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.

With the explosion of available communication instruments in the last few years, independent schools need to be more strategic about their communications. The longstanding vehicles of the paper/electronic newsletter and blast emails are being supplemented--and perhaps in some cases replaced--by social media as a preferred medium. Your school's resources will be taxed to maintain a "broad-brush" approach in the future. Communications with constituents need to be more purposeful and less reactive.

In an earlier issue of Ideas & Perspectives, we offered ISM's 20 Success Predictors for the 21st Century. As that article explained, ISM expects successful 21st Century Schools to make radical changes in both structure and function to achieve and sustain stability and excellence. We emphasized that the 20 Success Predictors were designed as speculative forecasts of what ISM expects to be needed to achieve long-term stability and excellence in the coming years. Readers were reminded that the current (third) iteration of the ISM Stability Markers®--the primary lens through which ISM views private-independent schools--does not lose its general utility as an evidence-driven set of benchmarks for long-term stability and programmatic excellence. Thus, ISM maintains its focus on the Stability Markers, but offers a future-focused set of Success Predictors as accompanying guidelines. (Note: There is some overlap between the two lists. Several of the ISM Stability Markers are also Success Predictors for the 21st Century.) This article focuses on ISM Success Predictor No. 4: Teachers will be hired and rehired based upon highly specific course/professional development contracts.