{"id":474,"date":"2014-12-02T15:00:14","date_gmt":"2014-12-02T21:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/?p=474"},"modified":"2015-11-10T08:09:56","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T14:09:56","slug":"how-does-your-lutheran-schools-continuing-education-funding-measure-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/2014\/12\/02\/how-does-your-lutheran-schools-continuing-education-funding-measure-up\/","title":{"rendered":"How does your Lutheran school\u2019s continuing education funding measure up?"},"content":{"rendered":"

2014 Survey Report: Part One<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

by Dr. John Meyer<\/em><\/p>\n

Nearly 1,500 Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod (WELS) teachers responded to the August 2014 continuing education email survey\u2014representing early childhood, elementary, and high school teachers proportionately across all 12 WELS districts (figure 1 <\/a>and figure 2<\/a>). Though 74% of WELS teachers reported they planned to take a course and 35% planned to work toward a degree or certificate (2012 survey), less than half carried out their plans (figure 3<\/a>). They cited lack of time and money as the major reasons (figure 4<\/a>). This first article examines the survey findings related to lack of money.<\/p>\n

Finding One: WELS schools are inconsistent when it comes to continuing education funding.<\/strong><\/p>\n

WELS teachers reported no trend or pattern in the ways schools allocate funds for teacher continuing education (figure 5<\/a>). The most commonly reported level of annual funding was $250 – $499, but that only represented 23% of the teachers. While 10.5% reported receiving no funding, 6.5% reported receiving $1,000 or more per year. The latter is a low percentage considering that the 2013 synod convention resolved that all congregations\/schools should provide at least $1,000 annually per teacher for continuing education (Proceedings, 2013, p. 69).<\/p>\n

Finding Two: Women and early childhood teachers report low levels of continuing education funding.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Male WELS K \u2013 12 teachers reported receiving more continuing education funding than women. For example, women (56%) were more likely to report receiving $0 – $499 than men (42%), and less likely than men to report receiving $500 or more (21% compared to 47%). Though the numbers are slightly skewed by low continuing education support for early childhood teachers (figure 8<\/a>), the funding disparity between men and women persists once early childhood teachers are removed from the data (figure 7<\/a>\u00a0and figure 8<\/a>). Lower funding for K \u2013 12 women and early childhood teachers is problematic because 60% of WELS teachers are women, and 75% of early childhood teachers report having an elementary degree with little early childhood training (2012 survey).<\/p>\n

Finding Three: Many WELS teachers are unaware of their schools\u2019 funding levels.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nearly 18% of WELS teachers reported that they do not know how much funding their school provides. This was the second most common funding level response.\u00a0 Importantly, women (22%) were twice as likely as men (11%) to say they don\u2019t know what their school provides. Not knowing the amount of school continuing education funding implies a lack of communication on the part of the school, a lack of interest on the part of the teacher, or both.<\/p>\n

Finding Four: Teachers who report high levels of continuing education funding are more engaged in all types of continuing education.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Not surprisingly, the more continuing education funding WELS teachers receive, the less money becomes a barrier (figure 9<\/a>). Of more interest is that teachers who reported receiving $1,000 or more in funding participated in more events (figure 10<\/a>) and at higher levels across all types of continuing education except workshops\u2014regardless of whether the type was free or inexpensive (figure 11<\/a>).\u00a0 Especially telling is the twenty percentage point difference in teachers\u2019 conference (75% to 95%) and school inservice (65% to 85%) participation between those who receive $0 and those who receive $1000+.<\/p>\n

What does it all mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A school\u2019s level of funding for continuing education of all its teachers is a barometer of its\u00a0professional culture. As indicated in the 2014 survey results, teachers whose schools provide a commitment to continuing education funding display a greater zeal for learning than those whose schools do not, and their schools are more likely to emphasize professional learning through inservices and teachers\u2019 conference attendance.<\/p>\n

A school\u2019s culture of professional learning and its success go hand-in-hand. When teachers learn, so do their students (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2009; Kruse & Seashore Louis, 2009; Leithwood, et al., 2004). While developing a culture of professional learning is essential, it\u2019s not possible in the absence of adequate levels of continuing education funding.<\/p>\n

Too often, WELS schools and teachers claim to have a culture of professional learning, but lack the evidence to support such claims. Synod resolutions to fund continuing education go unheeded. Meager continuing education funds are often disproportionately divided\u2014given to those who express interest, but not required for all. When budgets get tight, continuing education funds are the first to get slashed as non-essential funding. Such actions speak louder than lip service toward professionalism, and the 2014 survey responses of many WELS teachers indicate that they are getting the message loud and clear: continuing education is not important.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s time for WELS schools to do a gut check. A school\u2019s reaction to the 2013 synod convention continuing education funding resolution says a lot about its professional culture. Does your Lutheran school have the intestinal fortitude to fund continuing education at a level that communicates a commitment to professional learning?<\/p>\n

Dr. John Meyer (DMLC ’87) is the director of graduate studies and continuing education at Martin Luther College, New Ulm MN.<\/em><\/p>\n

This slideshow requires JavaScript.<\/p>

<\/div>\n

Download all 11\u00a0Funding Figures<\/a>\u00a0as a .PDF<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

References<\/p>\n

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. Stanford, CA: National Staff Development Council.<\/p>\n

Kruse, S. D., & Seashore Louis, K. (2009). Building Strong School Cultures: A Guide to Leading Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.<\/p>\n

Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: Executive Summary. The Wallace Foundation.<\/p>\n

Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod. (2013). Proceedings. Milwaukee WI: Northwestern Publishing House.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>