By Jonathan Schaefer

As graduation approaches, Lutheran congregations and their new teachers have different expectations, and these expectations profoundly affect teacher performance and school culture.

Lutheran congregations’ top expectations focus on performance. Schmill (2015) shared that the top three qualities WELS schools look for in their teachers are 3) grounded and growing in teaching skills, 2) Christ-like servant, and 1) grounded and growing in God and his Word.

Contrast that with the qualities new teachers are looking for from their schools. The top three preferences of 200,000 career-seekers, including new teachers, centered on culture (Strack, 2014). They are looking for 3) a good work-life balance, 2) good relationships with colleagues and supervisors (Markow & Martin, 2005), and 1) being appreciated for their work. Nationally, a third of teachers who left teaching left because they did not think their contributions were valued (Richardson, 2008).

Performance and culture. These are two drastically different sets of expectations, and the conflict does have an impact on our WELS new teachers.

WELS new teachers do consider ministry a privilege and want to grow in God’s grace, but they also embody the perspectives of other young professionals from their generation. They contemplate how to juggle teaching and a young family—especially when additional duties are added to their classroom teaching. They ponder how they fit into the educational and social landscape of their school. And they hope their work will have positive impact and add value to the gospel ministry of the congregation.

For new teachers it is sometimes difficult to consider these questions clearly because they experience dynamic attitudinal fluctuations in their first years of the increasingly complicated profession of education (Moir, 1990).

Now, one could react to the needs of new teachers in two ways.

• Those youngsters are wrong. They need to stop worrying about their needs and the needs of their families, and concentrate on the needs of this congregation. They need to do everything we ask of them in this call. They have the youth and energy and enthusiasm this congregation is looking for! This is what that line in the divine call is all about: “other responsibilities as mutually agreed upon.”
• Let’s help the new teachers grow and thrive as they begin their ministries. Let’s help them become the best teachers they can be, so that they do not burn out, but glow brightly as messengers of the gospel for many years to come.

Clearly, if we choose reaction #1, we may lose our new teacher. If we choose reaction #2, both our teachers and our schools will be strengthened.

Principals and directors, therefore, must take the lead in resolving any issues that result from different expectations. Mutual understanding is necessary to ensure a successful ministry.

Traditionally, administrators have focused mainly on the operations and management aspects of running a school, though there has been a recent shift toward the role of educational leader, someone who creates a caring culture of learning focused on student success (Watkins, 2011). Part of this culture includes fostering the dispositions of effective teachers: reflection, persistence, and curiosity (Henderson & Milstein, 2003).

Christian leaders foster these dispositions by being aware of challenges surrounding teachers, especially young teachers, using WELS standards-based supervision and evaluation, and providing meaningful feedback. It is critical to provide new teachers with increased meaningful feedback about their performance (Moir, 2012).

School leaders can take the following steps to make the transition to ministry smooth for new teachers:

Leverage a system of induction for new teachers. School leaders can partner with instructional mentors through WELS New Teacher Induction (NTI). Mentors establish working norms with the new teacher and administration, with the goal of moving the new teacher forward based upon data, goal-setting, and ongoing support.

Every mentoring situation looks different, just as all the students in a classroom are different. Generally, mentoring is needs-based, not agenda-driven.

The formative, individual professional development for new teachers provided by NTI has resulted in reported increases in WELS new teacher competence and student performance (SEWNTP, 2014). Receiving the benefit of these blessings requires school leaders to form partnership with mentors.

Jealously guard the new teacher’s time. Learning to teach well takes time – a precious commodity for new teachers. A teacher’s day is already full. WELS teachers spend more time per week (60.4 hours) on all teaching-related activities, topping any other group of teachers, public or private (Strizek, 2006).

On a crowded list of priorities, professional growth often ends up at the bottom. Yet professional learning is a core factor in a school’s improvement (Bryk, Sebring, & Allensworth, 2010). Professional growth needs to come off the bottom of the priority list and move to the top.

Young WELS teachers often struggle with a conflict: They are the most interested in professional growth, but they also have the greatest number of added duties, which precludes them from pursuing professional growth (Meyer, 2015). This is a cultural norm that has to change for the sake of our new teachers.

A new teacher needs to be allowed to focus on student learning and improvement of her own teaching. Schools sometimes fall into the trap of capitalizing on their financial investment in their new teacher by adding many additional duties to the position. The new teacher eager to serve and be found faithful is spread too thin. She is still new at her craft, gaining experience in teaching, but she finds that she is also asked to coordinate VBS, teach Sunday school, direct choir, and coach. This can send a negative message: Busyness and long lists of tasks equal faithfulness.

Faithful new teachers keep classroom teaching as their top priority. And congregations who want their schools to succeed allow their new teachers to concentrate on teaching. They optimize the time the new teacher can devote to teaching.

Congregations can ask: Can any of the additional duties be carried out by others—by parents or other congregation members—or perhaps by older, experienced teachers who have more time because their children are grown, or who perhaps want to try something new? Is each additional duty, each new program, absolutely necessary? If no volunteers come forward to assist with a program, then we might wonder if it is truly valuable. Maybe it can be dropped.

Asking these questions sends three positive messages. 1) We as a school are committed to the quality of classroom instruction. 2) We have a school community where everyone uses their time and talents as a thank-offering. 3) When new teachers take on added duties voluntarily, these become their thank-offering, an offering of faith, not a duty performed under compulsion. This may better fulfill the idea expressed in the divine call: “other responsibilities as mutually agreed upon.”

New teachers need advocates to enact practices that enable success. The principal or director can be that advocate, ensuring that our best and brightest new teachers do not burn out. School leaders can go to bat for new teachers, jealously guarding their time. In this effort, the principals and directors have another ally: the instructional mentor working with the teacher in the New Teacher Induction system.

Together, mentors, school leaders, and entire congregations can work collaboratively to make sure new teachers do not burn out, but rather that they have a strong start to their ministries and the kind of support that will allow them to continue in those ministries for many years to come.

Professor Jonathan Schaefer (’02) is currently serving as the New Teacher Induction coordinator at Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN. 

References

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Henderson, N., & Milstein, M. M. (2003). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators. Corwin Press.

Markow, D., & Martin, S. (2005). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Transitions and the role of supportive relationships. Retrieved October, 15, 2008.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1703 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714.

Meyer, J. E. (2015). Pursuing excellence through continuing education. Retrieved February 26, 2015 from, http://blogs.mlc-wels.edu/wels-educator/files/2013/05/CEPresentation-3.pdf.

Moir, E. (1990). Phases of first-year teaching. Retrieved October, 20, 2010.

Moir, E. (2012). Accelerating teacher talent and student success. New Teacher Center, Santa Cruz, CA.

Richardson, J. (2008, April). Principals cultivate support to nurture new teachers. The Learning Principal, Vol. 3, No.7 pp. 1,6

Schmill, G. (2015, March). Anticipations and Expectations: Developing Qualities that WELS Congregations Expect. Speech presented at the Martin Luther College Early Field Experience I, New Ulm, MN.

Strack, R. (2014). The global workforce crisis 2030 – and how to start solving it now. Retreived February 12, 2015, from http://www.ted.com/talks/rainer_strack_the_surprising_workforce_crisis_of_2030_and _how_to_start_solving_it_now?language=en

Strizek, G. A. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003-04 schools and staffing survey. US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Southeastern Wisconsin New Teacher Project, (2014). WELS district profile summary 2013-2014. Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI.

Watkins, A. (2011). Role of the principal in beginning teacher induction. New Teacher Center, Santa Cruz, CA.