Changing of the Guard

We don’t do it very well. Too often, our board feels slighted, our community gets mad, our faculty is upset, and the principal gets his or her feelings hurt. In light of the controversy, the diocese often feels compelled to publicly assert its authority, which adds to conspiracy theories and speculation that taints the process even further. The school is tarnished in the public eye, and enrollment suffers. 

I am talking about removing a principal from a school. 

To begin with, folks are often confused as to who has the authority to remove a principal. In a diocesan or archdiocesan school, canon law is absolutely clear: In a parish school, it’s the pastor. In a diocesan high school, it’s the bishop (who usually acts through the superintendent). If the school is in a president-principal model, it's the president (and the president is evaluated by pastor or superintendent). Boards can neither hire nor fire a principal; they can only make recommendations to the pastor or bishop. 

What lends to this confusion is that dioceses often allow (and in some places encourage)  Boards to do yearly “performance reviews” of the principal. This is not the Board’s proper role in a diocesan or parish school, and creates the inevitable understanding that Boards are in a line-staff relationship “over” the principal, with the power to hire and fire. Instead, it should be the pastor or superintendent who conducts the “performance review” each year,  and part of that—an important part!—is to ask the board for its joint commendations and recommendations. I believe the inputs from the board should be done as a board, not a collection of comments from individual board members, some of whom might have opinions that do not reflect the mainstream sentiment of the board or community at large. Board members have “weight” only as a corporate group, not as individuals. 

That performance review should happen on a recurring, regular basis—at least once every two years, though my preference as principal is once/year. It should NOT only occur when support for the principal is waning or the school is faltering!  A solid, honest evaluation each year, aimed at helping principals grow, is the greatest gift we can give our principals, and by extension, give our school. If the principal addresses the recommendations, there will be no need to change leadership later and endure the collateral fallout that almost always occurs when principals leave. Everyone wins. 

I believe this annual or semi-annual performance assessment should include 4 parts:

First, it should ask the principal to make a “state of school report” to both the superintendent/pastor and board, using as many facts as possible to support his or her analysis (enrollment trends, budget, new programs, set-backs, challenges). I believe it’s really important to evaluate the principal’s individual performance in light of the school itself! Too often, we judge leaders on the basis of their personalities, but I remind people that just like head coaches, there are many types of leaders, some of whom are fiery and emotional, some of whom are quiet and tactical. The issue isn’t their personality, but their results. How the school is faring should be an important part of the evaluation of a principal. 

Second, it should ask the principal to do a self-assessment to the superintendent, or pastor: What progress have I made on the recommendations from last year’s annual evaluation? What are areas from this evaluation that are still unresolved? What were my successes this year? What were the disappointments? What areas in my leadership do I intend to work on next year? What professional development opportunities will I pursue? If we’re going to treat our principals as professionals, we should expect them to act like it, and what true professionals do is self-assess each year. And when it comes time for the superintendent or pastor to discuss his or her review of the principal, it’s likely that much of what she or he wants to say can piggy-back on what the principal has said already, affirming the principal's self-diagnosis, thereby lessening the tensions inherent in such reviews. 

Third, the superintendent/pastor should ask the Board for their inputs. I believe it’s helpful to ask a few direct questions, then allow the Board to comment beyond those questions. The direct questions would include questions about strategic vision, handling finances, resolving complaints, implementation of policies, and very importantly, the “chatter” in the parking lot. All this is discussed at the Board meeting, without the principal present, summarized and sent to the pastor or superintendent as a joint statement. 

Whatever the written report says, I also believe the board president should talk to the pastor or the superintendent personally, to “say" what sometimes cannot be publicly shared or written down, as a way of keeping the pastor or superintendent completely informed. 

Should teachers also be consulted for input? I am ambivalent. My experience is while certain teachers may have insights that would add to the panoramic view the superintendent/pastor is seeking to establish, others simply don't have the perspective that would add helpfully to the process, and treating them as "equivalent voices" would skew things.  I worry, frankly, about situations when principals must make difficult decisions that impact a teacher negatively, and this teacher now has a "voice" in the evaluation.  My preference would be for a pastor or superintendent to always be open to comments from teachers, if they take this step of their own volition, but not to seek out their comments in a formal, procedural way. 

Finally, there should be a confidential, face to face “presentation” of the annual evaluation of the pastor/superintendent with the principal. This will include both a summary of the Board’s thoughts, but ultimately, the evaluation must reflect the judgment of the superintendent/pastor. It should include, I believe, both commendations and recommendations. In the following year evaluation, part of it will include a discussion of progress to the recommendations discussed from the previous year. 

If this process is followed, I believe if it becomes clear that it's time for a “changing of the guard,” then the transition will be MUCH smoother. First, it will be cleaner and clearer to everyone that the ultimate decision-maker is the bishop (superintendent) or pastor, not the Board, not the parents through a write-in campaign, etc.  Second, the pastor or superintendent will be much more aware—on the front end— of the “descent” of opinion of the principal—too often, he or she finds these things out too late, and is then asked to “ratify” a request or decision that others have made, putting him or her in a difficult “either-or” position. Third, presumably if things are going south, elements of the issues have been diagnosed in previous year evaluations and the principal has been given a chance to improve in those areas, so that the process is fairer, allowing the superintendent/pastor to act in a just, timely manner. Fourth, it may even be the case the superintendent/pastor can say:  “These areas are of such concern, that unless you address these immediately, I will not be able to offer you a contract beyond this coming year,” so the principal himself or herself can “see it coming" the following year. 

So let’s suppose all of that is done well, and the superintendent/pastor believes it’s in the best interest of the school to make a change. I’d recommend the following:

• A private conversation, no later than January but perhaps earlier, between the superintendent/pastor and principal, informing the principal it is “not his or her intent to renew the contract for next year.”  The school needs time to publicize the opening, and beginning that process in March or April is simply too late. 

• The superintendent/pastor should ask the principal to abide by this decision gracefully, in such a way that the school will not be harmed or factions develop. 

• To that end, the superintendent/pastor should offer the principal the opportunity to send a letter of resignation to him or her, spelling out his or her “reasons for leaving” on his or her own terms, rather than the public narrative becoming “the principal was fired.”  This is important on two levels: First, for those who support the principal, the principal’s resignation helps those people accept the decision and keeps the school away from a civil war.  Second, for the principal himself or herself, it’s much better for future job prospects to resign for the reasons he or she gives in the letter, than to explain to future employers why he or she was fired. Giving the principal “control” over the narrative, as long as that narrative doesn’t harm the school, is a graceful way to navigate the tensions. 

• To the extent that both the principal and pastor/super are working together in the best interest of the school, the pastor or superintendent should allow the resignation letter and reasons for leaving to in fact, be the public narrative, without any winks or nods to the contrary.  However, if the principal “resigns” but then tells others he was “fired” or “let go,” then he or she must understand the pastor or superintendent may be compelled to act in the best interest of the school, not the principal, and could be forced to defend the “why” of the decision publicly. This is almost ALWAYS bad for the principal! If the principal seeks sympathy because he or she is “hurting,” it’s almost certain to reflect poorly on his professionalism, thereby implicitly making the argument his removal was correctly decided. 

• The pastor/superintendent should find some way of publicly thanking/praising the principal for the contributions in specific areas that principal has made to the life of the school. There are always things worthy of legitimate praise and gratitude, even in these hard situations. 

Even if all these things are done well, I still expect there will be some hard feelings. We principals pour our lives into our schools, and to be told we’re not wanted back is hard to swallow. I wish we could say we handle that disappointment with perfect professionalism, but that’s not the case. But I have also come to understand that there are times and seasons for everything, and changing schools is an opportunity for growth and development, both for the principal himself or herself, and for the school. God closes doors, but opens new doors, and life rolls on. 

May God’s grace prevail in these difficult moments!