18 June 2026
Andrew I Lewer MBE, Associate Partner, Anderson Quigley
There is no shortage of articles and no shortage of commentary about the pressures faced by independent education in Britain. Nor should there be, as there is no let-up in the pressure the sector is under. It simply is not valid for those in charge of any UK independent school to assert that the current situation can be managed by simply ‘holding on’ or making use of reserves with any realistic expectation of ‘better times’ or ‘things getting better’ in the immediate, but also the medium term, future.
Equally, assertions that a governance review is not needed, ‘we are fine’ and ‘it would be nice to have, but we are on a budget’ are not convincing or sensible at this key time. With recruitment too, sticking to what has ‘always’ been done in the past or wincing at the cost but saying ‘oh well, what can you do?’ are not prudent approaches to take.
Retaining a dispassionate tone about this is difficult at any time, when one cares deeply about the sector. It becomes harder still when the consequences of the current malaise come, quite literally, close to home. The very nearest independent school to my home, Abbotsholme School, has recently announced its closure. Having survived since 1889, it has been an important part of my life, both personal and professionally, and a fixture in the local community – its loss is a reminder that the pressures facing the sector are real and immediate.
Elsewhere, it is very plain, sometimes to all except those closest to them oddly, that certain other schools are going down, not least because of bad governance. Cases like this and reflections upon the very human cost of what is going on, to pupils, to parents and to teaching staff make me even more determined to advocate for the highest possible standards in governance and in recruitment across the independent education sector in my role as an Associate Partner of Anderson Quigley.
In the course of my work in the sector I often encounter schools whose leaders express the desire remain ‘fiercely independent’ and by this they do not just mean in the sense of being free from state control and being able to charge fees, but also independent of being part of a larger school group or even a family of schools. In order to maintain this stance, or indeed to make the right decisions at the right time about changing that status, good governance and good recruitment practices are key. They are, however, far from universal.
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change” as young Tancredi says to Prince Salina in ‘The Leopard’.
It was clear in the numerous conversations I have had with school leaders – Heads, Bursars and Chairs – while at conferences and on independent school visits (which have numbered around seventy in the last year or so) that this quote from ‘The Leopard’ represents a commonly held view. There is a desire to prompt governors into undertaking a review of how they operate and how to ensure meaningful succession planning occurs. There is a desire to move on from expensive recruiting that relies purely on connections and a limited and self-selecting pool of talent. However, there is also sometimes an inertia, a feeling of not wanting to upset governors by instigating a review, a sense of having the same sort of recruiting practices that have been in place before because ‘that is what we have always done’. Well, if there was ever a time to make the choice of seeing the need for change and overcoming hesitation about departing from the familiar, then it is now.
Notwithstanding the current situation, good governance goes beyond financial oversight. It involves setting a strategic course, ensuring compliance with evolving regulations, and fostering a school environment that prioritises inclusion and wellbeing. There is a danger is focusing on the middle one of these, compliance, to the detriment of the others and indeed away from focus on the attractiveness of one’s school to prospective pupils and their fee-paying parents. You can be 100% compliant with the admittedly often bewildering array of regulations coming out of government and its ‘arms-length’ associates and yet still go out of business as a school. At a recent governance conference I was amazed at the alacrity with which many independent school governors present seemed to yearn for ever more regulation and compliance requirements, even when emanating from bodies connected to a government whose political leaders seek the sector’s destruction or emaciation. This is not – in any way – to say that governance review services do not need to take compliance seriously, but it is a part of – and not the purpose of – what is on offer in governance review to independent schools from Anderson Quigley.
As my colleague Helene Usherwood put it recently “…governance is increasingly viewed as a strategic enabler, not simply an oversight function”. ‘Are we compliant?’ is just not going to cut it.
A strong theme that emerges from my school visits and conversations with those in the sector is the debate around operational versus strategic – ‘Eyes on, hands off’ as it is often expressed. Although it is true that too much operational interference from governors should be avoided, the above mantra should also not be used by Heads and SLTs to ward off governor interest or concerns. As a Council Leader I would often hear of other Leaders, well connected to their communities and having community safety as part of the Council’s role, being told by Chief Constables essentially to back off with ‘operational versus strategic’ used as the excuse to duck scrutiny and constructive criticism. And yet I would also wince at the micro-management of Council Cabinet colleagues getting down to a street to street or a case by case level with their Officers and thus not only interfering but taking their eye off their strategic role in the process. The parallels and need for balance as regards school governance are obvious. Having an opinion about a proposed change of format for Sports Day is perfectly fine for governors to have and express, but using up over an hour of a strategic meeting for a small number of those present to discuss it (again) is not. It is taking an interest in the operational versus allowing the operational to overwhelm any sense of proportionality and distract from key strategic matters.
Governing bodies do come in very different shapes and sizes and it is not just a cliché (not JUST a cliché, although it is one) to assert there is ‘no one size fits all’. Debates about the number of committees a Governing Body has (with a general inclination towards fewer) and indeed interesting alternative models, such as the Circle Model are well worth having. The Circle Model is the idea that you do not have committees at all but simply have much more frequent, but shorter, all-encompassing governor meetings (immense discipline required for that to work, however). In one sense they are well worth having even if the outcome is different from school to school, because the discussion itself, the dismantling, examination and re-assembly, is where much of the value resides. It is a very natural, human, habit to try to reverse engineer, to begin with the assertion that the way one does things is right and only then assemble the justification. That of course having 25 governors and 8 committees works well, that governors have never been paid and it is right that this should be the case for all time etc. And something that should not really work CAN produce great results, but is that sometimes despite and not because of the way it is structured?
I have been to excellent independent schools with huge governing bodies and multiple (and sometimes overlapping) committee structures, I have been to schools with smaller governing bodies that ought to work well and efficiently and yet are in dire straits, but to attribute these successes or failures to the structure chosen would be mistaken and simplistic. It is that human element and that willingness to genuinely deconstruct, reflect and build back that makes governance review work so interesting to me.
Independent school governing bodies are characterised by a dual identity: they are custodians of an educational charity and directors of a highly competitive business enterprise. Historically, boards were frequently populated via the, literally in this sector’s case, “old boys’ network” or local prestige, recruiting well-meaning alumni, parents, or local professionals who offered generalised oversight. In the modern economic landscape for independent schools, this model risk looking amateurish and, beyond that, is an acute institutional risk, especially if parents and former parents end up not just being represented on a governing body – helpful – but completely take it over – often not at all helpful. Related to this is the danger of cliques. While smaller governing bodies are generally seen as likely to be more dynamic, they can actually frustrate dynamism by becoming echo chambers and especially so if poorly chaired. Given that school governors are volunteers the clique problem is exacerbated by the ease with which others on the governing body can and will then walk away.
This is where data meets the importance of the personal touch and why I became an Associate Partner of Anderson Quigley.
As a business, AQ treats governance reviews as comprehensive, data-driven diagnostic health checks rather than simple administrative exercises – conducting 360-degree board assessments, analysing individual governor contributions, meeting structures, skill distributions, and the psychological safety of the boardroom culture. In support of that, one of Anderson Quigley’s greatest strengths is its highly specialised, dedicated Board Practice. Unlike boutique agencies limited strictly to independent schools (and indeed certain kinds of schools within that already narrow definition, in some cases), Anderson Quigley commands a massive, cross-sector data network that spans healthcare, higher education, charities, and the corporate world.
The resulting data delivers clear, actionable recommendations. This process maps out explicit succession plans, profiles the exact skills required for future governor appointments, and designs structured key performance indicators (KPIs) to optimize the vital relationship between the Chair and the Headteacher. All while understanding the parameters of the local area, the currently voluntary nature of the role and the key need to respect those currently serving on the governing body and the usually selfless and caring contribution that at least most seek to make.
When it comes to recruitment, the landscape is similarly evolving. Schools are increasingly turning to data-led approaches to ensure they recruit leaders and staff who align with their institutional values and long-term goals. Anderson Quigley has played a pivotal role in this transformation, working with MTM Consulting to develop data-rich models that break the long-standing mould. Nevertheless, the personal touch is there and remains key. This is not about taking out the centrality of the individual in recruitment, quite the opposite: The approach actively assists in identifying talented people with a proven track record of managing complex turnarounds, capital projects, or brand internationalisation.
Critically importantly, this expertise and ability to get the right person in post comes at a cost that is a challenge to other providers when Governing Bodies and Senior Leadership Teams are questioning value for money in recruitment as never before. This element, the high cost of recruitment in the sector, was the theme time and time again in the conversations I have had with education leaders and is regularly cited as a source of particular satisfaction from those partnering with Anderson Quigley.
Boards of governors can no longer treat their duties as passive, advisory, or ceremonial roles. They must operate as highly competent, objective corporate boards capable of driving fiscal resilience, structural integration, and digital transformation. Concurrently, headteachers and professional services leaders—such as bursars, chief operating officers, and commercial directors—must be selected through rigorous, data-driven methodology rather than traditional, insular networks, while recognising that the qualities of the individual must always be at the heart of any process.
If you’d like to discuss your school’s pressures and challenges, and how a review of your governance or leadership capabilities could support you, please contact Helene Usherwood at helene.usherwood@andersonquigley.com.
