There is a confused mythology that surrounds the issue of school size. As most Heads know, the responsibilities, expectations, and administrative tasks are always pretty much the same no matter what the size of the school. And, in actual fact, given the general tendency to add administrative staff in pace with enrolment growth, in larger schools the jobs get spread out fairly thinly among a growing number of people. I remember having a conversation with the Head, now retired, of one of the largest independent schools in Canada. I asked him how he found managing such a large and complex organization. He laughed and told me that in actual fact, he only managed four people - his Director of Academics, Business Manager, and Senior and Junior School Heads - they, in turn, had their own infrastructures to help them lead and organize the day to day operations of the school. Compare this with the Head of a small school who not only directs programme, but evaluates teaching and non-teaching staff performance, handles communications, manages the finances, admissions, student life issues, and parent relations. Adding to the mystique is the fact that there is always a certain gravitas that is attached to the role of Head in a large school. Where the head of a small school is seen as a highly accessible "jack of all trades", the Head of a large school is often seen a bit more remotely as the CEO in a wood-panelled office somewhere. The final irony of this comparison is the fact that the Head of a small school, with infinitely more responsibilities and personal performance expectations is paid, on average, about half as much as the Head of a large school.
This perception can have an impact on Head tenure as well. Statistics show that the longevity of the Head of a school tends to be linked to it size. Heads of small schools, particularly ones with a significant day population, are on the firing line every day. Rather than being insulated from the ebbs and flows of parent satisfaction by a buffering infrastructure, the Head of a small school is seen as the "fixer" of every problem, and expected to be the guarantor of a successful school experience for each child in attendance. As a result, these Heads either burn out and move to another Headship somewhere else, or get forced out by a Board that perceives that the way to get restive parents off of their case is to "take action" - not by looking at the systemic or strategic issues that are usually at the root of most parental concerns - but rather by replacing the Head.
By contrast, at a large school similar complaints or concerns tend to be addressed by adding another layer to the infrastructure. Teacher performance issues? Add a "Director of Faculty and Professional Growth"; behaviour and discipline issues? Create a "VP of Student Life"; A muddled technology plan? Expand the IT department; etc.
Even parents are often seduced by the lure of size. If there is one comment that the Head of a small school can be certain to hear each June, it's "our daughter/son loves it here but we all think that there would be more opportunities in a larger school". This is nothing new. Decades ago, when I was Head of Weston School in Montreal, my Board Chair came in and said that his son would be moving the next year to a bigger high school. When I asked why, he replied, "dances". "I met my wife at a large high school dance, I want him to have the same chance." This is a pretty common refrain. To many parents, their memories of high school centre around sports and their social lives. To them, no matter how successful their child is in a small academic environment, they yearn for them to have the same collateral experiences that they had.
So with all of these facts, in addition to the challenges of delivering competitive programmes and services with considerably less money, why do small schools still exist? The answer is simple. Smaller schools can deliver a level of personal service that often eludes a bigger institution. Every student, every parent, every employee is an important member of the community. Volunteerism is more prevalent; finances are managed with more care and respect; communication is clearer and more direct; and celebrations of success are more personal and heartfelt.
At the end of the day, isn't that what we all want for our school?
This perception can have an impact on Head tenure as well. Statistics show that the longevity of the Head of a school tends to be linked to it size. Heads of small schools, particularly ones with a significant day population, are on the firing line every day. Rather than being insulated from the ebbs and flows of parent satisfaction by a buffering infrastructure, the Head of a small school is seen as the "fixer" of every problem, and expected to be the guarantor of a successful school experience for each child in attendance. As a result, these Heads either burn out and move to another Headship somewhere else, or get forced out by a Board that perceives that the way to get restive parents off of their case is to "take action" - not by looking at the systemic or strategic issues that are usually at the root of most parental concerns - but rather by replacing the Head.
By contrast, at a large school similar complaints or concerns tend to be addressed by adding another layer to the infrastructure. Teacher performance issues? Add a "Director of Faculty and Professional Growth"; behaviour and discipline issues? Create a "VP of Student Life"; A muddled technology plan? Expand the IT department; etc.
Even parents are often seduced by the lure of size. If there is one comment that the Head of a small school can be certain to hear each June, it's "our daughter/son loves it here but we all think that there would be more opportunities in a larger school". This is nothing new. Decades ago, when I was Head of Weston School in Montreal, my Board Chair came in and said that his son would be moving the next year to a bigger high school. When I asked why, he replied, "dances". "I met my wife at a large high school dance, I want him to have the same chance." This is a pretty common refrain. To many parents, their memories of high school centre around sports and their social lives. To them, no matter how successful their child is in a small academic environment, they yearn for them to have the same collateral experiences that they had.
So with all of these facts, in addition to the challenges of delivering competitive programmes and services with considerably less money, why do small schools still exist? The answer is simple. Smaller schools can deliver a level of personal service that often eludes a bigger institution. Every student, every parent, every employee is an important member of the community. Volunteerism is more prevalent; finances are managed with more care and respect; communication is clearer and more direct; and celebrations of success are more personal and heartfelt.
At the end of the day, isn't that what we all want for our school?
RSS Feed