Ethical Governance: How Boards Should Evaluate a Head of School

Several years ago, I presented a workshop at a regional conference for heads of school. Afterward, a distinguished head, whom I will call Jim, approached me and asked if we could speak privately.

Jim explained that he had recently made a difficult decision. Acting in what he believed to be the best interest of the school, he had suspended the son of a board member. Before attending the conference, his board chair called to schedule a meeting about the incident upon his return.

Jim asked a simple question.

“Should I be worried?”

He had informed the chair in advance. His relationship with the board had been positive. In fact, the school had just completed the most successful capital campaign in its history, a campaign Jim had played a central role in leading.

Unfortunately, I had seen situations like this before.

I offered what advice I could, but I suspected the outcome would not be good. A week later my concern proved correct. Jim was abruptly dismissed mid-year, shocking faculty, students, and many parents.

This incident was troubling, but it was far from unique.

Across independent schools, the tenure of heads of school has been shrinking steadily. Many estimates place the average tenure between three and five years. Talented leaders arrive with energy and vision, only to see their work cut short after only a few years.

Many leave the profession entirely.

At its core, this problem is not about leadership failure. It is about ethical governance.

Too often the ideals and mission of independent schools are forgotten in moments of conflict or pressure. Ethical governance requires more than following parliamentary procedure or complying with regulatory standards. It requires a system that allows boards to evaluate leadership fairly and responsibly.

In my work with boards, I train them in the Six Principles of Successful Board-Head Partnerships. These principles provide a framework for healthy governance relationships. Of these principles, one is particularly critical and often misunderstood.

Principle Five: Boards must evaluate the head based on clearly established criteria.

In practice, however, many boards fall into one of three flawed evaluation patterns.

1. Backward Evaluation

Julia had just completed her first year as head of a southern independent school. She had been hired largely because of her ability to rebuild staff morale after a distant and unapproachable predecessor.

At the opening board meeting in August, enthusiasm was high. Trustees congratulated Julia on a promising start. Yet an unspoken concern hung in the room: fundraising.

Julia had spent the year focusing on strengthening the school internally. While she had deep experience in academic leadership and community building, fundraising had never been emphasized in her previous roles.

The issue was never raised.

Nine months later, at the closing board meeting, the tone had changed dramatically. Trustees sharply criticized Julia for failing to prioritize fundraising. The evaluation was harsh and unexpected.

Julia left the meeting stunned.

Her reaction was simple.

“Why didn’t anyone tell me this was a priority?”

This is a classic example of backward evaluation. A leader is judged after the fact on expectations that were never clearly defined. While this may be legally permissible, it is not ethically sound governance.

2. Anecdotal Evaluation

Chris had served as head of a New England boarding school for three years. During that time, the board had never conducted a formal evaluation. Eventually Chris asked the chair when a performance review might occur.

The chair agreed but chose an unconventional method. Instead of a structured review, the board distributed a survey to parents, faculty, and staff.

Responses poured in.

Some were thoughtful. Others focused on minor grievances. Comments included concerns about untucked uniforms, ants in the faculty lounge, and unanswered emails.

At the next board meeting, these responses were compiled and presented as the head’s evaluation.

Chris sat through the discussion wondering how such a process could possibly reflect his performance as the school’s leader.

This is anecdotal evaluation. When boards rely on informal surveys or scattered feedback, the process often becomes little more than a popularity contest. Rarely is the feedback connected to strategic goals or defined leadership responsibilities.

3. No Evaluation

In some cases, there is no process at all.

A board member from a Midwestern boarding school once contacted me after the school had gone through three heads in seven years. Enrollment was declining and the community was unsettled.

I asked what system the board used to evaluate the head of school.

“We don’t really have one,” he replied. “Why would that matter?”

It matters a great deal.

Without evaluation:

• Clear goals are never established.

• Expectations remain ambiguous.

• Accountability becomes inconsistent.

• Leadership turnover accelerates.

When a head leaves unexpectedly, schools often lose two years of momentum. The final year of the departing head frequently becomes stagnant, while the incoming leader spends the first year simply learning the institution.

The cultural and strategic cost to the school can be significant.

The Real Problem: Systems, Not People

In nearly every example like these, the trustees involved were thoughtful and committed individuals. These were not dysfunctional boards.

The real issue was the absence of a strong governance system.

Board members are often handed complex governance manuals and expected to master them quickly. Yet what many boards need is not complexity but clarity.

The Six Principles of Successful Board-Head Partnerships provide that clarity by focusing governance on a small number of essential practices.

Among these, the most neglected and misunderstood is head evaluation.

When conducted properly, the evaluation process should begin with clearly defined goals developed collaboratively between the head and a small appraisal team of trustees. Throughout the year, progress toward those goals is discussed and refined. By the time the annual evaluation occurs, there are no surprises.

Accountability remains strong, but it is grounded in shared expectations rather than shifting priorities.

This approach does not reduce accountability.

It strengthens it.

When I think back to that conversation with Jim at the conference, what stands out most is the timing of his dismissal. It occurred just weeks after the most successful capital campaign in the school’s history, a campaign he had been asked to lead.

But this story is not ultimately about Jim.

It is about the students and communities that depend on stable, ethical leadership.

When governance systems fail, those communities pay the price.

The Six Principles of Successful Board-Head Partnerships

Principle I: Boards focus on governance, not management. Boards define mission, strategy, and policy. The head determines how those goals are achieved.

Principle II: The board has one employee, the head of school. All operational accountability flows through the head.

Principle III: The head has one employer, the board as a whole. Individual trustees do not direct the head. Governance operates collectively.

Principle IV: Committees support the board’s work, not the head’s work. Committees should focus on governance responsibilities such as finance, governance, and evaluation.

Principle V: The board evaluates the head based on established criteria. Goals are set collaboratively, assessed throughout the year, and reviewed transparently at year’s end.

Principle VI: The board evaluates itself. Effective governance requires boards to assess their own performance as regularly as they assess leadership.