Category Archives: Healthy Schools

Prospect Management for Schools – Part One

Posted on by
Reply

This article is part 1 of a four-part series.

Written by Martin Spriggs

One important but often neglected function of any school office is “prospect management.” It wasn’t always that way. In the early days of our church-connected schools, we relied on filling our desks with the children of members and the only “managing” that we needed of those prospects was generating a list of all the kids in our congregation. We then simply made sure we had enough space, textbooks, and teachers to meet the need. Those days are over. Continue reading →

Principles of Branding a School

Posted on by
4

Written by Ian Welch

When talking about your school’s brand, we are really addressing its visual identity and how it communicates to parents, students, and the community. A brand can tell people who you are, what you do, the quality of education you provide, even the reputation and impact you have in your community. Continue reading →

A Case for Professional Development

Posted on by
2

Written by Andrew Willems

The case for WELS teachers entering into ongoing professional development should be clear. As I’ve taken post-graduate classes, I appreciate those teachers who seek to stay current with readings and new technologies and modern pedagogy. As a parent, I have bad thoughts about my daughter having the same college professors I had–hoping they don’t use the same old strategies they taught me as a student! As a teacher, I know my students can instantly seek answers from the world wide web. Why can’t I? Continue reading →

Lutheran Schools Need to Get Parents Involved

Posted on by
2

By Julianne Foelske

Many Lutheran schools are interested in improving student achievement, building trust between families and the school, and helping students make greater academic gains. An increase in parental involvement has been shown to achieve all of these goals. Lutheran schools should develop a parental involvement plan for the benefit of their students and families. Continue reading →

Key Observations about Healthy Schools

Posted on by
2

Written by:Elton Stroh

Who would argue that this isn’t a critical time for Lutheran schools? Annual statistical reports call attention to continuing decline in student enrollment. This has resulted in agonizing reductions in staff, funding crises, discontented parents, amplified challenges with attracting new students, and occasionally another school closing. Regrettably, the sphere of influence by Lutheran schools among children and families is shrinking (Schmill, 2009). Continue reading →

Using Classwide Peer Tutoring to Meet the Special Needs of Students in a Lutheran School

Posted on by
6

By: Amanda Johnson

Classwide Peer Tutoring is a strategy used to accommodate the needs of all students and can be adapted for use in any classroom with any subject. It consists of two students working in pairs in a tutoring session that typically lasts about 20 minutes for 3-5 times a week. Each student acts as a tutor for half a session and a tutee for the other half. Sessions are scripted so that students of any level can successfully act as tutor. A typical interaction consists of the tutor asking a question and the tutee responding, but it can be adapted to include writing or physical activities. Points and scripted feedback are given by the tutor based on answers. The teacher observes and awards points for groups correctly following procedures (Greenwood, 2001). Continue reading →

Can Lutheran Schools Narrow the Gap?

Posted on by
10

Written by John Meyer

In an earlier blog article, I wrote about a gap that exists between the culture of WELS schools and that of society (see Is It Too Late for WELS Schools?). I propose that one aspect of that gap is the difference between the educational paradigms of 21st-century parents and that of many teachers. A paradigm is a perception of reality based upon one’s experiences and beliefs about a given topic, and it serves as an orienting framework to interpret the world (Kuhn, 1962; Mezirow, 1991). Continue reading →