When we see a downward trend of head of school tenure at the same school, we wonder why. Cultural, political and economic external forces undoubtedly undermine a leader’s ability to be effective and successful. However, there are three internal factors which school leaders CAN control. When monitored and managed effectively over time, they contribute to longer terms for heads, greater financial sustainability, higher enrollment demand, a more respected reputation, higher stakeholder satisfaction, fewer crises, and fewer power vacuums resulting from frequent searches and often failed transitions for heads of school.

1. The Governance Committee

Some independent and international schools still have no governance committee (Committee on Trustees) and that is where head tenure begins and sadly often ends.

Boards need to ensure that the articles of incorporation and bylaws give them flexibility to modify term lengths for board members and officers, if necessary, i.e. if terms are becoming too short and institutional memory is being lost.

If the following 8 responsibilities of this Committee are functioning well, term limits are unnecessary.

1. Cultivating a Prospect Pool: Carefully vet potential future board members. A pool of about 15 candidates should always be in play, without alerting them prematurely. Do not ask for volunteers.

2. Screening Prospects: Candidates should be well-rounded, not one-issue enthusiasts, and free from problematic behaviors such as a reputation for being negative or gossipy in the school community. This includes the candidate’s spouse or partner.

3. Invitation Process: The chair and governance chair should personally invite prospects, clearly outlining expectations, including financial support of the school. Be clear about the potential conflict of interest when current parents serve.

4. Orientation: Provide comprehensive onboarding that includes governance fundamentals, key facts about the school, financial statements, the strategic plan, etc. Be sure to discuss past crises and lessons learned.

5. Board Training: Conduct annual training to reinforce protocols and avert potential crises. Both new and seasoned board members benefit.

6. Evaluation: Regularly assess individual and collective board performance and use policies and clear term limits to guide reappointments or resignations.

7. Warning: Address behavioral issues, such as leaking confidences or neglecting time or financial commitments.

8. Removal: Maintain a transparent process for dismissing a problematic board member, when necessary, with bylaws specifying steps and standards. Usually, a challenging member leaves when asked. Sometimes such a board member may resist being removed or resort to a public campaign or legal action to stay on. In that case, the chair must have the courage to proceed and that may cost the chair some political support.

The Chair of an international School told this Consultant that he had to dismiss two Board Members from an elected parent Board. He said that at a cocktail party the two broke the confidences held in the boardroom by mentioning the School’s intention to buy another piece of land nearby. That triggered a neighborhood movement to pressure the local political body to refuse to allow the purchase. The Chair showed the two Members the confidentiality agreement every Board Member must sign annually and demanded their resignations. He received both with no arguments.

1. Selecting, Nurturing, and Supporting the Chair and the Chair/Head Partnership

Chair turnover has a powerful and direct correlation to head turnover and institutional stability.

Most schools have a very informal process for chair selection, and some have a very rigid set of procedures. The best practice is something in between.

Best practices include:

1. Keeping chairs for at least 3–5 years, longer if possible (some schools have chairs serving 15 years): Terms of only two years usually mean either that the job has become too demanding for the chair, or the community thinks two years is long enough and worries about the chair having too much power. It is the third or fourth chair who fires the head most of the time.

2. Implementing a collaborative process: the current chair, governance chair, and head should jointly assess prospective chairs. This should not be a competition. Once there is a consensus about the leading prospect, the chair and governance chair should ask if the person will serve at least 3 to 5 years.

At one School, the Chair wanted two Vice Chairs to compete for his position. When he stepped down, he had created two factions. One candidate won and the other lost, and for years afterwards both factions disliked each other.

Another retiring Chair felt that he had three strong successor prospects. In a board governance workshop, he engaged the board members in a spirited case study where each of the three facilitated their own discussion group.  After observing their leadership styles, the Chair spoke to the Head and encouraged one to take the job and the other two to serve on the Executive Committee.

3. Ensuring the chair is a true advocate for the head and acts as a public supporter and honest critic.

4. Managing meetings efficiently: For most day schools, there should probably be no more than 5 to 7 two-hour meetings a year. The second half of each meeting should focus on a strategic issue which every board member is prepared to discuss, but there is no need for any immediate decision. This practice helps to keep board meetings strategic.

5. Emphasizing the importance of the Head Support Committee, which oversees the head’s evaluation, compensation, and renewal.

6. Holding weekly confidential meetings between the chair and head to build trust, share candid feedback, and prevent surprises. The head/chair partnership IS a marriage of trusted partners.

7. Building key partnerships: the head should meet privately with each board member twice annually, for informal feedback and to understand personal or family concerns that might influence their engagement or perspective.

The chair’s partnership with each member is essential. The chair should regularly engage with each board member to ensure that he/she has the chair’s trust and confidence. The chair needs the assurance that every board member feels actively involved and needed.

III. Head Evaluation and Compensation Protocols and Contract Renewal Process

The Head Support Committee is one of the most important committees on the board. Its members include the chair, the vice chair, and 3 or 4 other highly trusted board members whom the chair appoints.

This committee serves as both a support system for the Head and the vehicle for providing structured, fair, and constructive feedback. It also is responsible for developing a competitive compensation package for the head. (See first Newsletter article.)

The Elements of a Thoughtful, Predictable Evaluation Process:

The head’s evaluation should be annual, honest, supportive, clear and carefully managed. This helps ensure fairness and stability. Head evaluation protocols do not need to be complicated, lengthy or risky in the effort to be inclusive and transparent.

1. Goal Setting: In the spring, the Head Support & Evaluation Committee collaborates with the head to establish no more than five measurable goals for the upcoming year.

2. Board Approval: In late summer, the full board reviews and either affirms or amends these goals to ensure alignment with institutional priorities.

3. Mid-Year Check-In: At the midpoint of the academic year, the head meets with the Committee to provide a candid progress update, including any challenges encountered.

4. Year-End Assessment: In the spring, each board member confidentially assesses the head’s performance relative to the agreed-upon goals. This is not a time to introduce new expectations.

5. Self-Evaluation & Summary: The head submits a written self-evaluation addressing the same goals. The Committee then meets with the head to review both perspectives. The board chair prepares a concise, two-page summary that highlights accomplishments, identifies areas for growth, and provides clear, constructive feedback. This summary is shared at the final board meeting of the academic year and becomes part of the head’s personnel file.

The “360-degree” evaluation process, popular in the corporate world, is problematic in schools. Unlike corporate CEOs, heads of school operate in an environment where many board members are current parents, and where the head’s decisions directly impact students and families.

Including faculty, staff, parents, or students in formal head evaluations risks inflaming emotions, distorting feedback, and undermining the head’s authority. This approach has contributed to unhealthy school cultures and the premature departure of many capable heads.

Boards may ask: “If we can’t conduct 360-style reviews, how do we truly understand the Head’s performance?” The answer lies in the Board doing its job through proper governance structures, regular interactions with the Head, clear performance metrics, and by resisting the temptation to rely on informal gossip or hallway surveys. Particularly after the Head’s first few years, Boards should have a solid understanding of performance without resorting to risky evaluation methods.

There are about 15 indices of success, which are normal rational and appropriate measures of how a head is performing over a 3-to-5-year period. The list is made up of commonsense statistics such as a balanced budget, retention of strong staff, fundraising success, community reputation, student retention and meeting enrollment targets. Keep in mind that no head can deliver on all 15 every year.

Short head of school tenure is mainly due to the loss of board institutional memory, frequent chair turnover and board pressure on new heads to introduce a type or pace of change which the culture and especially the faculty will not tolerate.

These days, a search takes 18 months and the transition for a new head takes 3 to 5 years. The first year of a new head hired from the outside must be a honeymoon period with almost no change and no new initiatives. The new head’s initial goals should be to make friends and build political capital. NAIS recently reported that 23% of head turnover recently was for those heads in their first three years. The three-to-five-year window is the most crucial period for heads and thus for the stability of our schools.