ISM has been an outspoken advocate of a growth-focused faculty culture—meaning that faculty professional growth and development is not merely a goal of leadership but a cultural norm within a school. Our research has demonstrated time and again the value of this culture for the students we serve. A growth-focused faculty culture underpins an inspiring workplace because of the opportunities teachers have to grow and renew throughout their careers with solid school leadership support and resources. The administrators value the creative energy faculty members invest, and give teachers room for success and failure. They understand that learning, growing, and maturing within a professional learning community will lead to enhanced student achievement, satisfaction, and enthusiasm—the ultimate goals. But what happens when a school fails to build this culture?

ISM has long encouraged schools to minimize single-section courses (singletons) due to the negative impact they have on the health of the school’s schedule. They distort the entire schedule as the scheduler attempts to get the most students into each class. Still, schedule conflicts arise that make it impossible for students to get the courses they desire. Disappointed and frustrated, these students often have to take other courses. We frequently see such conflicts in visual arts programs. The typical design of a visual arts curriculum begins with an introductory course, followed by courses grouped by the various disciplines (e.g., painting, drawing, ceramics) and by level (e.g., I, II, AP). The courses are arranged in a largely sequential fashion where prerequisites determine students’ eligibility for upper-level courses. For example, a student may take Design Fundamentals as a freshman, Drawing I and Painting I as a sophomore, Ceramics and Advanced Painting as a junior, and AP Art as a senior. While logical and linear, high levels of prerequisite sequencing result in numerous singletons that run with a fraction of the students who signed up for the course. To defend against this, the best course of action is to minimize the impact curriculum design has on students’ ability to gain entry into arts courses.

In most private-independent schools, “culture of data” is a foreign term because decisions are often based on anecdotes, the vocal minority, past events, or “instinct.” Examples of this abound. “We need a Mandarin program because the parents are all asking for it.” “We need a pool. Families are leaving for another school that has a swim team.” “We must lower our tuition. Our enrollment is down because of the economy.”

“Academic rigor” is heralded as a central tenet of a quality academic experience. Schools tout it. Parents want it. Governments legislate it. The 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, sought to establish that the U.S. education system was enmeshed with mediocrity and called for increased academic rigor as the antidote. More than 30 years later—and as evidenced by the frequency with which “rigor” or “rigorous” appears on public and private school websites and strategic initiatives—“rigor” is still perceived to be a prime mechanism by which schools might improve student achievement.