The seemingly dramatic increase in private school tuition between 1990 and 2010 is largely accounted for by the increase in faculty compensation over the same period. It seems that the competitive market for excellent faculty is dictated largely by public schools—not surprising, considering they employ the largest number of teachers.

We want more diversity. This phrase is often uttered during the brainstorming stages of a private-independent school’s strategic planning sessions, followed by nods of assent from other Trustees. Much informal agreement may be expressed on this general proposition; however, planning problems can ensue if key steps are not taken. Several years in the future, planners or constituents might say, “You know, we wanted more diversity but we haven’t done much about it.” A Board of Trustees or other group that wants to include “more diversity” as a planning item should consider the following three questions.

Coaching is a career-long conversation between teachers and their individual coaches about the high-order professional/technical understandings and behaviors that collectively become difference-makers in the lives of students. In a previous article on distributed leadership, ISM identified coaching as a key skill for school leaders. Coaching is intrinsic to faculty evaluation as we have described it in ISM’s Comprehensive Faculty Development Model™. Coaching is also clearly implied for School Heads in the School Leadership Points of Emphasis. In this article, we outline the ISM Relational Coaching Model. While coaching is a form of communication, it is a specialized subset that requires training and practice.

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.

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.)