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 5th
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment