In our continuing research concerning the competition for quality teachers that private-independent schools are now experiencing, ISM recently surveyed a random sample of I&P subscriber schools. The 178 responding schools answered questions concerning the salaries, selected benefits, and hiring of faculty members. This article concerns the salaries of teachers at day schools only (164 schools).

While we believe that much is changing in educational architecture, we don’t believe that to be necessarily true of teaching practice. And the challenge will not be in how to teach—we actually know a lot about that already—but how to establish culture/community within the new 21st century architecture.

In a previous article, we noted particular characteristics of the lower, middle, and upper school divisions. Management/leadership would do well to understand these characteristics and take them into account in working with the faculty cultures there. However, there is a fourth "division" that rarely is given much attention. This one incorporates teachers who typically teach across two or even three divisions. Working with these faculty members, without recognizing that they face and respond to unique challenges, you run the risk of talking constantly past them and rarely to them. Note that ISM is opposed to cross-divisional teaching in theory and in practice. This article recognizes the reality in today's schools and tries to place these teachers in a useful administrative context. We need to be clear: ISM does not intend to suggest that there is a balance between positives and negatives. In addition to the challenges noted below, cross-divisional teachers are part-time in each division in which they teach and inevitably drive the schedule. This practice is generally considered the only fiscally prudent way to provide course needs; it is a pragmatic business decision, but rarely is it a satisfying solution to teaching excellence within a school. As such, it is often not in the best interest of students.

Schools constantly face pressure to increase program, diversify experiences, and meet parent demands. As a result, teachers have seen their time increasingly fragmented in all divisions. While schools in North America are routinely expected to have 180 teaching days, the reality is often far less. The number of teaching minutes raises interesting questions, but the counting of days is usually quite instructive. Both at workshops on scheduling and during on-site visits, ISM routinely looks at the number of actual teaching days. There is enormous variation among upper schools, with some achieving in the 170 range, and others struggling to reach 150. While we have no data to suggest that one number is better than any other number per se, it is clear that the frenzy to complete curricula and the pressure that students and faculty experience indicates that the school year needs more time. It also seems widespread that the speed at which courses need to advance mitigates against any but a percentage of the students taking the most difficult courses.