Written by Bill Fuerstenau
The Problem
Many WELS congregations that support elementary schools are struggling. Membership in our churches is shrinking, and with that, financial support as well. When this happens, church leadership must choose where to use their limited financial resources to remain good stewards of their financial blessings from God. For smaller churches, this restricts the programs and services they can provide to their members if they are also to maintain a fully staffed, effective school.
The rising cost of education presents an especially difficult problem for rural congregations operating schools. Rural churches cannot easily absorb increased costs and are faced with the prospect of closing the doors to their schools, and, without the influx of younger families drawn to the school and into the churches, the congregations themselves may be in jeopardy. According to the Commission on Lutheran Schools, ministries in small Midwestern towns and rural settings have seen a consistent decline, and increased operational costs are noted as one of the main reasons (Book of Reports and Memorials 2017, p. 67).
The Needed Change
The current funding model used by many of our congregations is one of heavy congregation subsidy toward the school. This was borne of the belief that all members of a church have a responsibility to ensure the Christian education of the congregation’s children. While such an idea is noble and does have a biblical foundation in Matthew 19:14, it is no longer viable for many shrinking rural congregations. A change in the funding model is the only long-term solution for most of these schools.
What This Change Looks Like
What does the ideal funding structure look like in this situation? Research studies on school funding in WELS schools are few and far between. In his thesis, Jason Gibson (2016) explored the relationship between tuition and enrollment in WELS schools. His study concluded that there is no apparent correlation between tuition levels and school enrollment; growing and shrinking WELS schools generally do not have different funding structures; and schools with a funding philosophy that parents should have the primary responsibility of funding their children’s education experienced the most growth.
These results fly in the face of those who say increased tuition will automatically lead to lower enrollment numbers. Gibson’s study also found that congregations with a larger number of Kindergarten-8th grade children had larger elementary school enrollments (Gibson, 2016), which is logical and led him to theorize: “If it can be determined that spending congregational resources on ministry other than the LES positively affects the number of K-8 children in the congregation, directing congregational resources away from the LES could actually positively impact LES enrollment” (Gibson, 2016, p. 39).
In a rural congregation that spends nearly two-thirds of its annual budget maintaining an elementary school, funding for other ministry areas is severely limited. Increasing tuition revenue and decreasing congregation subsidies would allow for an expansion of the church’s ministry in other areas.
According to Krause and Rogalski (2006), the current subsidy-heavy model is not equitable because it gives the same amount of assistance to families regardless of their financial needs (as cited in Gibson, 2016, p. 15). A much more fair and sustainable system has come onto the private education scene in recent years. Called “indexed tuition,” “flexible tuition,” or “sliding-scale tuition,” this system is all about offering a wide range of tuition levels based on families’ individual financial situations (An Innovative Tuition, 2014).
By placing families into tuition brackets based on their income levels, congregations would decrease the subsidy amount automatically by giving less assistance to families that can afford more tuition. The church could simply budget to subsidize the amount over and above what families are charged, which would be substantially less than in the past, and the need for traditional financial aid would disappear.
Taking the idea of “flexible tuition” even further, The Gordon School in Rhode Island has created a system of completely individualized tuition called Family Individualized Tuition, or FIT. Within this system, each family applies for their tuition amount using their previous year’s tax information. They each receive a tuition quote that is good for the next three years, meaning that if a family first applies for the 2019/2020 school year, the amount they are quoted is what they can expect to pay for 2019/2020, 2020/2021, and 2021/2022. During the third year the process is repeated, and each family’s financial situation is reevaluated.
Parents no longer have to worry about surprise tuition increases or changing financial aid awards, which decreases anxiety and helps each family fully commit to be a part of the school community (Reinventing Your Tuition Model, 2018). Using a funding structure like this would be the ultimate in equity since school families vary widely in income level.
The Time for Change Is Now
Change in a church is never easy, and changes involving money are often exponentially more difficult. However, if we wish to continue offering the same high-quality Christ-centered education for years to come, the time for change is now. Viable alternative funding structures exist, and they are starting to prove their effectiveness (An Innovative Tuition, 2014; Reinventing Your Tuition Model, 2018). Implementing this change will not only create an atmosphere of equity and parental ownership (Reinventing Your Tuition Model, 2018), but it will also free up large amounts of budget dollars to expand the ministry opportunities at many of our smaller churches.
The Great Commission that guides our church body can be reasonably divided into three parts: the first, referring to the church; the second, the school; and the third, a promise from our God. Let these words be the reason we explore every option to continue offering Christian education! “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV).
William Fuerstenau (MLC ’11) currently teaches at Bethany Lutheran School-Hustisford WI. William is also enrolled in MLC’s Master of Science in Educational Administration with a principal emphasis.
Resources
Enrollment Catalyst. (2017, March 17). An Innovative Tuition and Financial Aid Strategy for Private Schools | Rick Newberry’s Blog. Retrieved February 24, 2019, from https://www.enrollmentcatalyst.com/2014/01/22/an-innovative-tuition-and-financial-aid-strategy-for-private-schools/
Gibson, J. (2016). The Relationship Between Tuition and Enrollment in WELS Lutheran Elementary Schools (Unpublished master’s thesis). Martin Luther College. Retrieved February 24, 2019, from https://mlc-wels.edu/library/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2016/08/Gibson-Thesis.pdf
Reinventing Your Tuition Model [Audio blog interview]. (2018, December 11). Retrieved February 24, 2019, from https://enrollment.org/podcast/459-season-1-ep-17-reinventing-your-tuition-model
The Gordon School. Accessed June 5, 2019, from https://www.gordonschool.org/admission/family-individualized-tuition
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. (2017). Book of Reports and Memorials. Waukesha, WI: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
Hey Bill, well done. Many of our schools connected to congregations are in an unsustainable model of tuition and congregational support. In my experience it often creates hard feelings and divisions when members see the % support in the annual budget. Take a look at our preschools, they get it, and most often if a congregation chooses to begin an ECE they do it under the provision that it must be “self-supporting” why doesn’t that apply to our schools. How many of our ECE’s have considerably higher “tuition” for PreK3-4 than we do for LES Kindergarten? Time to consider a more long-term sustainable model.
Say it with me, “Cost based tuition, need based aid.”
Good thoughts Bill. Money is always going to be touchy in ministry work. As you said, God doesn’t get into specifics about how to fund schools as an arm of the church. If we start barking up that tree, does it go into high school and then MLC/WLC doing their funding the wrong way by making families pay the majority of tuition? I think it is safe to say that most WELS ELS mission statements talk about the school partnering with parents to raise children for this life and for heaven. This partnership includes financial partnership.
This discussion brings to mind these passages – 2 Corinthians 8:13-15 (NIV) 13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, 15 as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”[a] You could make a case that these verses apply to both old and new models.In the “old model” the poorer parents were not able to personally pay for their children’s education but then later on they become the ones with “plenty” who help out others. In the “new” model this concept is “formalized” and put into detailed practice. I’m not arguing for one or the other.
Go and make disciples of all nations…… charging them on an escalating scale based on income and don’t teach about the giver of all things, just send a bill. To echo what was previously added, What about a pew tax? What about charging for shut-in home visits? We should charge for communion and baptism as well! Anyone that can remember when their church went away from church dues to free and faithful giving should send the results. Read Malachi and see what can happen!
I get the connection you’re trying to make, but I don’t believe we can viably run a school the same way we run our churches, at least not anymore. A church relies on voluntary giving from the heart, and that certainly can and does work when you only have to support one, maybe two called workers and church evangelism/inreach efforts (much of which is done by volunteers and can cost very little). Comparatively, a school costs many times more than a church to function. The number of called workers required is substantially more, as well as the costs for materials. There is a reason why the tuition-free parish schools of the past are all but gone. Churches can’t support schools like that through offerings alone. Another factor is the changing demographics of the school. Many of our schools are no longer filled with members of the church. If that is true, the argument of “making up the difference in the plate” doesn’t ring true anymore.
I completely understand the feeling that the congregation has a responsibility to provide Christian education, and we have admirably done that for generations. But the cold, hard facts are that many of our churches cannot now, or will not in the near future, be able to sustain the ministry of a school. No amount of “we need to dig deeper and give more” is going to change that. Obviously, we pray that God inspire our members to give generously out of thanks for Christ, but who is to say that tuition is not a path God has chosen to allow us to do his work? Where in the Scriptures is the passage forbidding such a thing? I am unaware of any.
As a principal who is passionate about giving the people of our community every opportunity to hear about their Savior, whether in the pew or in a desk, I refuse to stand idly by and watch any more of our schools or congregations shut their doors because we are unwilling to accept that our way of doing things might not be the best way anymore. I will continue to explore every avenue, unless it conflicts with Scripture, to financially support my school and congregation.
Thanks for your article, Bill. Your answer is very patient, more than kind to “Anonymous.” I commend you for that.
It has long troubled me to see WELS congregations basically run their schools on the backs of their teachers. In years gone by if mission congregations tried to start a school, it drained all the resources away from outreach and evangelism. That’s partly what I see behind your suggestions. If congregations could do more outreach to get little ones into Kindergarten, enrollments could increase for the support of the other grades.
Congregational and school stewardship is not a fair comparison. The congregation has the offering plate. The school does not. Our Lutheran schools go far beyond simply teaching God’s Word. There are many other subjects too, all taught in the light of God’s Word, but secular in nature. Again, a different comparison.
Our congregation does not have our own school. But we’re blessed to be in a metro area where we can support our parents with a generous Christian education budget at any WELS / ELS school. It continues through Area Lutheran High School / Prep. If our students go on to MLC…WLS, it continues year-by-year as a grant over $2K. With MLC now matching funds, we can help reduce our future called worker debt too.
I pray more of our congregations will help support our schools in this way even if we do not have them on site. We are still getting a break in our budget because the congregation running the school takes care of capital improvements, etc. We’re basically helping with salaries.
As a mission congregation, half our members are new to the WELS. It’s amazing how adult confirmands eagerly support Christian education for the young. Their reasoning? “I wish I had known in my youth what they’re learning now.” The oath our congregation takes at the Baptism (CW, pp.12ff) is often cited.
God bless our schools for His Name’s sake as well as Christ’s lambs and sheep.
Does the statistic still hold that more WELS children attend public schools than WELS schools? If so, we should examine the allocation of resources to each group in the congregation.
I don’t know if that statistic is true or not, but I do know that many of our schools have nearly as many non-member families enrolled as member families.
Tuition assistance can cripple a congregation financially if those who grant tuition assistance are not the same group who are accountable for balancing the church budget (assuming that the church and LES operate with a unified budget).
We may have to expand our concerns for congregations without schools that cannot fund their ministry. We could have a “tuition for those members” to support their pastor and their ministry. It used to be called a “pew tax”.
I think we need to be careful that we always see the means to support Gospel ministry in our schools by billing the parents for the Gospel message to their children. Maybe there are other means to support that ministry that comes from all of the members. Just a thought.
I don’t disagree Fred; I do believe that a congregation should always be part of funding their school. After all, the school is an arm of the church. I would never advocate for a subsidy-free, fully tuition funded WELS school. I am just searching for a way to give parents an opportunity to show their commitment to Christian education in a tangible way while freeing up budget dollars to allocate toward other ministries of the congregation.
Hope your school year is off to a blessed start!
If a congregation does not have adequate resources to pay for their ministry and does not have a school, would they ever consider tuition or fees for sermons and Bible classes?
I don’t believe that’s a fair comparison; there is an understanding that churches freely preach and teach God’s Word to all. I do not believe schools should have the same expectation placed onto them.
Great food for thought – and action. For many congregations with schools, it’s time for a new and better tuition/tuition assistance model.