Schools continually talk about their schedules. The typical targets are the sense of constant rush, the recognition that incremental annual changes have fragmented the schedule, a desire for more effective teaching time, and an interest in collaboration. It can be a frustrating conversation. It is easy to identify issues that need attention, but difficult to persuade faculty to adopt potential schedule changes. Everyone knows change is necessary, but few want to risk jumping from the frying pan into the fire! ISM has previously stated, “The skill of the School Head will be sorely tested as he/she moves faculty culture from a place of semidependency (“just tell me what to do”) to a place of organic vibrancy that bubbles up creative, critical, and innovative ways to maintain a freshness that continues to enable the school’s mission to be practiced in a hyperchange environment.” Scheduling is a change mechanism, whether moving to a six- or seven-day cycle, rotating classes, lengthening periods, and so on. Typically, this mechanism is intentional in three ways, including:

ISM published its Student Experience Study (SES) outcomes in January 2012, and published related articles in Ideas & Perspectives throughout that spring. Among the features in the report were a revised Faculty Culture Profile (ISM’s longstanding measure of the quality of a school’s faculty culture) and a revised Student Culture Profile (renamed the Student Experience Profile). The report also included the study’s statistical findings and an instrument for use as part of any school’s approach to faculty evaluation, the Characteristics of Professional Excellence II. Beginning with the spring 2012 data collection period, ISM has published quarterly data summaries of both the Faculty Culture Profile II (FCP II) and the Student Experience Profile II (SEP II). This is the first annual analysis article, one that reviews the previous quarterly data summaries and provides commentary regarding the implications of those summaries.

The School Head is the sole employee of the Board, and management of the Head’s compensation is a high priority. Numerous entities are now asking how much compensation is too much for nonprofit CEOs. Never has it been more important that the Board be fully conversant about Head compensation. Only then can the Board determine what adjustments are needed to ensure that the school compensates competitively to retain the Head or enhance its ability to be competitive in its next Head search. Trustees must educate themselves about the marketplace and understand the complexities of the School Head’s job. ISM surveyed a random sample of I&P subscriber schools concerning compensation for faculty and administrators. This article focuses on the survey results regarding the salaries of School Heads at our participating day schools.

Creating a master schedule is challenging enough when you attempt to accommodate the basic demands of people, function, time, and space during the day. Those challenges multiply when you add the following factors to the equation. Faculty who teach in more than one division of the school. The need to create a schedule that is age-appropriate in each division without impacting the schedule of any other division. A single facility—most commonly a gymnasium or lunchroom—that must be shared by all divisions. Groups of students that must move a substantial distance between buildings—or even campuses.

The schedule is important as a reflection and “interpreter” of your mission.1 It determines what is deemed important, decides who is important, reflects the power structures of the school, forces actions by students and adults whether desired or not, influences issues of discipline, can mitigate or exacerbate stress, and enhances or detracts from academic performance. Its importance has been underestimated, and thus its change power not clearly understood. That power relates to the school’s mission, to the school’s strategic direction, to the school’s 21st century character, and to its influence on student and faculty culture.

Schools use a variety of discount strategies, including tuition remission, sibling discounts, and full-pay discounts. ISM refers to these as category discounts, meaning that, because an enrolling student falls into a predetermined category, the discount is automatically awarded. This strategy can needlessly reduce net revenue per student and is a practice that should be reconsidered by most independent school leaders.