{"id":164,"date":"2013-05-15T07:40:03","date_gmt":"2013-05-15T12:40:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/?p=164"},"modified":"2015-11-10T08:30:06","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T14:30:06","slug":"is-it-too-late-for-wels-schools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/2013\/05\/15\/is-it-too-late-for-wels-schools\/","title":{"rendered":"Is It Too Late for WELS Schools?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Written by John Meyer<\/i><\/p>\n

It\u2019s time for action if WELS elementary schools are to survive. The Book of Reports and Memorials (BORAM) for the 62nd<\/sup> Biennial Convention of the WELS was recently published, and it contains compelling arguments that the time to save WELS schools is now. Long-established trends reveal reasons for concern.<\/p>\n

WELS Lutheran elementary school enrollment peaked in 1990 with nearly 32,000 students. Since then, overall enrollment has been consistently dropping. The Commission on Lutheran School reports this year\u2019s K-8 enrollment as 24,254 (2013 BORAM, p. 40)\u2014a drop of 1,781 students and 39 schools since 2006. It\u2019s actually worse. Those aggregate numbers include the rapidly growing, publicly-funded choice schools in Southeastern Wisconsin and Florida, thus masking the true impact of the enrollment decline felt in most schools. The enrollment decline in the other ten districts averages 400 students per year. At this rate, those 253 WELS schools will disappear by 2051.<\/p>\n

Also of concern is that the loss of students in WELS schools (7%) is greater than the loss of children in WELS congregations (5%), indicating that more WELS parents are opting out of the Lutheran school (WELS Statistical Reports, 2006; 2012). Excluding districts with choice schools, Lutheran K-8 enrollment is down 13% since 2006, suggesting an even higher opt-out rate for WELS families. (See Table 1 for enrollment comparisons by district.)<\/p>\n

Why do institutions die? It is because they fail to adapt to a changing environment. As the outside culture changes, those within the institution fail to notice. They are comfortable doing things the way they\u2019ve always been done. Besides, the memories of the \u201cglory days\u201d tease those within the institution that success is found in the traditions of the past. But as the gap between the institution and its environment widens, increasing decline signals that something is terribly wrong (Agocs, 1997; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Heifetz, 1994; Kuhn, 1962; Reeves, 2009; Van De Ven, 1995; Weick & Quinn, 1999).<\/p>\n

While God\u2019s Word is relevant to every age, the process and product of schooling can change. The former \u201cglory days\u201d are gone for WELS schools. The American culture is vastly different from 1990 when the traditional Lutheran elementary school flourished. If WELS schools are to thrive again, they must be reconfigured for the present. But the road to reconfiguration is difficult and messy. The following guidelines should be considered:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Avoid seeking a scapegoat.<\/strong> Although assigning blame brings catharsis, it does nothing to change the institution\u2019s path. Everyone shares the blame.<\/li>\n
  2. Look beyond the institution for new solutions. <\/strong>Those within are limited to the memories and solutions of the past. If something didn\u2019t work before, it won\u2019t now\u2014no matter how hard one tries. Consider why others are successful in today\u2019s environment.<\/li>\n
  3. Do not attempt to recreate the past.<\/strong> Persuasive leaders will call for a return to what made the institution great in the good ol\u2019 days. While this succeeds in rallying the troops, a return to the past only accentuates the divide between the institution and the modern environment, hastening its death.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The T<\/a>ask Force on Lutheran Schools\u2019 report in the 2013 Book of Reports and Memorials<\/a> (pp. 45 \u2013 68) is well-written, and everyone who cares about WELS elementary schools should read it. The Task Force report offers many suggestions, including a mission-focused approach to outreach, re-envisioning the principal, and providing adequate funding.<\/p>\n

    Keeping in mind the above guidelines, these suggestions should be carefully considered and thoroughly discussed at the 2013 WELS convention. The report\u2019s suggestions should be empirically tested to discover which ideas will best help WELS schools narrow the gap between its culture and parental expectations. Most important, actions must be taken to correct the problems before it is too late.<\/p>\n

    \"table\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    John Meyer is the director of graduate studies and continuing education at Martin Luther College.<\/i><\/p>\n

    References<\/b><\/p>\n

    Agocs, C. (1997, June). Institutional Resistance to Organizational Change: Denial, Inaction, and Repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16<\/i>(9), pp. 917-931.<\/p>\n

    Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational Change: A Review of Theory and Research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management<\/i>, 293-315.<\/p>\n

    Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers.<\/i> Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.<\/p>\n

    Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Revolutions.<\/i> Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

    Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school.<\/i> Alexandria, VA: ASCD.<\/p>\n

    Van De Ven, A. H. (1995). Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review<\/i>, 510-540.<\/p>\n

    Share this:<\/h3>