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.
No one can dispute the fact that being a principal is a difficult, complicated position. There are so many nuances, so many demands and so many expectations placed on the shoulders of a principal. The buck ultimately stops with him. That being said, we have to be careful not to try to put a “one size fits all” solution on the difficulties facing our schools in general and our principals specifically. Higher education may by one solution, but it certainly isn’t the only solution (especially for our already overworked and underpaid called workers). The mentor principal program could be expanded. The college could even offer a student principalship program for young men who show certain leadership traits. Taking classes is certainly of benefit, but practical experience is often the best teacher. We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that having letters behind our name makes us somehow superior or truly more qualified for a position. Experience is an important teacher.
These thoughts on principals are showing difficult challenges that have been building for a long while. I remember taking some coursework in college (to fill some time) in school administration. The mindset and workload can be radically different in a principalship as contrasted with daily teaching tasks. The skill sets are also different, however I would argue perhaps in secular schools, the principals are so far removed from the task of teaching and the classroom, that there is no commonality or synergy (not my favorite word).
A couple thoughts pop to mind in thinking about this issues of principalships.
First, I think it vitally important that principals keep their toes in the classroom. In a high school setting, teaching one class during the year put their face among the students in the role of teacher. It humanizes the principal and also puts that person’s ears close to the ground where teaching is occurring – the classroom. I also believe the teaching staff appreciates a principal who is on the front lines or at least doing the tasks they do full time.
Next, a principal needs classroom experience prior to being in that leadership position. 2-3 years seems like a good baseline of classroom experience. That is a baseline, but more is better. I think a mentoring program or practicum is a wonderful idea as well, especially for those entering principalships in larger systems.
From my short experience observing a WELS school, I also see the principal and teaching staff as a team that works together. They share the grunt work of helping the students, dealing with discipline and solving problems. They willingly work together for the good of the school and its children. They are motivated by God’s love for the young ones.
Blessings on this and other blog discussions to all of you.
As I commented on Twitter after reading this article, I was surprised to see that only 26% of WELS Principals hold an advanced degree. It made me wonder how many WELS teachers in our PreK-8 schools overall hold a masters degree or higher. Also, then, in our ALHS/Prep Schools and MLC.
It took me about five years of full time teaching after graduating from MLC to feel comfortable with where I was in my management, curriculum development, and other professional development. It then dawned on me: if I love what I do, why wouldn’t I want to learn more about it? (Had the MLC masters program been a bit more established at the time I started grad school, I feel it would have been a good choice. However, I’m nearing completion of my EdTech degree at another institution.)
We are servants of the Lord, first and foremost. We lay bare our hearts to the children and families we serve. But, we are also professional educators. It is important for us to keep up with continuing education and professional development. Hopefully, principals (and all WELS teachers in general) see the importance of learning for a lifetime.
MLC collected graduate degree information on all WELS teachers as part of its last accreditation visit about three years ago. I went through the data in 2010. I believe the percentage of of all WELS K-12 teachers with a graduate degree was 18%. That percentage includes principals because they are almost always teachers in WELS schools. If principals were taken out, the percentage would be lower.
It will be interesting to see whether that number increases as time goes on. (I hope it will!) I realize there are many factors that affect the ability of a teacher to further their education. I just hope all schools and congregations would support a teacher in order to reach that goal if they were motivated to do it.
As the parent of four children who have all been or are in the Lutheran school system, I could not disagree more loudly with NPS Grad. While I understand and agree that the ultimate goal is to share God’s message and provide the foundation for the Holy Spirit to bring children and families to Jesus, that does not lessen the responsibility of providing a sound educational background. These children still need to be able to compete in high schools, colleges and the work force. Jesus did not only care for people’s spirits, he cared for their bodies too.
The real issue here is that some schools have fallen prey to the idea that they must offer every program that their local public schools offer. Sports, for instance, now plays far too great a role in some WELS schools (just like public ones). When children have homework loads and classroom materials adjusted because it is basketball, soccer or any other sports season that is wrong. It sends the message that one of God’s gifts to us is more important than the other. When parents who take their child to every single athletic event under the sun call a teacher on the carpet because they feel their child has too much homework and they can’t start it until 8PM because of other practices/games the correct response is not to lessen the homework.
The reality of the matter is that WELS schools are faced with the same challenges as public schools because they have the same key ingredient – sinful humans. In my opinion, a far better solution to the principal/teacher dilemma is to keep them completely separate. If the church/school is so large the Pastor cannot oversee the principal duties with the help of a secretary then perhaps the most effective solution is to utilize a staff minister instead of a principal/teacher. Lessening the quality and quantity of the “3 R’s” as NPS Grad advocated is not the answer at all. The result of that will be that parents will simply not have their children in WELS schools at all.
My 2 cents worth: education has become expensive if you’re going to compete with the top schools. I’m a huge fan of Lutheran schools. But is it the wisest use of resources for our small synod to pay for all this for all these schools? Our mission is to spread the gospel – our ministerial ed schools specifically prepare future ministers of the gospel. Jesus played with children and taught adults. Our mission emphasis (and thus resources) should focus on gospel ministry, not the 3 R’s…
WELS has to do both, 3 R;s and law and gospel ministry.
I see where this is going and could not disagree more. Of course other synods and systems seek and demand more education for their pricipals, the clergy in these groups have been doing this for years. MORE EDUCATION DOES NOT A BETTER MINISTER MAKE. More education is certainly not bad, but the main ingredient for a good principal is a SERVANT’S HEART. A love for the Savior and His people, along with a willingness to learn and WORK, give a young teacher the tools needed to feed Jesus’ little lambs, guide their parents, and lead his fellow servants. The teachers in my school would love to follow such a man.
It is correct that the role of the WELS principal has changed in the past 40 years. Very good points were made on the current research and necessity of principal preparation. Anecdotally, it seems to me that progress has been made in release time and there seems to be a more concerted effort to train principals. What hasn’t changed, though, is the overall understanding of what a principal’s role is in leading a school. The blame for that can be spread across principals for not pressing the issue, the WELS/COP for allowing it to happen, and congregations for allowing finances, tradition, and bureaucracy to occur equally.
Sir Kenneth Robinson commented the other day on Twitter (not sure how to quote Twitter via APA edition six), “Leadership without organization breeds disillusion. Management without vision breeds bureaucracy. Leadership is about vision. Management is about organization. Education needs both.” I have come to believe that the education world in the WELS knows this. Translating this to congregations has not happened – thus I believe is one of the main reasons we are experiencing institutional shrinkage. As a generality, congregations do want for or like it when their principal’s demonstrate leadership when it comes down to it. Congregation politics, joint budget constraints, church vs. school mentality all lead to the principal becoming a very skillful manager who is handcuffed when it comes to leading. Consensus then becomes a killer.
Let me offer two short examples and a solution: First, the assigning of graduate principals is an easy fix in my mind and a classic example of how all the things I mentioned above play out. If it is a bad practice, just don’t do it. We are scared of the consequences, though. Doing so is going to lead to turmoil. Small WELS schools or those with tight finances may close OR they are going to recognize, realize, and accept that if they are truly committed to their mission they somehow have to attract quality, experienced principals. This may mean they have to pay more, offer release time, revise their mission, or something else. As a synod we shy away from this capitalistic/free market approach in favor of our (dare I say socialistic) call/assignment system.
Second, while the training of principals has improved in the past 40 years it still is light years behind where it should be. I offer two “crazy” possibilities to help identify and then use trained leaders. The use of the Assistant Principal or Co-Principal is underutilized as a training ground for future principals. My guess is because even if a teacher can be identified as a possible school leader it can be very costly to, say, have one and half non-teaching positions in a school of 140 students or even less. But only through this kind of mentoring can we increase the number of effective principals quickly. From my point of view, WELS Home Missions funds numerous positions and ministries that have far less of an impact numerically speaking, why not train school leaders? Finally, the hardest thing we have to do is to fit trained leaders in situations where they can succeed. Matching a principal with the vision of a congregation and school should not be left up to the process we currently have to call workers. An in depth interview process should take place to make sure the congregation/school knows what kind of leader they are looking for and be able to identify them and also for the leader to know what the mentality, vision, ideas, thoughts, and mission of the congregation/school is. Many a good principal has left the principalship because of a bad fit. Through a process like that schools, large or small or urban or rural anywhere in the country will they will be able to find quality principals.