The Head of School Evaluation

The responsibility for the head of school evaluation rests completely with the board.  Some boards conduct what is referred to as a “360 evaluation” of the head in an effort to collect input from many of the school’s stakeholders.  This can be a productive process in that it brings to bear many perspectives of the head’s effectiveness.  However, it can also be a very destructive process if not handled appropriately.  This 360 process should be referred to as “360 input” rather than “360 evaluation.”

The board assumes ultimate fiduciary responsibility for the school.  In light of this role, the evaluation of the head’s performance is an extremely important undertaking.  This is a role that is too often relegated to a committee or is not given sufficient attention.  The evaluation of the head should be honest, based on reliable methods, and instructive.  Each evaluation should provide the board with a set of expectations for future performance.  In reality the board can set any expectation they choose; however, if they wish to retain an excellent head of school the expectations must remain realistic and attainable.

Head evaluations should begin with clear expectations.  The head should be evaluated only on the degree to which he or she accomplishes the pre-defined objectives and on whether the day-to-day administration of the school is carried out so that the school is not jeopardized by negligence or illegal activity.  Board discussion during the head evaluation should not deteriorate into a “nit-picking” session where each board member is asked to give their opinions on the highly subjective issues such as the “way in which the head interacts with stakeholders.”  Indeed how a head interacts with stakeholders is important, but it is essential that the way this is assessed is defined when the expectation is expressed.

In addition to the industry norms of maintaining a school that satisfies the expectations of safety and lawful operation, a head of school can only reasonably be held accountable for objectives and goals previously defined by the board.  It is not reasonable for a head of school to be evaluated by a board of 20+ individual trustees when the evaluation focuses on personal preferences or personality issues.  I often state that the board / head relationship is much like a marriage; however, in every case the board / head ‘marriage’ has at least one of the partners with multiple personalities. It is not reasonable to expect a head of school to satisfy the personal preferences of all board members.

For this reason the expectations should be defined in advance.  The board must begin with an honest appraisal of expectations and what constitutes meeting those expectations.   The decisions regarding the future employment and compensation of the head must be tied directly to satisfying the defined expectations.  It is okay for boards and heads to have personality differences, even to the point of not being personal friends, as long as the interests of the school are being served.

Because the board selects and provides strategic direction to the head, only the board should be conducting the evaluation.  It is not uncommon for the board to direct the head of school to implement an unpopular or challenging strategy as a result of tough decisions the board might make.  The head of school should not be seeking to sway public opinion, but rather leading in a way that serves the best interest of the school. The head’s evaluation should never be a popularity vote but rather an effectiveness vote.  The board’s sole focus on evaluating the head is whether or not the head is meeting the performance expectations of the board.

And while performance expectations could include maintaining  a “happy and contented student body” as measured by a student survey, I do not recommended that students be asked to assess how effectively the head is running the school.  Indeed most of the stakeholders will rarely understand the board’s performance expectations of the head.  By extension, I suggest that not even the faculty will completely understand the performance expectations of the head.

For boards that choose to employ a 360 evaluation, yet another concern rests in how it is interpreted.  The board must be prepared to interpret the responses appropriately and not succumb to a temptation to take each individual response as cause for concern.  When such broad input is sought for an evaluation, a single response rarely represents reality.  Rather a pattern of responses should cause concern and warrant further scrutiny.  I suggest that there is likely not a head of school that would have no negative comments lodged against him or her if all stakeholders were given an opportunity to evaluate them.  This fact does not minimize the value of a broad-based input model, but rather gives rise to cautions for board members when interpreting such evaluations.

It is clear that a school operates at maximum effectiveness when both the head of school and the board operate effectively.  This occurs when communication is honest and clear, goals are collectively developed and understood, and the head of school and trustees understand that their role should be entirely focused on the students that the school serves today and in the future.  The board and the head must have open and honest communication, if for no other reason than for the sake of the children.

Duty to Report: What Independent Schools Can Learn from the Penn State Case

As I watch the unfolding of the horrific story of the alleged sexual abuse of children by a Penn State football coach, I am reminded of the need for educational institutions to be deliberate about its policy for reporting child abuse or neglect.

Educators have a special professional status that brings with it a higher standard of the Duty to Report, which includes a duty to report when there is a reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect of a minor child. In some jurisdictions, it is also required of educators to report drug or alcohol use by minor children. School staff should know with whom they should discuss concerns that arise from a student’s report of physical abuse, neglect or other inappropriate behavior or their observation of such. A student displaying physical injuries such as bruises, reports of inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with adults or other forms of concerns should be taken seriously and appropriate procedures for sharing such information should be clearly discussed with faculty and staff to make certain that proper reporting obligations are satisfied.

This discussion is not intended to provide legal advice but rather encourage SAIS schools to act in a proactive manner by developing appropriate policies to address this Duty to Report and set up systems and procedures for addressing these issues prior to their occurrence. It is essential that schools have a policy for the handling of situations that require reporting to the appropriate authorities or agencies. In the development of the policy it is strongly recommended that the school’s legal counsel be consulted when writing the document to make certain that the school addresses its legal obligations and thereby limit the risk of confronting a legal claim for failure to comply with the law.

Independent schools historically have preferred to handle discipline issues as a school-only issue. Particularly in boarding schools, where the school operates in a more isolated environment or community, the concern is that bringing in outside law enforcement would make the situation a public matter and bring to the school unwanted publicity. However, virtually all states have passed statutes related to the reporting of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, and certain drug use incidents for minor children. Being aware of the reporting requirements is essential and the lack of reporting to the appropriate authorities, when required, can put a school at great legal risk as well as bring public scrutiny over the moral responsibility of school officials to protect children.

At a minimum, a school policy should be developed to address the Duty to Report and should be consistent with the federal, state, and local laws governing the institution. It should clearly outline the school’s and the individual’s specific obligations as well as provide guidance for all school faculty and staff on the reporting process. Many states place the “liability” on the party who was personally made aware of or witnessed the abuse or neglect; others consider reporting to the institution sufficient. The policy should include instructions for notification of appropriate administrative individuals or counselors and the steps that should be taken to ensure legal compliance. The process should also include a method that keeps the reporting staff informed regarding the resolution of the reporting process.

Professional educators have a higher standard of reporting than does most other citizens. Since teachers can potentially be legally liable if not reporting child abuse, it is appropriate that school administration keep informed any teacher initiating a report. Although in most states, a teacher fulfills their reporting responsibility by making the report to school administration, a policy should outline the method in which the report should be made, the administration’s responsibility to keep the reporter informed. A school may also wish to consider any follow up systems they want to put in place such as sending a note to the authority who received the complaint confirming the report as well as calling the agency to obtain an update on the investigation.

Only time will tell if university staff at Penn State is found legally responsible for breeching a duty to report; however, a lesson can be learned from this situation. As this case unfolds in the media and the courts, independent schools should take the cue to review their own reporting policies before a need arises. A clear and comprehensive policy, along with regular training of school staff on their Duty to Report, is definitely in order for all schools. The consequences for mishandling such an unfortunate situation is potentially catastrophic for an independent school and, as those in State College, PA are learning, the damage can affect the entire community.

2011 President’s Address

My President’s Address from the 2011 SAIS Annual Conference, October 23-24 in Atlanta.