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.
| School | Staff resp. | Staff NPS | Parent resp. | Parent NPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KG, Hargeisa | 9 | +0 | 0 | — |
| Primary, Hargeisa | 39 | +32 | 0 | — |
| Secondary, Sheikh | 22 | +38 | 0 | — |
NPS +29 · positive · 67% avg agreement across 10 statements · 37 promoters, 14 passives, 17 detractors · promoters praise quality & holistic education, detractors flag workload & operations
Three to four sentence summary distilled from the closed and open-ended responses below.
37 promoters, 14 passives, 17 detractors · promoters praise quality & holistic education, detractors flag workload & operations
How the score sits on the 0–10 distribution across Promoters / Passives / Detractors.
Strongest: I understand the strategic direction of the school. (77%) · Weakest: I feel comfortable raising concerns without fear. (51%) · Biggest divider: My immediate leadership supports me to perform at my best. (71 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%.
| School | Staff resp. | Staff NPS | Parent resp. | Parent NPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KG, Hargeisa | 9 | +0 | 0 | — |
| Primary, Hargeisa | 39 | +32 | 0 | — |
| Secondary, Sheikh | 22 | +38 | 0 | — |
NPS +0 · positive · 68% avg agreement across 10 statements · 4 promoters, 1 passive, 4 detractors · promoters praise care, safety & support, detractors flag communication
Three to four sentence summary distilled from the closed and open-ended responses below.
4 promoters, 1 passive, 4 detractors · promoters praise care, safety & support, 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 staff wrote — not parents and staff combined. The companion sub-tab carries the other audience's reasons.
Promoters recommend the school primarily because of its healthy, positive atmosphere and the full support they receive to carry out their duties. The strand combines emotional warmth ("healthy environment") with practical enablement ("full support given to run my duties"). One Promoter qualifies their enthusiasm by noting room for improvement, showing recommendation is warm but not uncritical.
One Promoter grounds their recommendation specifically in the dedication of the teaching staff — pointing to the people as the reason to recommend the school.
Noted, not themed: Brief positive — "Good" (1).
Detractors' reasons are notably ambivalent: each acknowledges genuine positives — a positive environment, useful training, supportive colleagues, teamwork, and a nurturing setting for young children — before naming the concerns that pull their score down. Those concerns cluster around workload and communication, subjective performance evaluation and appraisals, limited job security, weak academic follow-up and classroom support, and few professional growth opportunities. The pattern shows these are not disengaged critics but invested staff whose lower scores stem from management practice rather than dislike of the school. One Detractor's reason was wholly positive (a nurturing environment), indicating their low score is driven by factors expressed in their other answers rather than in the recommendation reason itself.
Strongest: I understand the strategic direction of the school. (89%) · Weakest: I feel comfortable raising concerns without fear. (44%) · Biggest divider: My immediate leadership supports me to perform at my best. (75 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 (3) · top sub-aspect: Safe & secure environment
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What does the school do well?” replies.
9 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
This is the most prominent strength, voiced across the segment by Promoters and Detractors alike. Staff describe a school that prioritises child safeguarding and well-being, protects privacy, and offers a nurturing atmosphere for both children and teachers. The strand cuts across NPS lines — it is named by Detractors as a genuine positive even where they have other complaints, which gives it real weight.
A distinct strength is the culture of collaboration among staff and students. Several respondents single out teamwork as something the school does well, and it is voiced by both a Promoter and a Detractor — suggesting it is a felt, day-to-day reality rather than aspiration. It overlaps with the supportive-environment theme but is named specifically often enough to stand on its own.
Staff value the quality and enjoyment of the learning experience: engaging activities, a focus on essential and reading skills, and welcoming classroom environments that make learning fun. This is voiced by a Passive and a Promoter, pointing to pedagogy as a recognised bright spot.
One Detractor highlights the school's provision of teacher training and professional development, alongside its strong organisation of school events such as Culture Day, Independence Day and Graduation Day. Notably this same respondent flags inconsistent academic follow-up elsewhere, so the praise is for the existence of development opportunities and the visible event calendar.
A Promoter credits the school with making learning and operational resources available when needed so that things run smoothly. This is a practical, logistics-focused strength tied directly to staff being able to do their jobs.
Top theme: Communication (4) · top sub-aspect: Feedback on child's progress
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What should the school improve?” replies.
8 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
This is the most prominent improvement theme and the dominant complaint among Detractors. The strands within it include inconsistent communication between what is said verbally and what appears in formal feedback, subjective or unclear performance evaluation and appraisals, weak academic follow-up and policy implementation, and a call for management to be more open-minded, emotionally intelligent and professional rather than taking issues personally. It is voiced almost entirely by Detractors and represents the core driver of their lower scores.
Closely tied to the leadership theme but distinct in focus, this strand concerns the human cost of turnover. Detractors link frequent staff turnover and annual teacher replacement to weaker continuity and teaching quality, and argue for mentoring, guidance and professional training instead of quickly replacing struggling teachers. The underlying driver is job insecurity and a desire for the school to invest in developing existing staff. (The two verbatims below also appear under the leadership theme, where they were originally written as part of the same answers; they are repeated here because the turnover strand is substantive in its own right.)
A Promoter, who is broadly positive, asks for more consistent and detailed feedback on students' work — a constructive, quality-of-teaching improvement rather than a grievance. It echoes the wider call for stronger academic follow-up but is specifically about feedback to students.
A Passive respondent flags practical, day-to-day environmental needs: keeping toilets clean, supporting students better, and teaching young children good hygiene habits. Given the kindergarten context, this is a concrete operational ask around cleanliness and child self-care.
A Detractor raises a specific curriculum and scheduling concern: prioritising English language and avoiding timetable clashes between English and Arabic, particularly in the primary section. This is a targeted, actionable structural fix rather than a cultural complaint.
One Promoter names salaries as the area to improve — a short but clear compensation signal that, despite their high recommendation score, pay is the standout gap for them.
Noted, not themed: No specific feedback (2).
NPS +32 · solidly positive · 64% avg agreement across 10 statements · 21 promoters, 8 passives, 9 detractors · promoters praise quality & holistic education, detractors flag workload & operations
Three to four sentence summary distilled from the closed and open-ended responses below.
21 promoters, 8 passives, 9 detractors · promoters praise quality & holistic education, detractors flag workload & operations
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 cite the high quality of education — and, for several, its proven results — as the reason they recommend the school. The strongest versions point to exam outcomes, with pupils reportedly earning top marks compared with other schools in Somaliland, and to Pharo's standing as one of the country's leading schools. This is the clearest rational driver of advocacy among promoters, often expressed with real pride.
Many promoters root their recommendation in the school's positive, supportive environment and the capacity, dedication, and care of its teachers. They describe witnessing first-hand the hard work that goes into supporting every student, and a culture that encourages students to grow and succeed. This theme is the emotional core of promoter advocacy, complementing the more results-focused quality theme.
Several promoters recommend the school primarily because of its strong reputation and standing as one of the best in Somaliland. For these respondents, Pharo's name and leading position are reason enough; this theme is concise and confident, often stated as established fact.
A subset of promoters credit clear strategic direction, understandable leadership decisions, transparent communication, good management, and order/governance as the basis for their recommendation. Notably, these respondents experience leadership and communication positively — a direct contrast to the detractors — underscoring how varied staff perceptions of management are within the same school.
Some promoters anchor their recommendation in the experience of working together as one Pharo team and being part of a collaborative community, sometimes alongside a focus on the school's continual improvement. This theme links advocacy to belonging and shared effort rather than to outcomes alone.
Passives tend to express qualified approval — they like the Pharo system, brand, and structure, and some cite long tenure or the school's standing as one of the best primaries in Somaliland. Their recommendations are positive but comparatively reserved, lacking the superlatives of the promoters; they value the institution without the same intensity of advocacy.
Other passives explicitly frame their score as "good but with areas to improve," naming communication, management support, and staff relations as the qualifiers, while still praising school culture, infrastructure, discipline, and hygiene. This theme captures the defining passive posture: genuine appreciation tempered by unresolved concerns that hold the score back from promoter territory.
A further detractor theme frames the experience as merely average — good in parts, but uneven, with some services strong and others still needing improvement. These responses are less angry than measured, describing a school that is acceptable but not yet excellent, and signaling room to convert these staff with targeted improvements.
The dominant detractor theme is dissatisfaction with leadership and management. Strands include a call for a change in leadership and a more collaborative approach, unclear and misassigned duties, ignored staff suggestions, one-sided supervision and feedback, poor communication, little recognition of effort, and an overall stressful, unfair working environment. The most extensive response names lower-primary leadership, the principal, and the admin directly. This is the core driver of low scores and the sharpest staff-experience grievance in the entire dataset.
A focused detractor theme attributes the low score to pressure and demanding conditions — long hours in a highly pressured, competitive environment. These respondents do not necessarily condemn the school's mission; rather, they flag the workload and intensity as the reason they would hesitate to recommend it as a workplace.
One detractor grounds the low score in concrete operational shortfalls — transport not yet reaching some areas, no staff accompanying students on buses besides the driver, and the absence of subject tuition across all classes owing to afternoon-shift duties. This is the most logistically specific reason for a low score and points to fixable service gaps rather than cultural problems.
One Somali detractor, despite a critical score, frames their reasoning around the good cooperation and mutual sharing of advice among staff and teachers — a reminder that even some detractors recognize collegial strengths and that low scores are not uniformly negative in their content.
Strongest: I understand the strategic direction of the school. (74%) · Weakest: I feel comfortable raising concerns without fear. (49%) · Biggest divider: Leadership decisions are clear and well-communicated. (75 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 (13) · top sub-aspect: Safe & secure environment
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What does the school do well?” replies.
38 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
The most prominent strength staff name is the school's ability to create a safe, supportive, inclusive environment in which students feel respected, motivated, and cared for. Respondents describe a place that nurtures not just academics but confidence, discipline, creativity, and good character, and that treats holistic child development as central. This theme is voiced overwhelmingly by promoters, who describe it in rich, affirming detail, but passives echo it too through phrases like "child friendly" and "conducive environment." It is the broadest and most emotionally positive strand in the "does well" responses, cutting across nearly every NPS segment.
A second strong theme highlights the school's academic standards, quality of education, and active, engaging teaching. Staff point to high standards, strong reputation, structured learning, and an approach that involves students rather than relying on memorization. Promoters carry most of this theme, framing academic quality as a defining strength, though passives and one detractor also acknowledge teaching and organization as areas of strength. It reflects pride in the educational product the school delivers.
Several staff single out safeguarding, child safety, and student supervision as something the school does well — often as the first thing they mention. This theme appears across the NPS spectrum, including from detractors who, despite their criticisms of management, still credit the school's commitment to keeping children safe. Its presence among critics gives it particular weight: even staff unhappy with leadership recognize safeguarding as a genuine institutional strength.
A distinct and striking theme — voiced almost entirely by the Somali-speaking promoters — is the school's cleanliness and hygiene. For these respondents, "nadaafada" (cleanliness) is the single thing the school most clearly does well, named bluntly and repeatedly. The concentration of this theme among Somali respondents suggests it may be a culturally salient marker of a well-run school for this group, and it is uniformly positive.
Some staff identify collaboration, teamwork, and the building of strong relationships across the Pharo team as a key strength. Voiced by both promoters and passives, this theme frames the school as a place where people work together well — a counterpoint to the communication and fairness concerns that surface in the improvement responses, and a sign that collaboration is felt as real by a meaningful share of staff.
A focused theme names student discipline and behaviour as a clear strength. These are short, confident statements, appearing across promoters, passives, and detractors alike — even detractors who otherwise rate the school low still credit it with instilling discipline. The cross-segment consistency makes discipline one of the school's most universally acknowledged outcomes.
A focused theme from Somali promoters credits the school with strong attention to working time and with achieving progress together. These respondents value the school's discipline around time and scheduling, and its collective forward momentum, as signs of an organized institution.
A small but clear theme, voiced by Somali respondents, frames mutual respect — treating people well, respecting and protecting students, encouraging learning — as a thing the school does well. It positions a culture of respect as a foundational strength, and overlaps with the respect-related concerns that detractors raise on the improvement side.
A short theme captures unreserved, general praise — a staff member who simply describes the school's system as excellent without naming a specific aspect. It conveys broad, diffuse satisfaction with how the school is run.
Noted, not themed: No specific feedback (1).
Top theme: Facilities & infrastructure (9) · top sub-aspect: Classroom size / overcrowding
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What should the school improve?” replies.
39 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
A large, practical theme asks for better tools, learning resources, and facilities. The most frequently named specific item is printing and photocopying capacity, with staff noting that reliance on a single printer delays teaching preparation. Other strands include classroom devices and tactile tools, general learning resources, playground and storage improvements, and a set of concrete building and sanitation fixes raised by Somali respondents — broken window glass, soap and water-supply issues, drainage, and replacing damaged desks and chairs. This theme spans every NPS segment and is notably constructive in tone, framed as enabling staff to do their jobs well.
A substantive theme groups requests to improve the academic offering itself: curriculum improvement and stability (including frustration at constantly changing school applications and a wish for one consistent curriculum), extra tuition, more English teachers in lower primary, better student handwriting, consistent support for struggling learners, and raising the quality of teaching. Voiced across promoters, passives, and detractors, this theme reflects staff investment in the school's instructional core and a desire to strengthen it rather than overhaul it.
The single most prominent improvement theme is communication — staff want clearer, more respectful, two-way communication and to be consulted and supported by management. The distinct strands within it include being included in decisions before they are made, being able to share concerns without fear of judgment, receiving constructive rather than one-sided feedback, and being engaged on classroom matters they understand best. While the strongest, most pointed versions come from detractors and lower passives, the theme also surfaces among promoters who otherwise praise the school, indicating it is a widespread rather than fringe concern. It is the central staff-experience grievance running through the data.
A closely related and intense theme calls for fairness and the elimination of favoritism. Staff want all teachers treated equally, leadership to be balanced and unbiased, and an end to perceived special relationships between certain staff and management. This theme is voiced by both promoters and detractors, but its sharpest expressions — naming the principal directly and describing favoritism as a problem needing to be addressed — come from detractors. Its appearance even among promoters signals that equity concerns extend beyond the most dissatisfied staff.
A distinct theme concerns the staff experience as employees: reducing pressure and short deadlines, a longer mid-term break, fair reward for good work, professional development, job-description clarity, and the return of withheld benefits. The Somali respondents add a clear call to reward staff who do good work so they do not become discouraged. Voiced by detractors, passives, and even a promoter requesting a longer vacation, the theme reflects a workforce that feels stretched and wants its effort recognized and protected.
Noted, not themed: No improvements needed (2).
NPS +38 · solidly positive · 70% avg agreement across 10 statements · 12 promoters, 5 passives, 4 detractors · promoters praise care, safety & support, detractors flag leadership & decision-making
Three to four sentence summary distilled from the closed and open-ended responses below.
12 promoters, 5 passives, 4 detractors · promoters praise care, safety & support, detractors flag leadership & decision-making
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 scores by pointing to the school's reputation for educational excellence, professionalism, and well-rounded student development. Several frame Pharo Schools as the best in the country, combining local and international curricula and a strong commitment to academic, social, and moral growth. This is the dominant promoter rationale and reinforces the strengths named elsewhere.
A strong promoter strand credits the work culture: collaborative, mutually supportive teams; leadership that discusses and recommends rather than dictates; and a conducive working environment. The longest response details how kitchen, cleaning, maintenance, and security teams keep the school running, making teamwork the explicit basis for the score.
One promoter grounds their score in fair, transparent recruitment, tangible staff support such as picnics, and a vibrant student life — a rationale linking institutional integrity to staff wellbeing.
Passives describe the school in measured, positive terms: a decent, good environment suitable for teaching and for building one's career. Their satisfaction is real but qualified — they affirm the basics without the superlatives of promoters.
A distinct passive rationale praises the work environment while flagging that some concerns persist no matter how often they are raised — the qualifier that keeps these respondents from promoting. One passive simply offered "Talo" (advice/recommendation), a minimal cue to give feedback.
The mildest detractor rationale acknowledges the school is suitable for learning, placing this respondent close to the passive boundary despite the lower score.
The core detractor grievance concerns leadership and accountability: unilateral decisions made against team advice, blame shifted to staff when outcomes go wrong, and no accountability or prevention of repeat incidents. This is the most substantive criticism in the survey and explains the lowest scores.
A second detractor strand cites interpersonal and cultural problems: gossip and bullying, favouritism among nationalities, work overload, lack of privacy, and rising student indiscipline — a cluster of climate concerns driving the lowest score in the sample.
A further detractor reason is the sense that the workplace is hectic and that staff needs and struggles are not discussed or helped — a direct counterpart to the staff-support improvement theme.
Strongest: I understand the strategic direction of the school. (77%) · Weakest: I feel comfortable raising concerns without fear. (59%) · Biggest divider: My immediate leadership supports me to perform at my best. (75 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 (7) · top sub-aspect: Academic standards & curriculum delivery
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What does the school do well?” replies.
21 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
This is the most frequently named strength, cited by staff across every segment. Respondents describe Sheikh Secondary as delivering high-quality, focused teaching with dedicated teachers who ensure students genuinely understand their work, often blending local and international curricula and building critical-thinking skills. The theme is voiced most strongly by promoters, who frame academic quality as the school's defining culture, but passives and detractors also affirm it. It functions as the bedrock reason many staff respect and recommend the school.
Staff value the school's nurturing, safeguarding-oriented environment and its consistent prioritisation of student welfare. This strand spans a formal safeguarding policy with zero tolerance for harm, a daily prioritisation of student welfare, and a sense that students feel valued, heard, and encouraged. It is voiced by promoters and one detractor, suggesting the climate around students is appreciated even by staff who are otherwise critical of the institution.
A distinctive and emotionally resonant strength is the way the entire school — teaching staff, office staff, maintenance, cleaning, security, and kitchen teams — is seen to function as a single coordinated team for student safety and wellbeing. This theme is voiced almost exclusively by promoters, one of whom describes it at length and with evident admiration. It overlaps with a related note of cooperation among students. The intensity here is notable: for at least one respondent, teamwork is the single most important thing the school does.
Several staff single out the school's commitment to fairness — bridging the gender-equality gap between male and female students, and a broader sense of justice within the school community. The theme is voiced by a detractor and by a Somali promoter, indicating that the school's equity stance is recognised across the spectrum.
A practical strand of appreciation concerns how the school looks after staff, including food and travel tickets home, and a sense that staff conduct their work without being blamed. It is voiced by a passive respondent and by the unscored Somali respondent.
A focused strand within academic strength is the school's preparation of students for international examinations. It is named specifically by a passive respondent for IGCSE and AS exams, and echoed in the nurturing-environment quote above; here it stands as a recognised, concrete deliverable.
One promoter highlights the school's transparency in resolving issues as a specific strength, distinct from the broader culture themes and aligned with their NPS praise for transparent recruitment.
A focused operational strength named by a Somali passive respondent is the school's bread-baking/catering work, reflecting appreciation of the day-to-day services that keep the boarding school running.
A brief but on-point affirmation from a Somali promoter that the school does well by its students' learning.
Noted, not themed: No specific feedback (1).
Top theme: Communication (5) · top sub-aspect: Timely notice & updates
Themes pulled from the open-ended “What should the school improve?” replies.
21 staff wrote a substantive reply to this question.
The single most common improvement request is for communication that is clearer, more timely, and more uniform. Staff describe things being done without prior notice or consistency, and ask for regular updates and feedback that keep staff, parents, and students aligned. The theme cuts across all segments — promoters, a passive, and others — making it the most broadly shared ask in the survey and pointing to an organisational rather than an academic gap.
The second most prominent improvement theme calls for the school to invest in its people: building teachers' capacity, raising staff morale, discussing strengths and weaknesses, holding regular check-ins, and — strikingly — better recognising the non-teaching staff who work overtime to keep the school running. It is voiced by passives, a detractor, and promoters, blending professional-development requests with a clear emotional appeal for appreciation and support.
A strand focused on raising the academic bar: a more competitive enrolment process, fostering innovative students, and broadening reading beyond the syllabus through the library. These come from a detractor and promoters who want the school to push its already-strong academics further.
A pointed cluster of detractor concerns centres on governance: a desire for accountability and responsibility, hiring through proper HR channels, and clearer priorities in how resources are allocated. These come from the lowest-scoring respondents and connect directly to their NPS reasons about unilateral decisions and recruitment, signalling that for a minority of staff the core issue is institutional process rather than teaching quality.
Staff ask for tangible upgrades: modern projectors in classrooms, better facilities generally, and student support such as counselling. This theme is voiced by a passive and a promoter and overlaps with the resource strand inside the communication quote above; it reflects day-to-day operational friction rather than dissatisfaction with the mission.
Two Somali respondents — a promoter and the unscored respondent — name cleanliness (alongside education for one) as the priority for improvement, a concrete environmental concern voiced succinctly.
One promoter asks for a modest improvement in helping staff understand the school's purpose and consistently connect their daily work to it — an organisational-clarity ask distinct from communication logistics.
One promoter names continued high-quality education itself as the improvement priority — effectively a request to protect and maintain the school's core strength.
A Somali passive respondent asks that responsibility be lifted from the support staff and that their grievances be resolved — a fair-treatment concern for the support workforce that complements the broader recognition theme.
Noted, not themed: Nothing to improve (1).