Heads of school are facing challenges and pressures unlike any we have seen in the past. Much of this is due to the fast-changing world of social media, technology, AI, student social/emotional wellbeing and anxiety caused by the political, international and economic head winds in the US and abroad.

Head of school compensation has risen substantially in the US and throughout much of the established international school world as well.  This is a result of increased competition for top talent, turnover, especially in the early years of a head’s tenure, and results-oriented head evaluation protocols. These protocols link some compensation to a “reward” for performance usually relating to meeting financial, enrollment and fundraising metrics and implementing innovative practices and programs.

Heads who are open to tying some element of compensation to cash bonuses or deferred compensation contributions tend to do very well financially. Their retirement assets will grow far more quickly than their standard 401k and 403(b) retirement portfolios alone.

Some senior administrators are also benefiting from deferred compensation plans as boards realize that under the head there needs to be top talent in the academic, financial, fundraising and enrollment functions. These insiders might succeed a current head of school.

Heads who are wise visionary educational leaders will always be in demand, and heads who are “relational” with constituents are also high on any list of search candidates. However, as boards realize that they need major problem solvers, thoughtful, wise, observant leaders and timely decision makers, analytical types rise quickly to the top of the list too.

All these folks are finding their pay packages increasing except in countries and some areas where the economies are depressed and social/economic conditions limit the range of options that boards have available to pay their heads. However, even in these locations, heads who are willing to have some portion of their pay determined by the health of the school are finding their compensation rising accordingly.

One of the real myths about head compensation is that it depends solely on the school’s location, enrollment, tuition, endowment and other analytics. However, according to Littleford & Associates’ experience, the highest paid heads almost everywhere tend to have board compensation committees made up of one or members who see the big picture and are CEO or investment manager types. They are more likely to view the head not as a civil servant but as a leader charged with adding financial and educational value to the school. Those board members whose circumstances, occupations and world view are very different tend to want to pay less competitive salaries.

Boards often want to benchmark a head’s salary against what schools in their own region are paying. That is not only unwise but self defeating as strong heads can and do go anywhere in the world where the pay package and the quality of life seem most attractive. In designing a head compensation package the key thoughts should be what could this head earn if he or she went elsewhere and what would we have to pay for our head’s successor?

At the conclusion of a search the question is “How much should we offer?” Our advice to our clients is “Do not lose the candidate at the altar” which means do not “low ball” the offer. For example, a few more thousand dollars may seem like a lot at the time, but for a “rainmaker” type of head that investment will pay dividends. Don’t be “penny wise and pound foolish.”

Many schools retain Littleford & Associates each year to update their benchmarking relative to peer schools and in the US to ensure compliance with the Intermediate Sanctions Act.

Our benchmarking is done for new heads arriving, sitting heads whose contracts and compensation need updating and renewal, and for valued and long serving heads who deserve a severance package.

Littleford & Associates also advises boards on appropriate sabbatical opportunities for heads.

We do not engage in mediation, negotiation nor in an adversarial process but rather in a supportive facilitation that feels more like a “marriage renewal”.