Category: Featured Content

Artificial intelligence is no longer a future topic for schools. It is already shaping classrooms, assessment practices, administrative systems and communication with parents. For those involved in governance, the central question is no longer whether AI will affect their school but how well it is governed. 

In many schools, early discussion about AI has focused on teaching and learning or on concerns about academic integrity. These issues matter. From a governance perspective, however, AI also belongs alongside safeguarding, data protection, reputation and long-term sustainability. Approached carefully, AI can support better outcomes and more efficient use of resources. Managed poorly, it can expose schools to unnecessary risk. 

AI is a leadership and governance issue 

A common misunderstanding is that AI can be managed solely by IT teams or by individual staff who are confident users of new tools. Technical input is essential, but decisions about how AI is introduced, where it is used and how its use is explained require leadership oversight. 

Governors need a clear understanding of how AI use aligns with the school’s mission, values and policies and also with the expectations of parents. There is an additional complexity in international schools because they also need to factor in any regulatory requirements that may be relevant in their jurisdiction, cultural norms that may shape the expectations of different groups of parents, and any tension between these and the expectations or implications of international inspection or accreditation frameworks. 

Governors do not need to understand how AI tools work in detail. They do need confidence that leaders have a coherent approach and that the right questions are being asked. These include how AI supports educational aims, where limits are set and how risks are being managed. 

AI offers clear opportunities. Schools are already using it to reduce administrative workload, support lesson planning and explore more personalised learning. Over time, this may contribute to improved staff wellbeing and more effective use of budgets. 

At the same time, AI introduces new risks. Ethical concerns, data privacy issues and uncertainty around academic integrity are already apparent. Detection tools are still developing and can be unreliable. A false accusation of AI misuse, particularly in a high-stakes context, can quickly lead to conflict with families and legal challenge. 

From a governance perspective, the task is not to avoid AI but to ensure it is being managed responsibly. Blanket bans are rarely effective and in this case, may be counterproductive in limiting access to an increasingly important tool. Students already encounter AI outside school. A clearer and more sustainable approach is to support leadership teams in developing proportionate policies and ensuring these are applied consistently. 

Trust is built through clarity and transparency 

How schools communicate about AI matters. Students, parents and staff are more likely to feel confident when they understand how and why decisions are being made. Where communication is unclear or inconsistent, concern can escalate quickly. Governance should play an important role in setting expectations for openness. Clear explanations of policy, honest acknowledgement of areas still under development and consistent messaging help reduce reputational risk and build trust across the community. 

This transparency is also protective. Schools that can show they have thought carefully about AI use, risk and communication are better placed to respond calmly if challenges arise. 

AI does not sit in isolation. It connects to wider changes in education, including how students are assessed, what skills they need for the future and how schools demonstrate their value to families. 

Research and practice increasingly point to the importance of critical thinking, ethical judgement and adaptability. AI can support these aims if used thoughtfully. If used without clear purpose, it can undermine them. Governance has an important role in ensuring that the school’s approach to AI reflects its educational philosophy rather than reacting to external pressure or short-term trends. 

Equity also matters. Access to AI tools varies across regions and communities. Fairness and inclusion should form part of board-level discussion. 

Questions for Boards to consider 

Those involved in governance do not need to become AI experts. They do need assurance that AI is being governed with the same care as other strategic issues. In practical terms, this means ensuring that: 

• there is a clear rationale for AI use that reflects the school’s values 

• policies address ethics, data protection and academic integrity 

• leaders are supporting staff through training and shared guidance 

• communication with parents and students is open and consistent 

• AI is reviewed regularly as part of risk management and strategy. 

AI is now part of the environment schools operate in. With calm, informed oversight, boards can help ensure it strengthens learning, protects trust and supports the long-term health of the school. 

Many schools articulate ambitious aims for their students. They speak about developing confident learners, ethical decision-makers, effective collaborators and young people prepared for an uncertain future. For those involved in governance – board and advisory board members, proprietors, members of corporate groups – the challenge is not just agreeing with these aspirations, but knowing whether they are being realised in practice. 

As expectations of schools continue to evolve, governors are increasingly being asked to provide assurance not only on academic outcomes, but on the broader educational experience. This requires a shift from intention to evidence. 

When values are stated but not measured 

Most schools are confident in describing the qualities they want their students to develop. These often include communication skills, collaboration, creativity, ethical thinking and agency in learning. Yet in many cases, boards receive far more detailed reporting on examination results than on these wider aims. 

This creates a gap. If qualities and competencies are important enough to sit in a school’s mission or strategic plan, boards should expect some form of evidence that they are being developed consistently and effectively. Without this, there is a risk that important aims remain aspirational rather than operational. 

What schools choose to assess strongly influences what teachers prioritise and what students value. Traditional assessments are effective at measuring subject knowledge, but they capture only part of what schools say they are trying to achieve. Emerging approaches to competency-based assessment aim to address this gap. Rather than relying on one-off tests, they focus on professional judgement, evidence gathered over time and authentic demonstrations of learning. When designed carefully, these approaches can sit alongside existing academic assessment rather than replacing it. 

From a governance perspective, the key question is not the detail of assessment tools, but whether the school’s assessment framework reflects its stated educational purpose. 

Assurance without micromanagement 

Governors do not need to design assessment systems. Their role is to seek assurance that systems are coherent, fair and aligned with strategy. 

This might include asking how the school knows that students are developing the skills it values, how consistency is supported across departments and how staff are trained to make sound professional judgements. It also includes understanding how outcomes are communicated to students, parents and external audiences such as universities. Clear answers to these questions help governance maintain strategic oversight without moving into operational territory. 

Parents are increasingly interested in how schools support their children as individuals, not only in how they perform in examinations. They want to understand how their child is progressing, what they are learning about themselves and how they are being prepared for life beyond school. Where schools can articulate and evidence progress in areas such as collaboration, thinking skills or ethical awareness, they are better placed to build confidence and trust. This credibility also matters for universities and other external partners, particularly as admissions processes evolve. 

Governance has a role in ensuring that what the school communicates externally is grounded in reality and supported by evidence. 

Moving towards broader forms of assessment and reporting requires time, training and careful change management. It also requires trust in teachers as professionals. Governors can support this work by recognising that change in assessment practice is not a quick fix. It involves building shared understanding, supporting staff development and allowing space for refinement. Clear strategic backing from governance helps leaders manage this change with confidence. 

Questions for governance consideration 

If you are involved in governance, you may find it helpful to reflect on the following: 

• How clearly are the school’s educational aims defined beyond examination success? 

• What evidence do we receive that these aims are being achieved? 

• Do assessment and reporting practices align with the school’s stated values? 

• How confident are staff in making and explaining professional judgements? 

• How effectively is progress communicated to parents and external audiences? 

In a fast-changing educational landscape, governance can play a vital role in ensuring that schools move beyond good intentions. By seeking clarity, coherence and evidence, governors can help ensure that educational purpose is not only well stated, but well delivered. 

The responsibility of governance for a school’s Principal is obvious, and it is often well-understood that headship is a continually-evolving role. In this article, we look at a role that is less well-understood in international schools: the Bursar* or equivalent.

While those involved in governance will often be deeply interested in operational, financial and commercial performance, they may not recognise the extent to which leadership in this area is evolving.

Research in the last year enables us to cast light on this in a way that should help boards, owners and groups in their oversight and their decision-making.

*Note on terminology: ‘Bursar’ remains a widely-understood term in the UK and in many British international schools, even though it is less commonly used than in the past as a specific job title. It can cover a variety of positions – Director of Finance, CFO, Director of Finance and Administration, Director of Operations and various others. We use Bursar in this article and in our research as a term to encompass all such positions.

Why system design, not heroics, will determine sustainability 

The role of the Bursar in international schools has evolved significantly over the past decade. 

At RSAcademics, we reported on this first in our recent report The Art of the Bursar. That study drew on extensive interviews, group discussions and survey data from senior leaders across the UK independent sector. It examined not only what Bursars do, but what enables them to be effective. 

Since then, our consultancy work with international schools has reinforced and amplified those findings. In many international contexts, the pressures identified in our research are felt earlier and more intensely. 

This was illustrated clearly in a recent poll of over 30 Bursars working in international schools worldwide. When asked how they currently feel about their role, only 21 % described it as predominantly operational. 15% said it feels balanced. 18% said it is increasingly strategic. The largest group, 45%, selected a more revealing description: strategically accountable, operationally overloaded. 

This pattern aligns closely with our wider research. The role of the Bursar is expanding strategically, but operational demand has not reduced. However, the issue is not capability, it is structural. 

From operational oversight to institutional leadership 

The UK research showed that expectations of the Bursar have broadened significantly. The role is no longer confined to financial stewardship. Bursars are now deeply involved in long-term sustainability, staffing models, capital investment, risk management and institutional strategy. Our international advisory work shows the same shift. 

At the same time, the operational burden has not diminished. Finance, HR, estates, compliance, safeguarding infrastructure, cybersecurity and regulatory oversight all remain within scope. In many contexts, these areas have become more demanding, not less. Crucially, much of this work is no longer procedural, it is increasingly judgment-based. 

The Bursar is required to weigh competing demands, to assess risk in conditions of incomplete information and to advise on decisions that will have reputational consequences.  

In international schools, the complexity often increases. Legal and regulatory frameworks can be extremely detailed in some jurisdictions; paradoxically, the lack of external frameworks in other countries can place a different sort of burden on a school. Cultural expectations shape how authority is exercised and how challenge is expressed. In group settings, central policy must be interpreted within local context. HR systems often need to accommodate national and international staff with different requirements and contexts. Reputational risk can move quickly across markets. The Bursar frequently operates at the point where these layers meet. 

Effectiveness is co-produced 

A central conclusion of our Art of the Bursar report is that effectiveness is not simply an individual attribute. It is co-produced by the system in which the Bursar works. This insight has proved equally relevant in international settings. 

Ownership and governance models vary. Some schools are proprietor-owned. Some are part of regional or global groups. Some operate with advisory boards. Decision-making authority may be formal, informal or layered. The structure is not the focus here however, what matters is clarity and alignment. 

Effective systems align authority with accountability. They involve the Bursar early in strategic discussions rather than late in implementation. They define decision trees clearly. They create disciplined communication between those who hold power and those who carry responsibility. 

Where this alignment exists, Bursars describe being able to lead strategically and with confidence. Where it does not, the dynamic reflected in the poll becomes visible. Strategic accountability increases, but operational load remains unchanged. The result is cumulative pressure and reduced space for reflective judgement. 

The architecture of the role 

Our research identified several dimensions that shape how well the role of the Bursar can be carried out. 

The working environment is foundational. Role scope, realistic expectations, coherent reporting lines and trust between key leaders determine whether the Bursar can operate strategically or remains in reactive mode. Misalignment between authority and accountability is one of the most consistent sources of overload. 

Knowledge is broad and evolving. The modern brief spans finance, employment matters, safeguarding, estates, compliance, digital risk and sustainability. No individual can be the deepest specialist in every domain. Effective Bursars know how to integrate specialist advice into coherent institutional decisions. 

Skill is equally important. Strategic thinking, influence without relying solely on hierarchy, risk assessment and the ability to communicate difficult decisions clearly are central. 

Personal qualities sustain performance in what can be an isolating role. Bursars often absorb anxiety from multiple directions. Emotional steadiness, integrity and judgement under pressure are essential. 

Ways of working also distinguish those who cope from those who lead. Effective Bursars protect time for reflection so that strategy is not confined to evenings and weekends. They design decision processes carefully. They make prioritisation visible. They convene cross functional discussion when trade-offs affect the whole school. These practices reduce cognitive load and support better decisions. 

A question for leaders and board members 

Our research highlights Bursars feel strategically accountable but operationally overloaded and suggests that role design and support for postholders are key. If the role of the Bursar is now central to institutional sustainability, then its design must reflect that reality. 

This may require clarifying scope, strengthening operational leadership beneath the Bursar, making decision trees explicit, or reviewing how and when the Bursar is involved in strategy. 

It may also require deliberate induction, ongoing leadership development, professional support and succession planning – in other words, thinking of the Bursar in a similar way to the Principal. Concentrating institutional memory and risk in a single individual is not a long-term strategy. 

The key question is not whether the individual postholder is strong enough. It is whether the architecture around them is robust. 

A practical next step 

At RSAcademics, our work in this area is grounded both in sector research and in practical advisory experience across international school contexts. The evidence from this is consistent. The role of the Bursar now sits at the centre of institutional sustainability. Designing that role carefully, and appointing the right leadership to it, is a strategic responsibility. 

For schools reviewing the scope or effectiveness of the role of the Bursar, our leadership development and advisory services support boards and executive teams to clarify accountability, strengthen critical leadership relationships and design sustainable structures. To explore this work further, you can contact Heather Styche-Patel, our CEO (heatherstyche-patel@rsacademics.com). 

For schools appointing a Bursar, CFO,  or COO and similar or related positions, our executive recruitment practice works with international schools and groups around the world to secure senior business leaders who combine technical expertise with judgement and cultural fluency. To discuss an upcoming appointment, you can contact Nina Lambert, Head of Professional Services Appointments (ninalambert@rsacademics.com). 

 The research is clear. Schools rely even more on Bursars across a growing range of areas. Appointing to the role requires care and consideration. And the layered complexity of the Bursar’s role must be recognised. 

Schools often view the visits and appointment days as decisive tests of leadership capability and alignment with the school’s values and context. From the candidates’ perspective, however, these days are also a source of critical information about the school itself. What candidates experience during the day often confirms or challenges the impressions they have formed earlier in the process. They can be make or break for candidates as well as clients.  

The welcome sets the tone. In post-process feedback, candidates frequently comment on how prepared and calm the start of the days felt. Where arrival is smooth and expectations are clear, candidates tend to perform with greater confidence. Where it feels rushed, unwelcoming or uncertain, performance and interaction can be affected in ways that have little to do with capability. 

The structure of the days also matters. Our experience shows that candidates engage more effectively when the schedule allows time for reflection and meaningful interaction. Overly compressed days can limit what panels see and reduce the quality of discussion when decisions are made. It’s best to ensure expectations are clear when candidates are meeting senior leaders and to ensure they know who they are meeting and when, and who will be leading the discussions. For panel interviews, again, the candidates should know who will be on which panel and how long the interviews will be and what, if anything, should be pre-prepared.

Consistency is another important signal. Candidates notice when messages about priorities and culture feel aligned across different conversations. Where inconsistencies appear, even small ones, they can raise questions about clarity and cohesion. Feedback from recent searches suggests these moments often influence how candidates feel about joining the school. 

Unscripted interactions are particularly revealing. Candidates regularly refer to encounters with staff or pupils when describing their overall impression of a school. These moments are powerful indicators of everyday culture. 

Effective visits and appointment days are not about perfection. They are about coherence and authenticity. When the experience reflects the school accurately, panels gain better insight, and candidates are more likely to answer with honesty. Better decisions are the result.  

If your school has a senior leadership appointment approaching, our executive search specialists can help you design an appointment day that reflects your culture clearly and supports confident decision making.

Start the conversation

When a school begins an appointment process, attention often turns to the later stages: the shortlist, the interview day, the final decision. Yet much of the success is shaped long before those moments. In our experience of senior leadership executive search, there is so much that can be done at the start to enable a process to move forward with confidence and result in the appointment of an outstanding candidate. 

One of the clearest is ensuring alignment. When the Board and senior leaders share a clear and realistic understanding of the role and its context, decision-making tends to remain focused throughout the process. Where this alignment is weaker, we often see hesitation or difficulty reaching an agreement later on. Testing and strengthening alignment at the outset is a core part of our work as executive recruiters.

The quality of the brief is another important signal. We see stronger engagement where briefs are honest about challenge as well as opportunity. Early and effective refinement of the brief helps attract the best possible candidates who are genuinely well matched to the role and the school and its future needs.

The initial response from the market can also be revealing. Early conversations highlight how the role is perceived externally and which aspects of the school’s story prompt interest or uncertainty. The questions candidates ask often point to areas where greater clarity is needed. We use this early insight to help schools adjust their narrative before momentum is lost – again this ensures the best possible field.  

Care and time dedicated to candidate stewardship matters too. Timely communication and clear expectations influence candidate confidence and commitment. In our experience, searches with consistent early communication are more likely to sustain a powerful field through to final interview. 

These early signs may seem subtle, but they lay the foundations for a great field, confident shortlisting and robust final decisions. Successful appointments are rarely the result of a good final interview. They are shaped by the quality of preparation and insight at the beginning of the search just as much as the assessment process in the final stages. 

If your school is planning a senior leadership appointment and would value evidence-informed guidance at the earliest stage, our executive search team would be pleased to talk.

Start the conversation

In our work, we speak to candidates who bring honesty and hope and sometimes vulnerability to conversations about their futures. They often tell us how different our approach feels. They notice the care we take, the time we give, the honest advice offered (even when the message is not the one they hoped for). These comments matter, because for us this is not only recruitment. It is a moment in a person’s life that carries weight. 

Applying for a senior role in a school is never a simple task. It asks people to reflect deeply on their purpose, their experience and their hopes. It requires emotional energy long before an application form is submitted. There is anticipation, excitement, self-doubt and the quiet pressure of wanting to do justice to years of work. It is easy to forget how demanding this can be when seen from the outside. Part of our responsibility is to meet candidates with empathy as well as rigour. Each project is a job for us, but it is more than a job for the people applying. It is a fork in the road, a future imagined, a decision that touches their families, their identity and their sense of what comes next. Good search work should recognise this. It should give candidates clarity, not confusion. Thoughtful, relevant advice, not platitudes. And a process that acknowledges the person behind the application.

We listen carefully because candidates deserve to feel heard. We give honest feedback because it helps people grow, even when it is difficult to receive. We take time because the quality of our work depends on understanding the people involved, not just their application documents. Care is not a soft extra. It is part of the rigour that makes a search process effective and fair. 

The emotional toll of applying for a job is often invisible. Candidates hold their hopes quietly. They carry the weight of decision-making while continuing to lead their schools. They share personal motivations with us that they may not voice elsewhere. Recognising this does not compromise our impartiality. It strengthens it. It reminds us to be clear, consistent and respectful at every stage. 

At RSAcademics, we believe that excellent search work sits at the intersection of care and good judgement. We are trusted to hold people’s ambitions with integrity. We aim to create a process where candidates feel informed, respected and understood, whether they progress or not. That is how we support candidates as they navigate one of the most significant decisions of their professional lives.

If you would like to explore how we approach this balance of empathy, personal engagement and rigour in search and selection, we would be glad to continue the conversation. 

Continue the conversation

As the expectations placed on Bursars continue to grow, an important question is emerging across the independent sector: does the traditional job title still reflect the nature of the role? Increasingly, the answer appears to be no. 

In our latest research report, The Art of the Bursar, Bursars described a role that is now deeply strategic, emotionally demanding, and organisationally central. It is a role that spans finance, HR, estates, compliance, IT, operations and governance. It is a leadership role, not simply a management one. And yet, the structures, job titles and even sector-wide expectations surrounding the role have not always kept pace. 

Some schools are responding by redefining the role entirely – splitting finance and operations into separate posts, or introducing new roles such as Chief Operating Officer or Director of Compliance. Others are enhancing capacity by creating support roles beneath the Bursar, or by revisiting governance structures to relieve pressure around clerking and regulatory oversight. 

These are not vanity changes. They reflect a serious and thoughtful response to a role that, in some cases, has become unsustainable. In smaller schools, where Bursars operate without the benefit of large support teams, the risks are even greater. The same compliance expectations apply, but the capacity to meet them is far more limited. As one Bursar told us, “I’m expected to be a CFO, an HR Director, a Clerk to the Governors, and an operations lead – all in a four-day week.” 

When schools rethink the role, they’re not just reducing risk. They’re investing in leadership. By creating the conditions for Bursars to work strategically, sustainably and with impact, they unlock greater organisational clarity, stronger staff culture, and more resilient long-term planning. 

Futureproofing the role starts with honest conversation. Heads and Boards must ask: what do we really need from this role? What is possible within our current structure? Where are the pinch points? And what assumptions are we making that need to be revisited? 

It also means taking succession planning seriously. Many Bursars in our study were approaching retirement. At the same time, few schools had formal succession plans in place. In a competitive market, with rising expectations and limited capacity, attracting and retaining senior operational leaders will only become more challenging. 

Professional development is key. Coaching, mentoring and sector-specific CPD help existing Bursars stay current, confident and connected. But we also need to invest in talent pipelines – helping business managers, finance leads and aspiring operations directors build the skills and cultural fluency to step into the top role. 

Governance also plays a role. Where Bursars act as Clerk to the Governors – a dual responsibility held by around two-thirds of respondents – time and clarity must be given to separate the administrative tasks from strategic advisory duties. This is especially vital in ensuring Bursars have the capacity to contribute meaningfully to school strategy. 

Finally, language matters. If we want to attract diverse, talented professionals into the sector, we need to be clear about what the role really involves. Job titles, role descriptions and recruitment messaging all need to reflect the strategic, relational and values-driven nature of the work. That doesn’t mean abandoning the title “Bursar” – but it does mean being intentional about what it stands for. 

At RSAcademics, we work with schools to rethink leadership roles, design sustainable structures, and plan for succession. Because we believe the strength of a school’s future lies not just in its academic leadership – but in the operational leaders who make the whole system work. 

Is it time to reimagine your leadership structure? RSAcademics helps schools evolve roles to build resilience, clarity and strategic strength. 

Contact us for an informal chat about how we can support you

Download The Art of the Bursar Report