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.

The matrix we call scheduling—that complex interrelationship among time, space, program, and people—is not just a mere description of what is happening in your school. It should also provoke the reflection necessary to understand how the elements of excellent education interact and enable the prime conditions for optimal learning.

The School Head maintains a dual focus on strategic matters that includes: the goals outlined in the annual administrative agenda (derived from the current planning document) and the marketplace variables—Price, Product, Process—that, with relative degrees of emphasis, define the school.

At any given moment, the Board may be operating highly effectively. The same is true of the School Head and Management Team. The problem, however, is always how to sustain high-level leadership over time. As changes occur, when the Board President finally rotates off, or the Head accepts an appointment elsewhere, or a new facility is proposed or a program added, what will ensure that the direction and vitality of the school is not lost?