Basing Principal Rotation on System Needs

School Administrator, Nov, 1998 by Paul J. Hagerty

Less rather than more; later rather than sooner.

These phrases represent my thinking about the frequency of principal reassignments. More than 20 years ago, as a new superintendent, I believed that frequent reassignment of principals was desirable. I have modified my beliefs. Here's why.

Early in my career I operated on the premise that it was healthy for all concerned for elementary principals to be reassigned every three to five years. Secondary principals might be reassigned every five to 10 years. My rationale at the time was based on several assumptions:

* Stagnation and complacency increases with prolonged tenure in one location;

* The longer one is in the same school, the more one is apt to play favorites by overlooking or compensating for staff weaknesses and continuing to use the same strong staff members for leadership assignments;

* Frequent rotation addresses the system's needs, instead of creating local fiefdoms; and

* Frequent rotation helps reduce the trauma when a principal in trouble really needs to be reassigned.

Reluctantly, I also will admit to wanting to ensure the principals knew who was in charge because in all three of my superintendencies I had been hired from outside. In my early days, I was more concerned about having school board support for reassignments than having principals' agreement with the new assignment. While these factors have some validity, I have come to realize several other more important factors that need to be included in the decision-making mix.

Inhibiting Factors

Before discussing these additional factors, I want to describe a major problem with principal pay and promotion practices that inhibits well-meaning principal reassignments. Throughout my career, the overriding principle for principal reassignments was to match strength with need. Our strongest principals, I thought, should be assigned to schools with the greatest needs.

In many school systems, principal pay is tied to the number of students (or the number of staff members). In many urban districts, the larger schools tend to be the newer schools built in the outlying areas; the older inner-city schools usually are smaller. As such, the promotion path is from small, inner-city schools out to the suburbs. Even if the pay schedule is not tied to size, principals frequently are rewarded by being assigned to open a new school.

In either setting, the culture and public perception works against putting the strongest and highest-performing principals in schools that exhibit the greatest needs. (This problem is compounded by the practice that many of us have with our teacher transfer procedures that result in having more inexperienced teachers in our more difficult schools.)

Matching Strengths

Today, I have altered my beliefs as they relate to principal rotation. The school system's overriding purpose is to create the capacity to support change at the local school level with each school as the unit for change. Change is a long-term process so that creating an appropriate culture at each school is critical to a school's success. Site administrators must buy in to good ideas at the system level for ideas to take hold and produce results.

This is true for staff as well as for principals. I now negotiate with a principal when I decide to reassign him or her to a difficult assignment. I would be very reluctant to move a principal "kicking and screaming"--at least privately--to a challenging assignment and expect his or her enthusiastic leadership to produce dramatic results. I now frame the reassignment as a compliment for the individual to be considered so competent as to be given a challenging assignment.

I also am convinced that long-term goal setting is not compatible with short-term leadership, and the increased empowerment of local school advisory councils in school improvement planning suggests longer tenure for principals.

I no longer believe principals are interchangeable parts to be moved around just for the reasons mentioned here. (Wasn't that one of the many criticisms of the Vietnam War--the practice of bringing randomly assigned replacement troops without any regard for the unity, morale and bonding that occurs in training together?)

I believe we need to do what is best for children, and to do so we need to match strength with need. Our strongest principals need to be in schools with the greatest challenges. In blending both sets of assumptions, I still believe in periodic reassignment of principals, but less and later.

Paul Hagerty is superintendent of the Seminole County Public Schools, 400 E. Lake Mary Blvd., Sanford, Fla. 32773.