Schools continually talk about their schedules. The typical targets are the sense of constant rush, the recognition that incremental annual changes have fragmented the schedule, a desire for more effective teaching time, and an interest in collaboration. It can be a frustrating conversation. It is easy to identify issues that need attention, but difficult to persuade faculty to adopt potential schedule changes. Everyone knows change is necessary, but few want to risk jumping from the frying pan into the fire! ISM has previously stated, “The skill of the School Head will be sorely tested as he/she moves faculty culture from a place of semidependency (“just tell me what to do”) to a place of organic vibrancy that bubbles up creative, critical, and innovative ways to maintain a freshness that continues to enable the school’s mission to be practiced in a hyperchange environment.” Scheduling is a change mechanism, whether moving to a six- or seven-day cycle, rotating classes, lengthening periods, and so on. Typically, this mechanism is intentional in three ways, including:

As School Head, understanding your school’s stage in its ongoing maturation can be helpful in providing you with clear insight as to what is—and is not—possible. The stages outlined here are intended to help provide encouragement for schools early in their growth, praise for those that have reached maturity with excellence, and warning for those in peril of old age.

The School Head is the sole employee of the Board, and management of the Head’s compensation is a high priority. Numerous entities are now asking how much compensation is too much for nonprofit CEOs. Never has it been more important that the Board be fully conversant about Head compensation. Only then can the Board determine what adjustments are needed to ensure that the school compensates competitively to retain the Head or enhance its ability to be competitive in its next Head search. Trustees must educate themselves about the marketplace and understand the complexities of the School Head’s job. ISM surveyed a random sample of I&P subscriber schools concerning compensation for faculty and administrators. This article focuses on the survey results regarding the salaries of School Heads at our participating day schools.

More than 30 years ago, ISM published a seminal article concerning the wrongful thinking often used when setting tuition. The article intended to help school leaders understand that pricing included a complex array of decision points, and that much of the “common wisdom” concerning tuition was incorrect. School leaders—notably the Board, School Head, and Management Team—must understand these variables to safeguard the school’s value proposition. Let’s re-examine four of the most prevalent erroneous premises.

In a recent article on faculty as leaders, ISM identified four actions that faculty leaders take—they assume control of their own growth and renewal, take control of their own curricula and assessment, use time to define and improve their work, and strive to be paid according to the merit of the work they do. This article takes another step further by examining the qualities of leadership and the qualities of teaching to see how the former might be enhanced.