NAIS - What Does it Mean to Be a First Family?

As school leaders, we often tell parents that where they enroll their children is one of the most important decisions they will ever make. That reality is no different for parents who are heads of school. Often for heads, there is one obvious choice: to send your child(ren) to your own school.

And why shouldn’t it be your obvious choice? You believe in your school’s mission, you want to model confidence in your school by enrolling your child, and you want to balance the long hours and high stress of your job by sharing school life—often the center of any family’s orbit—with your children and spouse or partner. Also, you may worry that enrolling your child in another school (competitor or not) will send a confusing message to your school community. Enrolling your children in your own school, however, has both advantages and liabilities, and not all of these complex variables may be clear to you, your family, or your board members when the children are first enrolled.

Over the years, we’ve witnessed colleagues thrive or struggle as a result of their children’s school experiences. And as heads ourselves, with our sons and daughters enrolled in our schools, we’ve lived many of the joys and challenges firsthand.

Years ago, the three of us made our children’s school decisions without any outside advice or guidance. Subsequently, our desire to support fellow and aspiring heads—and our belief in the value of collective wisdom—led us to wonder how other school leaders approached this decision. How might their experiences and insights be instructive for others confronting the same choice?

What’s more, we felt strongly that board members would also benefit from the insights and recommendations we sought to collect. This information could help trustees better appreciate how this choice affects both school leaders’ job satisfaction and longevity.

So, we developed a series of short, simple surveys for heads and their spouses and partners, and their children. Using NAIS and California Association of Independent School (CAIS) distribution lists, we contacted these constituencies and received 115 responses from heads, 36 responses from spouses and partners, and 22 responses from their children. As we gathered feedback, we also reached out to a number of retired and former school heads and consulted with the organizers of the NAIS Families First program.

The Experience of Heads

While the quantitative data conclusively supports having one’s own children at one’s school, the respondents’ comments tell a more nuanced story. For instance, the heads were very clear that this is a deeply personal and child-specific decision. One respondent said, “It was wonderful at one school. Not so good at another. It all comes down to the character of the school.” Another said, “You must know your child. Some kids are fine with it, accepting both the positives and negatives, and others just hate being the head’s kid.”

Respondents also shared their impressions that the decision—and the children’s experience—becomes more complex as children age. One said, “Middle school social dynamics can be tough. I find my kids at times experiencing a bit of ‘the pastor’s kid’ dynamic. All in all it has been wonderful, but middle school needs to be eyes wide open for the head.” In addition, some respondents said that sharing your school with your child is often easier in grade K–8 schools than in grade 9–12 schools, and even more complicated in a boarding school.

The heads who reported negative experiences with sending children to their own schools—a few of whom said they wouldn’t have made that same choice if they had it to do over—cited the pressures, complications, and conflicts brought about by having their children at their schools, impacting their significant others and their children, as well as themselves.

One respondent explained, “In my first headship, due to the nature and magnitude of the changes I was charged with driving, I had a contentious relationship with my teachers. A consequence was that faculty children who might have been playmates to my daughter were prohibited from interacting with her. It was a very difficult situation and took a lot of care to navigate; thankfully she was quite young and unaware of the social dynamics, and we left before she became old enough to figure out what was happening around her.”

Another wrote, “It wasn’t the right fit from the get-go. Politics were terrible for my daughter. She really struggled with being the head’s kiddo. She wasn’t selected as a peer educator because the club supervisor didn’t like me. Her English teacher held her to a higher standard. When she tried out for cheerleading, I had to pay for three outside judges so it didn’t look like favoritism if she made the squad.”

A third respondent shared this poignant anecdote: “I [had] replaced a long-tenured head who wasn’t in the headship when her children attended the school. So, I was new to the community and it was the first time, maybe ever, that the head’s kid attended the school. My child was under a microscope. Teachers were afraid to have him in their class. They gossiped about him and my wife to parents and each other. They also overreacted at his slightest misstep. Whenever I made the slightest suggestion about how they were managing him, they got angry and took it out on him. Other parents were judgmental, too, because of his relationship to me. After seeing how he was being treated—through a classroom window—we pulled him out of my school at winter break! By the way, we’re talking about a 4-year-old. Two of the teachers who behaved the worst retired at the end of the year, so we put my son back in with his younger brother. Things have been better, but still not terrific. If I could, I would definitely send my boys to another school, despite the board’s expectations.”

And yet, many heads had extremely favorable experiences, finding that their multiple roles strengthened ties at home and at school. One head commented, “I loved that I could see my kids at lunch and on the athletic fields each day, and that our dinner table conversations involved the same wider school community. It also gave me a personal insight into what worked and what didn’t work for our students overall.”

Another observed, “The fit with the program was excellent. We made especially close friendships with the parents in their respective classes, which added to the family feel of the school. When asked, my children could actually answer the question ‘What does your father or mother do?’ They saw our values in action every day. I taught each of my children in eighth grade as well.”

A third respondent shared this sentiment: “Being a parent in my school has enabled me to understand my school from different vantages and form stronger and different relationships with both parents and faculty than I would have were I ‘just’ the head. I am experiencing homework, report cards, and other systems for communication as other parents do. I have insight into the parent community by attending birthday parties, playdates, and parent socials that I would otherwise miss. The faculty who teach my children know me as a more whole person than they would otherwise. And my children know that I fully believe in the importance of their education, in the quality of their teachers, and that I will be able to come to all of their major school events and activities.”

While our survey instrument required heads to give a single primary reason for choosing to send their children to their school, many respondents commented that it was a combination of all the reasons we listed, which included confidence in school mission, finances, expectation of the school, and logistics. Further, numerous comments indicated that heads know there’s an implicit expectation (from trustees and other parents) that they will send their own kids to their school, potentially making this the “default” position for most school leaders—though one the majority of respondents are ultimately happy with.

Despite the largely positive data findings, we want to emphasize that in some cases—including situations we’ve personally experienced or observed, as well as from the sample survey comments listed above—not having your children at your school might be the right choice for some school leaders.

To help navigate the pitfalls of having your child in your school, heads described different ways to manage boundaries, forming two schools of thought captured in these excerpts:

“You don’t forfeit your parenting responsibilities with your child at your school—including your role as an advocate—but you need to be very intentional and thoughtful about how your actions affect your relationship with your child and his or her teachers.”
“Let your spouse interface with the teachers.”

Some heads also strive to delineate home and school life, choosing not to share any school information with their significant others, or discouraging talk of individual teachers at home. In their comments, respondents offered a rich variety of advice; the most repeated comments are listed first:

Set clear expectations with faculty, administration, trustees, and family regarding how your children should be known and treated at school.
Consider your child’s individual needs when selecting a school.
If possible, designate your spouse/partner as the primary advocate for the children at school.
Consider the culture of the school when determining enrollment.
Clarify for both the school community and family members that your child receives no special treatment.
Communicate with the board about your own child’s needs and issues.
Articulate clearly to others when you are acting as a parent.
Help your significant other understand the role of the head’s spouse/partner, and/or refrain from sharing school matters with your significant other.
Give your child some distance at school.
Create a social life for your family outside of the school community.
Model for both teachers and fellow parents how parents can establish a strong partnership with their child’s teachers.
Be aware that having your own children at your school can be a burden if anything goes wrong.

The Experience of Spouses and Partners

In the survey comments, about a quarter of the significant others shared their great fulfillment and satisfaction with having their children at their partners’ school. About the same number advised navigating relationships with other parents at school very carefully, many citing perception issues around privilege and influence as real complications. A few repeated comments offered by heads, urging significant others to clarify that their children receive no special treatment.

In a few instances, significant others and heads alike observed that sometimes their children were not recognized or rewarded for an accomplishment because of their relationship to the school’s leader. Two spouses/partners expressed frustration because they wanted a change to happen and the head couldn’t make it happen fast enough; they perceived that their children were negatively impacted as a result.

Several significant others noted that life in a first family can be a fishbowl, so it’s important to create a social life for the family outside the school community. The advice of spouses and partners largely reinforced the suggestions from the heads:

Consider your child as an individual when selecting a school.
If possible, designate the spouse or partner (not the head) as the primary advocate for the child.
Consider the culture of the school when determining enrollment.
Create a social life for your family outside of the school community.
Navigate relationships with other parents carefully.
Set clear expectations and boundaries.
Communicate frequently and clearly with the head.
Connect with the spouses/partners of other heads.

The Experience of Children

In many regards, the children of independent school leaders offered us the most important—and potent—voices in this study. Our respondents ranged from teenagers to adults in their 40s.

In the comments, many children (or adult children) noted that being the head’s child can be awkward when it comes to relationships with classmates and teachers. Some noted that school heads’ children are held to a higher standard. Some believed these children are more aware of their environment because of their relationship with their parents. Some felt it was “hard to be myself” or experienced additional pressure as a result of the relationship. One found that being the child of the head was easier in grades K–7 than in grade 8 (in a K–8 school). One acknowledged setting self-imposed high standards because the head was his/her parent. And yet, a large number of respondents made clear that attending their parent’s school strengthened family relationships.

Advice for Board Members

In the survey narrative and from our own observations and experience, we find that heads perceive that their trustees don’t fully recognize the complexity of life as a first family, nor do board members appreciate how substantially the experience of the head’s child affects the family’s wellness or the head’s performance. One head said, “In an ideal world, school heads would have the option, without consideration of tuition costs, of having their child at their school with them or at another school of their choosing.”

We’re aware of schools in New England that enjoy an arrangement in which heads’ children attend peer schools at no cost, in a reciprocal relationship. We also know about a school in California that prohibits the head’s children from attending. In both examples, intentional board policy aims to avoid any potential first-family issues that could distract school leaders or imperil their leadership.

From our review of the survey comments, and in our own experience, we sense that most boards assume heads will enroll their own children in their schools. Further, we conclude that many compelling factors (cost, convenience, mission agreement) push heads toward keeping their children with them.

However, based on the complexities of first-family life, we recommend that boards and heads spend more time thinking through the pros and cons of this decision. Further, we suggest that trustees add “care for the first family” to whatever intentional support they provide their heads.

Specifically, we recommend the board take these actions:

Say thank you. Occasional, authentic recognition from the board to the head’s partner and children about the head’s work and the strain that headship can create on family life can make the challenges feel worthwhile. In addition, recognizing the head’s partner for his or her role as school ambassador can make the partner’s “always on” feeling seem less of a burden.
Acknowledge tough times. When the school community is going through a particularly tough time—the unexpected loss of a community member, a fire, a difficult legal situation—having a trustee reach out to the head’s partner to simply acknowledge the difficulty and check in with the partner goes a long way.
Check in with the head. Ask about his or her partner and children. Encourage the head and partner to develop friendships and support systems outside the school community.

Building First-Family Networks

Since the majority of heads with school-age children do seem to enroll their children in their schools, we recommend creating forums to share challenging situations with each other. That way, first families will be able to get in-the-moment support and be better prepared for future scenarios. The NAIS Families First program may be the starting point for launching such forums, as it already provides an array of support and learning opportunities.

More immediately, heads and their partners might benefit from meeting with other first families in their local areas to support one another and share resources to make the first-family path smoother.

The school leader’s decision about where to enroll his or her own children can be pivotal in determining the head’s longevity at a school. Every investment that heads, boards, and schools make in the health and happiness of the first family will benefit the entire school community in the long run.