The schedule might be considered half of the answer to the question: How does our school carry out its mission and support students? It tells how time is allocated (and therefore what is considered important); it shows the relationships among time, space, people, and program—and implicitly places values on these aspects of the school. The schedulers thus play an important role in ensuring that the mission can be delivered optimally to the students.

The relationship between time and student achievement is once again being examined. A recent publication, On the Clock: Rethinking the Way Schools Use Time by Elena Silva of Education Sector, funded by The Broad Foundation, notes that the "addition and improvement of the use of time was at the top of the list of recommendations in a report, Getting Smart, Becoming Fairer." Various proposals are now under consideration in public and private education to either lengthen the school day and/or the school year. Quite apart from the practical implications of such a move, what are the research findings?

ISM’s Purpose and Outcome Statements concept was developed in a series of I&P articles suggesting that mission statements alone will always fall short of their hoped-for goal of defining your school’s institutional purposes in ways that are simultaneously visionary and practical.1 Mission statements—abstract documents by nature—must be supplemented by two other documents: first, the Portrait of the Graduate, and second, Characteristics of Professional Excellence for faculty. Done well, these pithy documents supply inspiration, universality, particularity, and concreteness.

In December 2006, new federal rules went into effect concerning the sharing of electronic documents during the discovery phase of litigation. In brief, the rules require parties involved in federal lawsuits to produce “electronically stored information” prior to trial. While sharing of electronic documents prior to trial has become commonplace in recent years, the new rules codify the practice, as well as require that the documents be provided in a timely and efficient manner.

Consider the ISM X™ (The ISM Management and Leadership Xcellence Formulation). Designed to communicate a series of critical organizational, financial, and cultural principles, the ISM X also contains implicitly the outcomes of: ISM’s 2004-05 Head leadership studies, ISM’s 1989-95 student performance and faculty culture study, and the internal ISM studies that have resulted in three iterations of the ISM Stability Markers®, the latest being in 2006.

Scheduled time for professional growth and renewal of a meaningful kind (collegial, site-based, and career-long) is not often offered in our schools. When professional growth and renewal is done in a way that inspires a healthy faculty culture, student performance and student connection to their school is enhanced and is made optimal. Having such a faculty culture should be a prime objective for school management.

Of the numerous new laws passed during the first 100 days of the Obama administration, the COBRA subsidy provision of the economic stimulus bill—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)—has had perhaps the most immediate impact on schools (e.g., with the federal government providing a subsidy of 65% of benefits costs for involuntarily terminated employees for up to nine months). However, a new law that has received far less attention from schools—the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (LLFPA)—may have much further-reaching and longer-lasting consequences for any schools that engaged in pay discrimination at any point in the past. All schools are urged to review their past and current pay practices and to address any potential liabilities that they may discover in light of this new law.

When power is at the center of relationships in a school, the conversation has moved from “what is good for students” (the service paradigm), to “what is good for adults (or me)” (the power paradigm). In another context, ISM has suggested that schools seem to move inevitably toward adult-centeredness over time.

A review of evaluation literature—particularly in corporate practice—soon brings up the topic of 360° or multi-rater feedback. This evaluation process is increasingly being referenced among private-independent school educators. Teachers are being rated by their students; School Heads are being rated by their direct reports and by faculty; parents are being asked to give feedback concerning school personnel and Trustees. If such a process is being considered at your school, whether bought from a company or developed in-house as online surveys, it should be understood and used appropriately. A 360-degree process should be used for professional development purposes and might lead to performance objectives, but should not be used for evaluative purposes in and of itself.

As School Head, you are keenly aware of the strategic value of a strong advisory program. As a realist, you are also cognizant of the ease with which an advisory program can veer off course, becoming a collection of activities rather than a coherent program anchored in the school’s mission.