Good management, systems, structure and professionalism
Promoters cite clear systems, well-defined hierarchy, supportive leadership and professionalism as reasons to recommend.
Choose a school tab at the top; within each school, switch between Staff and Parents. The sidebar on the left jumps to any section; sections collapse and expand so you can scan or drill in. Expand all / Collapse all sits at the top of each pane.
Respondents score the question "How likely are you to recommend the school?" 0–10. Promoters (9–10) would actively recommend; Passives (7–8) are satisfied but unenthusiastic; Detractors (0–6) are unhappy. NPS = % Promoters − % Detractors, on a −100 to +100 scale.
Each closed-ended statement uses a 5-point scale (Strongly Disagree → Strongly Agree). % agreement = share who picked Agree or Strongly Agree. The mini distribution under each tile shows the full breakdown.
Replies are pattern-matched against curated theme buckets. Each theme card shows mention volume, a one-sentence narrative of the top sub-aspects respondents named, the full sub-aspect breakdown, and a verbatim quote per top sub-aspect. A reply touching two themes is counted in both; a reply touching two sub-aspects within one theme is counted in both, so sub-aspect totals can exceed the theme total.
NPS +13 · positive · 76% avg agreement across 10 statements · 52 promoters, 87 passives, 30 detractors · promoters praise care, safety & support, detractors flag job security, contracts & retention
Three to four sentence summary distilled from the closed and open-ended responses below.
52 promoters, 87 passives, 30 detractors · promoters praise care, safety & support, detractors flag job security, contracts & retention
How the score sits on the 0–10 distribution, and what each segment (Promoters / Passives / Detractors) gave as their main reason.
Cards below show what staff wrote — not parents and staff combined. The companion sub-tab carries the other audience's reasons.
Promoters cite clear systems, well-defined hierarchy, supportive leadership and professionalism as reasons to recommend.
Promoters most often recommend Pharo for the quality and affordability of the education it delivers — strong academics, good results and a focus on the whole child. Several stress the school's broader mission of accessible, high-quality African education.
Promoters frequently cite a welcoming, supportive and conducive environment for both staff and learners as their reason to recommend.
Many promoters recommend Pharo because it invests in staff careers — trainings, CPDs and a culture that values growth. Several describe it as more than a workplace: a community that invests in its people.
Some promoters recommend Pharo for its mission and impact — on children, the economy and the community — and a sense of purpose and legacy in the work.
A few promoters cite good service and the school's openness to complaints and compliments.
The largest passive cluster credits Pharo for professional growth opportunities while signalling the school stops short of a wholehearted recommendation. These respondents value trainings, CPDs and career advancement but hold back the top score.
Passives cite a supportive, conducive environment and welfare benefits (transport, meals, teamwork) as the basis for a solid-but-not-top score.
Passives also point to quality education and learner development as reasons for a favourable-but-reserved score.
A cluster of passives explicitly frame their score as "good but needs improvement," naming communication, consistency, processes and staff-parent engagement as the gap to a higher number.
Some passives anchor their reservation in pay, lack of rest, workload or job-security worries — the same issues that push others into the detractor band.
Several detractors still acknowledge genuine positives — fairness, growth, flexible policies, talent development — even as they withhold a recommendation, suggesting their low scores stem from specific grievances rather than wholesale dissatisfaction.
The defining detractor theme is contractual insecurity — the one-year contract, no guarantee of renewal, and a recurring "fear of the unknown." These respondents often value the school otherwise but cannot give a high score while their employment feels precarious.
Detractors cite low remuneration, heavy workload and the mismatch between the two, often paired with insecurity and pressure.
A small but sharp detractor strand describes toxicity, abuse of working hours, and a sense that staff mental and psychological wellbeing — and even religious freedom — are not valued.
Detractors point to the absence of rest and limited family time — Saturdays, holidays and long hours — as a reason they would hesitate to recommend.
Noted, not themed: Unclear or noncommittal reasons (4).
Strongest: The school culture supports collaboration. (88%) · Weakest: I feel comfortable raising concerns without fear. (42%) · Biggest divider: I feel comfortable raising concerns without fear. (46 pp gap)
All closed-ended statements: how respondents agree overall, where the experience is strongest and weakest, where promoters and detractors diverge, and which statements most move the NPS score.
One tile per statement, sorted by % agreement. The mini chart shows the full distribution from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
All 10 statements ranked by overall % agreement. Under each statement: how promoters (NPS 9–10) and detractors (NPS 0–6) compared, and the gap between them. Bar colour: green ≥ 70%, amber 50–70%, red < 50%.
Top theme: Academic performance & teaching quality (56) · top sub-aspect: Academic standards & curriculum delivery
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What does the school do well?” replies.
164 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
Staff repeatedly cite the school's core academic delivery — quality teaching, strong standards, good results and a supportive, structured learning environment — as something Pharo does well. Many responses bundle academic excellence with character development and a "well-rounded" or "holistic" approach, framing the school as shaping confident, disciplined individuals rather than just passing exams. This strand is voiced across all segments and is the second most common after professional development.
By far the most prominent staff strength is Pharo's sustained investment in teacher growth — continuous professional development, workshops, refresher courses, seminars, study leave and university sponsorship. Staff describe this as the school "having teachers' professional growth at heart," and the strand spans promoters and passives almost equally, with even some detractors crediting it. It is voiced as both a structural commitment (CPD programmes, curriculum workshops) and a personal benefit (being enriched with skills, growing into a better version of oneself). This is the single most repeated word-cluster in the does-well responses.
A large cluster of staff name on-time, every-month salary payment as a concrete thing the school does well — frequently phrased simply as "payment on time." Tellingly, several detractors and passives who criticise the salary level elsewhere still credit the school for paying punctually, which marks this as a reliable operational strength even among the less satisfied. It is one of the most frequently repeated single points in the does-well question.
Staff credit the school with clear leadership structures, defined reporting protocols, organised systems and professional, supportive management. Several note that leadership is placed at each level of learning and that the school runs in an orderly, well-coordinated way. This is voiced mostly by promoters and passives.
Staff consistently praise the school for prioritising the welfare and wellbeing of both learners and teachers, often naming child protection and safeguarding alongside a caring, valuing culture. The strand ranges from broad statements that the school "cares about workers and students" to specific safeguarding and individual-attention practices. It is voiced across all segments.
A distinct strand praises the school's digital-first approach — ICT integration in lessons, the CBC app, provision of laptops and learning materials, and the move away from manual paperwork. This is named by both promoters and passives, with a couple of detractors also acknowledging it, and it is one of the clearer operational strengths.
Staff value the tangible welfare package — free or subsidised daily meals, reliable transport, tuition subsidies for their own children, scholarships and pension. Several responses frame these as evidence that "the school values its people" rather than as mere perks. This strand is voiced mainly by passives and promoters and overlaps with the broader "cares about staff and learners" sentiment.
Staff value a collaborative culture — teamwork among colleagues, cross-campus collaborative meetings, and being involved in decisions. The strand is voiced mostly by passives and promoters and conveys a sense of belonging and shared effort.
A set of staff name communication and feedback as something the school does well, though the same word recurs in the improvement question — signalling this is an area of mixed experience. Here it is cited positively, mostly by passives.
A smaller strand singles out the school's marketing, branding and transport/fleet operations as professionally run, with one respondent calling these "exceptional." Voiced by a mix of promoters, passives and detractors.
A few staff frame the school's strength as delivering quality education affordably and serving its clients (parents) well. Voiced by promoters and passives.
A small strand names cross-departmental and cross-campus coordination as a strength, voiced by a detractor and a passive (and overlapping with the management theme).
Noted, not themed: No specific feedback / not yet able to comment (3).
Top theme: Communication (36) · top sub-aspect: Feedback on child's progress
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What should the school improve?” replies.
164 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
The loudest improvement ask from staff is pay — higher salaries, annual increments to match the cost of living and workload, and fewer deductions. The strand is voiced strongly across every segment, including promoters who otherwise rate the school highly, which signals it is a genuine pain point rather than a detractor-only grievance. Several tie pay directly to their ability to survive, concentrate and stay (retention), and a few raise fairness — equal starting pay for equal qualifications and workload.
A very large cluster asks the school to improve communication — clearer, more timely information from leadership to staff, better cascade across departments, and more transparency around decisions. Many connect poor communication to confusion, planning problems and collisions when answering parents. Voiced heavily by passives and promoters, with several detractors too.
Closely linked to pay, staff ask for a stronger welfare package — comprehensive medical cover beyond SHA, annual leave, allowances, and general improvement of workers' welfare and morale. Respondents frame welfare as the lever for motivation, productivity and long-term commitment. Voiced across all segments.
A strong, emotionally charged cluster asks for more rest — relief from Saturday duties and holiday duty rosters, longer mid-term and closure holidays, fewer late evening meetings, and respect for personal and family time. Respondents tie this directly to motivation, mental wellbeing and performance. Voiced across all segments, with detractors especially pointed.
A pointed strand asks the school to move away from one-year contracts toward longer, open-ended or permanent terms, citing the anxiety and turnover that contract uncertainty causes. Several explicitly link retention of good teachers to job security, and one promoter argues that greater security would let teachers fully commit to the school's vision. Voiced by passives and promoters.
A related strand asks leaders to listen — to be approachable, accord a listening ear, respect junior staff, keep confidences, and consult before imposing decisions. Respondents want their views genuinely heard rather than overridden. Voiced across all segments.
Staff request better facilities and equipment — modern classrooms, photocopiers per branch, laptops for class managers and learners, renovation of unsafe/flooded playground areas, and adequate teaching tools and network. Voiced across all segments.
A strongly-felt strand asks the school to root out bias, favouritism, tribalism and nepotism, and to award leadership positions and opportunities on merit. Respondents call for mutual respect between seniors and juniors and consistent, fair leadership practices. Voiced by detractors and passives most intensely.
Staff ask for more manageable workloads, better and earlier planning of events and trainings, and faster approvals — especially for finance-related decisions, where delays cause frustration. Voiced across all segments.
A strand asks for stronger student support — guidance and counselling, academic help for struggling learners, career guidance, mentorship and leadership platforms for students, plus more individualised attention. Voiced mostly by passives and promoters.
Staff ask for stronger collaboration and teamwork between departments and more frequent departmental meetings. Voiced by promoters, passives and detractors.
A reflective strand urges the school to close the gap between intention and execution — consistent service delivery and operational excellence experienced daily. Voiced by promoters.
A focused strand asks the school for clearer strategies to manage and improve learner discipline. Voiced mostly by passives and promoters.
A small strand asks the school to offer internal scholarships or full fee benefits for employees' children. Voiced by detractors and a promoter.
A few responses use the improvement question to affirm that trainings are helpful, while suggesting only minor enhancements. Voiced by passives.
Noted, not themed: Nothing to improve / fully satisfied (5); No specific feedback given (5).
NPS +32 · solidly positive · 84% avg agreement across 7 statements · 406 promoters, 245 passives, 147 detractors · promoters praise academic performance & teaching quality, detractors flag fees & affordability
Three to four sentence summary distilled from the closed and open-ended responses below.
406 promoters, 245 passives, 147 detractors · promoters praise academic performance & teaching quality, detractors flag fees & affordability
How the score sits on the 0–10 distribution, and what each segment (Promoters / Passives / Detractors) gave as their main reason.
Cards below show what parents wrote — not parents and staff combined. The companion sub-tab carries the other audience's reasons.
The most common reason promoters give is the visible progress and growth they see in their own child — improved reading, handwriting, confidence, behaviour and academic results, often contrasted favourably with a previous school. Many trace the journey from playgroup or Tender Care days and credit the school with transforming a shy or struggling child. This personal, evidence-based satisfaction is what most strongly drives the highest scores.
A near-equal cluster of promoters cite the quality of education and academic performance outright — strong results, high standards, excellence in academics and co-curriculars, and value for the fees. Many answers are brief ("Quality education", "Performance", "Academic excellence") and reflect confidence in the school's core academic offer as the reason they would recommend it.
A large group of promoters simply say it is "a good school", "the best", or words to that effect without elaborating. These short blanket endorsements reflect broad satisfaction and trust even where no single reason is specified.
Promoters frequently recommend the school because of its teachers — dedicated, committed, qualified, patient, friendly and caring, with several naming individual teachers who made a difference. Strong teacher-learner and teacher-parent relationships recur. This is one of the warmest threads behind the promoter scores.
Many promoters point to discipline and the strong values instilled in learners — good manners, well-behaved children and a values-driven culture — frequently paired with performance. It reflects a reputation parents actively want to be associated with.
Promoters also cite how well-run, organised and professional the school is — strong management, structure, responsiveness, service delivery and smooth execution. This operational confidence underpins their willingness to recommend.
A group of promoters specifically credit good communication, feedback, responsiveness and parent engagement — the school listening, partnering with parents and keeping them informed — as their reason to recommend.
Some promoters recommend the school for the care, meals, hygiene and hospitality — attentive handling of children, a clean and motivating environment and good food — especially parents of younger children.
A set of promoters frame their recommendation around the strong foundation and holistic, all-round development the school gives — nurturing the whole child mentally, spiritually and physically, often referencing a long journey from the early years.
Some promoters cite the overall environment — conducive, safe, enabling, friendly and welcoming — as the reason they would recommend, a sense of the school simply being a good place to be.
A small group of promoters single out reliable transport and services — a dependable transport system and good service delivery — as their reason to recommend.
A few promoters specifically credit the school's technology and digital learning — digital literacy, modern systems and digitised results — as what sets Pharo apart and earns their recommendation.
The largest passive group recommends the school in principle for its good academics, education quality, organisation and foundation, but stops short of a top score — many phrase it as "a good school" with the implicit or explicit sense that it is solid rather than exceptional. The tone is positive but measured, which is exactly what keeps these parents in the 7–8 band.
For a large share of passives, the thing pulling their score down is fees — the school is good but expensive, with frequent increases and additional charges they find hard to justify against the value received. Many explicitly say they would score higher if the fees were lower or more transparent. This fee-tempered satisfaction is the clearest single driver of passive scores.
A group of passives praise the teachers and relationships but attach reservations — good, friendly, supportive staff, yet concerns about teacher changes, communication or consistency that hold the score below promoter level.
Some passives cite genuine progress in their child but remain measured — the child is improving and happy, but the parent is not yet ready to give a perfect score, sometimes because they are still new or want to see more.
A distinct passive group anchors a middling score to a specific concern — transport timing, crowded classes, infrastructure, teacher turnover, clubs, hairstyle rules, early mornings, or a missing facility — while otherwise rating the school positively. These are targeted, fixable issues rather than broad dissatisfaction.
Several passives give a brief, neutral-positive verdict — "a good school", "standard", "relatively good", "well coordinated" — without strong enthusiasm or a specific complaint, the hallmark of the passive middle.
A small passive group ties their score to communication, feedback and engagement gaps — wanting more or clearer updates and follow-up — which keeps an otherwise good experience from rating higher.
A few passives explicitly say the school is good but has room for improvement, declining a top score on that general basis.
The dominant reason detractors give is fees — the cost is seen as too high and rising, often by large margins, with extra and seemingly duplicated charges (book fund, stationery, digital and club fees) that feel unjustified against the value delivered. A sharp sub-strand objects to harassment over fees, children being sent home and the school feeling "like a business". For many detractors the school is acknowledged as good but simply unaffordable or poor value.
A large detractor cluster centres on declining or questionable education quality and provision — standards seen as slipping, inexperienced or "green" teachers, weak follow-up, under-used facilities, crowded classes, poor infrastructure (iron-sheet rooms, the Umoja access road) and gaps in clubs or co-curriculars. Some compare unfavourably with the former Tender Care era. This is the second-largest detractor theme and the broadest in scope.
A pointed detractor theme concerns teacher conduct and the treatment of children — teachers described as unfriendly, harsh, demeaning, or physically punishing (pinching, bruising), and children made fearful or anxious about going to school. These are some of the most serious individual complaints in the dataset and weigh heavily on the lowest scores.
Some detractors cite discipline and accountability concerns — declining discipline, persistent bullying despite complaints, and a perceived lack of accountability among teachers and administration.
A set of detractors point to administration and management — not listening to parents, no parental involvement in decisions (including fees), poor responsiveness to concerns, and a preference for the former Tender Care management.
A couple of detractors cite poor communication and responsiveness — unanswered queries, slow reconciliation and not being informed of incidents — as the basis for their low score.
A small detractor group anchors their score to high teacher turnover and instability — teachers leaving or transferring frequently, which they say undermines learning.
Noted, not themed: No clear or noncommittal reason (18).
Strongest: My child feels safe at school. (90%) · Weakest: The quality of education and experience justifies the fees paid. (69%) · Biggest divider: The quality of education and experience justifies the fees paid. (65 pp gap)
All closed-ended statements: how respondents agree overall, where the experience is strongest and weakest, where promoters and detractors diverge, and which statements most move the NPS score.
One tile per statement, sorted by % agreement. The mini chart shows the full distribution from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
All 7 statements ranked by overall % agreement. Under each statement: how promoters (NPS 9–10) and detractors (NPS 0–6) compared, and the gap between them. Bar colour: green ≥ 70%, amber 50–70%, red < 50%.
Top theme: Academic performance & teaching quality (276) · top sub-aspect: Strong teaching & qualified teachers
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What does the school do well?” replies.
776 parents wrote a substantive reply to this question.
Academic quality is the single loudest note in what parents praise: the standard of education, exam performance, strong results, and a rigorous, competitive learning culture. The strand runs from one-word answers like "Academics", "Performance" and "Quality education" to fuller statements about syllabus coverage, value for fees, and producing high scorers. It is voiced overwhelmingly by promoters but is well represented among passives and even some detractors who still concede the school is academically strong. Phrasing recurs across all campuses and grades, making this the clearest shared perception of the school's core strength.
Closely tied to academics is praise for the act of teaching itself — how lessons are delivered, how children are made to understand, and the relationship between teacher and learner. Parents cite teaching methodology, personalised and learner-centred approaches, helping weaker areas improve, covering the syllabus with understanding, and the visible skill of the teachers. Many answers are simply "Teaching" or "Teach well", while longer ones describe individual attention and learners being challenged to think. This theme spans every segment and grade band and overlaps heavily with the academic-quality theme above.
Parent-facing communication is a strong and frequently named strength: timely updates on events, results posted promptly after assessments, school-to-parent messaging, and consistent feedback channels. Parents value being kept informed about their child's progress and school programmes, and several single out the digital reporting of results. It is praised across segments, including detractors who still rate communication highly even while criticising other areas, signalling this is a genuine operational strength rather than a halo effect.
Co-curricular life — clubs, sports, games, trips, cultural days, scouting and martial arts — is widely credited, often as the counterweight that makes the education feel "all-round" rather than purely academic. Parents praise the balance between classwork and activities and specific events such as cultural day. The strand is mostly promoter-voiced but appears across segments, and several detractors still name activities as a bright spot.
Discipline and the instilling of good values, manners and respect form a major pillar of what parents appreciate. Many one-word "Discipline"/"Displine" answers sit alongside comments on good morals, respect for elders, cleanliness, uniform standards and well-behaved children. The theme is voiced strongly by promoters and passives and is often paired with performance in the same breath ("discipline and performance"). It reflects a values-driven reputation that parents across grades clearly buy into.
A warm, caring and nurturing environment is something many parents single out: the school handling children well, attending to wellbeing, warm morning welcomes, and treating each child with love. Some of the most heartfelt comments come from parents of young or special-needs children (including a parent of an autistic child) who feel their child is safe and seen. This care theme is voiced across all segments and is especially associated with lower-primary and playgroup parents.
Transport — reliable pick-up and drop-off, professional drivers and a supportive transport team — is repeatedly named as a standout, sometimes in glowing detail naming the transport manager and individual drivers. Notably, several detractors who are unhappy overall still say transport is the one thing working well. The theme cuts across campuses and is one of the clearest operational strengths parents recognise.
This theme gathers other genuine strengths parents named that don't cluster into the larger themes — equal treatment of children, guidance, making school enjoyable, pupil-centredness, comfort and a friendly environment, plus a few homework-related positives. They are short, scattered and mostly warm, and span all segments.
Meals, snacks and feeding are a recurring strength: balanced diet, the snack programme, cleanliness around food, and the convenience of not packing food from home. Most mentions are brief ("Food", "Meals", "Feeding") and appear across segments; it is a smaller but consistent thread, and it is mirrored as an improvement area where portions and menu come up.
Parents praise the calibre and attitude of the staff themselves — qualified, experienced, dedicated, friendly and approachable teachers, and courteous support staff including drivers, cooks and reception. Several name the professionalism of the teaching staff specifically. This staff-quality theme is largely promoter- and passive-voiced and underpins the academic and care themes.
Organisation, leadership and overall management are praised by parents who value the school running in an orderly, well-planned, professional way — good leadership, structure, time-keeping and smooth operations. Several mention strong customer service and good management style. The theme is voiced across segments and reflects confidence in how the institution is run.
A distinct group of parents credit the school's handling of money matters as a strength: flexible, understanding fee payment and installment arrangements, not chasing children away over arrears, the book fund, and bundling stationery into fees. A few ambivalent or critical entries about fee charging also land here. It is voiced mostly by passives and promoters and contrasts with the strong fee-related criticism in the improvement section.
Beyond classroom discipline, parents praise the school for building character, confidence and strong values — nurturing talent and potential, instilling confidence, mentoring children toward the future and grounding them in good morals and faith. This theme overlaps with discipline but is distinct in its emphasis on the child's inner growth and future readiness, and is largely promoter-voiced.
Parents value how the school tracks and reports learner progress — frequent assessments, academic clinics, follow-ups, digital results and proactive updates when a child improves. Several describe being reached out to about results and progress, and appreciate the most-improved recognition. This is a focused, mostly promoter-voiced theme that overlaps with communication but centres specifically on academic monitoring.
A handful of parents simply answer that the school does well "in everything" or across all areas, declining to single out one strength. These blanket-positive answers are almost entirely from promoters and reflect broad, unqualified satisfaction.
Parents credit the school's adoption of technology — digital learning, ICT integration, computer exposure and digital reporting of results and homework. Several note that digital communication has helped them stay involved, especially with homework. It is a smaller, mostly promoter- and passive-voiced theme that signals the school is seen as modern and progressive.
Some parents specifically praise the provision of books, stationery and learning materials — the book fund, textbooks supplied to pupils, and investment in learning resources that make studying easier. It is a small, cross-segment theme that overlaps with the fee-flexibility strength.
A number of parents frame the strength as a strong foundation and holistic, all-round development — wholesome upbringing, grooming, shaping and a good start, especially in the lower grades. The language of "foundation" and "all-round" recurs across segments and ties together academics, values and co-curricular life into a single sense of well-rounded growth.
Safety and a secure environment are named by a small but clear group of parents, covering child safety from pick-up to drop-off and a safe space for the child at school. It is mostly promoter-voiced and links closely to the care and transport themes.
Noted, not themed: No specific feedback / not yet able to comment (19).
Top theme: Fees & affordability (141) · top sub-aspect: Fees too high
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What should the school improve?” replies.
742 parents wrote a substantive reply to this question.
By a clear margin, the loudest improvement ask from parents is about fees — the level is seen as too high, increases are frequent and sometimes unexplained, and parents want reductions, sibling discounts, installment options and transparency before any hike. A strong sub-strand objects to children being sent home or denied results over arrears, and to perceived double-charging (book fund plus buying books, stationery and digital fees). It is voiced across all segments — including many promoters who love the school but find it expensive — and is the dominant single concern in the whole parent dataset.
The second-largest improvement cluster concerns teaching, curriculum and academics: parents want stronger, more qualified subject teachers, better alignment to CBC/CBE (less rote 8-4-4 style), more practical and hands-on learning, counselling and mentorship, and a sharper academic edge. Several worry about specific transition points such as Grade 4. The theme spans all segments and overlaps with the individual-support and retention themes.
Transport is a heavy improvement theme: pick-up times seen as far too early for young learners, late evening drop-offs, long routes, communication when transport is disrupted, old vehicles, and safety on the bus (drivers moving off before children are seated). Parents also raise the clocking-in/out SMS alerts they want reinstated. It is voiced across segments and campuses and is one of the most operationally specific asks.
Food and diet are a prominent improvement request: parents want larger portions, better quality and variety, healthier choices (milk instead of cocoa, fewer fast foods on trips), special-diet provision, and meal-plan transparency. Many entries are a single word ("Food", "Diet", "Meals"). The theme appears across all segments and mirrors the smaller does-well meals praise.
Many parents want more and better engagement — regular parent-teacher meetings, a PTA, suggestion or complaint boxes, consultation before decisions (especially on fees), and meetings held on Saturdays to fit work schedules. The strand is about voice and partnership as much as information. It is voiced across all segments and overlaps with the communication theme.
Clubs and co-curricular value draw a distinct set of complaints: clubs that are paid for but dormant or poorly run (swimming, ballet, coding, robotics, music), a wish for competitions and visible results, easier club switching, and treating sport as part of learning rather than a paid add-on. Parents across segments — notably passives and detractors — question whether the club fees deliver value.
Infrastructure and facilities are a clear ask: bigger and safer playgrounds and fields, replacing iron-sheet classrooms with permanent structures, decongesting crowded lower-primary classes, better toilets and hygiene, a library, dining hall, projectors and improved access roads (Umoja campus is named repeatedly). The theme spans segments and is concentrated where physical conditions are weakest.
A serious improvement theme covers discipline, bullying and staff harshness: parents report bullying that persists despite complaints, and a number describe teachers shouting, pinching, beating or instilling fear — including explicit references to corporal punishment that should have ended. Some ask for stronger discipline of learners; others ask the school to protect children from harsh treatment. The strand is emotionally intense and, while spread across segments, is voiced sharply by several detractors.
Distinct from broad engagement, parents want communication itself improved — earlier notice on requirements and homework, alerts on transport and fees in good time, two-way channels rather than admin-only WhatsApp groups, and not relying on children to relay messages. It is voiced across segments and overlaps with the transport and parent-engagement asks.
A recurring, specific request concerns grooming and dress code — allowing girls neat black braids, more hairstyle freedom, not sending children home over hair, and revisiting uniform and tracksuit/sporting-shoe rules. Parents frame this as the school feeling too rigid or "public-school" on grooming. It is voiced across segments, often as an aside in otherwise positive feedback.
Parents ask for more individual attention and support for weaker, slower or absent learners — catch-up help, smaller class sizes, enough teachers, support for learning disabilities, and not leaving struggling children to private tuition. Several want each child's weak areas identified and addressed. The theme spans segments and connects to the teaching-quality and facilities (class size) asks.
Teacher turnover is a focused concern: parents report teachers leaving or being changed mid-term, which they say disrupts continuity, syllabus flow and learner morale. Many explicitly ask the school to retain and value experienced teachers. It is voiced across segments and links to the quality and decline concerns raised by detractors.
Language is a smaller but distinct ask — stronger English (and public-speaking), better Kiswahili teaching, requests for French/German, and for some Muslim parents the introduction of IRE. Parents worry about children mixing in Sheng or not speaking fluent English. The theme appears across segments.
A small group wants ICT and digital learning strengthened — fuller use of the computer lab, more computers, coding integration, and a balanced pilot of Google Workspace alongside handwriting. It is mostly promoter- and passive-voiced and mirrors the digital strength some parents already praise.
Parents specifically flag the organisation of academic/open days and events as needing work — last term's academic day is repeatedly called disorganised and time-consuming, with requests to split it by grade or stretch it into a week, and to plan sports days and other events better. It is voiced across segments.
A focused set of comments concerns homework and timetabling — too much homework on weekdays, homework given as punishment, requests for textbook-based rather than online homework, breaks between lessons, and better-timed assignments. It overlaps with the teaching theme but centres on workload and scheduling.
A small group raises safety and safeguarding gaps — lost or stolen items, monitoring children on buses and at play, first-aid and supervision. It overlaps with transport and discipline but is distinct in its focus on physical safety and lost property.
A few parents object specifically to the rule against carrying snacks from home and want more flexibility on what children may bring or be allowed healthy snacks. It is a small, pointed provisioning ask voiced across segments.
A lone comment singles out support staff for improvement, distinct from the broader discipline/harshness theme.
Noted, not themed: No specific feedback / satisfied for now (48); Nothing to improve / keep it up (38).
4 campuses · 13 grade bands represented
Composition of the responding parent body — campus split and grade distribution.
NPS by campus-grade cell
Net Promoter Score broken down by campus and grade band — surfaces pockets where sentiment runs ahead of or behind the school average.
| Playgroup | Pre-Primary | Lower Pri (1-3) | Upper Pri (4-6) | Junior Sec (7-8) | Senior Sec (9-10) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main campus | +80 n=5 | -17 n=6 | +100 n=1 | +35 n=26 | +0 n=6 | · |
| Phase 4 campus | +75 n=4 | +8 n=13 | +42 n=12 | +0 n=13 | +40 n=10 | +43 n=7 |
| Umoja campus | +0 n=1 | +55 n=11 | +17 n=6 | +45 n=11 | +100 n=1 | · |