The President-Principal Model: My Thoughts

In the decade of the 1990’s, the “President-Principal” model became the dominant leadership model for mid to large Catholic diocesan schools across the country. Though each school varies a bit,  in general, the President is the “Chief Executive Officer” of the school, responsible for financial affairs, long term planning and external relationships (alumni, publications, marketing), whereas the Principal is the “Chief Operations Officer” responsible for day to day operations, the hiring and supervision of teachers, student discipline, and meeting the needs of the students and their families.

From 1989 until 2001, I served as “principal” in this model at Montgomery Catholic High School with Dr. Tom Doyle, president. When he left to become the academic director of the Alliance for Catholic Education at Notre Dame in 2001, I became the “president” of The school and served in that role until 2008. I then moved to Pope John Paul II just north of Nashville, partly because I was ready for a change from the model. Here I am “headmaster” and share leadership with a number of “assistant principal” level persons, whom we call “Deans” or “Directors.”

As a person who has held both principal and president roles for a significant period of time and who is now the single leader of a school,  I think I can offer "insider" insights on the strengths and weaknesses of the model, at least from my point of view. 

The breadth of skills and talents required to lead a successful Catholic high school is daunting. Principals are expected to be curricular experts, human resource professionals, financial wizards, strategic thinkers, public speakers, counselors, fund-raisers, marketers, and super-athletic directors (because it’s not likely that all athletic issues can be resolved at the A.D. level). At the same time, people feel best about principals when they see them in the parking lot before school, or when they're in classrooms, or when they're at the majority of the school’s athletic contests and fine arts concerts. Parents expect principals to know them by name and know their children personally. 

Adding to the challenge is the likelihood that the principal became principal through the ranks of teaching, with training and expertise in history, English, Math or Science (or in my case, Theology), but without formal training in development, management, finances or law.

Thus the logic of dividing leadership into two distinct roles is impeccable: Let the president be primarily the businessman whereas the principal can be primarily the educator.  Let the president think about the future, whereas the principal can focus on the present. Let the president serve the constituency outside the school, while the principal serves the constituency inside.

Savvy readers will object at this point: “Wait, you’ve drawn those distinctions too tightly. Shouldn’t the president have an understanding of the curricula of a high school, too, rather than be simply a businessman? Shouldn’t he be involved in creation of the policies and have relationships with the faculty?  And shouldn’t a principal also be a long-term thinker and a fund-raiser and care about the external constituency of the school?”

Yes! And that’s where problems develop in what is theoretically a good division of labor.  In fact, most of the excellent presidents I’ve ever met were first excellent principals. They trained originally as teachers, then became principals, and eventually became presidents. They had, at least originally, the same lack of training and skill sets in finance and fund-raising that most first time principals have. On the plus side, this means presidents typically understand teenagers, the curricula and the culture of high schools in a way that makes their leadership wise and authentic.  On the negative side, they have the same burden of learning these "M.B.A. skills" on the go like anyone else.

So I believe what one will find in most successful president-principal arrangements is not necessarily different natural skill sets. That’s not even the best argument for the president-principal model. Rather, the argument is one of both time and experience—time, because by dividing jobs, each has the time to do the disparate jobs more thoroughly than a single person, and experience, because usually the president is a veteran of Catholic schools and has learned things along the way which he or she can pass on to the (usually) less experienced principal.

I don’t want to trivialize those advantages.  A president who was first a principal can indeed mentor a young principal in an authentic, integral way. Such was my case when Dr. Doyle hired me as principal when I was only 27. I was too young to even know what I didn’t know. But as new situations came across my desk, I was able to walk across the hall, talk privately with him and receive excellent advice. And for sure, it was great not to have to worry about tuition, budget, operational expenses or long range planning during those early years; truthfully, I was simply treading water, taking in occasional gulps of water, trying not to drown!

But there are also problems with the president-principal model.

First, as I have noted, most schools end up with two people who have the same natural skill sets and proclivities. Often that tempts both leaders to dabble in the other’s realm, creating conflict between the two. Frequent communication, and even friendship, is essential to the model.

Second, while mentoring is an advantage in the model, it’s expensive for a school to hire two leaders and pay market rates for both! Hiring subordinate staff, like a school business manager, is cheaper. And if the school hires well, many of these staff members can learn the job of principal as they go.  A Dean of Students or Athletic Director can learn a lot about conflict resolution, handling parents and supervising staff without the school needing to pay them as principals.

Most importantly, if the lines are drawn too tightly between principal and president, the president’s job is often unsatisfying. Most Catholic school presidents take on the duties of president to serve his or her school more effectively—not because these duties are inherently attractive to him or her.  There was a reason they majored in history, or Math, or Science, but not Business! As C.E.O., the principal-turned-president often loses day to day contact with kids and their families, narrowing the breadth and depth of relationships that sustain a principal when a principals’ job turns unpleasant: an expulsion hearing, or firing a teacher, or simply wading through the paper-work. For sure, a good president builds different relationships—with alumni, with major donors, with key constituencies—but these relationships are more fleeting and less “authentic” than those formed by helping parents raise their kids through their formative years. 

That was my experience, in any case. In 2001 when I became president of Montgomery Catholic, we began a major capital drive to build a middle school for grades 7-8, then changed two K-8 elementary schools into K-6 schools, and merged all of the institutions into one entity called “Montgomery Catholic Preparatory School.” Except for the fact I insisted upon teaching one class of senior theology, most of my time was taken up raising money, or talking to Boards, parish councils or pastors, or putting into place a centralized financial office. We were successful in those changes, and I am proud of what we accomplished, but by the end of my 5^th year, I felt like I was losing the deep, intimate connection with the families I had known and served for so many years. Those relationships made all the difference!

So in the middle of my seventh year as president, I proposed to our Board that we merge the two positions together for a time and that I hire a business manager to manage the school finances. I was successful as president and willing to continue, but I needed the connection more typical of the principal’s position. Half the Board agreed, whereas the other half did not, so rather than become cause for controversy, I decided to look for a new school that didn’t have the president-principal model, which led me to Pope John Paul II High School. 

After six years at JPII, I feel (for sure) some of the challenge of my “both-and” roles as headmaster of the school.  In my first evaluation, the Board wanted me to be in the hallways more often, while being seen more around town. I’ve adjusted by hiring (for the first time in my 25 year career), a full time executive assistant. I have six “assistant principal-like” leaders to run the day-to-day operations, including a Dean of Studies, Dean of Students, Director of Finance and Operations, Athletic Director, Admissions Director and Dean of Advancement.  These people give me enormous flexibility and allow me to be involved in the day-to-day life of the school.

Even so, the president-principal model remains the most dominant model for mid-size to large Catholic secondary schools. Were I to counsel presidents and principals, I would counsel them not to draw the job descriptions too tightly. For sure, the president aims outward, but a school's external reputation is a function of what's going on inside. For sure, a principal aims to the day to day, but those daily decisions have communal impact. For this reason, better to define the president's role as "outside-in" and the principal's role as "inside-out" to recognize both must collaborate frequently on roles. Because there is so much cross-over,  friendship is key.