier for us?” The stakes are too high, the need is too great, and the future of our kids is too important for us to sit on the sidelines and wait for the next person to pick up our slack. Our role as leaders demands that we create a plan to continue our learning. And the best part is that it’s never been easier and more affordable to do than right now.

Written by Jason H. Lowrey, PhD. Jason is the Dean of Academics at Shoreland Lutheran High School, Somers WI.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Learning Tree Press.

Friedman, Thomas L. & Mandelbaum, Michael (2011). That used to be us: How America fell behind in the world it invented and how we can come back. New York: D&M Publishers Inc.

Rice, Jennifer (2003). Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes.  Retrieved

On March 23, 2013 from

http://www.epinet.org/printer.cfm?id=1500&content_type1&nice_name-books_teacher…

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future” (Jeremiah 29:11, NIV 2011).

As we read in the Bible passage above, God has a plan for each of us. What a blessing it is to remember this as we work with God’s children. God is guiding us every step of the way, ensuring that these children receive the message of God’s Word in a loving, caring environment. Our children come from many different backgrounds, with differing abilities. Some of these children may have various learning disabilities or special needs, including ADHD, autism, or giftedness. WELS schools should strive to serve these children. As you read this article, I want you to think about what we as WELS educators can do to help the children God has placed in our care and to keep these children at WELS schools.

For nine years, I had the opportunity to teach many students in WELS elementary schools, including many students who had special needs. As the number of students diagnosed with special needs steadily increased (Smith, 2009), my goal was to help each student learn as an individual, according to his or her needs. It was evident to me, however, that not all WELS teachers had the same passion, or the education, to properly teach children with special needs. This saddened me. I believe training in this area is imperative, because many WELS schools serve students with varying abilities, both with and without disabilities.

What will happen if the number of students with special needs continues to increase and the WELS does not have individuals properly trained in this area? What will happen to these students who are also children of God? What will happen to enrollment at Lutheran schools? These are questions WELS leaders and teachers need to consider. My hope is that these individuals will consider the role of WELS schools. WELS schools are Christ-centered. When staff cannot meet the educational needs of a student with a disability and thereby must send the student away, WELS schools have failed to provide the child with a Christ-centered education.

After obtaining my master’s degree in cross categorical special education, I was determined to find ways to help keep students with special needs at our WELS schools, ensuring that each child’s needs were met, including the need to hear and learn God’s Word. Recently, in my doctoral program, I completed a study on special education in WELS elementary schools. I strongly feel that what I found, and the conclusions I drew from the data, communicate a great need to address special education at WELS schools.

Research Study Findings

Through my study, I surveyed WELS elementary school principals to determine the number of resources available for students with special needs, the number of students with special needs WELS schools are currently serving, and principals’ perceptions regarding the implementation of special education. From the target population of 312 principals, 86 individuals responded, yielding a 27.5 % response rate. Although the number of responses was much lower than expected, adequate information was derived from the data collection and analysis. The responding principals reported serving 871 students who are diagnosed with special needs and requiring accommodations / modifications in their schools. However, those same principals reported only seven teachers with degrees or certifications in special education. Currently, many WELS schools are ill-equipped to serve all students.

WELS leaders and teachers should assess the needs at each educational facility and gain a better understanding of how to properly educate students with special needs. WELS teachers can take opportunities to learn about and obtain degrees in special education through programs including MLC’s new special education degree. MLC Vice-President David Wendler stated, “We envision some MLC students adding a special education major to their elementary education major and, upon graduation, being superbly qualified to serve not only as a regular classroom teacher but also as a resource for the school’s special needs children, their parents, and other faculty members.”

As we move forward and steps are taken to increase the number of individuals educated in this area, the hope is that we will stop turning students away because of special needs.

Written by Dr. Tracey Enser.

Dr. Enser is the elementary behavioral disorders teacher at Prairie Learning Center in Olathe, KS. She also served as as a first and second grade teacher for nine years at WELS elementary schools.

References

NIV (2011). The Holy Bible. Retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com

Smith, L. (2009). Schools face huge rise in special needs cases. Retrieved from http: //www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/schools-face-huge-rise-in-special-needs-cases-1831095.html

The word “professionalism” is overused and vague, and it is inadequate to describe Lutheran teachers who are also gospel ministers. Consider this example: A family business, which employed 20 people with differing tasks and skills, had a financially successful year. A formal celebratory gathering was in order. To heighten its significance, the naïve host suggested “professional dress” on the invitation. Imagine the embarrassment of host and guests alike when they arrived in every variety of attire, each of them thinking they were wearing “professional dress.”

In the same way, the word profession or professional has as many meanings as the types of “professional” dress at the party.

Historically, the professions only included the legal, medical, and theological vocations. Currently, the meaning of professions and professionalism has morphed to include both Jesse Venture and Robert Shapiro. When the concept of professionalism becomes ambiguous, no vocation is flattered. Worse, reverence for the gospel ministry of teachers is disdained when equating it with the teaching profession.

The uniqueness of the teaching ministry mandates a distinction from what is commonly called “the teaching profession.”

First, the function of the teaching ministry is God-ordained. The general ministry of the gospel is the genesis for the teaching ministry.  The universal priesthood of God’s people striving to preach Christ as well as the responsibility of individual Christians/parents merge in Christian education. Called teachers in the public ministry serve on behalf of parents and the congregation to further Christ’s kingdom.

Second, those in the public ministry are an exclusive group.  From eternity, God predestined, called, justified, and glorified those to be his own by the power of the Spirit and the redemptive work of Christ. Only from his people does God call some to serve as teachers in the public ministry. Becoming a servant of the gospel is a gift of God’s grace through the working of his power.

Third, a teaching minister’s philosophy of education is founded on Scripture, not human philosophy.  The understanding of the nature of the child, the capacity to learn, the ultimate purpose of education, and how to subjugate all thoughts to the Word of God all reflect the revealed foundational understandings provided by the Bible.

Fourth, God provides a code of conduct for teachers in the public ministry that is beyond that of other teachers. Scripture enumerates the qualifications for a public minister to guide ministers’ behavior so as not to hinder the effectiveness of the gospel. The general teaching profession, on the other hand, has created its own code of ethics. This code of ethics is a pluralistic consensus striving to provide a standard for desired conduct.[i]

Fifth, the teaching minister’s Spirit-engendered love for Christ strives to manifest faithfulness. A teacher’s faithfulness is an integration of personal stewardship, a desire to fulfill the obligations of the ministry, and adherence to the truths of Scripture. This faithfulness permeates relationships with children, colleagues, parents and community and is expressed in teaching practices and performance.[ii]

If one insists on using the term professionalism with the teaching ministry, its definition must be distinct from its use in the world. Professionalism for the teaching ministry is a fruit of faith[iii] of grateful teachers striving to be faithful to their calling. A fruit of faith is nurtured only by the means of grace.

Professional development with the intended outcome of improving ministerial skills or cultivating professionalism can present a challenge. Professional development through instruction permeated by the Word of God is one means for improving this fruit of faith. If professional development comes through sources not permeated by the Word of God, then the teacher is required to subjugate all knowledge to Scripture. This delving into Scripture is the identifying mark of professional growth for the teaching minister.

Christ’s love urges the cautious use of such a diverse and nebulous term as professional and unprofessional behavior. The question is: Professional or unprofessional based on what criterion? For teaching ministers, the criterion is the will of God as it applies to their personal faith life and all aspects of their calling. Using a pluralistic, humanistic-derived criterion to judge a teaching minister demeans the teachers’ God-given calling. The world’s humanistic perception of professionalism cannot and should not be equated with professionalism as a fruit of faith.

In sum, reverence toward the ministry for the sake of the ministry, teachers, and congregations is enhanced when there is a clear delineation between scriptural and cultural meanings of professionalism.

How about using science to support the Biblical teaching that God is triune? We would never do that, but this is an example of what the scholastics did before the Reformation.[i] Martin Luther had little time for this sort of reasoning. Following the posting of the 95 Theses, Luther was asked to present his views at Heidelberg in 1518. Here Luther warned that God is known only by seeing Christ on the cross.[ii] “The theology of the cross” is saving knowledge: the center of the Christian faith. In contrast, a theology of glory, attempts to know and satisfy God through human understandings and efforts.[iii]

Is this a temptation that faces us now? The creation science movement generally assumes that science can support theology. Accordingly, we have seen a series of arguments put forth to support Scripture and a young Earth: the small accumulation of moon dust found by the Apollo astronauts, sightings of Noah’s ark, a dead “plesiosaur” caught near New Zealand, finding “fresh” dinosaur tissue, and identifying mechanisms like blood clotting that are too complex to have evolved. Even Ken Ham, the popular creationist speaker who believes that the Bible and science go hand in hand, runs up a caution flag against accepting some, but not all, of these claims.[iv]

So what does this mean for our schools? We can look to our history.  Education at Wittenberg was turned around by the Reformation. Sachiko Kusukawa, a Cambridge historian, has made a very strong case that the reformers at Wittenberg did more than look at theology differently. The very foundation of medieval schooling was overturned: that human reasoning could and should contribute to knowing God.[v]

Science at Wittenberg now turned away from the support of theological doctrines to the discovery of how God preserves us. That God created was assumed on the basis of Scripture. Valerius Cordus, the botanist at the university, asked why God made what he made.  Why did he make so many different plants if some were not to serve as remedies for certain diseases? Accordingly, Cordus went on field trips, collected plants, watched the progress of patients at the apothecary shop of Lucas Cranach, and questioned authority.

We would do well to renew this spirit in teaching science. Students should recognize the many ways in which God provides for us.

In the process we will see that not everything in nature is as it should be. Humans require vitamin C as part of an enzyme that makes a protein called collagen. Collagen is found in many places in the body and basically holds our tissues together.  We need to be sure that vitamin C is in our diet. Now it has been found that all humans have a gene for making vitamin C, but it is damaged by a frameshift mutation.[vi] It would be one thing to be completely lacking the gene, but it is another when we see the ruins of what once was functional. We see damage in the Creation and are faced with paradox. It is wonderful and it is not. The unbeliever says your God should have done a better job of creating. But Scripture clears the air; nature is suffering because of our sin, not God’s mistakes in design. We need to teach that nature is suffering (Romans 8:22). At the same time we need to encourage the study of how things work in order to reduce this suffering.

The scholastic science, mentioned above, is now gone. We need to teach that history shows that science changes.[vii] If we support Scripture with science, in the manner of creation science, do we not lean onto our own changing understandings (Proverbs 3:5)?  Scripture does not need our assistance.

Nevertheless, the knowledge gained through science has been part of God’s providence. For example, the discovery of antibiotics has saved many lives. We need to teach that God blesses us through our understandings.

When we take issue with scientific claims that conflict with Scripture, we should not call the scientists stupid. The assumptions being made are driving the interpretations of the data and the conclusions. Science rightly studies and is limited to natural causes. However, some have gone further and claimed that there are only natural causes. We need to teach that in all subjects, the assumptions being made affect the conclusions.[viii] This is the major apologetic needed against claims of an evolutionary origin. Those who hold to a theory of macroevolution have assumed that there are only natural causes for everything. Creation was a series of miracles that are outside of science. Even when natural causes occur, God is behind them. As Martin Galstad said, God is operating in everything around us, but we need the Word to see things fall into place.[ix]

So it follows that we can study all of science. Our youngsters can enjoy the dinosaurs and the layers of rock. When reading the claims for an old Earth, let them remember that Adam, Eve, and the garden were all created with age. It is, in fact, impossible to create without an appearance of a history that never happened. Philip Gosse, a contemporary of Darwin, pointed this out by asking if Adam and Eve had navels. Gosse listed many things that needed age if they were to be fully operational.[x] We can add to his list. We know that Eve had eggs in her ovaries. Normally females have their eggs set aside before they are born, when they are inside their mother. In Eve’s case, her eggs were part of virtual history.

Were the dinosaur fossils part of the virtual history?[xi] We do not know. We need to say no more than we can. Arguments can also be made that they lived with us. Perhaps Behemoth was one (Job 40:15ff). When we get to heaven, we can find out.

Students need to understand how science is done. They need to experience inquiry lessons that invite critical thinking and the shaping of conclusions. There is joy in the study of God’s creation. At Wittenberg, seeing evidence of God’s preservation and providence in nature was a way of giving glory to God.[xii]

Luther said it this way: “We are at the dawn of a new era, for we are beginning to recover the knowledge of the external world that was lost through the fall of Adam. . . . By the grace of God we already recognize in the most delicate flower the wonders of divine goodness and omnipotence.”  This should be the thrust of science in our schools.

Written by Professor Emeritus Paul Boehlke, PhD. Paul served as a Professor of Science at both Martin Luther College (MLC) and Wisconsin Lutheran College (WLC). He is currently an adjunct member of the MLC graduate faculty.

Dr. LeDell Plath, former Commission on Parish Schools assistant administrator, recalls the recommendation of a synod committee during the 1970’s regarding the assignment of DMLC graduates as principals. Dr. Plath shared, “The committee concluded that it would be preferable to not do such assignments” (Plath, 2012).

It was clear to many at that time that it was unwise to assign a DMLC graduate to an administration position since he had no teaching experience or administrative training. Yet today this WELS practice continues. Certainly the duties and expectations of the Lutheran school principal have become more complex and challenging in the past 40 years. If the practice was considered unwise then, it is even more unwise today.

Understanding the Principal’s Role

At one time, the WELS principal’s primary role was to be a resource or task manager. His primary concerns were spiritual guidance and the efficient operation of the school. As such, he was responsible for disseminating information, rules, policies, and procedures in a top-down fashion (Shipman, Queen, & Peel, 2007). Societal pressures, parental expectations, the growing popularity of school alternatives, rapid advance of technology, increasing diversity of students’ abilities and backgrounds, and the complex legal and financial dynamics associated with modern education have created a need for principals with greater knowledge and skills than those of a generation ago. Today’s principals must be visionary leaders who empower others through collaboration and group decision-making. They are held accountable for teacher and student learning, professional development, data-driven decision making, and community relations. They provide instructional leadership, community leadership, and visionary leadership (Shipman et. al., 2007). To expect this of a beginning teacher who has little teaching experience, or even a veteran teacher who has experience but no formal leadership training, is unrealistic.

What Research Says

The importance of the principal as a formal leader in education is documented by empirical research. Principals account for as much as one-fourth of the variation of school-level factors in student achievement (Liethwood & Riehl, 2005). In addition to the impact the principal has on student learning, many case studies point to his even greater impact on a school’s overall success. Effective educational leaders conduct a number of complex activities that enable them to set direction, develop people, and redesign the organization (Clifford, Behrstock-Sherratt, & Fetters, 2012; Liethwood & Riehl, 2005).

Preparation Expectations in Other Systems

Expectations for principal preparation are higher in other school systems than in the WELS. At least 43 states have adopted a version of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards. Most states, such as Minnesota and Wisconsin, require that people wishing to be principals meet those standards before they can hold the position. The usual preparation in the public system follows this pattern:

• Meet the standards for being a licensed teacher with a minimum of three years classroom experience before entering a principal preparation program.
• Earn a master’s degree in educational administration or a master’s degree in education with additional graduate level administrative credits (36 – 60 credits total).
• Complete a practicum or field experience of 320 hours.

In contrast, the usual principal preparation in the WELS is a two-year mentoring program.

Qualification Comparisons

These differences in the expectations for principal preparation have produced a large gap between the qualifications of principals in other school systems and the WELS. According to the 2007-2008 School and Staffing Survey published by the National Center for Educational Statistics (2009), the following percentages of principals held a master’s degree or higher:

• All public schools              98.5%
• Catholic schools               91.3%
• Other religious                  53.5%
• Nonsectarian                     71%

An earlier School and Staffing Survey (2004) pulled out the Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod principals’ highest degree information from the private schools and reported it as follows:

• Missouri Synod                 69.4%
• Wisconsin Synod              26%

While we can praise God that he has moved about one-fourth of our principals to pursue a degree despite an absence of strong encouragement or adequate time and funding, we also acknowledge that the lack of principal preparation reflects poorly on WELS schools. The synod’s low expectation for principal preparation threatens to undermine the credibility of our schools in the eyes of our parents, prospective families, and the community in general.

A Vision for Providing Well-trained Principals

Both the Commission on Lutheran Schools’ StEM task force and the synod’s Continuing Education for Called Workers committee are seeking ways to help WELS congregations and schools provide the necessary administrative time, leadership training, and on-going support principals need to carry out their leadership responsibilities. These committees are developing ways to help congregations and the synod 1) provide necessary release time, 2) strengthen and support today’s principals, and 3) prepare a corps of fully-prepared principals to accept calls into this important ministry position. But such plans will only be successful if we in the WELS change our attitude toward principal preparation.

Written by John Meyer. John is the Director of Graduate Studies and Continuing Education at Martin Luther College. He served for 20 years as principal of WELS schools.

“Let the Children Come. . . . But Will the Adults Follow?”

            “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket!” We have all heard that proverbial advice and perhaps experienced it for good or bad in our lives. In the spirit of that axiom, some are asking if the congregations of the WELS are beginning to put all their “evangelism eggs” in “one basket” called early childhood ministries.

Without question ECM is the fastest growing segment of ministry among WELS churches and schools. At a time when many Lutheran elementary schools are shrinking and even closing, the explosive growth among early childhood ministries has been a source of optimism for many in our synod. Although the enrollment numbers are encouraging, many are left asking whether WELS early childhood ministries can fulfill their outreach promise. In other words, will our preschools be an effective tool for reaching adults with the gospel of Jesus, in addition to the children they serve? And will early childhood ministries also become a source of numeric growth for the congregations that operate them?

            Before we debate how effective early childhood ministries are for outreach and whether they can indeed be a source of adult prospects for congregations, it is important for us to remember some basic truths about evangelism. The Bible tells us that the growth of God’s kingdom is totally up to the Holy Spirit working through the Word and Sacraments. And since God himself tells us that his Word is powerful and effective and will accomplish his purposes, we can be sure that at the early childhood ministries where Scripture is shared, souls are being touched with the gospel. But are those congregations that operate an ECM going to have additional opportunities to use the Holy Spirit’s tools in the lives of the adults who entrust their children to their care?

Going back to the longstanding advice of not relying on one basket for all one’s eggs, it would be shortsighted for any congregation to rely solely on their ECM for their evangelism. Only when a congregation operates an ECM as part of a larger plan for outreach can they reasonably hope that their preschool will fulfill its outreach promise. It will provide opportunities to share the gospel with the families of the ECM students if it is part of a more comprehensive outreach strategy.

Consider this. If the statistics are true that the majority of people who join a church do so because someone they know invited them, then we need to see our early childhood ministries as a way for our staff and church members to become people that our ECM parents know and trust. We can then expect opportunities to invite those parents to become part of our church family.

From my experience I believe a congregation that operates an early childhood ministry must continually ask itself some pointed questions. “Is sharing the Word of God with our ECM students the ultimate objective in our preschool?” and “What are we doing to build relationships with the adults who bring their children to us?” Although it may seem that I am oversimplifying things, I do believe it is that simple. At the congregation where I serve, we have preschool “roundups” and “fun nights” where I and the preschool staff can interact with the adults. We also regularly invite our preschool parents to our PTS events. Once again this gives our staff and LES parents an opportunity to get to know them. From time to time we invite our preschoolers to sing in our worship services. Each week one of the pastors shares a short children’s message with the preschool students.

We have found that as we share the Word of God with the children, the adults do follow.  They follow with their questions about “spiritual things,” as they might say. And as God has promised, when we answer with the Scriptures, those adults are frequently drawn into a relationship with God through Christ. Not all, but many, of our recent adult confirmations and professions of faith have come from our ECM. Although only the Holy Spirit is responsible for the conversion of souls and the growth of Christ’s kingdom, we have seen how our preschool has provided us with the opportunities to use the Word of God to do its work. Yes, as we have let the children come to Jesus by sharing his gospel with them, we have seen the adults follow. Our ECM has fulfilled its outreach promise.

Written by Rev. Michael Otterstatter.

Rev. Otterstatter is pastor of St. John Ev. Lutheran Church, Redwood Falls MN. St. John’s preschool has 34 students, two-thirds of whom are not members of the church.