Blogs and Articles - RSAcademics

Clerking and leading: Two hats, one head

Among the many complexities of the modern Bursar’s role, one stands out as particularly misunderstood: governance. In our latest report, The Art of the Bursar, we found that around two-thirds of Bursars also act as Clerk to the Governors. In schools with 250–400 pupils, this rises to 75%. On paper, this might appear to be an efficient consolidation of responsibilities. In practice, it introduces a host of challenges and potential tensions.

Clerking is a demanding job in its own right. It involves administrative precision, compliance awareness, meeting management and policy oversight. When combined with the Bursar’s strategic leadership role, the workload can quickly become overwhelming. But the issue is not simply one of volume – it is one of conflict between two fundamentally different modes of operation.

As Clerk, the Bursar must support the governance process impartially, ensuring decisions are well-informed, procedurally sound and legally compliant. As a senior leader, the Bursar is also expected to contribute actively to strategic planning, challenge assumptions, and provide direction. Navigating this duality requires fluency in organisational dynamics, deep understanding of school culture, and finely tuned judgement.

Several Bursars we spoke to described feeling pulled in opposite directions – required to be both neutral facilitator and strategic driver. During key governance periods, such as budget setting or compliance reviews, these tensions can become particularly acute.

One interviewee told us: “When I’m clerking a board meeting and also answering questions on finance strategy, it can be hard to switch hats. I’m expected to minute the discussion while also helping to lead it.”

Our findings suggest that the most effective governance arrangements are those where the administrative and strategic aspects of the Clerk role are clearly separated. Some schools have moved to appointing a dedicated governance professional to manage board logistics and statutory obligations. This allows the Bursar to focus on the strategic advisory aspects of governance – bringing insight, clarity, and confidence to the board’s decision-making.

Advances in technology are also beginning to play a role, with some schools using AI-assisted tools to support the production of accurate, well-structured minutes. This not only reduces the administrative burden but also enables senior staff to focus more fully on their primary strategic responsibilities.

Typically, the Bursar reports operationally to the Head, with appropriate dotted-line accountability to the Chair of Governors or Chair of Finance for financial matters. However, when acting as Clerk to the Board, the reporting line properly sits with the Chair of Governors, reflecting the Clerk’s distinct responsibility to support the board’s independent function. In schools where a separate Clerk is appointed, that individual may report administratively to the Head or Bursar, with the Chair consulted as appropriate on matters of performance and oversight.

In schools where separation is not feasible, it becomes even more critical to establish role clarity and mutual expectations between the Bursar, the Head and the Chair of Governors. The leadership triangle – or ‘square’, when the Finance Committee Chair is included – was consistently cited as one of the most influential factors in Bursar effectiveness.

Where relationships are strong, roles clear and communication open, the governance structure can be a significant enabler. Where they are not, the Bursar’s role becomes more exposed – sometimes untenable. This is particularly true in moments of transition or crisis, where blurred lines can lead to conflict, confusion or decision-making paralysis.

This dual role also carries a time cost. Many Bursars reported that clerking tasks could consume up to 20% of their working time – particularly in the lead-up to meetings or during governance reviews. That time is often drawn from strategic planning or leadership development. Over time, this limits the Bursar’s ability to contribute effectively to broader school improvement.

Our recommendation is simple: review the structure. Be honest about what is sustainable. Where the Bursar acts as Clerk, provide administrative support and ensure their strategic contribution is not compromised by procedural responsibilities.

At RSAcademics, we support schools in reviewing governance structures, clarifying leadership responsibilities, and enabling Bursars to play to their strengths. Because the health of a school’s governance system is often an indicator of the health of its leadership culture.

Need to rethink your governance model? RSAcademics helps schools optimise governance structures and leadership relationships.

What I’ve Learned Supporting Governors Through Leadership Appointments

By Martin Collier, Senior Advisor, RSAcademics

Appointing a Head is one of, if not the most important task that any governing body will undertake. As a Senior Advisor with RSAcademics, what strikes me when working with governors on the appointment of a Head is how much is at stake for the School as well as for the candidates. The appointment process is never just about “finding a Head”. It is about finding the right Head who will be a really good fit for the school in question.

Why governors value external perspective

The context in which schools are operating is rapidly changing. As a result, the nature of headship and school leadership is also rapidly changing. Whilst many governors will have experience of recruitment, including in education, not too many governing boards will be fully up to speed with the current state of the recruitment market for Heads.

There is also rarely full consensus amongst governors as to what their school needs in terms of the profile of the next Head. Whilst governors will invariably have the very best intentions, emotions, loyalties and internal dynamics can lead to differences of opinions. What we bring as an external partner to an appointment process is objectivity and support. The market expertise provided by an external partner can help minimise risk as well as instil confidence. Having served as a Head of two schools and a governor of quite a few more, as well as working as a Senior Advisor with RSAcademics, my experience is that having an external partner advise a governing body through a recruitment process is invaluable.

Rigour in the process

One of the things I’ve learned at RSAcademics is just how rigorous a search process is when it is done properly. Behind every appointment is a great deal of unseen work: mapping the market, reaching out discreetly to potential candidates, analysing in depth the School’s needs, producing published materials which ensure that the School is presented in the best light as well as managing a transparent and fair process. Our search consultants play a vital role in this process. They will normally visit the School, often with the Senior Advisor, to gain as much insight about the School as possible. They will also speak at length with governors. Our search consultants and Senior Advisors combine detailed knowledge of the education landscape with an ability to reach and engage suitable candidates who, for one reason or another, might not have otherwise considered applying. Their work helps to ensure that governing bodies get to see the best possible fields of candidates.

The role of Senior Advisors

The Senior Advisor helps to lead the appointment process. That means that they guide the governors through each stage, from shaping the brief to final decision-making. My experience in education helps me to serve, with confidence, as a sounding board for governors. It also means that I am confident in offering objective and constructive advice throughout the appointment process. Another important aspect of the Senior Advisor’s role is to thoughtfully probe candidates so as to best understand their leadership style and their values. It is also to engage with governing boards to help them clarify the profile of what they want in their next Head. The blend of process leadership and sector insight that the Senior Advisor can provide helps give governors greater confidence when they come to make weighty decisions.

The pastoral element

Of central importance to the search process is the pastoral support offered to all prospective candidates and those who get through to the last rounds of the appointment process. In applying for a headship, every candidate invests not just time but their professional hopes and aspirations. Any such application will also invariably most likely impact on the candidates’ nearest and dearest.

Candidates will have questions; they will also seek advice. It is our job to guide and to nurture candidates through the appointment process, to communicate effectively with them and to be suitably transparent. Every governing body wants to do right by their school community. Our job is to treat candidates with care, fairness and respect, while ensuring that governing boards have the all the information and advice they need to make a choice that will best serve their school.

Why it matters

Over the years, I have seen time and time again how the appointment of the right Head can transform a school. Indeed, schools flourish when the Head is the right fit. And whilst the selection process is demanding, governors consistently feedback that, with our support, they feel not only reassured but often empowered to make the final decision.

That, in the end, is what makes our work so worthwhile.

International Newsletter: Your Application Letter – 10 Top Tips

By Keith Clark, Head of International Appointments

Rarely a newsletter goes by in which we do not make some reference to the importance of letters of application in senior leadership appointments.

The application letter is your opportunity to tell us why: why you, why the role, why at this point in your career, why your experience and skills are relevant.

For a candidate strong on paper, it is a chance to stand out from a crowd – to position yourself in alignment with the role. For those who seem a little less obvious in terms of experience, it is a chance to say, ‘Don’t rule me out.’ This last point can make it useful in EDI terms – a chance to put your experience in context and to draw us to you even if your background and trajectory is a less obvious route into the role.

It is remarkable how many senior leaders don’t pay sufficient attention to their letters of application, even when going for some of the most sought-after roles.

Here are some tips:

1. Respect the reader: Our guidance is to keep the letter to two pages. Sometimes that’s a requirement, sometimes advice. If it’s advice, a compelling, easy-to-read letter makes a limit less relevant. Please do not read the guidance as: show us how clever you are in maximising words on the page, feeling free to use 8-point font and removing any semblance of margins. Such formatting makes a letter very difficult to read – and almost impossible to do so quickly. It can leave us annoyed, and that’s not what you want.

2. Avoid generic: When we say, ‘a letter that is largely generic may risk your application not being given serious consideration’ we do mean it. We want you to tell us why the job appeals and why you are right for it. A letter that tells us who you are but with no attempt to tie it to the job is ignoring the advice.

3. Follow the instructions: If the candidate information says ‘please address your letter to Mr Khalid Akhtar, Chair of the Board’ do not write ‘Dear Selection Committee.’ Your application may well fall on that basis.

4. Your letter is not your CV: Letters that tell us I did that and then I did this and after that… just do not do the job. We will read your CV or application form. We want to know how what you have done relates to the job you are applying for.

5. Avoid unforced errors: You’d be surprised how often a letter supposedly about Pathways International School includes a reference to a completely different school. The best letters have been checked and double-checked.

6. Don’t top and tail: Perhaps the most frustrating letter of all starts off beautifully. And then the second paragraph onwards is completely generic. Until the last paragraph. Reading these letters can make us feel patronised. There is a cleverer variation – specific references throughout an otherwise totally generic letter. Sometimes we are almost fooled. But only sometimes. And only almost.

7. Show you understand: We often find ourselves asking, ‘Have they read the candidate info?’ The letter is a chance to show you ‘get’ the school and the role, and it is this that fires your interest. AI makes this easier – at least getting the basic understanding down. But really owning that understanding needs your authenticity.

8. Don’t overstate: Help us to understand the relevance of your experience, but don’t undermine yourself by overdoing it. Not everyone will be able to meet every requirement, and when you try to prove you do, it becomes difficult to know what to take at face value. We recognise there are cultural differences around how people express themselves in such situations, but statements about matching every single requirement can be implausible.

9. Be honest: You would be surprised how often we read statements we know not to be true. I chair an organisation, Amala, which delivers secondary education in refugee communities, and international school educators have helped us in our work. One candidate claimed to have had a role that I knew was not the case. Equally, we sometimes see falsehoods and exaggerations in relation to schools we know well.

10. Think of the reader: You have taken on board Point 1 and made it possible to read your letter. Now, also try to think about what we are reading. Please try to make it interesting, informative and, well, readable. But remember that your letter may be read by both us and the school, so don’t take too much for granted in terms of earlier conversations.

We know good application letters take a lot of time and a great deal of emotional commitment. That commitment oozes out of the best letters.

We may be reviewing 45 applications for a senior leadership role (sometimes many more), and we spend 10-15 minutes on each application at this stage. We use grids of criteria to assess applications as objectively as we can. But in a field of very credible candidates, which is what we aim for, there may not be much to choose between many candidates. The letter becomes the discriminator. The following are real comments made on applications which serve to illustrate the points we have raised:

‘Strong against the criteria but the letter is totally generic – in a field this strong, it has to be a no.’

‘Intriguing experience – really wanted the application to tell us why. Without that, I can’t see how we justify an interview.’

‘I was in two minds because of their role at [name of school], but the letter makes them a must-see.’

‘A shame: too many mistakes and misunderstandings in the letter.’

‘Brilliant letter – really gets it and shows how his experience would equip him’

Keith Clark, Head of International Appointments

International Newsletter: Unlearning for International Success

Written by Chris Edwards, Senior Advisor

This is the first in a series of articles considering the challenges of taking on a new international headship. Subsequent articles will explore in more detail aspects of leadership that both experienced and first-time international Heads and Principals may want to consider when moving into a new role. We hope that much of what we discuss will also be of use to other senior leaders – and, indeed, to those responsible for making leadership appointments.

“Just because the Chair’s sister or grandmother suddenly comes in to replace her at a Board meeting doesn’t necessarily mean the place is crazy.”

Of all the input gathered from the eighty or so Heads and Principals interviewed for Upwards and Onwards (RSAcademics, 2023), this quotation gets to the heart of the matter. The international school landscape is characterised by profound diversity, and Heads must unlearn, recalibrate and go again if they are to navigate the uncertain but often thrilling world of international headship.

A Unique Blend

From tweed blazers and A levels in 35-degree heat, to temperate forest-based schools eschewing traditional examinations, each international school is unique. It is a blend of its host nation’s culture and educational and regulatory environment, the educational philosophy and expectations of its owners/governors, and its community demographics. And the landscape is changing: the continued growth of international schools is driven not by more schools for expatriates, but by the demand for international schools to serve national markets.

Templates won’t cut it: success for an incoming Head will always be context-dependent.

‘International experience desirable’ is a common line in job advertisements. Our experience of international leadership appointments tells us more: a Principal who demonstrates exemplary leadership and outstanding outcomes in Dubai, say, cannot assume that success will automatically transfer to São Paulo. Substitute almost any jurisdiction, and the statement still holds.

A successful Head, even one who has enjoyed international success, cannot simply transplant their existing frame of reference; they must first engage in a process of deliberate unlearning.

Monocultural to multicultural

An obvious example to start: the Head moving from a national system to an international one. Often, the most fundamental shift will be from a monocultural to a multicultural mindset. Let’s take the instance of a UK Head – or it could be a Head in a very British international school – looking to move to South East Asia.

Regardless of how multicultural her previous school had been on many measures, she may well come from a position of unconscious cultural centrality, where the curriculum, traditions, and behavioural expectations are rooted in a specific national context. But in her new school, the British way is not the only way, nor is it necessarily the best way.

It may come as a shock to our new Head that many more students globally take Advanced Placement (AP) than A level, or that other frameworks such as Mastery Transcript Consortium are on the rise, equally valid and often more appropriate. The ‘gold standard’ is suddenly a moveable feast. The Head may need to champion a curriculum that reflects the school’s diverse student body and prepares them for global citizenship, not just for entry into UK or US universities.

It can also become personal. This was certainly my experience of moving to Southeast Asia. Direct, ironic, self-deprecating British humour and communication had served me well in the UK – indeed, it had also carried me through a spell of middle leadership in a British school in Brazil. Colleagues from that time would probably say it was what I was known for. But I quickly realised that in Southeast Asia, I risked being misunderstood in a culture that values indirectness and formality, and I may even have been perceived as rude. I was forced to unlearn elements of my default style, to become a student of cross-cultural communication, to practise clarity and empathy, and to build my awareness of non-verbal cues.

We would argue that what holds true for a leader moving from national to international contexts can be equally true for those moving between different international environments. Success always requires a degree of reinvention.

A Leader Among Experts

Few if any Heads will characterise their leadership style as authoritative and top-down, but they may inadvertently present as such if they don’t read the international room carefully.

International school faculties are often highly diverse, comprising experienced educators from around the world who expect to be heard and valued as professionals. Many will be very much more experienced in the local context than the incoming Head. A successful Head must therefore adopt collaborative, distributive, and inclusive leadership models. They are likely to be a leader among experts, not an expert above subordinates.

And the parents, some of whom may view the school as a key element of their social world, often have sophisticated global experiences and perspectives. They can make the Head’s world view seem positively parochial. Or they may be part of the host culture in which the Head will only ever be a guest. Many international school parents have very high expectations of their children’s education and well-being, and deference to the new Head does not come as standard. The Head should see parents as collaborative partners, leveraging their diverse experiences as a resource for the school community.

Leaving Experience Behind

Whether an international school serves an international community, a national population or both, it will be very different from a traditional conception of a school with deep, multi-generational roots and a relatively stable student body. Most international schools, even the greatest of them, will be much newer and, in cases where there is a significant international population, they may be defined by their transience.

There is also the obvious fact that the international school is a guest in its host nation – one prominent school we worked with could not even have legal status in its country. In an internationally-diverse school, the temptation arising from this is to create an insular bubble. But this will not benefit the school or its students, least of all the many who are TCKs – Third Culture Kids navigating a complex path between their passport country, their host country and the International school culture as they seek to understand their identity.

Any monolithic understanding of identity and well-being will ill-serve these students or those for whom there is a disconnect between school and local culture. For example, in some countries, it is not unusual for parents to punish (including physically) children who perform poorly in tests. And what to do when a young person wishes to express an LGBTQ identity in one of the many countries where that is criminalised? What needs to be unlearnt to deal with such scenarios? Pastoral care certainly cannot be one-size-fits-all; it must respond to the unique challenges of transition, grief, belonging, and rootlessness that students in international schools – TCKs and others – often face.

Such challenges can be compounded in a school with a significant host nation community. The new Head will experience even greater cultural immersion and there may be significant regulatory, curricular and legal issues to navigate. In China, most notably, the challenge is to create something international while working with a tightly-regulated national curriculum. In other countries, the challenge can seem more manageable – integrating language, local history and religion, for example – but to do this seriously and authentically requires skill, understanding and creativity.

Linking these diverse scenarios – every leadership experience different from most others – is the need for unlearning. The most successful international school Heads keenly appreciate what from their experience is not relevant as much as what is.

Unlearning Inertia

How often do leaders join an organisation with ambitions to effect change, only to hear, “But we’ve always done it this way”? This can be common in established schools in national systems. International schools are not immune to it, but they will often operate differently. They are likely to have shorter histories, exist in highly competitive markets and be accustomed to having change imposed from outside. A Head used to a slower pace of change must unlearn bureaucratic inertia.

Successful international schools require Heads who are agile, responsive, innovative. In very few cases will reputation alone ensure recruitment. Even within well-known groups, there can be huge differences: schools may share a famous name, but that guarantees little. The Head may need to deploy a new set of skills. They may have to become the chief marketing officer with a firm grasp of branding, demographics, and customer service. Similarly, they might have to become adept at managing a complex business model in a legal jurisdiction that will be wholly unfamiliar to them

Humility, Courage and Wisdom

This is only a snapshot. Yet it suggests a journey of humility and transformation. It requires courage to question one’s assumptions, and wisdom to understand that past success is merely the foundation, not the guarantor, for future growth.

In RSAcademics’ experience, the most successful international school leaders are those who, to a considerable extent, unlearn their cultural and operational defaults. By doing so, they stand a far better chance of becoming a true architect of a dynamic, successful, inclusive learning community.

International Newsletter: Making the Best of Your Recruiter

All our candidate material and advertising include words to the effect of ‘For a preliminary, confidential conversation, please contact…’ The same will be true for other recruitment companies working on senior leadership appointments.

We take the view that preliminary conversations are often essential.

It may be interesting to know what we say to client schools about this part of our service: ‘These conversations are at the heart of a good search. They are a space for candidates to explore confidentially whether a role is for them: sometimes we will talk to an individual several times before they decide it is, at other times we will discourage those for whom it is not.’

Potential candidates sometimes come into these conversations with only the most tentative interest in a role. They have seen a role advertised that they may otherwise have skipped over – it’s in a country they have not considered, it’s not the type of school they have typically worked in, they may be a year away from leaving, it may be too big a step up. But they see we are supporting the appointment. They know us, and know they will get good advice. By the end of a first call, they may be thinking very differently – this could be for them.

Or it might not be. And that is absolutely OK. They have saved themselves time and energy, and they won’t regret not having followed up. There could be other positives: the conversation may cause them to think a little differently about their options, and we will be updated on what they are interested in.

Sometimes, the initial interest may be more substantive – actually, we may well have approached the person about the role. There are any number of issues that might be discussed. It could be digging down into the challenges and issues facing a school or the opportunities for growth and development ahead. We want to give the candidate as realistic an understanding as possible.

At other times, it could be more practical – the package, visa restrictions, accommodation arrangements, schooling options. Jean Sullivan, our Head of International Search, may be exaggerating a little when she lists dogs as the most common issue, but only a little.

The conversation is your opportunity to explore whatever is important to you, to help you make up your mind. We want to be having these conversations, and we don’t mind if it takes several calls before you decide. If you do apply, we want you to feel confident it is a role for you. It should also mean you can write that really compelling application letter! There will still be plenty to cover during the process, but you are off to a strong start.

And if you decide against – or we suggest maybe not – nothing is lost. There are candidates who tell us they appreciate that we will always be honest and straightforward if we think a role is not for them.

So, never hesitate to take up the option of a confidential conversation. It really can be helpful in so many ways.

Beyond the urgent: Making space for strategy

Ask any Bursar what they need more of, and you’ll likely hear the same answer: time. Not just more hours in the day, but space to think, reflect and lead. As schools navigate increasing financial, regulatory and parental pressures, the ability of a Bursar to act strategically has never been more important. Yet paradoxically, the environment they work in rarely affords them that opportunity.

Our latest research report, The Art of the Bursar, highlighted this disconnect. While over 80% of Bursars reported having direct responsibility for strategic planning, many told us they struggled to find time for it. The day-to-day volume of operational work is simply too great. For some, the pace has become unsustainable – particularly in smaller schools, where limited internal infrastructure means the Bursar is not only overseeing multiple functions but is also the one doing much of the delivery.

This is about more than workload. It’s about priorities, structure and the cultural perception of what the Bursar role is for. Perhaps too often, the Bursar is seen primarily as a doer, not a thinker – as the one who keeps the lights on, rather than the one helping shape the path ahead. But our research shows that where Bursars are given space and support to think strategically, the benefits for schools are significant.

In one focus group, a Bursar shared how they had negotiated a weekly ‘protected thinking time’ agreement with their Head. Another described blocking out an afternoon each fortnight for longer-term planning and leadership development. These may sound like small things – but in the context of relentless operational demands, they represent vital space to lead, not just manage.

Strategic leadership requires clarity. Yet many Bursars told us that their role had expanded organically rather than intentionally. Tasks are added, responsibilities grow – but the structural or cultural support to match that growth does not always follow. In these cases, Bursars may feel stretched across too many areas, unable to give full attention to any of them. The risk is not just burnout, but strategic drift.

So how can schools enable more strategic leadership from their Bursar?

First, define the role clearly. Strategy needs ownership – and that means articulating not just what the Bursar is responsible for, but what they are expected to influence. Job descriptions, team structures, and reporting lines all need to reflect this.

Second, invest in the team around the Bursar. One person cannot do it all. Where possible, schools should consider creating or enhancing specialist roles in HR, compliance or operations to free up the Bursar’s time and thinking space.

Third, support the Bursar’s professional growth. In our research, strategic thinking was the number one skill Bursars said they needed to develop further. Yet many said they had limited access to training, coaching or peer support in this area. Coaching, in particular, was cited as a powerful tool – offering space for reflection, clarity and development that many Bursars lack in their daily roles.

Fourth, involve the Bursar fully in strategic decision-making. This may seem obvious, but it doesn’t always happen in practice. Some Bursars spoke of being excluded from early conversations about school vision, strategy or risk – only to be brought in later to ‘make it happen’. Bringing them in earlier not only improves decisions but also reinforces their role as strategic leaders.

Finally, culture matters. Schools need to model and champion the idea that strategic work is real work – that time spent reflecting, planning, and influencing is not a luxury, but a necessity. Heads, governors and leadership teams have a role to play in setting this tone.

The rewards are tangible. Bursars who operate strategically have helped schools diversify income, strengthen governance, improve operational resilience, and lead transformation in digital infrastructure, sustainability and staffing. Their insight is not an add-on – it’s central to future success.

At RSAcademics, we help schools take a step back. We support leaders in clarifying roles, rethinking team structures, and building the systems and mindsets that allow strategy to flourish. Because we believe strategic capacity is not an accident. It’s a deliberate choice.

Want to unlock strategic potential in your support leadership? RSAcademics helps schools create the conditions for long-term thinking and innovation.

Managing mobile devices: The strategic role of governors in mobile device policy

Why should governors be interested in smartphone use in schools? Boards are constantly urged not to interfere in day-to-day management issues and this might seem a classic example of such an issue. However, it is an area where Board oversight is likely to be both necessary and helpful to the school leadership.

The issue has become a hot topic across the world. In the UK, there has been extensive press coverage, including articles by high-profile school leaders expressing divergent opinions. The government has changed its position and much coverage has been given to views expressed by Ofsted, the teaching unions, the Children’s Commissioner and the Princess of Wales. The recently-established Parents Against Mobile Phone Addiction in Young Adolescents (PAPAYA) argues for withholding mobile phones from young teenagers as “it gives young people an extra two to three years of childhood. Time to play, to enjoy each other’s company, and to concentrate on learning and social development without the distraction of constant notifications.”

Such debate is replicated globally, with schools and governments struggling to come to a clear position. A recent article, “Going back in time: the schools across Europe banning mobile phones” focuses on a school in the Netherlands that was previously an outlier and looks at others throughout Europe. It also tells us that more than half the states in the USA now limit the use of mobile phones in schools.

The harms occasioned by mobile phones in schools are numerous: they cause disruption in lessons; they deter sociability in free time; they facilitate access to harmful material; they provide opportunities for bullying; they facilitate cheating of various kinds; they encourage dependence – among many others.

In boarding schools as in family homes, unrestricted access to mobile devices interferes with sleep and encourages the development of online relationships that can be harmful. Many young people are dependent on their phones, unable to ignore notifications and suffer separation anxiety when deprived of them to take an exam.

The discussion is part of a growing emphasis on student wellbeing. There are fascinating insights into the topic in “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness” by Professor Jonathan Haidt of New York University. His introduction states, “My central claim… is that these two trends – overprotection in the real world and underproduction in the virtual world – are the major reasons why children born after 1995 became the anxious generation.” He calls for and justifies no smartphones before age 14, no social media before 16, phone-free schools and far more supervised play and childhood independence.

Schools increasingly need policies on mobile phone use and these policies require careful consideration of the implications. Where mobile devices have been used as tools for learning, alternative methods will be needed if use is restricted, and thought must be given to how young people are coached to make judgements when they are on their phones unsupervised. Where children are encouraged to interact with each other rather than with their phones, what consideration is given to those socially-isolated children whose apparent interest in their phones can be a defence mechanism? When bullies come offline, what actions are needed to ensure they don’t take to bullying behaviours around school instead – where are the risky areas? Above all, what do we want to encourage students to do in the time and space freed up by limiting access to devices?

Not all schools will wish to implement full bans on mobile phones during the school day in the manner of many others. Boards should be interested in why their school is choosing one approach over the other – a full ban, free access or somewhere between the two – and the evaluation, stakeholder communication and risk assessment that has informed the policy. It is not for governance to set policy, but a board has a legitimate interest in the wellbeing dimension, the implications for the student experience, and other outcomes. They will also be interested in how the reactions of students and complaints from parents will be managed.

One way governors might take an interest is when they visit their school. Where smartphones are permitted, do they see use that it is harmful? Where they are not, what changes do they see in behaviour? One head justified her ban because “(the students) would be heads down and not talking to one another, which made me think we must act now before their brains are completely rewired.” So, are students looking up and engaging? Another head remarked on the consequences of a ban in his school, “since we changed the phone policy we have seen a massive increase in participation. The numbers are phenomenal.” So, do you see a change in co-curricular activities? Another said of her students, “you will quite often see girls playing board games together…. There is no question that they read more now, but they also sit back and talk more.” So, is the Library seeing a resurgence in activity and are common rooms noisier and more sociable?

Whatever line your school has decided to take, it should be of interest to the board. As a governor, you have the same role to support and challenge in this area of school life as in any other – perhaps especially if the decision on how to proceed was difficult or contentious because of the multiplicity of views.

Focus on safeguarding for international schools

Safeguarding is a crucial responsibility for those involved in governance. It is basic good practice (and a requirement in some countries and in many accreditation systems) to have one member of a governing body with specific safeguarding responsibility, but it is equally clear that safeguarding must be the business of the whole governing body.

The duty of a school and its governing body for safeguarding has arguably even greater importance in international schools that feel a responsibility to adhere to international standards but where local safeguarding provision and agencies are non-existent, inconsistent or inappropriate for the circumstances. The role of the school, with the watchful, informed engagement of the governing body, becomes even more vital.

Governance oversight of safeguarding is essential as a check and balance, to make sure that safeguarding policies and practices are robust and properly resourced and led, and that the leadership is doing what it can to establish an appropriate culture of safeguarding. An informed and trained governing body will also stand alongside the leadership when challenging situations arise – and the rule to remember in safeguarding is that it is when, not if, situations arise.

Governors should usually expect to receive some safeguarding training at the beginning of the school year. This will often be a refresher, an update on changes in law or best practice and an overview of the systems in place in the school. If you are involved in governance and have not received either training or an update, it would be well worth raising the matter. It cannot be said often enough that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility.

Organisations providing guidance internationally

Safeguarding standards are, of course, a feature of all international accreditation and inspection systems and there are also safeguarding organisations and consultancies whose purpose is to advise international schools. But there are two sector organisations that have been established to raise the standards of safeguarding practice across international schools and to assist schools in maintaining the highest standards in safer recruitment and safeguarding.

The International Task Force on Child Protection (ITFCP) has a mandate “to apply the collective resources, expertise, and partnerships of its members to help international school communities address child protection challenges. Now a coalition of 90+ volunteers, ITFCP includes leaders of international education organizations, school leaders, counsellors and teachers, working collaboratively across professions with law enforcement officials and the medical community.”

ITFCP was established ten years ago under the umbrella of the Council for International Schools (CIS) with six other founding member organisations. It has well-established Safeguarding Standards which are a helpful tool for school self-evaluation.

Earlier this year, ITFCP published a very useful Safeguarding Governance Briefing for International Schools . The Briefing has been written with the wide variety of governance arrangements in international schools in mind. It covers key issues like: providing strategic oversight of safeguarding; appointing a designated safeguarding board member; child protection induction and training; safeguarding as a standing agenda item; reviewing and approving safeguarding policies and the annual report; legal responsibilities, obligations and cultural expectations; code of conduct; safeguarding audits; the board’s role in overseeing management of critical incidents.

Accompanying the Governance Briefing, ITFCP has a Resource Park to support safeguarding governance. This includes an audit checklist that can be used to check alignment with ITFCP’s Expectations of School Communities.

These tools can help governors to understand their safeguarding responsibilities and to inform their conversations with the school’s Designated Safeguarding Lead or equivalent. They should strengthen a school’s overall safeguarding provision and give reassurance to the school’s leadership that the governing body is also well-informed about safeguarding.

British International Schools can get further support from the British International Schools Safeguarding Coalition (BISSC) a “groundbreaking coalition (which) brings together the six UK Government supported and approved British international school associations and The Safeguarding Alliance to focus on and promote an even more joined up approach to safeguarding.” These associations are the Association of British Schools Overseas (AoBSO), British Schools in the Middle East (BSME), the Council of British International Schools (COBIS), the Federation of British International Schools in Asia (FOBISIA), the Latin American Heads Conference (LAHC) and the National Association of British Schools in Spain (NABSS).

Last year, the BISSC Safeguarding Code of Conduct was published. BISSC described this as “a pioneering document (which) represents a major step forward in safeguarding practice – supporting schools in implementing vital policies, reducing risk, and promoting a culture of accountability and continuous improvement. It is our aim that this Code of Conduct will not only raise the standards of safeguarding in schools worldwide but also set a new global benchmark of excellence.” The focus of the Code is on providing evidence of safer recruitment compliance and school workforce onboarding processes and the Code provides a useful tool for board evaluation of both.

It is heartening to find international school boards increasingly tuned in to the importance of safeguarding and safer recruitment. This reflects the emphasis on these areas in accreditation and inspection as well as the sector’s emphasis on wellbeing.

There is now a good deal of safeguarding support available for boards from accreditation agencies, sector associations and the two bodies identified above. The task of embedding a positive safeguarding culture in schools remains as challenging as ever, but the guidance and networks of support available for boards, and for board members with designated safeguarding responsibility, means it is now much less daunting.

Additional Note for Schools following KCSIE Guidance

Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE), issued and updated annually by the UK’s Department for Education (DfE), has been a foundation document for some international standards in safeguarding and child protection and there are many schools – mainly but not only British international schools – that use it to guide their practice.

Governors in schools that use KCSIE in this way should expect to have training at the beginning of the school year about the most recent changes in the guidance.

This year, DfE made only minor technical amendments. Board members who want to know about these amendments in order to discuss them with their Designated Safeguarding Lead, can find a useful update on the NSPCC website.

The absence of significant revisions this year provides an opportunity to consider how the 2024 changes have settled down in schools. The key elements were:

An expanded definition of safeguarding to cover help and support as soon as problems emerge and protection from maltreatment inside/outside the home, including online.
Amended early help guidance to reflect the needs of children frequently missing or suspended or with offending parents
An extended definition of abuse to include the witnessing of it
A requirement that DSL records should include reasons for decisions
There was also further data protection guidance arising from Designated Safeguarding Leads’ growing responsibility for students’ safety outside school and especially online.

Guarding the Digital Gates: Why Cybersecurity Belongs on Every Board Agenda

When we think about school governance, issues like safeguarding, financial oversight, or strategic planning usually top the agenda. Yet in today’s interconnected world, one of the most pressing risks facing international schools is less visible but just as serious: cybersecurity.

Over the past few years, schools worldwide have increasingly been the target of cyberattacks. From ransomware shutting down entire networks to data breaches exposing sensitive information, the threats are both real and costly. In the UK, for example, the Harris Federation – a group of 50 government funded schools – suffered a ransomware attack that disabled its systems. Although they refused to pay the ransom, restoring their infrastructure cost reportedly cost around half a million pounds.

Why does this matter to international schools? Because the vulnerabilities are the same everywhere. International schools hold large amounts of sensitive data – from student records and medical details to staff information and financial accounts. Their global profiles, diverse communities, and sometimes less centralised IT structures can make them especially attractive to cybercriminals.

This is not just a technical issue for IT teams. Cybersecurity is fundamentally a leadership and governance issue. When a breach occurs, the critical decisions – whether to pay a ransom, how to communicate with parents, how to rebuild trust – sit squarely with senior leadership and boards. As one expert put it, governors must “do the thinking before you need it.”

Board members don’t need to be technical experts, but they do need to ask the right questions of school leadership:

Does our school have a cyber risk mitigation strategy?

How are we protecting sensitive data, and who is accountable for monitoring this?

Have we run through scenarios highlighting what we would do if an attack hit tomorrow?

Is cybersecurity embedded in our risk register, with mitigation and insurance in place?

A breach that exposes personal data or disrupts operations can damage not only the school’s systems but also its standing in the eyes of parents, students, and accrediting bodies.

Cybersecurity should also be understood in a way that is similar to safeguarding: everyone in the school community has a role to play. Strong passwords, phishing awareness, and safe data practices are cultural habits, not just technical protocols. Boards should be looking for assurance that leaders are embedding this culture across staff and students.

There is also a governance balancing act to consider: the trade-off between security and accessibility. Systems must be robust enough to keep intruders out, but not so restrictive that they paralyse learning or administration. Boards should be seeking evidence that school leaders are navigating this tension thoughtfully and sustainably.

Preparation is key. Building relationships with external cyber experts in advance, investing in training for staff, and ensuring that insurance policies are up to date can dramatically reduce the impact of an attack. When an incident occurs, the speed and clarity of the response will determine whether it becomes a temporary disruption or a reputational crisis.

For board members, the message is clear. Cybersecurity is not optional, and it cannot be delegated away. Asking challenging questions, ensuring strategies are in place, and keeping the issue alive on the board agenda are essential steps to protect students, staff, and the wider community.

In an age where international schools face as many digital risks as physical ones, boards have a duty to stand guard at the digital gates.

Three Questions Every International School Governor Should Ask About Cybersecurity

Risk & Strategy – Does our school have a cyber risk mitigation strategy, and is cybersecurity embedded in our risk register?
Accountability & Culture – Who is accountable for cybersecurity at the senior level, and how are staff and students being trained to build a culture of awareness?
Preparedness & Response – If an attack happened tomorrow, do we know who would make the key decisions, how we would communicate with parents, and how quickly we could recover?

VAT, risk and the relentless to-do list

The role of the Bursar has always carried weight – but in today’s climate, that weight is increasing. As our latest research, The Art of the Bursar shows, Bursars across the UK independent school sector are facing mounting pressures, not just in terms of volume but in the breadth and intensity of the demands placed upon them.

Financial stress is perhaps the most visible pressure point, in particular with the introduction of VAT on school fees. For many schools, this single policy change threatens to fundamentally reshape their operating models. But the financial challenge is compounded by a range of other operational and strategic issues. Rising payroll costs, inflationary pressures, and long-term affordability concerns have intensified the need for rigorous financial oversight, modelling and scenario planning.

Yet finance is only the beginning. Bursars must also stay ahead of a rapidly evolving compliance landscape. In our research, compliance and regulation were described as not only one of the fastest-growing areas of responsibility, but also one of the most burdensome. From health and safety and safeguarding, to data protection, charity law, and increasingly complex HR regulation – the Bursar’s portfolio is increasingly regulatory by nature. It’s no surprise that strategic thinking and legal awareness are among the most in-demand skills in the role.

HR, too, has taken centre stage. Around 80% of Bursars now hold responsibility for HR leadership, often without formal training in the discipline. This includes employee relations, recruitment, contractual and legal risk, wellbeing, and increasingly, the design and leadership of organisational culture. These are sensitive, high-stakes issues that demand emotional intelligence, confident communication, and an ability to hold space in difficult conversations.

Adding to the complexity is the parental interface. Bursars frequently handle fee-related queries, complaints, and other emotive or contentious issues, including decisions about bursary awards. These interactions can feel more transactional than in the past, as expectations rise and tolerance for ambiguity diminishes. Bursars find themselves not just as financial managers, but as the first line of engagement with increasingly assertive parent stakeholders.

In our focus groups, many Bursars described the sheer relentlessness of the job. One told us, “It’s not the individual tasks that are hard – it’s the volume, the pace, and the constant shifting of priorities.” Others spoke of firefighting as the default operating mode, with little time left for strategic thinking. This is particularly acute in smaller schools, where limited internal infrastructure means the Bursar carries an extraordinary breadth of responsibility.

The result is a role defined by urgency, complexity, and – at times – isolation. While most Bursars are deeply committed to their schools and draw meaning and purpose from their work, many expressed concern about sustainability. The report notes that high turnover and burnout are very real risks, especially where expectations are misaligned with capacity or support is insufficient.

So what can schools do?

First, they must be realistic about the scope of the role. It’s tempting to add new responsibilities to the Bursar’s remit, especially when internal capacity is limited. But doing so without corresponding adjustments to support, structure, or delegation is not a sustainable model. Schools must review role design carefully – particularly in the wake of new pressures like VAT and compliance growth.

Second, they must prioritise investment in team capacity. This doesn’t always mean adding new posts. It can also mean upskilling existing staff, clarifying responsibilities, and streamlining reporting lines. Delegation is only possible when those being delegated to are equipped to carry the load.

Third, schools should explicitly protect time for strategic work. This might mean formalising ‘non-operational’ days, allocating project ownership differently, or simply making it culturally acceptable for the Bursar to step back from day-to-day demands in order to think. Strategic contribution is one of the greatest assets a Bursar brings to a school – but it cannot happen in the margins.

Finally, support systems matter. Coaching, mentoring, and professional networks all play a role in reducing isolation, building confidence, and enabling sustainable leadership. Our research found that these forms of support are often underused – especially by those who feel pressure to appear entirely self-reliant.

At RSAcademics, we help schools take a long-term view. That means working with leaders and governors to define realistic expectations, structure effective teams, and build resilient, future-proof roles. Because for schools to thrive, their leaders must too.

Facing operational overload? RSAcademics helps schools reassess roles, reset priorities, and build capacity for strategic leadership.