Category: Featured Content

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 meek 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. 

Start the conversation

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.

Find out more about our appointments support

 

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.

Heather Styche-Patel, CEO

I joined the opening leadership panel at the recent HMC Spring Conference to discuss a question that is becoming increasingly important across the independent school sector: what does effective school leadership now require, and how is that different from five or ten years ago?

It is a question that sits at the heart of our ongoing Art of Headship research programme, which looks at how headship is changing, what Heads are now being asked to carry and how schools can create the conditions in which leadership is more likely to be sustained. We will share more from the next stage of that work later this year, but the direction of travel is already clear from our research, our appointments work and the conversations we are having with governing bodies.

The fundamentals of headship have not disappeared. Schools still need Heads who are credible educational leaders, able to shape culture, work well with governors and hold the confidence of their communities. What has changed is the context in which they are expected to lead. Financial pressure, parental expectations, workforce challenge, pupil wellbeing, regulation, external reputation and digital change are now more prominent than they were a decade ago.

That means the discussion about headship can no longer focus only on the qualities of the individual. It must also focus on the leadership structure around them.

From individual strength to leadership capacity

For many years, schools have relied heavily on the strength of an individual Head. The assumption, sometimes spoken and sometimes not, was that an exceptional person would absorb complexity, hold the community together and carry the weight of the role through personal resilience.

That model is under increasing strain. Heads have not become less capable, nor have boards become less committed to appointing well. The role itself has become broader, more exposed and more dependent on the leadership system around it.

Sustainable headship depends on capacity. It depends on the senior team around the Head, the clarity of delegation and the quality of the relationship with governors. A Head can be highly capable and still be placed under unnecessary pressure if the role has not been designed realistically or if the structure around it is unclear.

This is where our work with governing bodies often begins. Before a recruitment process starts, we help boards step back and examine the leadership model the school now needs. What must sit with the Head? What should sit elsewhere? Where is the senior team strong? Where does the structure need to change? Which expectations are essential to the role and which have simply accumulated over time?

Those questions strengthen the appointment process. They help a board define the role with greater honesty, assess candidates against the real demands of the school and create the conditions in which the appointed person can succeed.

Designing the role before appointing the person

There is no single leadership model that will work for every school. In some contexts, the Head-as-CEO model may remain the right answer. In others, particularly in larger schools, group structures or schools with significant operational complexity, leadership may be more effective when educational leadership and organisational leadership are more deliberately shared.

The issue is not the job title. The issue is whether the model is intentional and understood. Difficulties often arise when a Head is assumed to be “CEO-like” by default, but the responsibilities around finance, operations, external engagement or risk remain implicit. In those circumstances, ambiguity is absorbed by the person in post until pressure begins to show.

Across the independent sector, there remains a strong belief that Heads should be grounded in education. We are not seeing widespread appetite to appoint Heads from completely outside the schools sector, nor do I think that is where the main answer lies. The more important question is whether the traditional pathway into headship gives future Heads enough exposure to the full demands of the modern role.

The answer is not to weaken the educational core of headship; it is to prepare educational leaders more seriously for the role they are likely to inherit and to surround them with broader capability. A Head does not need to be the expert in every area, but the leadership system needs to make clear where expertise sits and how it is brought into decision-making.

Why an independent perspective helps

These are difficult questions for a board to answer from inside the school. Existing structures carry history. Roles may have developed around particular personalities. Previous success can make current assumptions harder to challenge. Governors may know that the next phase requires something different, but not yet have a shared view of what that difference should be.

Independent support creates the space to examine the leadership system with more objectivity. It helps separate the requirements of the role from the characteristics of the person currently occupying it. It also allows governors to test whether the current structure is right for the school’s future rather than only whether it has worked in the past.

The quality of that support is important. Schools need advisers who know the sector well enough to understand the distinctive nature of educational leadership but who also bring fresh perspective. They need a partner able to draw on research, evidence from appointments work and experience of advising schools through moments of change.

At RSAcademics, we bring that perspective to bear before, during and beyond senior appointments. We help boards define the leadership model, test assumptions about structure and understand what the next phase of the school is likely to require. Good advice should not impose a fashionable model. It should help a board examine the evidence and make decisions that fit the school’s purpose and future direction.

Linking appointment, structure and sustainability

One of the risks in senior recruitment is that appointment and structure are treated as separate conversations. A school defines the vacancy, drafts the brief, compares candidates and then expects the successful person to make the structure work. In practice, the two are closely connected.

A headship search may reveal that the senior team needs to be strengthened. A discussion about a new COO or Bursar may raise questions about the Head’s role. A strategy review may show that the school needs a different leadership model for its next phase. A governance review may expose uncertainty about where authority sits.

When these questions are connected, schools are more likely to make appointments that last. They are also more likely to give leaders the conditions they need to do their best work. That is not only in the interests of the individual Head, but also in the long-term interests of the school community.

This is one of the themes we are continuing to explore through The Art of Headship. The question is not simply how headship is becoming harder, although there is no doubt that the role has become more demanding. The more useful question is how schools can respond intelligently to that reality.

The future of headship is not only about finding exceptional individuals who can carry more. It is about designing leadership structures that make excellent leadership possible. As we continue our Art of Headship research programme, one question feels particularly important for any board thinking about the years ahead: are we asking only what kind of Head we need, or are we also asking what kind of leadership structure will allow that Head to succeed?

To pre-register for our latest The Art of Headship updates, please click here

Schools are used to explaining the value of what they offer. They talk about confidence, opportunity, preparation for the next stage and the way pupils are known as individuals. Those messages matter, but they carry even more weight when they are echoed by the people who have already lived the experience.

That is why alumni voice is so powerful. Former pupils can speak about what a school gave them with the benefit of distance. They can reflect on what helped them at the time, what they only appreciated later and how well they were prepared for life beyond the school gates.

In a climate where families are asking sharper questions about value, this kind of evidence is increasingly important. Parents do not only want to know what their child will experience while they are at school, they want to understand what that education will make possible afterwards.

Not just warm memories

Alumni research is sometimes thought of as an engagement exercise: useful for events, community building or development. It can do all of those things, but it can also do something more strategic.

A well-designed alumni survey helps a school test whether its promise is being realised over time. Did pupils leave feeling ready for the next stage? Which parts of school life had the most lasting impact? What skills, habits or attitudes have proved most useful? Where did former pupils feel well prepared and where did the transition feel harder?

The answers can be enormously valuable. They can strengthen the school’s understanding of its impact, challenge assumptions about what pupils take from their time there and provide language that helps current and prospective families see the benefits more clearly.

Bringing value to life

Every school wants to show that it prepares pupils well. The challenge is making that claim feel real. Destination data and exam results tell part of the story, but they do not always capture the deeper value of a school. Alumni can often describe that value more vividly. They can talk about the teacher who helped them find confidence, the opportunity that changed how they saw themselves or the habits they developed that helped them thrive later.

Used well, these reflections do not become glossy testimonials, instead they become evidence. They help a school move from broad claims to grounded examples, showing what preparation for life beyond school actually means.

That is useful for marketing, but it is not only marketing, it is also insight for leaders. If former pupils consistently identify certain experiences as formative, the school can understand and protect those strengths. If they describe gaps in preparation, the school has a chance to respond.

For prep schools as well as senior schools

Alumni voice is just as relevant for prep schools as it is for senior schools. The question is not always about university, careers or adult life. For a prep school, one of the most important questions is how well pupils were prepared for senior school.

Did they arrive with confidence? Were they ready for greater independence? Did they know how to ask for help? Did they feel socially and academically prepared? What do they now recognise as having helped them make that move successfully?

Those questions matter deeply to current parents. Many families choose a prep school because they want their child to be known, supported and ready for what comes next. Former pupils can help show whether that promise is being fulfilled.

For senior schools, the same principle applies later. How well did pupils feel prepared for university, apprenticeships, work or other routes? Did school help them develop the judgement and confidence needed beyond a structured environment? Which experiences stayed with them once they had left?

Asking the right questions and using the answers well

The quality of alumni insight depends on the quality of the questions. A survey that asks only whether former pupils enjoyed school will not tell you enough. Enjoyment is important, but it is not the same as preparation or lasting value.

Good alumni research should help a school understand how former pupils experienced transition, what they came to value with hindsight, where they felt well prepared and which aspects of school life continued to influence them after they left. It should also invite honesty as well as praise. Former pupils need to feel that the school genuinely wants to learn from them, not simply collect positive quotations.

Care is also needed in deciding who to involve. Recent leavers can speak powerfully about the move into the next stage of education. Older alumni may be better placed to reflect on longer-term influence. Parents of former pupils can add a useful perspective, particularly for prep schools or where pupils left more recently.

Schools may know their former pupils well, but designing an alumni survey that produces useful insight takes expertise. The process needs to feel credible and the questions need to be carefully framed, with analysis that distinguishes individual anecdote and wider patterns. Independent support can also help alumni respond more openly, giving the school a clearer reading of what is being said.

At RSAcademics, we help schools design alumni surveys, interpret the findings and decide how best to use the insight. For some schools, that means strengthening the value narrative. For others, it means understanding how well pupils are prepared for transition or bringing the benefits of the pupil experience to life for families. The aim is not to manufacture praise; it is to help schools hear what former pupils can teach them.

Alumni voice should not be treated only as a link to the past. It is one of the clearest ways to understand the lasting value of a school’s education.

If former pupils were asked what your school made possible for them, would you know what they would say?

If you would like to explore how alumni insight could help your school understand and demonstrate value, please get in touch with our Research Team to find out more.
Start the conversation

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, the hesitations that emerge after a visit, the comparisons parents are making and the points in the journey where interest either strengthens or fades.

In a more demanding market, that perspective has become increasingly valuable. Marketing and admissions can no longer be understood only as communications, events, and administration. Those activities remain important, but the wider contribution is to help schools understand demand, strengthen the family journey, and make better decisions about recruitment and retention.

Start with purpose, not structure

There is no single right structure for a marketing and admissions team. A small prep school, an all-through school, a boarding school or a school within a wider group will each need something different. 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, clearer admissions ownership or a closer connection between recruitment and retention. These are different needs, and they require different skills and leadership attention.

Too often, team structure grows around history rather than purpose. Roles expand informally, responsibilities blur, and talented people find themselves spending too much time on work that does not make the best use of their expertise. Once the work is mapped clearly, it becomes easier to see where strategic capacity is being lost and where changes in ownership, support or process could have a significant impact.

Use the family journey as intelligence

The admissions journey tells a school 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 from understanding the pattern between them.

If enquiries are strong but visits are weak, the question is different from a school where visits are strong but acceptances are low. If a particular entry point is under pressure, the school needs to understand whether the issue is awareness, affordability, competition 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? Who checks whether the prospective pupil’s experience is as strong as the parents’? Who keeps in touch between acceptance and joining?

This is not about making admissions feel mechanical, indeed the best admissions experiences are thoughtful and personal. But good process helps that experience happen consistently, rather than depending on individual habit or goodwill.

Bring the team closer to strategy

Marketing and admissions teams should not be brought into the conversation only after decisions have been made. If a school is considering a new entry point, changing its offer, reviewing open events or endeavouring to strengthen pupil retention, the colleagues closest to prospective and current families should be part of the thinking 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 of communication rather than contributors to strategy. 

Support the people doing the work

Like many roles within schools, the expectations 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, open events, conversion and retention, often in teams that are small and already stretched. 

Schools, therefore, need to think carefully about the support and development of the staff in these teams. New colleagues may need structured onboarding, particularly if they are joining from another sector. 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 schools prepare for the next academic year, one useful question for senior leaders is whether their marketing and admissions team is simply busy or whether it is being deployed well. 

Marketing and admissions teams cannot carry a school’s recruitment challenge alone. But when they are clear in purpose, properly supported and connected to the strategy, they can make a significant difference to how a school understands its market and builds confidence with families. 

If you would like to find out how RSAcademics can help you refine and optimise your marketing and admissions, please do get in touch.

Start the conversation