When the conversation about renewal of the School Head’s contract approaches, recognize that the two main components of this negotiation—performance evaluation (including setting the objectives for the next year) and the compensation package—need equal consideration. This article focuses on the compensation element of the negotiation process, when the Head has performed well and contract renewal is desired by all.

At any given moment, the Board may be operating highly effectively. The same is true of the School Head and Management Team. The problem, however, is always how to sustain high-level leadership over time. As changes occur, when the Board President finally rotates off, or the Head accepts an appointment elsewhere, or a new facility is proposed or a program added, what will ensure that the direction and vitality of the school is not lost?

Every School Head knows that keeping an eye on the “strategic ball” while responding to the day-to-day pressures of managing and leading a school is neither simple nor easy. Indeed, those daily pressures can destroy any headship in the sense of reducing the role to that of brush-fire containment. The strategic components in your role—those components critical to your school’s viability in the marketplace—must remain high on your week-to-week list of focal points, or both your headship and your institution’s long-term strength can deteriorate.

Salary alone is not enough to attract and retain a quality faculty. When looking for jobs today, teachers have expectations about benefits. While health coverage is the most costly of all the benefits your school may offer, it is critical for the recruitment and retention of valued faculty.

As you develop or enhance your disaster plan, take time to review your insurance policy with your agent to ensure that your school is adequately covered, beyond your basic flood and fire insurance, for any type of disaster or emergency situation. Coverage in the following areas is often far less than recommended, or may even be excluded, in typical policies. To determine if your risk factors are high in any of these areas, discuss them with your agent and consider increasing your coverage or adding riders if necessary.

It’s hard enough to get people to agree to change something they’ve been doing for a long time. It’s even worse when—instead of saving time, money, and energy—a plan you, as School Head, had anticipated would truly enhance your school begins to turn into what looks like a nightmare. Those who were originally opposed say, “I told you so!” The doubters begin to head for the “winning” side. Those who were with you begin to hedge their bets. Even your greatest ally wants to have a “deep” conversation with you.

In early fall of the 2004-05 school year, ISM conducted a study of School Head leadership to determine those characteristics most closely associated with strong faculty cultures (the criterion variable in the study). That variable—the faculty culture—had been chosen as the study’s anchor in view of two earlier ISM studies.

I have encountered numerous Trustees in recent years whose viewpoint on the School Head’s role can be summarized succinctly. The Head is to carry out the “vision” of the institution—usually an abstract list of descriptors, rather than a strategic plan—as developed and promulgated by the Board. Central to the Head’s fulfillment of this vision are, first, hiring—and especially firing—faculty and staff, and, second, raising all the money needed to address the physical components of the Board’s vision.

Many private-independent schools, especially those without high schools, find themselves on small parcels of land with little hope of purchasing contiguous acreage. Their leaders, searching for additional classroom space and buildings, are often staggered by the costs of buying land for a completely new (or second) campus. They are financially and emotionally defeated by the apparent alternative: relocating the school for a year or more, razing the buildings, and then returning to a campus that is fresh, exciting, and more functional.

In three recent cases, the Connecticut Superior Court handed down rulings that defined the nature of private-independent school enrollment contracts and upheld the school’s right to collect unpaid tuition. (The three Connecticut Superior Court cases were Hope Academy v. Gerald Friel, 2004 WL 1888909; Hope Academy v. Walz, 2004 WL 944550; and Hope Academy of Milford, Inc. v. Fortier, 2004 WL 94480.) All three cases involved the same school and had these similarities: