In early fall of the 2004-05 school year, ISM conducted a study of School Head leadership to determine those characteristics most closely associated with strong faculty cultures (the criterion variable in the study). That variable—the faculty culture—had been chosen as the study’s anchor in view of two earlier ISM studies.

I have encountered numerous Trustees in recent years whose viewpoint on the School Head’s role can be summarized succinctly. The Head is to carry out the “vision” of the institution—usually an abstract list of descriptors, rather than a strategic plan—as developed and promulgated by the Board. Central to the Head’s fulfillment of this vision are, first, hiring—and especially firing—faculty and staff, and, second, raising all the money needed to address the physical components of the Board’s vision.

Many private-independent schools, especially those without high schools, find themselves on small parcels of land with little hope of purchasing contiguous acreage. Their leaders, searching for additional classroom space and buildings, are often staggered by the costs of buying land for a completely new (or second) campus. They are financially and emotionally defeated by the apparent alternative: relocating the school for a year or more, razing the buildings, and then returning to a campus that is fresh, exciting, and more functional.

How do you, as School Head or Division Head, get buy-in from “entrenched faculty” when you are anticipating an initiative? And what does the word entrenched mean? Assuming that these teachers are not toxic (those who drag down the faculty by their cynicism), you might describe them as rigid, fixed in their ways, unwilling to cooperate, skeptical about any kind of change, or always ready to oppose.

In three recent cases, the Connecticut Superior Court handed down rulings that defined the nature of private-independent school enrollment contracts and upheld the school’s right to collect unpaid tuition. (The three Connecticut Superior Court cases were Hope Academy v. Gerald Friel, 2004 WL 1888909; Hope Academy v. Walz, 2004 WL 944550; and Hope Academy of Milford, Inc. v. Fortier, 2004 WL 94480.) All three cases involved the same school and had these similarities:

A recent draft report, “Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature,” commissioned by the U.S. Education Department, concludes that, while far too little is known about the prevalence of sexual misconduct by school employees, likely millions of children—including those in private institutions—are being affected by such abuse during their school years. Although critics of the report say the numbers may be “a bit extreme,” the author maintains the report’s credibility, stressing that at the very least, the report shows that further study is needed, and that the issue of sexual abuse in schools cannot be taken lightly. ISM has long recommended that schools take clear steps toward preventing sexual abuse—both for the sake of their students and the long-term well-being of their institutions

When you know that a complex change is about to be presented at your school—maybe through a new strategic plan, the intent to introduce technology in a significant way, the addition of a new division, the building of a new art center, the reinvention of teaching practices in the middle school, or the production of a Parent Education Plan, as examples—focus not on the change itself, but on how that change is going to be implemented by real people.

As Chair of the Committee on Trustees, you understand that one of your committee’s primary tasks is to identify, interview, and nominate new members whose capabilities fit the Board's profile. As your committee reviews the qualifications of potential members, be cognizant of a candidate who might be overlooked despite the implications of your Board profile template—the Head of a noncompeting school.

Private-independent schools are service organizations, designed by their missions to meet families’ educational needs. Yet schools seldom take the time to understand who their families really are and what they truly value. They also may not have a clear picture of what income brackets these constituents comprise.

Every private-independent school has a mission statement. It is the creed by which the school operates. It generally stands, unless there are major changes in school structure or raison d’être. ISM has consistently said that “there should be no higher priority for Trustees and School Heads than the careful development of mission and philosophy statements, with an emphasis on continual reference and responsiveness to these two documents.”