An Investigation of Chief Administrator Turnover in International Schools

An investigation of chief administrator turnover in international schools

Journal of Research in International Education 10(1) 87–103 April 2011

John Benson

University of Bath, UK

Abstract

This article explores chief administrator turnover in international schools. Quantitative and qualitative data from the 83 chief administrators who participated in the study suggests that the average tenure of an international school chief administrator is 3.7 years and that the main reason chief administrators leave international schools is related to school boards, although career considerations are also regarded as important. The two most common school board-related reasons given for leaving are regular changes in board composition and micro-management.

Introduction

It is a well-established research finding that ‘leadership through chief administrators is the single most important contributing factor in ... a school’s ... success or failure as an institution’ (Haywood, 2002: 175). A chief administrator leads and supervises the daily operations of a school and, in doing so, ensures that the policies of the school board are put into practice (Council of International Schools, 2003). Yet there is a paucity of literature about issues related to chief administrators in the context of international schools.

This is the case regarding the two themes of this piece of work – the average tenure of international school chief administrators and the reasons why they leave a post. Only one previous study has been carried out, by David B. Hawley (1994, 1995), who examined them in a specific type of international school: US-accredited overseas schools. These schools were originally established for dependants of US citizens serving the interests of the US government abroad (US State Department, 2009). In addition to Hawley, one other author – John Littleford – has undertaken noteworthy research in this area, although the majority of his work revolves around chief administrators in US independent schools.

The lack of literature on chief administrator turnover in international schools means that ‘it is difficult to evaluate the extent to which [Hawley’s study] describes a more widespread phenomenon’ (Cambridge, 2002: 164) and to assess if it may ‘represent faithfully other types of international schools ... which are not US style’ (Blandford and Shaw, 2001: 25–26). The purposes of the current study are therefore twofold: (1) to update Hawley’s (1994, 1995) study; and (2) to extend it beyond US-accredited overseas schools to international schools more widely.

Hawley (1994, 1995) had a ready-made sample of US-accredited overseas schools for his study. There is no ready-made sample of international schools available; nor is it possible ‘to give a precise figure at any one time’ of how many international schools are in existence (Hayden, 2006: 14). Hayden and Thompson (2009) estimate there to be between 2000 and 4000, while ISC Research places the figure for English-medium international schools at 5323 in 236 countries (ISC, 2009). As an additional complicating factor, international schools have ‘no cohesive sense of unity’ (Bunnell, 2007: 352) and they ‘may or may not share an underlying educational philosophy’ (Hayden and Thompson, 1995: 332). Furthermore, there is no overarching international body or international system (Blaney, 1991; Thomas, 1996) to ensure that as many as possible of these establishments ‘subscribe to recognizable standards of international education’ (Brummitt, 2007: 39). Instead, the proliferation of schools that ‘may describe themselves in some sense as international’ (Matthews, 1988: 4) has been accompanied by a growing number of support agencies, including eight accrediting agencies, 25 or so regional associations and thirteen recruitment organizations (Bunnell, 2007).

International schools used mainly to be independent, non-profit, community-based, English-medium schools offering education to the children of internationally mobile professionals. As such many started out as parent cooperatives and continue to have governance models based on high levels of parental influence (Hayden, 2006). More and more schools are now, however, being bought or built by well-funded groups and the proportion of schools run for profit is increasing considerably, particularly those catering to the wealthiest group of locals in countries that adopt a laissez-faire attitude to the construction of such schools.

Chief administrator turnover studies in international schools

The relevant research findings that do exist can be considered under a number of headings, as follows.

Average tenure

For Littleford (1999: 33) ‘too many international schools today are revolving doors for heads’. Hawley (1994, 1995) also painted a sorry picture of chief administrator turnover in international schools. His research detailed the longevity of chief administrators in the 251 US-accredited overseas schools in existence between 1981 and 1990. On the basis of a questionnaire returned by 196 out of 336 chief administrators employed in such schools during this period, the average tenure of an international school chief administrator was found to be 2.8 years. Fifteen per cent left after only one year, while fewer than four per cent remained in the same position for seven or more years to give that institution what Littleford describes as their years of greatest contribution ‘when parents, past parents, board members and alumni begin to feel a debt to the current head for the success of their children’ (2005: n.p.). Over one-half had left by the end of their third year, which is the minimum time period advocated for any change introduced to be successful, according to change experts such as Martin-Kniep (1997, in Hardman, 2001). Just over one-quarter stayed for the minimum five-year term argued in a wider context to be required for major restructuring efforts to begin to take effect (Fullan, 2007; McAdams, 1997).

In Hawley’s (1994) study, the length of time spent by chief administrators in a US-accredited overseas school varied depending on the school’s location: 4.8 years in Europe; 3.4 years in the Middle East; 3.1 years in Latin America; 2.5 years in Asia; and 1.9 years in Africa. The figure for Africa matched the tenure of chief administrators who worked in so-called ‘Travel Warning Countries’ – countries where short-term conditions pose imminent risks to the security of citizens (US State Department, 2009). The tenure in Asia was similar to that in ‘Travel Alert Countries’ (2.7 years): countries where long-term, protracted conditions make a country dangerous or unstable (US State Department, 2009). It was not known in Hawley’s study whether the chief administrators in such contexts were aware of the conditions in Travel Warning Countries and Travel Alert Countries and, as a result, only planned a short stay; if they faced unreasonable expectations about the environment; or whether an unanticipated change in the country brought about a decision to leave.

Why chief administrators leave their positions

Eighty-three of the 196 chief administrators who responded to Hawley’s (1994, 1995) questionnaire answered the final question about their main reasons for leaving their last such position. The reasons they gave for leaving their last post fell broadly into five categories: 61 out of 83 mentioned the school board; 38 referred to career considerations; 34 to family and personal issues; and 24 to the host country environment. Four pointed to specific characteristics of the school where they worked, each giving a different reason (lack of administrative help, staff and parental issues, the school being too large and the breadth of expectations expressed by the school’s many nationalities); while 3 mentioned non-renewal of contract.

Hawley’s (1995) findings about the school board are supported by Hodgson’s (2005) and Stout’s (2007) assertions that such bodies in international schools have a notorious reputation for bad governance. The results from a self-rating survey on school governance carried out by the European Council of International Schools (ECIS), however, one of the many support agencies established for international schools, revealed a very different scenario. ECIS is an association whose primary service is professional development for international educators through such avenues as the International Leadership and Management Program (ILMP) and the Sustainable International School Governance Program (SISGP). Twenty-nine per cent of the 119 chief administrators who returned the confidential part of the ECIS survey rated their board as excellent, while another 50 per cent were ranked as good, 17 per cent as fair and only 3 per cent as poor (Schoppert, 2001b).

Hawley (1995) found that over one-third of responses pertaining to the school board highlighted two areas of concern: one in five mentioned regular changes in board membership and one in seven referred to board micromanagement. None of the other 29 board-related reasons considered as possible areas of concern registered more than three responses. For this reason, the analysis of school boards below is confined to these two issues.

Changes in board membership

International schools do not normally experience difficulties in recruiting board members (Malpass, 1994). People are generally motivated to join school boards because they want to make a difference. However, some board members have a personal agenda, such as the perceived prestige it brings (Tangye, 2005), getting the best for their offspring (Hawley, 1995; Stout, 2005), or having‘a particular axe to grind’ (Malpass, 1994: 23). Yet there is nothing ‘more destructive of board effectiveness than a member pursuing his or her personal agenda without consideration for the views of others or the good of the school’ (Tangye, 2005: 15). Many board members also find the task much more demanding than expected and soon resign their position (Malpass, 1994), sometimes in the middle of the school year (Littleford, 1999). According to Stout (2007), the best board members are usually those who have to be persuaded to join the board.

Some schools also require board members to stand down after a fixed, relatively short period of time. Schoppert (2001b) and Littleford (2005) stress that such limits on tenure should be avoided in order to ensure more board stability. In schools with low board member turnover, chief administrators tend to stay longer than where high board turnover is the norm. Hawley (1994) found that where board member turnover was 90 per cent, the chief administrator stayed, on average, for 2 years whereas, when that figure dropped to 20 per cent, the chief administrator’s tenure was almost doubled to 3.5 years. Since half of the schools in his study had a board-length term of 1 year, he recommended a minimum term of 2 years for each board member to avoid situations where it is ‘only the original Board... [who] remember why the Head was hired in the first place and the vision that the new Head articulated so well’ (Littleford, 2000: 1); this would bring board tenure in line with that served by a typical board chair (Littleford, 2005).

According to Stout (2007), the structure of school boards tends to conform to one of three main types: the self-perpetuating board; the elected board; and the appointed board – or hybrids of the three types. Board turnover is lowest in schools where the board is appointed (Schoppert, 2001a; Littleford, 2005) and a majority of trustees (board members) are community leaders, past parents and/or alumni. Chief administrator turnover is highest in schools with all-parent boards (Hawley, 1994; Littleford, 1999, 2005; Vinge, 2005).

Regardless of the structure of the board, Littleford (1999) states that chief administrators should, where possible, be involved in board nominations if they are to avoid situations where boards propose members with whom the chief administrator is uncomfortable. Such a situation could arise when that person does not share the chief administrator’s mission, particularly concerning the nomination of the new board chair who – according to Stout (2005) – should not be a parent, but may have been associated in the past as a parent. Littleford (1999) also recommends that chief administrators should nominate to their school boards more expatriate ‘locals’ who live in the community, have married into the local culture and retain a commitment to, and an understanding of, international education.

Board micromanagement

The dividing line between governance and leadership/management is not quite so clear cut as it may appear in theory (Walker, 2004; Hayden and Thompson, 2009). While it may be the board’s job to govern and the head’s job to lead/manage, it would be ‘an unwise head who took no interest in policy-making and an unusual board that took no interest in the implementation of that policy’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2009: 66). The relationship can be successful provided that both sides understand this overlap of responsibilities. Where the relationship is not clearly understood chief administrators are vulnerable and can find themselves quickly out of a job (Malpass, 1994).

To avoid board micromanagement, Hawley (1994) recommended that schools have a written policy manual that is put into practice. Where this was the case, he found that school chief administrator tenure almost doubled to 4.7 years. He also recommended that boards evaluate chief administrators on a consistent basis to make them aware of what they are doing well and the areas that need improvement. Where a chief administrator was evaluated twice during their tenure, the

Benson: Chief administrator turnover in international schools 91 length of stay increased to almost five years, up from 3.7 years in schools where no evaluations took place. Yet ECIS found that 41 per cent of boards do not evaluate the chief administrator (Schoppert, 2001b). According to Bowley (2001), evaluations should be carried out annually, as should an evaluation of the board chair. Yet only one-third of boards evaluate their own performance (Schoppert, 2001b). Chief administrator evaluations, according to Matthews (2001), should be carried out against specific pre-established criteria, such as those published by another of the agencies that support international schools, the Council of International Schools (CIS, 2003) – a non-profit association that provides services including accreditation and governance support to international schools – and not used solely as a contributor to decisions about contract renewal.

Methodology

Taking into account the mushrooming numbers and disparate types of international schools, one of the main hurdles to those wishing to analyse international schools, in one way or another, is deciding which schools may be considered international. I therefore decided to follow Odland’s (2007) idea of using a freely available and readily accessible body of information: a sample of 603 international schools in 110 countries that are members of CIS and/or ECIS and that responded to at least one of the two organizations’ annual surveys in 2008. From the data collected in those surveys, 422 (70 per cent) chief administrators were male and 181 (30 per cent) female. The almost one-in-three figure of female chief administrators is higher than Thearle’s (2000) figure of 20 per cent and matches the figures found in such Western European countries as England (Department for Education and Skills, 2006), France, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland (Coleman, 2001).

Following a careful analysis of the small amount of turnover-related literature available (Hawley, 1994, 1995; Hardman, 2001; Odland, 2007; Odland and Ruzicka, 2009), a web-based questionnaire was constructed for the present study which consisted of 35 questions based on Blaxter et al.’s (2006) and Denscombe’s (2007) question-type suggestions: category, closed, Likert scale, list, open, quantity and verbal. All chief administrators completed the 18 compulsory questions in sections one and two about themselves (for example, gender, age and nationality) and their previous educational experience (for instance, the number of years and schools where they had been international school chief administrators and whether they held a professional qualification, such as from the Principals’ Training Center [PTC]). Those who had also worked as an international school chief administrator in a previous school filled in sections three and four. Section three asked for a profile of the last school they worked in, including its geographical location, the age-range of the students and the initial contract period. Section four was made up of a Likert scale of nine pre-designated and pre-coded considerations relating to career, contractual, family, financial, host country, personal, school-board, other-involuntary and other-school related issues, and an open question about why they had left their previous school. The final two questions of the section asked whether the school’s board could have done anything to prevent the chief administrator from leaving, and if he/she wished to add any further comments. These two questions were intended to allow the chief administrators to add more information to supplement the reasons they gave for leaving their previous international school position.

Prior to sending the questionnaire I emailed an introductory letter to all 603 schools in order to inform them about the research project. The web-based questionnaire was emailed a week later as a hyperlink and remained open for two weeks. The questionnaire reached a maximum of 575 schools as 28 schools rejected the email for a variety of mainly technically related reasons, including permanent rejection and full inboxes. It is not known precisely how many chief administrators received the questionnaire as only 40 of the email addresses provided on the CIS and ECIS databases were those of the current chief administrators personally. Halfway through the planned survey period, a follow-up email was sent to those who had not returned the questionnaire with a view to enhancing the response rate (Blaxter et al., 2006; Dillman, 2007). At the end of the two-week period, a total of 165 chief administrators had completed and submitted the survey: 119 (72.1 per cent) male and 46 (27.9 per cent) female. The breadth and purposefulness of the sample allowed for the collection of important data relevant to the research questions (Patton, 2002; Punch, 2005).