The challenge facing many schools may not be attracting great leaders. It may be retaining them.
Our recent research into the changing nature of Headship ‘20% More – The Art of Headship 2026’, suggests that assumptions about headship tenure are changing. Heads who remain passionate about leading their schools are nonetheless questioning whether the role, as currently designed, is sustainable over the long term.
For governing bodies, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. How can governance, delegation, senior team structure and organisational design help leaders remain effective, energised and focused on educational purpose?
Head of UK Appointments, Richard Backhouse shares some of the key themes emerging from conversations across the independent school sector.
“It’s got to be time limited… I certainly don’t look at this and think, yeah, I can do this for another 10 years.”
Across 56 interviews with independent school heads this summer, one pattern was striking. Heads who might once have expected to serve until 65 now talk about leaving by 60; those who expected 15 years are recalibrating after eight, nine or ten. One successful head described the role as “time limited”. Another, still committed to school leadership, said they didn’t want another headship.
This is not a story of failure: many heads remain ambitious for their schools, proud of their pupils, energised by staff, and aware of the privilege of the role. Some are clearer than ever about what makes the work worthwhile: teams, pupils, purposeful strategy, good governance and moments when a school community is unmistakably at its best. But they are making a harder calculation about sustainability.
The role has intensified; complaints take longer and arrive more formally; financial and commercial questions sit closer to the centre of headship. Governance has become more active and, in some schools, more consuming; staffing, parental expectation, compliance, safeguarding, reputation and strategy all press in at once. Rarely is there one dramatic pressure point; more often, more has been added and little taken away.
The interviews bring this to life: one head spoke of moving from educational leadership towards enterprise leadership, while still expected to remain personally visible at every significant moment. Another described operational matters, parent concerns and governance cycles pulling them back into the weeds. A third, in a thriving school, was already thinking carefully about when to leave well, before effectiveness or enjoyment began to erode.
For governors, this has consequences, but also opportunity. Succession assumptions may no longer hold. A strong appointment may not mean a 12- or 15-year tenure. Retention isn’t simply about salary, loyalty or goodwill. It is about whether the role has been designed so that an excellent head can do it well and keep doing it well. Where boards, chairs and senior teams get this right, heads often sound not defeated, but renewed: clearer, better supported, and closer to the educational purpose that drew them into headship.
That means asking practical questions. What genuinely needs the head’s personal attention? Where is delegation real, rather than decorative? Does the senior team match the complexity of the school? Are governors adding clarity and support, or simply adding load?
The talent pool hasn’t disappeared – nor has the appeal of headship; what is changing are assumptions around tenure, stamina and role design. Boards that understand this early will be better placed to appoint well, help heads stay effective for longer — and make headship feel again like the extraordinary, demanding and deeply worthwhile role so many heads still believe it to be.