Written by Dr. John Meyer
The Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod (WELS) is attempting a radical shift in the way it approaches the Lutheran school principal position. Termed the 21st Century Lutheran Principal Initiative, its goal is two-fold: 1) to fully prepare experienced teachers to be principals before their first principal call, and 2) to provide the level of administrative time and compensation needed for success. This initiative is a completely different way of thinking about the Lutheran school principal.
Historically, new Lutheran school principals are called because they demonstrate potential for leadership based upon spiritual maturity, organization ability, and personality. These first-time principals usually have no preparation in principal skills and may even lack teaching experience. Most new principals are full- or nearly full-time classroom instructors and are expected to do administrative duties on the side. They may receive a slight pay bump symbolic of their role as lead teacher. These historical practices imply that the principal position is not very difficult, time consuming, or important.
But experience and research tell us just the opposite. The principal is the key to school success (Wahlstrom, Seashore Louis, Leithwood, & Anderson, 2010), especially in small schools. The position is highly complex (Granberg, et al., 2013), requires knowledge and skills that cannot be learned through experience alone (Northouse, 2012), and takes a lot of time (Lavigne, Shakman, Zwieg, & Greller, 2016)—more time than most Lutheran principals get (Hintz, 2014).
It’s not surprising, then, that principals are under a lot of stress. A national principal survey revealed that 75% say the job is becoming too complex, with 70% reporting it has changed substantially in the last five years (Metlife, 2013). WELS principals overwhelmingly agree that the time (81%), training (67%), and compensation (58%) they have been given is inadequate (Meyer, Treptow, Rademan, Sievert, & Brown, 2015).
Under these circumstances, Lutheran principal vacancies are increasing. The reactionary response has been to double-down on the same practices that got us into this situation—recruit more teachers without principal training to fill the need. Struggling schools unable to attract veteran teachers request novice teachers be assigned as their principals. This historical approach places the most important school position, in often very challenging circumstances, into the hands of unprepared leaders—putting schools and principals at risk.
Unfortunately, when principals and their schools struggle, the tendency is to blame the individual for not doing, or not knowing how to do, his job. Such criticism is misplaced when the school has appointed an unqualified person to do a task without the necessary time to do it. The surprising thing is not that some principals and schools fail; it’s that some survive.
Lutheran principals and schools deserve better if they are to thrive. Principals must be trained before they assume their duties. They need time away from teaching to carry out their principal duties, and their compensation should fairly reflect the necessary level of training and the scope of responsibility. If Lutheran schools reimagine the principal position in this way, there will be no shortage of qualified people to lead. Lutheran principals and teachers reported that if principals are given adequate time, training, and compensation, many more are willing to be one (Meyer, et al., 2015) (see table 1).
What does a reimagined Lutheran principal position look like?
Training
In addition to possessing leadership characteristics, all Lutheran principals must be given the necessary understandings and skills before they assume their duties. These characteristics, understandings, and skills have been identified (see table 2) and are outlined in WELS Principal Standards. The Commission on Lutheran Schools and Martin Luther College have developed a three-year training program for veteran teachers to complete while teaching to fully meet the principal standards. A cohort of 15 veteran teachers is being formed right now to begin preparation, with similar cohorts needed annually (see table 2).
Time
Schools need to structure the principal position for success. The WELS has developed and approved a formula for determining a reasonable amount of administrative time during the school day for teaching principals. The principal needs a minimum of one hour of administrative time each week for every 7.5 students in the school. District presidents have been authorized to monitor administrative time when a school requests principal candidates for a call (WELS Proceedings, 2013).
Compensation
Principals and congregations generally feel uncomfortable discussing levels of compensation. But a report to the 2015 synod convention acknowledged that principal compensation plays a role in the difficulty to attract qualified principals (Ad Hoc Commission II, 2015), and 58% of WELS principals report their salary is not commensurate with their duties (Meyer, et al., 2015). A sense of fairness suggests the salary should be in keeping with the position’s importance and compensate candidates for the money they invest in training. The 2017 synod convention will consider the appropriate level of compensation for principals, and all schools are urged to follow it.
The 21st Century Principal Initiative makes sense, and it’s simple. It represents a proactive approach to a growing crisis, but crises often foster reactive and habitual approaches. Breaking a habit can be painful and seem impossible. It requires commitment and sacrifices. Schools will need to dedicate the resources to structure the principal’s time and compensation for success. Parents will need to pay more in tuition. Veteran teachers will need to heed the call to prepare for leadership by investing time and money in training. District presidents will need to work with schools and congregations to structure their principal positions for success and use only qualified candidates on call lists. None of the above can happen without God’s blessing. But, if Lutheran schools can reimagine the principal position, they will thrive in the 21st century.
John Meyer, PhD (DMLC ’87) is the director of graduate studies and continuing education at Martin Luther College-New Ulm MN.
References
Ad Hoc Commission II. (2015). Book of Reports and Memorials. Milwaukee: WELS.
Granberg, S., Aswege, D., Huebner, P., Klindworth, R., Martens, L., Mueller, T., . . . Sievert, P. (2013). Task force on lutheran schools. Book of Reports and Memorials to the WELS 62nd Biennial Convention (pp. 45-62). Milwaukee: WELS.
Hintz, C. M. (2014). Principal Effectiveness. (Master’s Thesis), Available online through the Martin Luther College library website. Retrieved from https://mlc-wels.edu/library/search-find-2/special-collections/pdf-files/principal-effectiveness-by-christopher-m-hintz
Lavigne, H. J., Shakman, K., Zwieg, J., & Greller, S. L. (2016). Principals’ time, tasks, and professional development: An analysis of Schools and Staffing Survey data (REL 2017-201). Washington DC: U.S. Dpartment of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Rebional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Metlife. (2013). The Metlife survey of the American teacher: Challenges for school leadership. New York: Metlife, Inc.
Meyer, J., Treptow, E., Rademan, J., Sievert, J., & Brown, E. (2015). The WELS Principal Position: Time, Training, and Compensation. New Ulm.
Northouse, P. (2012). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Wahlstrom, K. L., Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Executive Summary of Research Findings. The Wallace Foundation.
WELS. (2013). Proceedings of the 62nd biennial convention of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod.
Two items in the discussion are somewhat concerning: 1) having a non-WELS-trained educator assume this critical role, and 2) having women assume this role. Both of these items go beyond mere procedural, administrative issues to the far more basic doctrinal, Biblical issues. 1) This presents a significant risk of losing our key focus on deliberately Lutheran, Scriptural, Christ-centered education, since such people have not had the opportunity to absorb this “culture”, if you will, at MLC. Lose or even weaken that, and we’re just operating (hopefully) “good schools”, which do exist around us. 2) Our earlier (1980’s & 1990’s) study re the role of women in the church needs to be carefully reviewed to see how this Scriptural issue applies to this procedural issue. Scripture must remain our bottom line in all that we do; and this point, while presumably understood, was nevertheless not specifically emphasized above. There are so many issues in education that demand our energies and focus that it is all too easy to lose this primary, essential focus, without which, why go to all the bother and expense of operating schools?. Lord, keep us steadfast in Your Word!
Having been at a school that has been without a principal for a few years, and having a majority female staff, I hope this perspective can ease some of the doubts you may have about females taking on administrative duties. In order to help our school function better females at our school have helped out with tuition management systems, enrollment management, curriculum studies, event planning, ect. Teachers are also invited to regularly attend board of education meetings and bring agenda items for discussion. However, it has always been made clear that board of education and essentially the Church Council takes responsibility for all final decisions and policies whether we have a principal or not. While of course, I would prefer having a principal, I can see how the Lord can still use women to be a “helper”, which is very much a biblical principal, in the ministry. The more I learn about administration the more I realize that having a successful school is about working together as a staff towards common goals. Most importantly, as a Church entity, we must stay focused on God’s Word and I do feel our church is always striving towards that goal.
Well said?
Related to this topic, you may be interested to know that the new hymnal project is recognizing the importance of the principal’s role.
Specifically: I am chair of a sub-committee responsible for producing the various rites for use in our churches. We have batted around the idea of creating a rite “Installation of a Principal” that would be different from the regular installation of a teacher rite, emphasizing the uniqueness of his role.
2 things: 1) Does this sound like a good idea? 2) What might be some things we could emphasize about the principal in such a rite?
I thank you in advance for your input. Our small sub-committee will definitely consider thoughtfully whatever ideas / opinions you may have.
This is the first I considered the question, but on first read, it does seem appropriate to include language in the installation service that may be unique to the principal’s scope of responsibility. There are many aspects of the principal’s duties that might be included. I think of the principal promising to use God’s word to counsel students and faculty, to oversee the faculty with respect for the call, building up the body of Christ for the purpose of teaching children God’s truths, responsible financial oversight, fostering and protecting a Christ-centered mission, developing and overseeing a Christ-centered curriculum, recognizing the state’s interest in educating children and responsibly submitting to state law insofar as it is permitted by Scripture, faithfully carrying out policy, working diligently to ensure the spiritual, academic and emotional well-being of all students in the school, and I’m sure there may be more.
God’s blessings on the scope of your work. As for the scope of the principal’s role to emphasize in the installation, I would be careful NOT to turn it into a job description type thing where a lot of the duties are enumerated. The key thing to emphasize would be to focus on the principal’s role as a spiritual guide and leader for the faculty, students, and families of the school. The concept that this role is more than just an educational leader, but also a spiritual leader is a great thing to include and might indeed lead to a greater understanding and appreciation for the role of principal.
Would you install a female principal as well?
Great article. Along the same lines, a thought I’ve heard suggested and have been thinking a lot about is this: “Could schools in close proximity issue a joint call to qualified individuals to serve as in a position similar to a superintendent?” I can see pros and cons to this idea, but I wonder how many have really studied or considered the idea? I think it would be more difficult to imagine in some of the outlying districts where schools are spread out over large distances, If we used fewer of the uniquely qualified individuals to serve as superintendents in our more densely populated areas; however, more individuals with the skills necessary to succeed might be available.
I’ve often heard the District President referred to as “the Pastor’s Pastor.” I wonder if superintendents (working on a much smaller scale than the DP) could be a principal’s principal? Not only would he be in a position to better handle some of the growing complexities of the position, but he would also be a mentor to the individuals serving and growing into the principal position at the individual schools.
Anyways, I’m always happy to hear that people are thinking about the principal position. It saddens me to see how many good teachers are lost because they are placed into the principal position too early in their ministry.
Thanks for the article!
7.5 students per 1 hour of admin time is a good guideline, but is there a base minimum schools should be asked to maintain? For example, a school of, say, 40 students according to this rate alots the principal only about 5.25 hours a week. Since there are a number of tasks any administrator is to accomplish regardless of enrollment count, I’d like to think a base amount should be recommended beyond just a rate.
7.5 students to 1 hour is the guideline, with a minimum of 10 hours/week no matter the size of the school.
Thanks Dr. Meyer for the article and thank you for all the thoughts and comments. This shift in mindset is so critical to the survival our education system. Consumers of education today expect an educational leader who is well trained and prepared for the position. We, people and congregations, will spend money in so many areas and yet there is resistance to investing dollars to improve our schools with well trained and qualified principal candidates. Is this as much a stewardship issue as it is an educational leadership issue? Sorry for my rambling.
Would the synod ever consider calling a person with public school experience and/or certification? Many of these individuals exist in our churches. They may have years of practical experience in the public schools and have been members of our WELS congregations for years or decades. Their training is more extensive than most of our principals ever would have. These individuals earned 30 credits within a Masters program with the goal of becoming a Principal or Curriculum Director. Due to their membership in a congregation, how important is it for them to have Synod Certification at the time of the call? How much time do they have to gain their SC while they hold the Principal call? Is the Synod willing to reduce the number of classes for SC for these individuals?
I’m all for further education, and a recognition for additional pay for additional duties is nice, but let’s also remember this is a Call: we are in it to serve, not be served or rewarded. Let’s not let good advice and encouragement become the law. I hope that the additional education does not become the requirement to the point one cannot serve in a principal position without it. The Lord gifts his people in his ways and time. Let’s be sure not to put our requirements above recognition of the Lord’s gifts. Thanks for the thoughts behind this.
Are we putting our requirements above recognition of the Lord’s gifts when we require pastoral candidates to be trained before being called?
If I was a principal/administrator I would WANT further training to serve in that capacity. I don’t think it being required is out of line.
Another fact you bring up…the LORD gifts people. Some are gifted to be principals yet don’t want to be. It is seen as a time burden on the family, a job of low reward, more trouble than it is worth. A discussion with all parties, man, school, congregation, leaders, needs to be had about expectations and where these people see a candidates gifts being. Maybe more personal relationships can be used for more encouragement. We don’t have enough of that in teaching!
About time this is stated. It is coming to a point that it can’t be ignored anymore. A principal’s responsibilities are increasing at an alarming rate. Expecting a person to be both teacher and principal is ludicrous – what a workload! If the LES is going to be productive / competitive, a change in administration must take place. Well stated.
What about using women in this traditional role. Due to the expansion of ECE in the synod, there are already women doing this role, we just don’t call them principals. We call them directors. In many cases they are more qualified than their male counterparts at running a school.
Since the “Can o’ Worms” has been opened …..
Right. Women have been filling the role of leadership. So, it comes down to terminology: Director = OK, Principal = wrong. Really?
Agree, definitely hypocritical and sexist.
Thanks for your thoughts, J, however I believe that part of what you said IS the problem! You state that “they are more qualified than their male counterparts in many cases.” I will simply set aside the role of men and women for now, although that is how God in his will set it up. What exactly makes someone “qualified” or as you say it “more qualified?” Even requiring a Masters degree or above does not mean you will be qualified. What qualifies you is that the Lord has called you to serve him in that role.
I think having our principles HAVE to have a higher degree like most of the rest of academia is a must. Paying them and giving them time to do their duties is also a must. And finally, knowing that God is in control and that he will keep his promise for the church to endure (schools are part of the church, although that doesn’t mean WELS LES’s will always endure) should point us confidently into the next years!
As much as anything this article highlights a culture in crisis. The challenges surrounding the position of principal within WELS schools are emblematic of a volatile time in private Christian education. The crisis in culture can lead to a number of paralyzing pathologies:
-Groupthink
-Conflict avoidance
-Fear of being controversial/different
Thank you for getting the conversation started. We have to fight with courage and hope and love. And we must use our imaginations, modern technology, the visual, as well as the musical arts, to channel the Grace God so abundantly pours out to us through Christ.
Nice article. I am not sure congregations will follow the suggestions, just like now with synod code. Good education on the new synod code will help. It is not just principals, I think compensation for teachers with extra duties is needed. Many athletic directors, vice-principals, music directors, etc. do not get compensated for their extra time and stress, it is just looked on as part of their call. It is good that some are realizing that teaching had changed from years past.
Unless mandated, many congregations will just look at compensation suggestion s by the synod as suggestions. I hope the synod does not just look at the principal but the teachers and their extra duties as well. Another thing to teach is deligating duties, the principal doesn’t have to do everything.
No called worker in the WELS is has compensation commensurate with his/her duties.
Interesting article…very mindful of the synodical institution. Perhaps the focus of the article is on the office and there have been a couple comments on the call, but what about the man? If he is a single man and doesn’t have any need to support a family because he is single and living in church housing, well…(the mindset of many members, sadly). If he has a wife, is she ‘dutiful’ to support his ministry and abdicate his home as wife and if the LORD plans and wills, mother of his children? Isn’t this just pontificating, because if she is working, why does the congregation have to pony up more cash? Can he support a wife and children now or with whatever revised pay-scale synod can come up with? Probably not any more than a pastor has been able to, but the institutional schools tell their future pastor and teacher wives that they will have to work to support his ministry, otherwise she and any kids could be seen as a burden to the congregation (and really what they are implying is the LORD’s Church), and a leader in the church doesn’t want that on their conscience or hanging over their marriage. Preparation and excellence for any vocation is what mature Christians want to pursue. To work with God’s people is a privilege and to serve a call an honor. To wring hands because God’s people are too cheap to pay for it insults the Spirit. To presume the institution needs to spoon feed the future workers of the church a little arrogant. The article does the one (job requirements), but fails and leaves the other undone (sanctified Christian brother who wants to serve without concern for his family and church families who wish to offer said ministry).
Great article! I think that we absolutely have to understand that the time of “its our church school, of course we’re going to support it- even if the education and administration quality is low…” are over. To address this now is a wonderful blessing for our church body and I love working with those who see the importance of not only hearing your article’s thoughts, but listening to them and taking action too.
A couple additional thoughts- please consider adding a paragraph (even if it’s a small one) identifying the sanctity of the Doctrine of the Divine Call somewhere within the article. We dare not forget that all of us are called to this work, and the work of one of God’s called people is often a wonderful burden as well as a great blessing. We don’t get into this work to get paid, to have pressure taken off of us, and to wait on everyone to take care of our needs. Just the opposite actually. I feel as a called worker that this article may be taken by some to dismiss that work, dare I say “yoke” that we have CHOSEN to take upon ourselves and the Holy Spirit has blessed us to take on through a call to serve in this teaching/preaching/administration/etc. way. That being said, God has also given our congregations (calling bodies) the unique opportunity and blessed responsibility of taking care of those who have been called, as the wage the worker is worth covers more than just money. This time and professional growth aspect DEFINITELY falls under that encouragement.
I would also love to see a link to any article that publishes statistics on how congregations perceive their principals and how they use their time. I think that there may be a bit of a generation gap regarding salt time- is it admin time or is it correcting time? Is there a statistic on congregations whose principals have used allotted money for continuing ed and if congregations/schools see any change in the way their leadership uses their time having been given the funding and time to continue their education? Are there stats out there on how many congregations feel “burned” in that they have unconditionally supported continuing ed and salt time and yet “feel” it was misused or, in the least, not communicated with as to how it is being used? These are all questions that would benefit our church body if they were answered. Or again, if you could provide a link to those numbers that would validate even more this article. Thanks for the insight, the thoughts, and for reminding me of the importance of continuing ed and our congregation’s awareness of it!
I might add to your closing thought thanks for reminding you about the changing and complicated role of the 21st century principal, which is what the article was ACTUALLY about! Not continuing Ed. How does someone get “burned” when they are continuing their education and leading kids in a school? That person and those they served benefit from that training. Remember the good for the kingdom of Jesus NOT just your own particular parish!
I appreciate the findings and report Dr. Meyer. Only when schools and their congregational leadership (elected laymen AND pastors!!!) teams begin to realize and appreciate and NOT take a school Principal for granted will there be change. For those struggling with finances, don’t be penny wise and a dollar short. The most important element of a school ministry is the vision, leadership, and organization of the school Principal, along with keeping the school’s vision in line with the truths of Scripture. May God bless our schools, congregations, and the Principal position so that our ministries may thrive in the 21st Century!
Well said. Let’s move forward and get out of the 1970 s and 1980 s!
1. The increase of if stress in recent years for both LES Principals as well as Early Childhood Directors are brought on by increasing government regulations and requirements.
2. Many times the calling bodies do not have a full grasp of what the position they are calling for actually requires.
3. Having a success strategy in place in order to offer mentorship and encouragement by qualified team members would help better equip individuals for long-run success.
4. A masters degree program in administration be encouraged and available through MLC and over time be a requiremement as we exact a qualifying standard for those serving as pastors of ncluding a one year internship.
It is a good plan, a well thought plan, as professor Meyer points out. It will come from the top (synod administrators) and hope to flow down (local congregations). Consensus needs to be built. Congregation leaders need to be conversed with–show benefits and listen to concerns about these plans. But as the last ‘anonymous’ comment points out, it always comes down to budget. Some of the very schools needing this administrative help are downsizing ministers of the Gospel and dropping WELS VEBA coverage as “cost saving” measures.
Lutheran schools and their principals are an investment for a congregation. An investment in our Christian youth and our Christian future. Everyone needs to treat the issues as such!
Our school system is a tremendous blessing! I pray that the WELS and area congregations implement these ideas to their fullest. Many principals and directors, especially those who also teach much of the school day, would truly benefit from more training, time, and compensation.
Everything in this article can also apply to the women serving as ECE Directors.
An excellent plan and long overdue! I’m fully behind it.
Good article. Can it be reimagined? Sure! Will individual congregations/schools do anything about it? Nope– because it will increase their budget.