In our continuing research concerning the competition for quality, mission-appropriate teachers for private-independent schools, ISM annually surveys a random sample of I&P subscriber schools concerning compensation for faculty and administrators. This year, 199 schools responded to the survey. This article focuses on the survey results regarding the salaries of day school teachers. A competitive faculty salary structure is critical in a school’s ability to sustain programmatic excellence over time. Competitive salaries enable you to retain members of your faculty and hire new teachers. Consider the following results of our survey—and where your school falls in the scope of compensation variables.

In previous years, you have relied on various print and electronic media to inform families about what your summer program has to offer. Looking ahead to your next summer session, here are some strategies to improve your promotional efforts and broaden the knowledge of your summer program among potential families.

In preparation for a consultation, an ISM Consultant often reviews the school’s Board bylaws. More and more, we are seeing guidelines about what constitutes a conflict of interest. One scenario that is seldom addressed, however, is when a Board member is also the spouse of a school employee. Boards frequently discuss confidential matters—matters that should not be talked about outside the Boardroom, even with a spouse. When a Trustee shares this type of information, the understanding (stated or implied) is that the employee-spouse will maintain permanent confidentiality. That expectation is inherently unfair. In addition, the spouse was not personally present to hear the details of the discussion and has only a second-hand version of what occurred. Or perhaps the spouse-employee has a confrontation with the Head (or a colleague has one) and shares something about the Head’s action that is not appropriate for the Trustee-spouse to hear. Heads often make decisions that are unpopular with individuals at the school. These decisions are made in the course of implementing policy or completing goals in the strategic plan. (Certainly, if the Head’s act was egregious, the Board needs to know about it. The information path, however, should be a written and signed letter to either the Board President or the Chair of the Head Support and Evaluation Committee.)

As your school’s Board and Management Team search for effective ways to maximize income and ensure financial stability, ask these 11 questions. (Note the following elements are exactly the items to consider in the quadrennial strategic planning sessions—not just annually. In fact, if the items are not considered in strategic planning, some of them will be difficult or impossible to implement year-by-year.)

In the previous issue of Ideas & Perspectives, the ISM School Culture Matrix was discussed and displayed. In this issue, the 10-item scoring instrument and its accompanying scoring chart are offered. As soon as your teachers complete the instrument, you, as a leader of the faculty or of a portion of the faculty, will be in a position to (a) follow the scoring directions shown after the instrument, (b) place your faculty’s instrument-outcomes on the scoring chart provided in this issue, and (c) compare your own outcomes to the lists shown in the ISM School Culture Matrix published in the previous I&P. Once this is done, you will want to discuss the implications of your teachers’ self-perceptions with the teachers themselves, with your teacher-leadership group(s), and with the members of your administration.

The ISM Student Experience Study (SES) produced instrument outcomes that included the Student Culture Profile II and the Faculty Culture Profile II. While these two instruments—both statistically related to student performance, student satisfaction, and student enthusiasm—provided straightforward operational definitions for an optimal teaching/learning environment, they did not in themselves address the characteristics of school cultures that lack strength in “predictability,” in “supportiveness” (the paired critical ingredients in the optimal culture), or in both. This article addresses those characteristics. You, as School Head, Division Head, Department Chair, grade-level coordinator, or other position implying supervision of teachers, were introduced long ago to ISM’s seminal study of student performance, satisfaction, and enthusiasm. Labeled the ISM International Model Schools Project (1989–95), that study identified “predictability and supportiveness” as the paired organizational-culture ingredients associated with enhancing the student experience. The original study’s findings were validated and refined by the recent ISM Student Experience Study.

Mission-based advisory is the front line of guidance and the center of a school’s leadership programs. It accomplishes those objectives through the recruitment of faculty who see advisory as a crucial element of their teaching practice, whether in middle or upper schools.1 Teaching, to these faculty, is holistic and encompasses the wider framing of a student’s success or failure. For optimal success, each student must experience a predictable and supportive environment in which at least one teacher truly knows and appreciates him/her, can act as an advocate in both good and bad situations, and is a crucial communications link between the school and the parent.

ISM published its Student Experience Study (SES) outcomes in January 2012, and published related articles in Ideas & Perspectives throughout the spring. Among the features in the report were a revised Faculty Culture Profile—ISM’s long-standing measure of the quality of a school’s faculty culture—and a revised Student Culture Profile, along with 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.