Featured Content - RSAcademics

Are the families there, can they afford us, will they choose us?

By Heather Styche-Patel, CEO

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?

Planning the next admissions cycle: start with the market, not last year’s plan

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

Agency, Not Resilience: The Key to Sustainable Headship

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.

International Governance Insights – Continuity: a critical success factor for governance

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.

International Governance Insights – Culture as Assurance: the case for governance vigilance

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.

The Space Between: Rethinking leadership transition in international schools

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.

International Newsletter – Marketing and admissions: closer to families, closer to strategy

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 all remain important, but marketing and admissions can make a wider contribution in helping schools understand demand and 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.

International Newsletter – Parent insight and the value question

Schools work hard to explain the value of what they offer. International schools will often have the most to explain. Different messages will be of greater or lesser importance in different schools and markets. But the messages will always be most powerful when they are tested against what parents are actually experiencing.

Research among parents gives schools a clearer view of that experience. It helps leaders understand why families chose the school, what they value most, where confidence is strong and where concerns may be emerging. In international schools, where families may be navigating curriculum options, different cultural expectations, unfamiliar systems and sometimes relocation, that insight can be particularly valuable.

Parents are not only making a decision at the point of application, they are continuing to assess the school throughout their child’s time there. They notice whether the experience matches the promise, whether communication feels clear, whether their child is settling well and whether the school continues to feel worth the investment they are making.

Understanding confidence before it is tested

In our work with schools, we often observe that retention only becomes a visible issue when a family leaves. In reality, confidence can begin to weaken much earlier. A parent may be unsure about their child’s academic progress, unsettled by communication, concerned about friendship groups, or unsure whether the school is preparing their child well for the next stage.

A well-designed parent survey can help schools hear those concerns before they become decisions to leave. Importantly, it can also show where confidence is strongest – sometimes an aspect of the school that leaders have not fully recognised. A survey may highlight the benefit of a teacher’s support, a strong induction process, a particular curriculum pathway, or the way the school has helped their child feel at home in a new country.

That kind of insight is useful for strategy as well as communication. It gives leaders and governors evidence about what parents truly value, where expectations are shifting and where the school may need to respond.

Seeing the school through the parent journey

The parent experience can be complex in international schools. Some are comparing curricula, pedagogical approaches or school cultures they do not fully understand. Some families choose the school before they arrive in the country. Some may be joining mid-year. Others may be deciding whether to stay, move to another international school, choose boarding or return to a home system.

Research helps schools understand how that journey is experienced. Did families feel guided through the admissions process? Did the school understand the needs of the child as well as the parents’ questions? Was the transition into school smooth? Did communication remain strong after enrolment? Were parents helped to understand what success looks like for the school?

These questions are not only operational, they also help to shape trust. A family that feels well-guided is more likely to speak positively about the school. A family that feels uncertain or under-informed may begin to doubt the choice they have made, even when the school is delivering well.

Demonstrating value with evidence

In many markets, parents are weighing value carefully. Fees are significant, competition is strong and families may be comparing schools with very different offers. Schools need more than confident claims; they need evidence that shows what parents experience and value.

Parent research can help schools move from broad statements to grounded, relevant insight. If a school says it knows pupils well, do parents feel that is true? If it promises strong communication, does that match the experience across year groups? If it talks about preparing pupils for global futures, do parents see that preparation in their child’s confidence, independence and progress?

The aim is not to collect praise; it is to understand the patterns. Positive findings can help a school communicate its strengths more clearly. More challenging findings can help leaders decide where attention is needed. Both are valuable, provided the school is prepared to listen carefully and act on what it learns.

Asking the right questions

The quality of parent insight depends on the quality of the questions. A survey that asks only whether parents are satisfied will provide limited understanding. Satisfaction is useful, but it does not always explain what is driving confidence, loyalty or concern.

Good parent research should explore why families chose the school, how well the school is meeting expectations, what parents most value and what might cause them to reconsider. It should also look at communication, transition, academic confidence, wellbeing, belonging and preparation for the next stage.

The wording needs care: parents should feel that the school genuinely wants to understand their experience, not simply confirm a view it already holds.

The analysis also needs care: individual comments can be powerful, but leaders need to distinguish between isolated anecdote and wider patterns.

Turning insight into action

Research should be about much more than meeting inspection or accreditation requirements – although that will be an important motivation for some schools. The real value of parent research comes from how the school uses the findings. The insight may inform admissions, communications, curriculum development, pastoral provision and strategic planning. It may help the school understand where the parent experience is strongest and where the gap between promise and practice needs attention.

Our experience is that current parent research can also strengthen advocacy. When parents feel heard, and when they see the school act thoughtfully on what it has learned, confidence can deepen. The research process itself can send an important message: that the school is listening, learning and committed to improving the experience for families.

For more than 20 years, RSAcademics has been helping schools design parent research, interpret the findings and decide how best to use the insight. If you would like to explore how research could help your school understand and demonstrate value, please get in touch with our research team to find out more.

International Newsletter – Navigating the Package

An article in our last international newsletter explored some of the personal factors that candidates need to consider when looking at new leadership roles internationally.

Here, we continue that theme to consider the package – how packages are put together and what to look for to make sure a salary meets your needs. Salaries can be packaged very differently, which can make this a complex matter.

Career progression is not always salary progression

It may be stating the obvious, but most international leaders are accustomed to the idea that as they move between different markets and types of school, they will go up and down in salary. That is different to what is more typical in national systems, and indeed in other professions, where career progression usually equates to salary progression.

If leaders did not accept this, nobody would leave a high-salary environment – Hong Kong, for example – let alone move to a lower salary one. Significant differences can also be evident within regions. Southern European salaries tend to be lower than in northern Europe, while you could step up from tax-free Dubai to a new role in equally tax-free Qatar and drop salary. Salaries will be linked to the operating costs for schools, which will generally relate to costs of living, but also to the competitiveness of the market and the relative status of schools.

Factor into this the vastly different sizes and organisational structures of schools, the difference in leaders’ responsibilities across schools, and the variety of ownership and financial models, and there are more variables to throw into the equation.

Even more confusing is that we do not have reliable benchmarks – there are some salary surveys out there, but they are of limited practical use to candidates.

What do you need?

If a new job does not result in a step-up in salary, how do you know what is fair? In our experience, leaders try to take four factors into account:

A competitive salary for the market. Without good benchmarks, this can be something of a guess, and is affected by other variables, including the size and status of the school. But it has to be a starting point.
A package that enables the leader to have the lifestyle they need in-country in order to do their job well and for their family to be comfortable, happy and safe.
Sufficient income to cover outgoings at home – property or university fees for example.
Sufficient income, however arranged, to make provision for the future, typically for retirement.

Individuals will have other needs, but these issues seem to apply to most candidates.

You may not want to start with salary when you first discuss a role, but it is important to align expectations early on so that you are not wasting everyone’s time and storing up frustrations for later. In our case, we try to collect detailed salary information from the schools we work with. We will usually not discuss a specific salary figure with candidates, but we will try to make sure that expectations are aligned. You should also do your own research. There will often be cost of living indices for countries, or expat websites that include advice on living costs. And there are a multitude of online tax calculators for almost every country (try more than one to check accuracy).

Unpicking the package

It is important not to make assumptions based on previous experience. Packages and benefits are put together in different ways, and an offer, regardless of the value, may look very different to what you are used to. There is no right or wrong. Sometimes there may be a country norm, or you may be encountering the usual practice of a company or group.

In some countries, it is more common to offer an overall package and not to separate out accommodation. Some candidates feel less comfortable with this, but neither is right or wrong. You just need to look at the whole differently. There are associated questions: how is accommodation taxed, for example, or is an allowance (rather than provided accommodation) flexible so that if you spend less on where you live, the overall value remains the same? Beware the phrase ‘accommodation included’ – it can have opposite meanings.

Provision for annual (or more) flights home seems to take on disproportionate importance. Candidates sometimes prefer a flight allowance to a higher overall total. We get why: it can somehow indicate a level of care on the part the employer. But we have known situations when a candidate would have been better off without the flights.

Relocation can mean two things. Reimbursement for the paid costs of moving is the more usual – shipping of possessions, for example. But sometimes there will also be an additional one-off sum that recognises your hidden costs of moving. A relocation allowance may demonstrate support and understanding. But does that matter if an all-inclusive package is generous?

It is important to check the details of medical cover. Worldwide insurance (often excluding the US) remains most common, but in some countries that can be difficult and disproportionately expensive. In those cases, cover is national and you’ll need to work out what supplementary policies you may need. It is also important to check any exclusions for existing conditions for all family members covered.

Pension or savings provisions are incredibly varied. Sometimes, the law requires employees to be enrolled in a state scheme or provident fund. Some such schemes are of limited value but others can be surprisingly generous. Schools may have their own pensions or savings arrangements or a combination of the two. Some will offer a lump sum gratuity at end of contract, based on years worked – you don’t save as you go but receive that lump sum to put towards your retirement planning. Sometimes there is none of this, just a generous salary intended to cover all bases.

Some countries offer tax reliefs when working there for the first time. These can be valuable, but they are subject to changing political winds. Tax breaks can be an attraction, but you should try to plan for the longer term: it is intensely irritating for schools to hear that their Head is moving on because they cannot afford to remain after three years when tax jumps to its normal rate.

Not comparing like with like

Comparing packages is challenging. Some schools will do their best to help candidates calculate the real value of a package. We have seen one school provide a handbook solely about the country’s tax arrangements. Another school takes the immensely practical step of preparing a dummy payslip to show what the various provisions mean in reality.

But be patient. Depending on the type of school – perhaps you will be one of the few expat staff, for example – you may be working with someone who will not necessarily understand that you are used to seeing things presented in a very different way, or that the taxes, pension arrangements and terminology used in their country may make little sense elsewhere. This can get a little frustrating, but be patient and try to get all the clarity you need.

When cost cutting is not enough

As the end of the academic year approaches, many independent schools will be looking closely at budgets, pupil numbers, staffing plans and forecasts for the year ahead. For some, that exercise will be uncomfortable. The financial and market pressures facing the sector are real, and the mood in parts of the UK independent school sector is understandably subdued.

But this should not be a counsel of gloom. There are schools responding to the current climate with discipline, imagination and confidence. What distinguishes them is not that they are free from pressure, but that they are looking at their position clearly and acting while they still have room to make choices.

One of the strongest themes in recent conversations with Heads, Bursars and governors is that cost discipline is necessary, but rarely sufficient to create sustained confidence in the future. It may be essential to review expenditure, control discretionary spend and test affordability assumptions. Yet if the underlying issue is falling demand, a changing parent market, an expensive operating model or provision that no longer fits the school’s strategic direction, then simply trimming budgets will not be enough.

The risk is that cost cutting becomes a substitute for strategy. Schools can take a slice from every department, delay investment, reduce support or ask already stretched people to carry more. Those measures may improve the position in the short term, but they can also weaken the very quality, confidence and distinctiveness that families are being asked to value.

The more important question is not only “where can we save?” It is “what kind of school are we trying to sustain, and what decisions will protect that quality over time?”

Start with the real position

Not every school is starting from the same place. Some are facing immediate financial pressure, with falling pupil numbers, cash concerns or reduced confidence. Others are not in acute difficulty, but are seeing enough change in demand, entry points or cost ratios to know that drift would be risky. Some are in a stronger position, but recognise that current stability should be used to build resilience before it is tested.

Where you are starting from is important:

A school under immediate pressure may need rapid action to preserve choice, including close cashflow scrutiny, a review of discounts and bad debt, tighter control of discretionary spend and urgent consideration of non-strategic provision. It may also need to explore partnership or merger options earlier than feels comfortable, because waiting until the last possible moment rarely improves the available choices.

A school with more time has a different task. It may need to look hard at its structure, entry points, curriculum breadth, staffing assumptions, admissions performance and positioning in the market. The issue may not be crisis, but there may still be a gap between the school’s inherited model and the market it now serves.

For schools in a stronger position, the challenge is different again. Stability can create space to invest in access, strengthen distinctiveness, review governance capability, consider aligned growth and build strategic advantage. The strongest time to think about resilience is before the pressure becomes acute.

Look beyond the obvious numbers

Financial review is essential, but the figures only tell part of the story. A school needs to understand what is sitting beneath them:

If fee income is under pressure, is that driven by fewer enquiries, weaker conversion, a higher level of discounts, delayed decision-making by parents or a mismatch between the offer and the market?

If staffing costs feel too high, is the issue simply headcount, or is it connected to timetable complexity, small sets, curriculum breadth, remission arrangements or provision that has grown without being reviewed?

If pupil numbers are holding for now, are the early indicators still healthy, or is there weakness in the pipeline that has not yet reached the roll?

These questions are not only financial, but they are also strategic and educational. A school may discover that the problem is not one large issue, but the cumulative effect of many smaller decisions made over time. For example:

a timetable that has become too complex

a boarding offer that is valued by a small number of families but expensive to maintain

a nursery that does not feed the main school

a set of entry points that no longer reflects how parents are choosing

a generous discounting pattern that has gradually eroded net fee income.

None of these issues is easy to address, but avoiding the question does not remove the pressure. It simply leaves the school with fewer options later.

However, before any cost reduction is agreed, boards should seek clarity about what is really being changed. Is this a better, leaner way of delivering the same quality, or is it a reduction in the substance of the offer? There is an important difference between removing inefficiency and creating a form of educational ‘shrinkflation’, where the cost base is reduced but so too is the experience families are paying for. Some changes will be necessary and sensible, but governors should be alert as to whether savings protect quality, reshape provision deliberately or quietly erode the school’s distinctiveness. Families are not only judging the fee, they are also judging the value behind it.

Treat admissions as strategic intelligence

In a more challenging market, admissions cannot be viewed only as a process for handling enquiries. It is one of the places where a school can see change happening earliest.

The pattern of enquiries, visits, assessments, offers and acceptances tells a story. So does the speed with which families respond, the questions they ask, the points at which they hesitate and the reasons they give for choosing another school. Current parents also provide vital intelligence, not only through formal surveys but through the concerns they raise, the language they use and the confidence they show at key transition points.

Schools that understand this evidence are better placed to act. They can see where the offer is compelling and where it is less clear. They can identify whether the issue is awareness, affordability, confidence, communication or fit. They can test whether the school’s strongest features are being translated into benefits that parents understand. This is particularly important at a time when parents are more financially stretched and more discerning about value.

Recruitment and retention therefore need to be considered together. A school that treats current families as already secured may miss the quiet loss of confidence that begins well before a pupil leaves. A school that understands why families stay, why they leave and what they tell others is in a much stronger position to make good decisions.

Make structural decisions in service of quality

The phrase “beyond cost cutting” is not an argument against financial discipline. It is an argument for connecting financial decisions to educational purpose. Sometimes that will mean making difficult choices about provision. Sometimes it will mean reviewing staffing structures, entry points or the operating model. Sometimes it will mean deciding that a partnership, merger or group structure should be explored while the school is still able to shape the conversation from a position of relative strength.

The key is to avoid treating these questions as purely defensive. Structural decisions should be made in service of quality. If a school changes its model, reduces complexity, invests in marketing and admissions, rethinks entry points or explores a partnership, the aim should be to protect the educational experience and strengthen the school’s long-term position.

That requires boards to engage with the full picture. Financial data is vital, but it needs to sit alongside market analysis, parent insight, competitor understanding, demographic trends, governance capacity and a clear view of what the school is trying to be. Without that wider picture, there is a risk that decisions are made either too narrowly or too late.

Governance needs to match the moment

The current climate also places a different kind of demand on governance. Many boards are being asked to make complex decisions at pace, often in areas where the consequences are significant and the sensitivities are high.

Normal meeting cycles may not always be enough. Some situations require focused working groups, clearer delegated authority, more frequent financial review or structured scenario planning. Governors may also need to consider whether the board has the right mix of experience for the decisions ahead, particularly around finance, property, digital strategy, market positioning, educational change or mergers and partnerships.

Good governance in this context is not about panic or overreach, it is about making sure the board has the information, structure and confidence to act in a timely way. Delayed decisions can feel safer in the moment, but they may increase risk if they allow the school’s position to weaken.

Where external perspective can help

Schools know themselves deeply, but the most difficult questions can be hard to examine from inside the day-to-day demands of school life. Assumptions become embedded, historic provision carries emotional weight and governors and leaders may sense that change is needed, but need more evidence before they can make decisions with confidence.

This is where independent support is invaluable.

A strategy review may need to test the school’s market position, operating model and future options.

A parent research project may reveal what families most value, where confidence is weakening and how the school’s offer is really understood.

An admissions and marketing review may identify gaps in follow-up, data, messaging or team structure.

A governance review may help the board understand whether it is equipped for the decisions ahead.

A merger or partnership review may allow governors to explore options confidentially before choices narrow.

At RSAcademics, our work often begins with one presenting concern: financial pressure, falling enquiries, a question about structure, uncertainty about parent expectations, a need to review governance or a desire to understand future options. The value of our work is usually in helping schools see how these issues connect, and in providing the evidence and sector understanding to support decisions that are practical, timely and rooted in educational purpose.

A question for the year ahead

The end of the academic year is a natural moment to pause, but it is also a moment to look ahead with honesty. For some schools, the immediate task will be stabilisation. For others, it will be repositioning or strengthening from a place of relative confidence. In every case, the schools best placed for the future will be those that understand their real position, ask the difficult questions early and make decisions in service of long-term educational quality.

As governors and leaders look towards the next academic year, the most useful question may not be “what can we cut?” but “what must we understand now, while we still have time to choose?”

If you would like to explore how RSAcademics can support you in answering that question please get in touch info@rsacademics.com.