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.