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 +27 · positive · 85% avg agreement across 10 statements · 14 promoters, 10 passives, 6 detractors · promoters praise teamwork & culture, detractors flag fairness, favouritism & workplace culture
Three to four sentence summary distilled from the closed and open-ended responses below.
14 promoters, 10 passives, 6 detractors · promoters praise teamwork & culture, detractors flag fairness, favouritism & workplace culture
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 most often justify their high score by the work environment itself — conducive, positive, supportive, and a place to grow professionally, with good feedback from supervisors. This is the dominant promoter rationale and dovetails with the teamwork theme.
A second promoter rationale centres on the school's educational mission — quality education, qualified teachers, and developing curious, confident, culturally grounded children.
Passives consistently signal a positive experience held back by a specific reservation — most often salary lagging the cost of living, but also gossip and how teachers are treated. Their scores read as "good, not yet great," with the gap clearly attributed.
Detractors are not disengaged; their reasons echo the same improvement themes — fear of workplace gossip, the desire for fair treatment, limited space — and several still call the school "the best." The recurring drivers are pay/fairness, the gossip culture, and physical space.
Strongest: My immediate leadership supports me to perform at my best. (93%) · Weakest: I feel comfortable raising concerns without fear. (73%) · Biggest divider: Leadership decisions are clear and well-communicated. (50 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: Care, safety & support (10) · top sub-aspect: Safe & secure environment
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What does the school do well?” replies.
30 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
This is overwhelmingly the strongest staff theme. Staff describe Pharo Kigali as a place where colleagues collaborate, support one another, and function as a unified team — several explicitly use the language of family and mutual care during personal life events. It is voiced almost entirely by promoters and passives, and it is the most frequently repeated single idea in the "does well" question, signalling that the collegial environment is the school's central staff-retention asset.
Closely tied to teamwork, many staff praise the overall working environment — feeling cared for, having their wellbeing and mental health considered, and being supported as employees. This is a promoter- and passive-led theme that frames Pharo as an employer that "minds about its employees," and it underpins much of the goodwill seen elsewhere in the staff data.
Several staff name the practical basics done well — the tools, materials and resources needed to do the job, and salaries paid on time. Notably, timely payment recurs as a positive even among staff who elsewhere ask for higher pay, showing the issue is the *level* of pay, not its reliability.
Staff repeatedly credit the school with helping them grow professionally — through trainings, feedback and career development. This theme is voiced by promoters, passives and even a detractor, and it positions Pharo as a place where staff feel they advance in their careers.
Some staff frame "does well" around the school's core product — quality teaching, academic performance and student discipline — rather than the workplace. This is a smaller, mixed-segment strand that mirrors the parent praise of academic quality.
A distinct strand emphasises that the environment is safe and that every learner is loved, heard and seen — staff taking pride in the pastoral experience offered to children.
A handful of staff name communication itself as a strength — the school communicating openly with everyone.
Top theme: Compensation & benefits (13) · top sub-aspect: Salary level too low
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What should the school improve?” replies.
30 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
This is the single most common staff improvement ask. Staff link the request explicitly to economic inflation and the rising cost of living, arguing that better pay would help them meet daily needs, feel valued and stay motivated. It spans every segment — detractors, passives and promoters alike — which makes it the most broadly held concern in the staff data and the clearest signal for management action.
A strikingly intense theme: staff describe a "toxic" undercurrent of gossip and lies spread between colleagues, and — more pointedly — management acting on rumours without verifying them. It is raised across detractors, passives and promoters, and for several respondents it is the explicit reason their NPS is not higher. The ask is twofold: stop the corridor gossip, and handle internal conflicts fairly without "rushing to believe rumours."
Staff repeatedly ask for more physical space and a bigger campus, alongside specific infrastructure gaps such as internet and printers. The space request comes mostly from promoters and detractors who otherwise rate the school highly and frame it as a constraint on a school they like.
Distinct from pay, a cluster of staff ask to be treated equally and fairly, with their efforts recognised. This overlaps with the gossip theme (feeling unsafe/unrespected) but its core is equity and acknowledgement; it is voiced by passives and detractors.
Several staff name communication — including its promptness — as the thing to improve, indicating that while some see it as a strength, others find internal information flow inconsistent.
A smaller improvement strand asks for more learning and play materials and for stronger inclusive learning, time management and punctuality.
One detractor focuses improvement on internal promotion — advancing knowledgeable existing staff.
Noted, not themed: Already satisfied / keep it up (4).
NPS +45 · solidly positive · 92% avg agreement across 7 statements · 60 promoters, 44 passives, 9 detractors · promoters praise academic performance & teaching quality, detractors flag communication
Three to four sentence summary distilled from the closed and open-ended responses below.
60 promoters, 44 passives, 9 detractors · promoters praise academic performance & teaching quality, detractors flag communication
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.
Promoters cite the school's education quality, curriculum and teaching standards — frequently in just a few words — as the headline reason for their score.
The single most powerful promoter rationale is seeing their own child change — improved grades, confidence, knowledge and behaviour, often contrasted with a previous school. This concrete, personal evidence is what converts parents into advocates.
Promoters credit warm, committed teachers and the school's close follow-up and engagement with children and parents.
Promoters also justify their score by their child's safety, happiness and the interactive, caring environment — a child who loves school and is well looked after.
Passives almost uniformly describe a good school while flagging the one thing keeping the score from being higher — most often weak French/bilingual delivery, but also parking, fees, or minor things "still to be worked on." Their reasons read as constructive and engaged rather than dissatisfied.
Detractors voice the sharpest concerns — poor communication, missing toys/fans/TV, short outdoor play, discipline handled too lightly, high fees, and afternoon classroom heat. Several are simply new and cautious rather than dissatisfied. The recurring drivers are communication gaps, early-years resources/comfort, discipline and cost.
Strongest: My child feels safe at school. (96%) · Weakest: The quality of education and experience justifies the fees paid. (88%) · Biggest divider: When I raise concerns, they are handled well. (52 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 (33) · top sub-aspect: Strong teaching & qualified teachers
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What does the school do well?” replies.
110 parents wrote a substantive reply to this question.
Parents repeatedly praise how well the school cares for children — their welfare, health, safety and happiness — and point to children who love coming to school as proof. This pastoral strand is the emotional core of parent loyalty and spans all grades and segments.
The most common parent praise is the core academic offering — quality teaching, strong learning methods, and a curriculum that visibly develops children. Parents across all grade bands and segments name "teaching," "education" and "academics" as the standout, and many tie it to observable progress in their own child. This is the bedrock of Pharo Kigali's parent reputation.
Parents value how the school keeps them informed and involved — regular updates on progress, responsiveness when they reach out, and a welcoming, two-way relationship. This is one of the most frequently named strengths and a clear differentiator, voiced across all segments and grades.
A signature strength parents single out is Pharo's play-based, activity-driven approach — making learning fun and engaging young children through games and creativity. It is voiced strongly by promoters, especially in Pre- and Lower Primary, and several explicitly chose the school for this balance.
A recurring praise is that Pharo grows confident, well-rounded children — instilling confidence, public-speaking ability, manners and life skills, with parents often contrasting their child's transformation against a previous school.
Some parents name discipline and the instilling of values, respect and humility as a core strength — often citing non-physical discipline as the reason they chose Pharo.
Parents single out the teachers themselves — warm, friendly, dedicated, professional — and the school's organisation and leadership, including a visible, approachable headmistress. This theme overlaps with care and communication but its focus is the people delivering the experience.
A smaller group of parents name school meals and feeding as something the school does well, sometimes alongside learning and care.
A few parents highlight the breadth of activities outside the core lessons — extracurriculars and enriching outings.
A single parent praises the learner-to-staff ratio as well managed.
One parent names the school's handling of time as the strength.
Noted, not themed: Not yet able to comment (1).
Top theme: Teacher quality & consistency (21) · top sub-aspect: Parent–teacher communication
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What should the school improve?” replies.
106 parents wrote a substantive reply to this question.
This is the most frequently named single improvement ask among parents. The recurring complaint is that English dominates day-to-day teaching and communication while French — and to a lesser extent Kinyarwanda — lags, leaving children more fluent in English than French and, in some cases, "forgetting" French. It cuts across promoters, passives and detractors and across grade bands, making it the clearest improvement priority parents want addressed.
The school meal is a prominent improvement target. Parents ask for more variety beyond a repeating weekly menu, better quality and preparation, and raise concerns that some children get sick when school reopens. Children also wish to eat the same food as teachers. It is voiced across all segments and grades.
Parents ask for more individualised follow-up and targeted help — especially in subjects where a child struggles, such as Maths and French — plus clearer reporting of each child's progress and challenges.
Parents ask for more enrichment beyond the classroom — varied field trips matched to grade and curriculum, school competitions, reading culture and a stocked borrowing library.
Parents ask for better and bigger facilities — more classrooms, playground space, ventilation, and especially shade to cool afternoon classrooms that "bake" the children. Smaller class sizes in nursery recur here too. The theme is voiced across segments, with the heat/shade concern raised pointedly by detractors.
A cluster of parents want discipline and moral values strengthened or revised — establishing a consistent "Pharo way," managing children who disrespect others, and reviewing what stories, songs and language children are exposed to. Voiced across segments and grades, with some seeing discipline as taken too lightly.
A clear, frequently repeated ask is for school transport — most often a bus, sometimes "at a fair cost" — explicitly linked by some to the fuel crisis and the difficulty of pick-up/drop-off. It spans promoters and passives across grades.
Parents raise the school calendar — long/early holidays, too many breaks eating into learning time, an early start time, and preschoolers' sleep/nap time.
A small but serious set of concerns about child safety — an evacuation/fire-safety gap, bruises and injuries, unsafe play surfaces, and reports of physical discipline (slapping, tapping with pens, pinching). These come mostly from Pre- and Lower Primary parents and, though some are promoters writing "in the spirit of partnership," they carry the highest safeguarding weight of any theme.
Some parents, while praising communication overall, want it faster and more consistent — quicker updates and more regular sharing of what children are doing.
A pointed minority object to school fees and, more sharply, to surprise charges layered on top — money asked for activities, exercise books, outings, plus the RWF 10,000 late-pickup penalty. The longest, most intense critiques in the dataset sit here; while raised by passives and one promoter, the tone is markedly aggrieved and several speak "on behalf of other parents."
A specific facilities sub-concern raised by multiple parents is parking — insufficient parking, traffic flow at pick-up, and using the shade as a waiting area rather than the ground.
A focused concern about cleanliness — classrooms in nursery that sometimes smell bad and general hygiene.
Parents want more resources — toys, fans, TVs/screens, and richer learning materials, particularly in the early years.
Two parents raise that the same children keep appearing in school photos/videos while others never feature, which they feel harms excluded children's confidence and self-image.
A single parent frames the most important improvement as raising teachers' salaries — echoing the dominant staff concern from the parent side.
One detailed concern is the pressure parents feel around teacher-appreciation gifts and the inequity of only homeroom teachers receiving them.
One parent objects specifically to how the school delivers negative information about their child.
A short ask for more confident speaking from children.
Restrooms and a shared daily-activity diary are named (alongside food) by one parent.
Noted, not themed: Already satisfied / keep it up (8); Not yet able to comment (2).
1 campus · 3 grade bands represented
Composition of the responding parent body — campus split and grade distribution.