Head of school evaluation is a sensitive subject both for heads and governing boards. Boards want to and should know that annually, the head is being held accountable for meeting or exceeding the basic responsibilities of the role and the goals set for a particular year.  Most of the time the protocols for head evaluation are appropriate and safe for heads of school but increasingly for some, they are not.

One case concerns a Head only in his third year with a divided Board.  A new teacher who has no record of inappropriate behavior in his long career responds to an Instagram account which is under a false name of a middle school girl. The teacher did not know this, but the parent of that child reports the communication to the Head and spreads unfounded rumors about the teacher.

The Board then is bombarded with communications from a small group of very vocal parents. The Board begins to splinter and the new Chair, a well-meaning former head of the parents’ association, agrees to a Board Member’s suggestion for a new deep dive protocol for the head evaluation process this year. It would include input from all stakeholder groups about the head’s performance and occur twice a year. The head would have some say about the selection of those invited to give feedback, but the board executive committee would approve the final list.

The Head is stunned. He is in a very vulnerable position, and the third year is the one in which most firings of heads tend to occur, not only in the US, but worldwide. He has not had time to build political capital because during his first two years, he has been engaged in putting out “fires” started by some discontented board members. He has just now learned that he was not this group’s first choice in the search. The Head and his family are very anxious.

Littleford & Associates has consistently outlined a simple, clear, appropriate process for head of school evaluation. This does not involve a “360” process which often undermines a head’s job security and may even reflect “payback” for important, even moral decisions that school leaders must make but may be unpopular.

We maintain that the corporate model does not translate well to head of school evaluation. No corporate CEO has board members whose children are influenced by the CEO’s employees. However, heads have board members whose children are constantly influenced by the head’s employees: teachers. Teachers have a powerful voice especially for students in the older grades.

Here is a recommended process:

1. Set 3 to 5 goals for the head in the spring with a formally constituted Head Evaluation and Support Committee. This is a recommended standing committee of the board which oversees the head’s annual evaluation, compensation benchmarks and contract renewal.
2. The goals should be measurable but not all quantitative and should be ones on which the committee and the head can agree. Avoid goals about “personal style” which are difficult to assess. The full board then approves these goals in the fall.
3. The committee meets with the head mid-year to ask for anecdotal evidence of progress relative to goals.
4. At year end, board members conduct a written evaluation of the head based solely on the goals agreed to at the beginning of the year. The head writes a self-evaluation against the same approved goals.
5. The Head Support Committee then meets with the head to compare notes and sends the outcome. The chair of this Committee writes a two-page summary about work well done and recommendations for work still needing to be done. This summary goes into the head’s file.
6. There should be no in-camera session to discuss the head’s personal style or foibles. The process should be supportive and professional.

Boards of independent schools have only three jobs: mission oversight including strategic planning and governance; fiscal oversight; and evaluation of the head of school.

Often boards want more specific indicators of the head’s performance or results, such as what we call the indices of success derived from common sense measurements: balancing the budget, reaching fund raising goals, student retention, faculty and staff retention, and perhaps softer things like school climate and parent satisfaction.

However, surveys should be conducted carefully under very clear conditions and never in a time of stress within the culture. Surveys should never focus specifically on the head’s performance but on overall areas of focus such as strength of the curriculum, quality of teaching, facilities maintenance, student support, etc. Always tell parents that the results of a parent satisfaction survey will not be shared unless at least 65% of the parents respond. Early responders tend to be the most critical.

Sometimes a few board members may pressure the chair or head to go deeper to ascertain how specific stakeholder groups feel about the head’s performance as noted in the case outlined above. This can be dangerous especially with a divided board, or a head who is in his or her first five years.

Head evaluation tools should help the head grow not threaten or undermine the head.