As the administrator in charge of the high school schedule, you have a moral responsibility. The schedule is not a neutral instrument, but one that dictates and sanctions the lives of children. Think about the way in which your students are living in your school—particularly the driven students.

ISM recently surveyed a random sample of 450 I&P subscriber schools to gather information about compensation for full-time faculty. The 194 responding schools answered questions concerning teacher salaries, selected benefits, and hiring. The preceding issue showed implications of the salary data; this article focuses on non-salary benefits.

The most distinctive difference between students’ educational experiences in most private-independent schools and those of students in their strongest public school competitors is the level of personalized attention they receive—attention guided by the multiple human values embodied in school mission. In lower schools, this kind of attention is fostered by relatively low student-to-teacher ratios, often in self-contained classrooms. In middle and upper divisions, the advisory program is the primary “delivery system.” The most significant, programmatic difference-maker in serving private-independent schools’ strategic interests—in both fulfillment of mission and development of competitive advantage—is the vigor, authenticity, and professionalism of their advisory programs.

ISM continues to identify the tasks of the School Head as becoming more complex and demanding. But what are the specifics and the implications? Consider Figure 1, which shows the different areas where the Head is expected to have both expertise and increasing involvement.

Spurred by competition with other schools, parental and societal demands, and the hope of enhancing their educational programs, schools have raised money, built/renovated facilities, and hired additional staff, all to give students access to technology. Now that the computers and infrastructure are in place, Boards and Heads want to know what benefits to expect from improved technology and when they can begin seeing them. Teachers want to know the expectations of the administration and Board. Everyone wants to measure whether the investment in technology has improved learning.

The 20th century curriculum paradigm was dominated by the power (and needs) of publishers who took a considerable amount of time to develop textbooks and drove a profitable mass market in educationally acceptable knowledge. The 21st century curriculum paradigm is far more anarchic, with “textbook” knowledge being accessible and created through “social production”2 (collaborative work with open platforms) and largely available for free.

One of second-tier markers of the ISM Stability Markers® is “demand in excess of supply.” While it would be desirable for every grade to be described this way, ISM has always viewed this Marker as critical when it describes the situation at the school’s traditional “entry” grades (e.g., pre-kindergarten, sixth, ninth)—the first grade of the school and the grade(s) where it expands, either through attrition or by design, the number of seats available for new students.