Claude Anderson (@fullpayfamilies)
Dean of Enrollment
Northfield Mount Hermon
MarketingtoFullPay.com
The admission director is too often asked to speak with a division
head or a dean regarding improvements due to complaints from parents.
The head of school takes a position that since the admission director
received the information, he/she should be responsible for following up
and working with the other leader to make the improvement. In this
scenario, the head is asking the admission professional to improve the
program instead of the person responsible for the program. The division
head should be responsible for maintaining the quality of the
educational program, not the admission director. The head, in my
thinking, should ensure that it happens. The head really has good
intentions, but it’s not good thinking or management to assign it to the
director of admission. It is frustrating and can be defeating to the
admissions professional who is given these responsibilities, but not the
power to really take actions.
I will be the first one to say that
the head of school’s job is a difficult one. I don’t want one of those
positions. However, the head of school hires and manages the other key
leaders in the school, including the director of admission. Most of the
concerns that frustrate admission directors and prevent them from doing
their best work swings on leadership of the head and these other senior
administrators.
In general, admissions professionals are loyal
team members. They have high regard for the other professionals as
educators and representatives of the school. Although frustrated, in my
conversation with admission directors, they don’t want to see the head
as a part of the problem. I try to help them to understand how the head
is part of the problem by asking these two questions to them.
1. Who controls the resources that you need?
2. Who oversees the faculty or the division leaders?
As they continue to share their challenges with me, I repeat my questions again.
The
frustrations are based on the head’s way of thinking or not thinking
through their words or actions. The head believes that he/she knows more
about the job of the admission director than the director does,
particularly around marketing.
Below I have tried to gather the
thoughts of frustrated admission directors, and I am sure that I am
understating some. I don’t think that I am overstating any. Without
quotes, I may be missing the emotions, but they have them.
1.
Most offices are under resourced. What heads expect in some of these
schools is virtually impossible when the brand isn’t strong enough to
get people knocking down the doors. In one case, the head took away the
admissions office’s administrative assistant, leaving the director by
herself. The director was surprised, considering their struggles, but
continued to work. I still don’t understand why she continued.
2. At
times, a head gives money to a project that he/she prefers to fund and
does not leave that up to the Director of Admission or Communications. I
guess the head believes that he/she has greater expertise in the
matter.
3. Gain More With Less – The head cuts the office staff down by 1 person, but wants more full-pay families.
4. The head tells the board that there are plenty of people available,
but they don’t know about the school. Heads will say, “We need more
advertising” or “We we need to get out there in the community more.”
5. The head expects the director of admission to convince faculty to do
their part in the recruitment process when the faculty has no interest
in helping.
6. The head expects the director of admission to convince the faculty to let them visit in their classrooms.
7. The head tells the director of admission that they are responsible
for ensuring that families are re-enrolling. My question is, ‘Who is
controlling the families’ satisfaction?” This person should be the one
to ensure that parents re-enroll their child.
8. The head always wears the rose colored glasses, so fixing the quality of the education is more difficult.
9. The head hands over the responsibility around who gets financial aid to someone other than the director of admission.
10. The head believes that attrition is the absolute indicator of how well the school is serving families.
11. The head believes that in a shrinking market the director should
still be able to get more full-pay families with the same resources.
12. The head believes that an alumnus isn’t going to apply because the
admission office didn’t visit his child’s school or the admission
director didn’t make a call to alumnus to personally invite him to
interview or they weren’t told about the deadline and it would have been
a rush, etc.
13. The head doesn’t recognize the importance of the work that the director of admission does as the Chief Revenue Generator.
Why
doesn’t the director of admission leave such a frustrating situation?
It’s complicated – from kids attending the school, to difficulty in
finding another job in the area, or loyalty to the school. It is
typically around some type of relationship. So they forge ahead and try
to be successful in the situation.
I am hoping to build some type
of sensitivity to this problem. I have seen some talented people leaving
the field and we can’t afford that in this profession. Perhaps this
article will get into the right hands – boards, senior administrators,
and heads. But the bottom line is that I am counting on the next
generation of heads to have a better understanding of these issues and
rethink those good intentions.