Written by Keith Clark, Head of International Appointments
The average tenure of leaders in international schools is a major challenge for our sector. It is difficult to be entirely sure of the data, but we believe that for heads of school, a little over two years is the most reliable figure. That may be shocking, but for many of us, it is not surprising. Is there another field – except perhaps football management – where leadership is so fragile? And in what other sector is depth of experience so under-valued?
Against this backdrop, what advice can we give – not only to candidates but also to schools? And how can we break a cycle that can easily become self-perpetuating and drive down the quality of leadership?
Working in the international school sector is a privilege. It is a sector characterised by quality, innovation, commitment and international-mindedness. The coming together not only of nationalities and cultures but also curricula and pedagogies can be a force for good in a world where that is sorely needed. However, a sector that has the potential to deliver so much requires clear-sighted leadership – leadership that is effective, collaborative, open-minded and, crucially, stable.
The most successful schools – however we choose to measure success – typically have leadership stability. Our colleagues in RSAcademics’ Consultancy Services team have identified a trend in their UK research: a direct correlation between parental satisfaction and strong, effective and stable leadership. We will all know plenty of instances internationally where the opposite is true – where constant leadership turnover leads to wider staff instability, parental dissatisfaction and a poorer offer to students; it also costs schools money. I would go so far as to say that the international sector could start to become swamped by mediocrity if we don’t start reversing the current trend.
A shared responsibility
We often attribute leadership turnover to systemic problems, governance issues and challenging external contexts. Without doubt, these are major factors. However, from our vantage point of appointing senior leaders into international schools – reviewing many hundreds of applications every year and speaking to even more candidates and contacts – we can identify something else. We see a culture of short-termism for which the leaders themselves and the schools that appoint them must share some responsibility.
Part of the problem lies in the patterns established during international teaching careers. Fixed-term contracts are a way of life but have also become an excuse. “Reason for leaving: End of contract.” Well, actually, it’s not – a contract can be renewed. We regularly encounter candidates who have served for a decent period in a school or two in a national system, but then move internationally and race through a series of one- and two-year appointments. That continues through middle leadership and into senior leadership. When we question it, the common refrain is: “I had achieved all I could.” Really? In two years? In a school environment that is hard-wired to operate on an annual cycle?
This matters when we see careers made up of a succession of short-term appointments, and it matters when we see schools that are changing heads every year or two. Some schools may not care or may even use short-term appointments to avoid rewarding longevity or investing in staff, and these are probably also schools that will not spend time or money on recruitment. But most in the sector know that these patterns impact on quality.
We seem to have a culture in which teachers and leaders think that moving on after a single contract is the norm and the way to progress. Some may appreciate the itinerant lifestyle. However, our sense from those hundreds of conversations every year is that for many it is a source of unhappiness, even if they put a brave face on it, rationalise it and explain every move in painstaking detail.
Exceptions
It is important to say that a short-term position here or there is not the issue. We know that poor governance can often be a reason to move. Our Upwards and Onwards report, for which our colleague Chris Edwards spoke to 75 serving principals, identified this very clearly. However, Chris also found some of those principals acknowledging that, with more due diligence, they might have foreseen the challenges. In some cases, they were so eager for their next step up the ladder that they did not make a reasoned assessment of what they were getting into. This becomes another part of the cycle: leaders who go into a role with the mindset that if it doesn’t work out, it’s only for a year or two.
There are other very good reasons for the occasional quicker-than-expected move. Family illness has become a more frequent factor since the pandemic. Sometimes, a family does not settle, no matter how much consideration they gave to a move. And there will be unforeseen circumstances: a change of school ownership, national policies or regulatory change, visa issues, conflict or civil unrest. Occasionally, a job may be genuinely short-term – an interim role or an appointment to deliver a time-defined project.
These are perfectly-valid exceptions. What should concern us more is that significant parts of our sector – those seeking appointment, those doing the appointing – are neglecting the importance of depth of experience and sustained impact in a role. Breadth appears to be prioritised at the expense of depth.
Breaking the cycle
There are practical consequences of a career of short-term appointments. Why should a school believe its appointee will stay for longer this time? Then there is the challenge of verifying a career history: how much reference checking will assure a school that those moves have been as explained? And a career of many moves will require even more safer recruitment vigilance.
There are deeper-rooted challenges. A school may want a new head to bring stability, carry a community through change, address systemic challenges, build long-term ownership of a strategy, embed a culture of continuous improvement or forge sustainable community links. How can that school be confident if its appointee has not demonstrated sustained impact elsewhere – regardless of their long CV list of achievements? And how can a candidate be realistic about their abilities if they have not stuck in a role for long enough to see the real consequences of their leadership?
There is a message to schools and to leaders here about valuing depth of experience, leadership longevity and evidence of sustained impact. We don’t want schools to start ruling out promising candidates because of an occasional blip – we sometimes have to fight a candidate’s corner in these situations. But we do hope more schools will look harder at experience. And we hope that more leaders will want to put down deeper roots, understand the joy and satisfaction that comes from seeing their impact over time, and recognise that they will need experience to equip them for bigger challenges in the future.
The continuing growth of the sector, sometimes in markets where recruitment is challenging anyway and with schools of varying quality, makes matters even tougher. There are not enough good leaders to go around. That should also make it more important for schools to invest in those who will stay, and for leaders to recognise the value of the investment and trust placed in them.
Unless we break the cycle, there is surely a risk to what so many people work so hard to achieve in international schools.
Our advice to candidates, therefore, is to look hard and carefully – if you can, discuss a job in detail before you apply – and genuinely seek that longer-term commitment. You will be making yourself a better leader and contributing to a changed mindset in the sector. In an article last year for those looking to break into leadership, I opened with an anecdote about a middle leader who had asked about preparing for senior leadership. The best thing, I said, will be to stay where you are for another two or three years. This committed, intelligent leader had assumed the opposite, bringing home to me the need to reset the single-term contract culture. The relief in his face said it all. “My family will be so happy,” he replied.