A reasonable contractual agreement between the Board and its sole employee, the School Head, encourages moderation, compromise, and perspective. While some feel contracts promote distrust, the opposite is true. The document, properly designed and implemented, will enhance the relationship between the Head and the Board by bringing clarity, focus, and mutual benefit to the most critical employment relationship of the school.

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 donor-centered approach to development focuses on relationship management—the process by which schools identify, cultivate, solicit, recognize, and steward donors and prospects to establish and nurture relationships and to raise funds and other resources. This approach puts new responsibility on those who are most accountable for defining and selling the school’s vision and strategic direction.

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 National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) and ISM have long had differing perspectives on issues related to the pricing and affordability of private-independent schools. Some of these differences are the natural result of overlapping, yet quite distinct, membership/client lists. Other differences are more complex in origin. A blog article by NAIS Executive Director Patrick Bassett has again provided an opportunity to highlight some of these divergent points.

At approximate five-year intervals, the ISM consulting staff conducts an internal study designed to identify those variables that are associated most strongly with a private-independent school’s ability to sustain excellence in its student programs. The outcome list, termed the ISM Stability Markers®, changes moderately from one iteration to the next, in part because North American economic and enrollment-demand conditions tend to shift over time, and in part because ISM’s capacity to measure—and, thus, to detect—prominent markers gains strength steadily with enhancements in the organization’s internal research capabilities. The second iteration, published in 2001, comprised two tiers, the first with eight items listed in rank order and the second with nine more items that were not prioritized. This new iteration also comprises two tiers, with six items in the top tier and 12 unranked items in the second.

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.

While you want to avoid extravagance in setting the Head’s benefits, a Board that wants to recruit and retain a valued “CEO” should strive for a comprehensive, competitive compensation package. The Board President and Executive Committee (or those Trustees responsible for designing the Head’s compensation) should tailor the benefits package to meet the specific needs of the Head. Often, the “deal breaker” is not the salary, but the breadth of personal and professional benefits offered.

Where comparable 1992, 1997, and 1999 data are available, the trends for health insurance benefits for School Heads are generally positive. Today, 97% of our respondents receive or are offered health insurance from their schools (see Figure 1), up 7% from the 1992 response. However, fewer than half (49.2%) of the current Heads surveyed receive 100% coverage for their individual health insurance premium.