Our recent meet-up to discuss the competencies academic leaders need in our time sparkled. My colleague Sarah Hanawald shared some competency models and then invited participants to share their own thoughts and reflections in break-out rooms. Conversation didn’t exactly lag. There has been a relative dearth of focused thinking in the independent school world around how best to develop the skills and capacities of academic administrators and other faculty charged with planning and leading schools’ programs of teaching, learning, and professional development. Great resources and professional organizations have come into being to support business and advancement functions as well as senior leadership and governance. But, in contrast, the work of supporting academic functions has been mostly done by smaller, often regional, and sometimes for-profit entities. When the Independent Curriculum Group began to organize periodic Academic Leaders Retreats some years ago, we sensed and uncovered a hunger for connection. Our gatherings of a couple of dozen people at a time were joyful and productive, but they weren’t quite enough to spark a “culture of collaboration” across the national and global community of academic leaders. Over the years I have had the chance to explore many aspects of independent school operations and leadership, but my own heart has always been with the learning programs—which are, after all, what independent schools are about. As a long-time school-based “academic leader” myself, as a department chair, dean of faculty, academic dean, and director of college counseling, I believe that what and how and why schools teach is what matters. Academics first! In these roles I’ve been part of plenty of meetings and projects involving the “administrative team,” board committees, strategic-thinking initiatives, and the like—where senior leadership and governors have laid out the agendas. I have then experienced the marketing and communication of what we were doing, and I have sometimes seen academic programs tweaked and even reworked to fit a “marketing message”—even after the academic folks had turned themselves inside-out to create something innovative, mission-aligned, and student-focused. When I later found myself engaged in helping schools to develop their marketing and communications programs, I had to bring my understanding of the relationship between academics and messaging and identity into congruence with my belief in Academics first! What I realized was that silos do not exist in independent schools only to separate academic departments. For reasons historical and unintentional, there has been a de facto ensiling of operational functions in schools—between academic leadership teams, advancement functions, heads’ offices, and business offices. Probably always and certainly in our time, such separation stands firmly in the way of schools’ efforts to truly define and present themselves as integral entities, where the same missions, values, and strategic priorities define not just what is being done but how it is understood and communicated both within and without the institution. This unfortunate situation manifests itself especially when academic leaders—at all levels—undertake work that is novel. In the past forty years much has been learned about the nature of learning itself, new technologies have inundated us all, and we are at last beginning to fully appreciate the role of education in creating or impeding the development of a just and equitable world. These things are new and unfamiliar not just to the general public but also to many school people who do not have the privilege of working directly with students. We started hearing the mantra “innovate or wither” from NAIS early in this century, when “21st-century learning” and then “innovation” became essential parts of every school’s self-presentation. But alas, and through no fault of the people involved, these terms were not always—or even often, in my experience—fully understood by the advancement (admission, development, and marketing–communications) or business functions. Nor were they well understood by board members, whose interaction with the academic leadership in many schools is funneled through narrow channels controlled by senior leadership lest the board folks be “interfering” in unwanted ways. Academic leadership teams have designed novel programs and practices, convinced those “higher up” to let them go forward—sometimes, to be sure, in conformity with “strategic plans”—but too often without full understanding or even buy-in from the offices charged with supporting and promoting them. Too many academic leaders have had to defend unfamiliar ideas—like moving “beyond” standardized advanced curriculum or incorporating more online learning—within their own communities because these practices were not fully understood or endorsed even by administrative colleagues. Back to our academic leaders meet-up: It was clear, especially in the time of COVID where health and safety planning has added to the stew of priorities with which school leaders in all areas must cope—that there must be a more concerted effort made in all schools to ensure that academic leaders are in regular communication and collaboration with, especially, advancement offices and more generally business offices. My advice to schools contemplating anything new and unfamiliar, like creating a program of home-grown advanced curricula, is to get admission and marketing-communications in the room from the get-go so that they fully understand, believe in, and can effectively talk about the new programs. The issue isn’t about academic leaders or those with whom they work. It’s a structural thing, but something that, once recognized, can be fixed. Yup, there will be more meeting times for more people, but the point is for the school to be able to BE, to understand itself, and to talk about itself as a coherent, mission- and values-driven place of learning where programs, practices, and policies make sense together. It just starts with bringing the people and the ideas together in conversation and collaboration. You know, like a schoolhouse functioning as one!
2 Comments
Prior to the COVID pandemic, researchers had begun to see that institutional loyalty was changing. Practically, within independent schools, this meant a greater focus on retention of two particular types: enrollment and employment. Enrollment offices and Academic Leaders became as focused on retention as they were on new enrollees, which required more interaction across offices. At the same time, Academic Leaders saw greater turnover within their own ranks and among the faculty than in previous generations. Let’s take a look at studies during the COVID pandemic that note shifts in the ways that people interact with organizations. First, let’s take a look at a survey done by the global consulting firm McKinsey and think about the future impact that this might have on enrollment. McKinsey notes that 73% of Americans changed their behavior toward brand or institutional loyalty during the pandemic, with more shifts occurring in areas that were most greatly impacted by the pandemic. Importantly, they note three drivers for reasons consumers changed brands (in order of importance): value, availability, and quality. Independent schools certainly had an advantage in two of those areas during the COVID pandemic last year. In-person learning tended to be more available in independent schools, and families understood the high quality of their children’s experience, whether on- or off-campus. That trend has continued this year, as NAIS notes in their recent survey on admissions. The question remains open as to whether families will continue to see the value of the independent school experience once families can again depend on in-person public school options, and whether independent schools can offer more flexibility than local school systems can provide. This may signal a new role for online learning and hybrid options in the coming years. Families are coming to expect schools to adjust to the demands of daily life, rather than re-arranging their lives around school. Schools that focus on retention and building capacity for flexibility will continue to thrive. Before 2020, schools expected a regular annual cycle for faculty and administrative hiring, with a fairly predictable rate of turnover. At that time, summer hirings were sometimes necessary, but not typical. This year, however, summer hiring exploded. We saw this in real-time in our Pulse survey from late July: only 21% of Academic Leaders reported no unexpected faculty departures this summer, and a whopping 42% reported unexpected hiring for three or positions. Overall, the hiring season was busier, too. Recent NAIS research notes that 28% of schools had significantly more openings this year compared to last and another 30% had slightly more openings. (Remember that this compares to the uneasiness heading into a full year with COVID.) NAIS also notes that administrative turnover is expected to increase in coming years, with 61% of administrators reporting that they expect to leave their current job within five years, with many transitioning away from independent schools. This fits with national trends. The media dubbed this summer “The Big Quit” or “Great Resignation.” 11.5 million workers quit their jobs in May-July 2021. Gallup reports that 48% of workers are actively looking for new jobs. People are looking for positions that offer greater flexibility and greater meaning. Workplaces that traditionally had little to no flexibility (including schools) became more flexible during COVID, demonstrating that at least some parts of most jobs could be completed remotely. And, employees continue to search for real meaning in their work. As a recent Harvard Business Review article stated, employees “need to be seen for who they are and what they are contributing.” Independent schools have an advantage over most workplaces in the impact and meaning that is inherent in our work, but our schools have traditionally offered little flexibility. Schools that thrive in the future will think creatively about how they can change that. Take these together, and we can see that independent schools have an unprecedented opportunity to attract families and faculty. At the same time, those families and faculty members are likely to have a more tenuous commitment to our schools than we would have seen in past generations. Our culture is shifting to demand that institutions provide meaning and flexibility. Independent schools aren’t insulated by these shifts; contending with them will require resilience and the courage to change. |
Don't miss our weekly blog posts by joining our newsletter mailing list below:AuthorsBrad Rathgeber (he/him/his) Archives
April 2024
Categories |