Discover our latest in-depth report, most-read blog post or key appointment announcements. We spotlight the content that matters most right now, giving you quick access to the insight shaping conversations in schools today.
“We’ve got the best job in the world—there’s just too much of it.”“It’s the most stressful job… but it’s also by far the most rewarding.”“I’ve never worked harder, but I’ve never enjoyed it more.”“Headship is a privilege.”“This job is the most extraordinary privilege.”
One of the most encouraging findings in our interviews with independent school heads is that, despite everything, the sense of vocation hasn’t disappeared, or even diminished. That may sound surprising, given how candidly heads spoke about exhaustion, complaints, finance, governance, staffing, regulation and the sense that more keeps being added while very little is taken away; yet alongside all of that, many still described headship as a privilege, a joy, and in one memorable phrase, “the best job in the world — just too much of it”.
That distinction matters: none of our research suggests that heads have fallen out of love with schools, pupils, staff or educational purpose. If anything, the opposite is often true; the parts of the role that still give most energy are usually the most human ones — seeing pupils flourish, developing colleagues, holding a community together, shaping culture, and knowing that the school is better because of the work being done.
The difficulty is not that the role has lost meaning; it is that meaning is now being carried inside a wider organisational purpose: Heads are still educators, but they are also commercial strategists, risk managers, public communicators, complaint handlers, governors’ partners, employers and organisational designers. It is possible to love the work and still find the current shape of the work too full, too exposed, or too personally depleting – or just to be frustrated that more of the role is not to promote the flourishing of young people.
For aspiring heads and senior deputies, this may be the most useful framing: headship isn’t a trap to avoid, nor a romantic vocation to enter unexamined. It is an extraordinary role that now requires clearer preparation — financial confidence, governance literacy, strong peer support, a willingness to use expertise, and the discipline to build a life around the role rather than letting the role consume the life.
There is hope here, but it is a practical kind of hope. The heads who sound most optimistic don’t necessarily face fewer pressures; they more often describe stronger teams, clearer strategy, better delegation, good governance, trusted networks and a continuing connection to educational purpose. In other words, they are not simply more resilient people — though some are remarkably resilient — they are better supported by the structures and relationships around them, and they aren’t setting out to be the heroic, monarchical leaders of old.
So perhaps the message to future heads isn’t “be careful what you wish for”; it is more hopeful, and more demanding: go in with your eyes open; choose context carefully; ask about the team, the chair, the board, the finances, the culture of delegation and the support around the role. The best job in the world may still be exactly that — but only if the “too much of it” is taken seriously before the appointment is made.
This article forms part of a series exploring themes emerging from 20% More: The Art of Headship 2026, the latest phase of RSAcademics’ research into how headship is practised and experienced in UK independent schools.
Through the series, Richard explores some of the challenges facing today’s Heads and considers what they mean for schools, leadership teams and those responsible for supporting and appointing school leaders.
Look out for the next article in the series, exploring another key theme from the research.
This is a busy time for senior leadership appointments. It’s timely, therefore, to offer some observations about what we are seeing this year. Some of these repeat messages from previous articles – they are points that bear repetition – some are issues on our minds now.
One piece of advice first: don’t panic if you are seeking an international appointment for August-September 2027 and have not yet found what you are looking for. The pattern of the year has evolved and new opportunities will be advertised all the time, including well into 2027.
And the same ‘don’t panic’ advice goes to those making appointments internationally. The candidate market is now strong across the year, with plenty of good candidates available in the new year as well as in this more traditionally busy period.
Early conversations
We have written about this before, but do take advantage of the preliminary, confidential conversations that we offer – as do our colleagues in other recruitment companies. They are your chance to find out more, decide whether or not a role is for you and, if it is, to make sure you tailor your application accordingly. You can save a lot of time and emotional energy if it’s not likely to be right, but you can strengthen your understanding if it is.
The application letter (and AI, obviously…)
There is a lot of chatter about whether an application letter remains a valid part of an appointment process. We have written at length about the importance of the application letter, and we hold to the view that it is very valid. There may be variations on a theme – a video, for example – but for the positions at senior leadership level that we work on, the letter does a lot. We do not want your CV in narrative form – that generic approach will count against you. The letter gives us a chance to understand why you are interested in a role and your alignment, your perception of it, and how your experience equips you for it. Do take it seriously.
We know that many candidates will use AI to help – even more now than just a few months ago. But poor use of AI can damage your application. Unless you get it right and own the letter, it can become formulaic, with the same phrases cropping up across letters, and too much even-handedness leading to the wrong emphases. Most important is what’s missing: the genuine excitement, the occasional personal aside, the careful aligning of experience, the nuanced understanding of the role that comes from reading between the lines of the candidate brief. The letter will tell us a lot but it won’t be compelling. You will want to use AI, but take the time to give the letter your own stamp of authenticity and to make sure it says exactly what you want it to say. We spend a long time reading application letters: it is often your personal response to the requirements or the deep insights into your motivation that make you stand out.
Safer recruitment
We are constantly surprised at how leaders who will be on top of safer recruitment good practice in their schools don’t think about it in relation to their own applications. They may have a gap in their career that is easily explained, yet they don’t explain it. They would not dream of not taking a reference from current and previous employers when they are appointing, but they don’t apply that when listing their own referees. These are important indicators for us, and it would be negligent if we did not do what you would do – question what it means in terms of understanding of safer recruitment practice.
Visa requirements
One reason for that initial, informal conversation is to explore whether there are any particular visa or related requirements that may rule you out for a role. It is also worth doing your own research. Remember that immigration issues are not something in the school’s control. Age is a common criterion, but it still takes candidates by surprise. Too often, sadly, relationship status or identity are factors internationally – often very much at odds with the values of the school. Sometimes health conditions are covered by a visa requirement – that is something you may be better off researching yourself. It’s one of the frustrations of what we do: we may have a perfect candidate for a role, but there’s no point getting too far into a conversation if they won’t be able to work in the country or will be at risk once they are there.
The transition of senior leaders in international schools is rarely easy. A Principal departs at the end of one school year, often to another part of the world. Their successor comes in two months later, often from another part of the world. And never the twain shall meet. This would not happen in many other sectors. Of course, it’s not always that way, and just because it’s not easy does not mean it can’t be better. It’s this challenge that The Space Between: rethinking leadership transition in international schools seeks to tackle.
The Space Between is the report of a research collaboration between RSAcademics and MSB. Leadership transition sits at an intersection of our respective interests: senior leadership appointments and school strategy for RSAcademics, and coaching and the wellbeing of leaders for MSB
Experience from our multiple perspectives told us that transition deserved attention, and headline data from the report validates this. 44% of the 150 contributors to the research had recently taken up a new senior leadership role, and 60% had overseen the appointment of such a role. The respondents were therefore well-qualified to comment, and only 24% said that international schools manage transition well or extremely well.
It is important to stress that change itself is not the issue. Yes, there is too much change and leadership tenures are often far too short, resulting in leaders who have been unable to make a sustained impact in their roles. But we are in a world where the pace of change is unprecedented. In schools, leadership change can be an important opportunity for renewal and refocusing; and in international schools, experience from elsewhere can be impactful and enriching. The survey showed it is how change is handled, not change itself, that is the issue, but also that handling change poorly is at the root of too much change.
In The Space Between, we have tried to go beyond presenting the problem. We have looked at some of the consequences and used the data to suggest solutions.
A question of alignment
One clear outcome of the research is that challenges with transition are a major contributor to leadership turnover. 65% of senior leaders who contributed said they had actively considered leaving their roles within the last six months. One finding was startling in its clarity, even if not a surprise: practical relocation support is viewed as much less important than the support a leader needs to do their job well. 85% of respondents identified trust between the leader and governance (regardless of governance model) as one of the key factors, followed by autonomy to fulfil the job (76%), and cultural and values alignment (67%). It is in these areas that problems arise when insufficient attention is given to transition. The report sums this up with the idea that retention is a question of alignment, not endurance.
Phases of transition
The Space Between separates transition into three distinct phases: Transition Out, Transition In, Early Leadership.
Transition Out is a particular point of vulnerability. Only 18% of Heads reported a structured handover with documented knowledge transfer when they left a school. When it happens, it is often at the initiative of the outgoing Head. 58% did not even have a structured exit conversation. The timing of appointments and the annual cycle are impediments, but they do not rule out some form of handover. It is shocking to think how much institutional knowledge and continuity was lost in the schools beyond that 18%.
Transition Inis multifaceted. It was striking how the views of the transition experience declined from relative satisfaction with relocation support and an induction programme to much lower levels of satisfaction with areas such as success measures and a transition plan.
And yet, arrival into a new school is the most crucial time for a new leader. It is when legitimacy, relationships and understanding are established, all of which are the key to future success. 65% of respondents thought that understanding the organisational culture should be a top priority, closely followed by relationships with the senior team, and with governance and key stakeholders. Yet, many reported being presented with immediate priorities and expectations that had not previously been discussed, seemed to come out of nowhere, and were arguably not essential, other than as a way of asking the leader to prove themselves.
Transition Inoverlaps into Early Leadership. The report contends that this is the least visible and least understood phase. Its duration varies according to context, but it usually means well beyond the first term or first 100 days, and is often longer than many realise. Leaders will typically have authority but they will not yet have established their legitimacy, and their relationships and understanding are continuing to evolve. This tension between formal authority and contextual legitimacy defines not only the Early Leadership phase but what follows. It can be the foundation for a highly successful and impactful period of leadership, but it can also create the conditions for continuing uncertainty and instability and even an early departure. Good communication between leaders and governance and clarity of expectations came through as most important prerequisites for a successful transition. One major challenge comes from the tension that started during the previous phase: the expectation that a leader should demonstrate their authority in visible ways without regard for how well-developed their legitimacy is.
The leader’s role – what can you do?
Our aim is that The Space Between can become part of the solution. There are things that leaders can do to play their part:
We hope that the report is itself a way of shining a light on the challenges – and indeed the opportunities to get it right. When you are approaching the end of your time in a school, why not download the report and share it with those involved in governance – board members, an owner, advisory board or group executives? If you are incoming – depending on the relationships you have established – you could do the same.
You should be prepared to talk about transition during the appointment process. Some of The Space Between’s findings now inform our appointments conversations with client schools and present areas to probe with candidates.
As you approach your departure, you can take the initiative. Discuss the issue with your governance body, work with those around you to consider what sort of plan is needed. It’s tough in some situations when there will be so much going on in your final few months, but creating a plan of your own can be a way of preserving what you have achieved.
Think about the opportunities for handover. Discuss bringing in your successor for short periods. If you are the successor, be active in suggesting periods when you may be able to travel to the school – it will be an important signal about how you want to engage.
If you have discussed transition, your likely priorities and the school’s expectations during the interview, try to find ways of carrying on that conversation as you prepare to take up the role. You want to avoid silence between what was discussed then and what is presented when you arrive. Keep the communications open if you can.
Play your part in getting expectations clear. Lack of clarity is not a one-way thing; there were hints in the research that some incoming Heads try to avoid these conversations. That could be the sign of a weak leader wishing to avoid accountability, but it could also be the sign of one who has been stung before and wants to get the lay of the land first – but, by this point, it may be too late.
That relates to another point that comes through in the research as well as from years of observation. Often (not always) when relationships break down, and expectations become misaligned, it is not a question of ill intent on either side, but the absence of clear and open communication. Try to avoid a vacuum. The conferred authority-establishing legitimacy paradigm could itself be a focus for some of the conversations during the Early Leadership phase.
Transition is a nervous time for everyone – the departing leader, the new leader, those in governance, the senior leadership team, staff, students and families. It is in everyone’s interests to get it right. It is definitely a governance responsibility, but it is also a responsibility shared by the departing and incoming leaders.
Earlier this summer, alongside my colleagues and experienced former Heads, Martin Collier and Andrew Nott, we set out to interview 56 independent school heads about their thoughts on the changing nature of the role of headship. We’d anticipated that these would be interesting interviews, but we were struck by the degree to which this interest extended into the surprising. Many counter-intuitive themes emerged, heads were candid, open and vulnerable (of which I shall say more below), and many of the themes we had expected were quite different in reality.
To ensure consistency, we asked the same thirteen questions of all heads. In many interviews, the responses were – as one of our team put it – lightly guided monologues. Some things were predictable: the level of intelligent introspection and evaluation of circumstances was outstandingly high across all the heads we spoke to. It was clear that heads are not only reviewing the market in which they operate, the product they are selling and the mechanics of doing so excellently and efficiently; they are also observing their own experience and performance – like a sailor who is able to trim the sails while simultaneously reading the weather forecast and navigating a complex route.
What surprised us most
Where were the surprises? First of all, interest in and engagement with the research was extremely high. We monitored the composition of our interview cohort by size of school, region, co-ed vs single sex, boarding vs day, standalone vs all-through vs group, and by gender of the head, before asking 60 heads to take part, fully prepared to have to extend our list. However, 56 of those asked said yes, and were astonishingly generous with their time and open in their reflections.
Secondly, we found the word ‘Head’ to be surprisingly meaningful. I’d expected the lead person in one organisation to have very little indeed in common with some others. As it turned out, the nature of the pressures spread across the whole cohort. If plotted as Venn diagrams, every circle would have had a strong overlap with many others – and while it is true that not every circle overlapped with every other circle, there were more similarities, and in surprising places, than there were differences. For example, heads of the smallest schools are as concerned with organisational re-design as those in the largest. Similarly, heads of the largest and smallest schools are finding their roles are expanding (upwards and sideways), although the nature of the expansion – and the available solutions – differ. We found that the term ‘Head’ is still useful – even if it has become a collective noun which takes in Principals, CEOs, Wardens, Headteachers, and High Masters, among the plethora of job titles in the sector. In this article, therefore, ‘Head’ is used to cover all these titles and to describe the person in the most senior position in their organisation (although exactly what we mean by ‘organisation’ is also open to question!)
Given the degree of overlap between Heads, it was surprising that many did not reference conversations with other heads as a means of support, although that did surface on rare occasions. Often, we were told that local cluster groups appear no longer to offer the collegial give-and-take they did a decade or more ago. In the context of a shrinking pool of pupils whose parents are seeking independent education, local competition has clearly grown sharp elbows in many places.
Toby Greany’s report on Sustainable Leadership found that between a quarter and a third of maintained sector heads feel themselves to be ‘Sometimes…’ or ‘Mostly sinking’. Reassuringly, our interviews did not find this degree of struggle among independent sector heads, but we did find that the level of pressure is often high. However, for many the job remains a highly fulfilling one – one head emphasised, “I properly love my job!”. In some cases, heads traced their enjoyment to the fact that they felt their organisations were thriving, even in the difficult circumstances that all schools are experiencing.
The importance of agency
One of the clearest findings of the research came as a surprise – while we had expected the relationship with the Chair to be the number one cause of good wellbeing and sustainability among heads (and we did find, unsurprisingly, that this is important), it was more significant whether or not Heads had created the foundations to retain agency. To borrow a marine metaphor again, where the conditions for speed to remain high had been set, the sense of holding the wheel and being able to steer a course had a strong correlation with wellbeing and job satisfaction.
Generally, heads had achieved this through redesigning the posts in their top team – creating a new structure to meet new challenges. Where resources allowed, this restructure carved out space for the Head to be strategic – sometimes with a Senior Deputy Head, or Heads of School(s), taking on day-to-day operational issues. Where staffing allowed for separation of role – strategic to one person, operational to others – this was generally beneficial for organisation and head.
We found that the next most important quality of those heads who remain optimistic about their role is that they reported a senior team of sufficient quality that they could be trusted to run the school without the head’s direct involvement in many operational details. Investing in the quality of your direct reports was reported as time well spent by many.
Both of these suggest that the payback of a restructure and the recruitment of people well suited to the roles is well worth the time and expense – not just for the school, but also for the health and wellbeing of the Head.
Richard Backhouse is hosting a number of lunchtime webinars in which he will outline more of the findings of the research project he led this summer, assisted by Martin Collier and Andrew Nott. These will involve a short presentation followed by an open discussion with all participants invited to join in. There is no charge for these webinars. If you would like to join one and have not already been invited to do so, please email amycostello@rsacademics.com, and we will reserve a place on the next available webinar for you.
The independent school market has changed significantly, and not simply because fees have increased. Affordability is under greater pressure. Birth rates have been falling for some time and smaller cohorts are already moving through the system. However, the parents making decisions about independent education are changing too, as are the ways in which they research, compare and choose schools.
At the recent HMC Conference, I talked about three questions which I think help schools make sense of what they are seeing:
Are the families there?
Can they afford us?
Will they choose us?
They sound simple, but they describe quite different challenges.
If the number of children in your realistic market is falling, better marketing cannot create more children. If there are sufficient families but fewer can afford the fees, you have an affordability issue. And if there are enough families who can afford you but they are choosing another school, you need to understand why.
The difficulty is that schools don’t always have enough evidence to know which of these is driving what they see.
What do families value now?
The third question, will they choose us?, is becoming particularly interesting. Schools have traditionally had familiar ways of describing their value: results, teaching, facilities, opportunities, pastoral care and the breadth of the experience they provide. Those things haven’t suddenly become unimportant. But our research suggests the way families think about value is evolving.
Parents are making a significant financial commitment in a less certain world. They are asking questions about what an education will enable for their child and looking for evidence that what a school promises is what their child will actually experience. This has implications not just for recruitment, but for retention too. Families don’t make the value judgement once at the point of entry and then forget about it:
Recruitment is a choice.
Retention is a choice made again.
Knowing what parents value, where their confidence is strongest and where it begins to weaken is therefore increasingly important.
Do you know, or do you think you know?
For 25 years, RSAcademics has focused on understanding parents and school markets. Today we hear directly from thousands of parents every year, across many different types of schools. That gives us a perspective which is difficult to replicate from within one school.
And one thing our research has taught us repeatedly is the danger of assuming that what a school thinks its parents value is necessarily what parents themselves would say. A parent survey can help. But on its own it is only part of the picture.
What are prospective families telling you? Why did some choose another school? Why are others leaving? What does your admissions pipeline show? How is your catchment changing? How does what your parents are telling you compare with what we are seeing elsewhere?
Bringing those different perspectives together can produce a very different understanding of the challenge. And then comes the question we think is most important:
So what?
Collecting data is relatively easy. Knowing what to ask, understanding what the evidence really means and deciding what to do as a result is much harder. That is where our 25 years of research, our breadth of evidence and our understanding of schools come together.
We can help you understand what your parents really think and what is happening in your market. But we don’t stop with the findings. We help you work out what they mean for your school and what you should do next.
If you think you know what is driving recruitment, retention and parental choice in your school, perhaps you should ask yourself this question: how do you know?
There is an understandable rhythm to admissions and marketing planning. Open events return to familiar places in the calendar, campaigns are refreshed, prospectuses updated and budgets adjusted. Yet the recruitment landscape has changed significantly. Repeating last year’s activity, even with improvements, may no longer be an adequate starting point.
Planning for the next cycle needs to begin with the market itself. Schools need to understand how the number and profile of families within reach are changing, where demand may come under pressure and where opportunities are emerging. They also need to know how they are perceived because demographic opportunity does not automatically translate into demand.
A smaller national market will produce very different local effects
The latest Department for Education projections point to a substantial contraction in the school-age population in England. The number of pupils attending state-funded schools is projected to fall by 726,000, or 9.3%, between 2026 and 2031. Within this, nursery and primary numbers are expected to decline by 473,000. Secondary numbers, which had continued to grow as earlier population peaks moved through the system, have now begun to fall too.
These projections are not forecasts for the independent sector and they do not determine the future of any individual school. They do set the broader context in which schools will be competing. In many areas, the pool of children will become smaller at the same time as affordability and parental confidence remain under pressure.
The 2026 ISC Census provides a more immediate view from within the independent sector. Like-for-like pupil numbers fell by 3.8% between 2025 and 2026 following a 2.4% decline in the previous year. The latest fall was not distributed evenly. Prep and primary pupil numbers declined more sharply than secondary numbers while some established entry points experienced decreases of more than 6%.
Our demographic and catchment analysis frequently reveals greater variation than national or sector figures suggest. Schools operating in the same county and occasionally only a few miles apart can face markedly different levels of opportunity and risk. Local birth rates, housing development, family movement, transport links and affordability combine differently in every market. Changes within a particular age group can also affect schools at different times depending on their entry points and pupil journey.
This variation can easily be obscured by overall roll. A stable pupil total may conceal weakening demand at an important intake that will affect the school for several years. Pressure in one year group can equally distract attention from an opportunity elsewhere. The strategic picture becomes clearer when leaders examine demand by age, geography and entry point rather than relying on a single total.
Demographics are only part of the market picture
Catchment analysis also needs to be considered alongside competition and perception. Through our work, we regularly find that the schools families actually consider are not always those leadership teams regard as their closest competitors. A school outside the expected competitor set may be drawing families from a particular geographical area or gaining ground with parents seeking a different balance of academic ambition, pastoral support and value.
The difference between a school’s self-perception and its position in the minds of families can be equally revealing. Parents may see a school as more academic, more nurturing, more selective, more expensive or better value than leaders assume. These perceptions influence whether the school enters a family’s consideration set before an enquiry has been submitted or a visit arranged.
Our research with parents shows how competitive that consideration set can be. Among those who looked seriously at alternatives alongside their final choice, two-thirds considered at least two or three other schools. For senior school entry, more than 10% seriously considered four or more alternatives. Around three-quarters of London families had other schools under serious consideration with the range of competitors tending to widen for senior school decisions.
Families are therefore comparing schools throughout the admissions journey rather than evaluating each one in isolation. They compare the relevance of the proposition, the quality of their interactions and the confidence each school gives them about their child’s future. A school may run an effective admissions process on its own terms but still lose ground if another school appears more responsive or offers a clearer point of difference.
Understanding demand before deciding on activity
A demographic and catchment review should not simply produce a forecast of pupil numbers. The more useful analysis identifies how the school’s prospective population is changing, where different family groups live and which factors are likely to influence whether they will consider the school. Competitive position and market perception add context that population data alone cannot provide.
This creates a more informed basis for admissions and marketing decisions. It allows schools to distinguish between a short-term fluctuation and a longer-term change in demand, test whether established entry points remain sustainable and identify areas where a credible opportunity exists. It may also challenge investment in activities designed for a market that no longer looks quite as it did.
None of this assumes that demographic decline leads inevitably to falling rolls. We see schools strengthen their share of changing markets and extend their reach into new communities. Their decisions are more effective when they are based on a detailed understanding of local demand rather than national averages or historical assumptions.
Before the next marketing plan is finalised, leadership teams and governors should ask whether they understand the market they are planning for. Last year’s admissions figures describe what has happened. Demographic and catchment analysis can help explain the forces shaping what happens next.
Does your understanding of the market reflect what is changing on the ground?
RSAcademics’ demographic and catchment analysis brings together population trends, pupil data, geography, competitor activity and market insight. We help schools identify pressure and opportunity by entry point, test assumptions about their catchment and build a clearer evidence base for strategic planning.
If your school is reviewing future pupil demand, market position or admissions priorities, contact us to discuss the questions the analysis should answer and the scope of a review info@rsacademics.com
Governance in international schools is shaped by ownership, organisational structure and history. Different models can be highly effective, and all bring their own challenges. Across those differences, two factors consistently underpin strong governance:
clarity and understanding of the governance model across the school community
continuity of governance
Most governing bodies devote considerable attention to continuity within the school itself. They monitor enrolment, leadership, staffing, finances, facilities and reputation. They consider whether the school can sustain its educational offer and adapt to changing circumstances.
The continuity of governance receives less attention. It tends to become a focus only when something changes: a Chair steps down, an owner retires, a board turns over quickly, or a group restructures. Yet governance continuity is just as important to a school’s long-term stability as leadership, finances or enrolment.
Inspection and accreditation bodies are increasingly looking beyond governance structures to how governance functions in practice. The key question is not whether a board exists, but whether governance is effective, understood and capable of remaining effective through change.
The risk of personal dependency
Many schools benefit from individuals with deep institutional knowledge and long-standing commitment. A Chair may understand the background to complex decisions. An owner may embody the school’s founding vision. An experienced governor may provide expertise that the board relies upon. These are valuable strengths. The risk arises when essential knowledge, relationships or judgement are held primarily by individuals rather than embedded within the governance system.
This vulnerability is often invisible until a transition occurs. Governance may appear highly effective while trusted individuals remain in place. The challenge emerges when they leave. A new Chair, owner or group executive may inherit responsibilities, assumptions and expectations that have never been fully articulated or documented.
Strong governance continuity does not depend on the same people remaining in post. In fact, renewal is essential. What matters is that new people can understand not only what decisions have been made, but why.
When governance relies on interpretation
Formal structures tell only part of the story. Schools may have boards, committees, delegated authority frameworks and policies, but day-to-day governance can still depend heavily on custom, personality or inherited practice.
This can take many forms. In proprietary schools, relationships between ownership, governance and leadership may be clear to those involved but less clear to new leaders. In schools with elected boards, governors may need to distinguish carefully between representation and strategic oversight. In school groups, local governance may operate alongside regional or corporate accountability. None of these arrangements is inherently problematic, but difficulties arise when the operating model is assumed rather than explicit.
Effective governing bodies can explain where authority sits, how decisions are made, how challenge is encouraged and how leaders are held to account. Just as importantly, they can explain how new governors and leaders are inducted into that culture and way of working. Without that clarity, individual interpretation tends to fill the gap.
We recently worked with a school where a respected owner was preparing to pass responsibilities to the next generation. Recognising that continuity could not rely solely on personal relationships, he deliberately documented key expectations and strengthened the role of the advisory board. The objective was not to preserve existing arrangements unchanged, but to ensure stability through transition.
Continuity through change
Our recent research report, The Space Between, highlights that leadership transition is often treated as an event rather than a process. Governance plays a critical role throughout that process. New Heads need more than a job description and strategic plan. They need clarity about mandate, authority, priorities and expectations. They also need governance that can distinguish between the strategic principles that should endure and the historical assumptions that may no longer serve the school well.
Where governance continuity is strong, new leaders inherit both context and freedom. They understand the history of the school without feeling constrained by it. Where continuity is weaker, a leadership challenge can quickly become a governance challenge, with poorly articulated expectations creating uncertainty on all sides.
Governance self-evaluation as stewardship
Governance self-evaluation is sometimes viewed as a compliance exercise. However, at its best, it is an important act of stewardship. The most valuable evaluations look beyond structures and attendance records. They examine:
the quality of discussion,
the relationship between governance and leadership,
the use of evidence,
the handling of disagreement, and
the effectiveness of decision-making.
They also consider whether the board has the capabilities and perspectives needed for the future, not simply those that suited the past.
This is not about imposing a single model of governance; international schools are too diverse for that. It is about ensuring that whatever model exists is clear, resilient and capable of supporting the school over time.
A useful question
A simple question can provide a valuable starting point:
If either the Chair, owner, most experienced board member or Head left within the next year, what would become uncertain?
If the answer reveals concerns about decision-making, accountability, strategic direction or the relationship between governance and leadership, there may be more dependency on individuals than the school intends.
In our experience, this is not unusual. Governance often develops through trusted relationships. The key is to ensure that those understandings become visible, transferable and sustainable.
Another highly regarded school we worked with provides a useful insight into how apparently excellent governance can slip into bad habits. A strong and positive relationship between the board and the Head had gradually led the board to step back from some aspects of its responsibility. The Head, acting entirely appropriately, filled the resulting space. The situation emerged not because governance was weak, but because successful relationships can sometimes obscure where accountability should sit. Regular governance review helps identify and address such risks before they become significant.
In conclusion, governance continuity is not about preserving the past. It is about ensuring that schools retain clarity, accountability and strategic direction as people, circumstances and priorities change. In international schools, where governance arrangements can vary considerably, that continuity is one of the most important forms of stewardship.
Governors, proprietors and board members have access to more information than ever before. Policies, reports, surveys, performance indicators and external reviews all provide valuable forms of assurance. Yet many of the factors that ultimately shape a school’s success cannot be fully captured in a dashboard or board paper.
A more revealing question is often this: what is it actually like to be part of this school?
That question sits at the heart of culture. In our work with international schools, we regularly observe that the strongest schools are not necessarily those with the most extensive policies or the greatest volume of data. Rather, they are schools where the experience of students, staff and families aligns closely with the values and aspirations the school seeks to promote.
For international schools, this challenge can be particularly acute. Communities are often diverse, mobile and shaped by different expectations of education, communication, inclusion and wellbeing. Consequently, culture deserves the same level of attention as finance, educational outcomes and strategy. It influences trust, retention, safeguarding, wellbeing and community confidence; therefore, it is a fundamental governance concern.
Looking beyond policies
Schools should be able to demonstrate that they have robust policies covering safeguarding, behaviour, wellbeing, inclusion and digital conduct. Governance has a clear role in ensuring these frameworks exist and are reviewed regularly. However, policies alone reveal relatively little about how a school is experienced day to day.
A school may have an exemplary safeguarding policy, but governors should also want to understand whether students feel confident reporting concerns, whether staff respond consistently and whether families trust the school’s processes. Similarly, a wellbeing policy may be widely communicated, yet staff may still experience workloads or patterns of communication that undermine its intent.
One of the challenges with culture is that governance often becomes aware of an issue only once it has surfaced elsewhere. Staff exhaustion may emerge through retention difficulties; a weak sense of belonging may become visible through complaints, withdrawal or disengagement; poor digital habits may attract attention only after an incident has affected relationships, learning or wellbeing.
The policy itself may be entirely sound. The more useful question is whether everyday behaviours, systems and relationships reflect the standards that the policy describes.
What meaningful assurance looks like
The most useful forms of cultural assurance combine evidence with interpretation. Survey findings, complaints data, retention patterns, safeguarding trends and exit feedback can all provide valuable insights, but none tells the whole story in isolation.
The strongest boards build a picture from multiple sources and look for points of alignment or tension between them. Quantitative evidence may indicate a trend; conversations, observations and qualitative feedback often explain what sits behind it.
In practice, this means looking beyond formal reports. Surveys can reveal how students, staff and parents perceive the school. Retention and absence data may point towards emerging concerns. Complaints and concerns can highlight gaps between expectation and experience. School visits, learning walks and structured conversations with different groups within the community can provide insight that rarely appears in board papers.
We often observe governing bodies becoming heavily reliant on formal reporting while having limited visibility of how the school is experienced by those within it. Equally, some boards develop strong anecdotal impressions but lack sufficient evidence to determine whether those experiences are widely shared. The most effective approach combines both. Data provides patterns; conversations provide context.
The value lies not in collecting ever-greater amounts of information but in asking better questions. If staff turnover is rising, what does feedback suggest about workload, leadership and belonging? If complaints are increasing, are concerns concentrated around communication, consistency or trust? If students appear reluctant to raise concerns, what might that indicate about confidence in adult responses?
These are not operational questions. They sit firmly within the remit of governance because they speak directly to the health, resilience and sustainability of the school community.
A conversation worth having
Schools frequently describe themselves as inclusive, caring, ambitious or respectful. Such characteristics are important, but their value lies in whether they are experienced consistently by students, staff and families.
A useful governance discussion therefore begins not with policies but with evidence of experience. If the school believes it is inclusive, how does it know which groups feel included and which may feel less connected? If wellbeing is a priority, how does it understand the conditions that support or undermine it? If families are asked to place their trust in the school, how does governance know whether that trust is being earned and sustained?
We often hear culture discussed separately from strategy. In practice, one rarely succeeds without the other. Culture shapes how strategy is experienced, how decisions are interpreted and whether communities feel confident in the direction of the school.
For international schools, where diverse expectations and perspectives must be brought together into a coherent community, culture is one of the most important sources of assurance available to governance. The most effective boards recognise this and remain intentionally curious about how their school is experienced, not simply how it is described.
We’re delighted to share the launch of our latest joint report with MSB: The Space Between: Rethinking leadership transition in international schools.
Leadership appointments are among the most significant decisions a school makes, but our research shows that success depends on far more than the moment of appointment. It’s what happens before, during and after that truly shapes outcomes.
Drawing on global survey data, interviews and roundtable discussions, the report explores:
Why leadership transitions often fall short of expectations
What schools can do to ensure continuity, clarity and confidence
How trust, alignment and effective support influence both transition and retention
At its heart, The Space Between is an invitation to focus on the critical (and often overlooked) period where leaders leave, arrive and begin to lead — and to approach it with greater structure, care and intention.
Marketing and admissions teams sit close to some of the most useful intelligence in a school. They hear the questions families ask before they apply, what they like, their hesitations, the comparisons they are making, and the points in the journey where their interest strengthens or fades.
Many international markets are becoming more and more competitive, making the intelligence coming from marketing and admissions teams ever more valuable. These vital functions can no longer be understood only through the lens of communications, events and administration. Those allremain important, but marketing and admissions can make a wider contribution in helping schools understand demandand make better decisions about student recruitment and retention.
Start with purpose, not structure
No single structure is right for a marketing and admissions team. A start-up school, an established premium school, a school within a group, a bilingual school or a school serving a mobile expatriate community will each need something different. Different markets and market segments will also require different approaches. The more useful starting point is to ask what the school needs the team to be able to do now.
For some schools, the answer may be a stronger strategic marketing voice. For others, it may be better enquiry follow-up, more confident use of data, a slicker visit experience, clearer ownership of admissions, or a closer connection between recruitment and retention. Different needs require different resources, skills and leadership attention.
Too often, team structures reflect history rather than purpose. Roles expand informally, responsibilities blur, and talented people find themselves spending too much time on work that does not make best use of their expertise. Once the work is mapped clearly, it becomes easier to see where changes in resourcing, support or process can have a significant impact.
Use the family journey as intelligence
The admissions journey tells a great deal, if it is looked at carefully. Enquiries, visits, assessments, offers, acceptances and withdrawals each tell part of the story, but the value comes when a school understands the patterns across them all.
In international schools, the journey is often complex. Families may be comparing schools across curricula, countries or cities and looking for a seamless transition from a school elsewhere in the world. Some will be relocating and making decisions from a distance. Others will be weighing the school against local, bilingual or boarding options. Parents may be looking not only for academic confidence, but for reassurance about belonging, transition and how quickly their child will settle. Some may be looking for a school community that can be a hub for the whole family.
If enquiries are strong but visits or virtual meetings are weak, the question is different to that in a school where families engage deeply but do not accept places. If a particular year group is under pressure, the school needs to understand whether the issue is awareness, affordability, timing or confidence. If families are delaying decisions, the school needs to know whether they need reassurance, clearer communication or a different kind of follow-up.
Mapping the family journey can help schools see where ownership is clear and where confidence may be lost. Who responds to the first enquiry? Who follows up after a visit or online meeting? Who understands the child’s needs as well as the parents’ questions? Who keeps in touch between acceptance and joining? How is it different if a family is relocating mid-year?
Mapping should not make admissions feel mechanical: the best experiences are thoughtful and personal. But good processes enable consistency, rather than depending on individual habit or goodwill.
Bring the team closer to strategy
Marketing and admissions teams should not be brought in only after important school decisions have been made. If a school is considering a new programme, reviewing its curriculum, entering a new market, strengthening retention or responding to changing demand, the colleagues closest to families and their decisions should be part of the conversation early enough to shape it.
They will often know where the message is landing well and where it is not. They will know which questions keep coming up, where confidence feels fragile and where the school’s internal assumptions do not match what families are saying.
That does not mean every decision should be led by marketing or admissions, but it does mean that the school loses insight if these teams are treated only as deliverers rather than contributors to strategy.
Support the people doing the work
Like many roles within schools, the expectations and pressures placed on marketing and admissions teams have grown. They are expected to be relational and data-aware, responsive to families and influential with colleagues. They may be working on positioning, digital engagement, enrolment, conversion and retention, often in teams that are small and already stretched.
Admissions colleagues may also be supporting families through relocation and navigating new cultural expectations, explaining curricula or a pedagogical approach that may be unfamiliar, or helping parents understand the practical realities of joining a new school community. Marketing colleagues may be trying to reach families who are not yet in the country, while also strengthening advocacy among current parents and trying to convey a school’s distinctive approach in a market where it is not widely understood.
Schools, therefore, need to think carefully about support and development for these teams. New colleagues may need structured onboarding, particularly if they are joining from another sector or another market. Existing colleagues may need mentoring, system training or clearer priorities. Senior leaders may need to ask whether the team has the capacity and authority to do what is being asked of it.
A question for the year ahead
As international schools prepare for the next academic year, one useful question for senior leaders is whether their marketing and admissions teams are simply busy or whether they are being deployed well.
Marketing and admissions teams cannot carry the enrolment challenge alone, but when they are clear in purpose, properly supported and connected to the strategy, they will be critical in helping a school to meet its targets. They can also make a significant difference to how a school understands its market and builds confidence with families.
RSAcademics has extensive experience of undertaking reviews of marketing and admissions and helping schools to refine and optimise their activity across both areas. If you would like to find out how we can help you, please do get in touch.
Our website uses cookies. By continuing to use the website you are giving consent to cookies being used. For information on cookies and how to disable them visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.
