Balancing a Consumer Community

Education as a commodity

Administrators, Leadership and management, Marketing, School heads

“The customer is always right” is a mantra at the core of our consumer-driven economy. However, when the product is education and the consumers are parents, this assumption leads to complex and sometimes problematic relationships in private and independent schools. It is challenging, especially within a newer for-profit educational environment, to establish and build a healthy dynamic among a school’s various constituents. But it is vital for schools to create a school culture that engages, yet defines limits for, the parent body.

As the principal of a relatively new, privately owned, JK to Grade 12 independent school in Toronto, Ontario, I am faced daily with the question of how much parental access and input is healthy for the continued success of the school. While the governance and ownership structure of a school should be irrelevant to the daily experience of its students, it is likely that the for-profit status of our school and others has an impact on the way that the parents and the schools interact.

When parent input causes a school to reflect on how things are done and leads an administration to either maintain the status quo or to make responsible change within the context of educational best practices and recent scholarship, then it is a healthy thing. However, when parent input forces the school’s hand to make hasty changes only to satisfy perceived parental discontent, then it is decidedly unhealthy.

How much is too much?
The following scenario both illustrates the relative healthiness of a school’s reaction to parental input and the setting of limits on parent influence, borrowing from the Jellyfish/Brick Wall/Backbone analogy that parenting expert Barbara Coloroso has used to describe types of parents and types of schools. A rash of parent complaints about low marks in a Grade 12 English class, for example, can lead to a number of potential reactions on the part of the school. A school must acknowledge and recognize the concern that a parent would have for his or her child’s marks in such an important course, and should thus listen carefully to the concerns.

However, if the administration chooses to simply change the marks (Jellyfish), the wrong message could be sent to the students, the parents, and especially to the teachers. A school may also choose to simply brush off the complaints (Brick Wall) and maintain that the teacher is the professional and that the assigned marks are not subject to debate. A healthier reaction to these complaints would be to stand firm (Backbone) on the marks but to also recognize that perhaps the school’s parents do not fully understand the nuances of contemporary assessment and evaluation practices that have changed considerably since their school days. Perhaps more explicit explanation to parents of marking schemes and rubrics on how final marks are determined is needed, or even a more frequent communication of students’ marks. In the latter case, the school has used parental complaint in order to reflect on its practices and to effect responsible change.

Defining community
The idea of community takes on decidedly different meanings in different kinds of schools. The traditional North American idea of school community is the literal and physical community of the publicly funded neighbourhood school where tax-paying parents send their children each day and express their concerns through the well-established administrative-political hierarchy of principal, superintendent and trustee.

Ultimately, educational dissatisfaction can be expressed in municipal or provincial ballot boxes. Formal committees such as parent-teacher associations and school councils are in place for more interested parents to become involved with their children’s education.

At the other extreme of school community are those that exist at older, not-for-profit independent schools in which the sense of community is formally defined and governed by a board and is held together by tradition and by thousands of alumni. Parents at these schools can express their concerns to school administration or to the board and can contribute to the school community through capital campaigns and other forms of fund-raising. Within this type of school model, the role of the parent is well-defined and as established as the schools themselves. The term that we use most often in our for-profit school to describe the interactions among our school’s students, parents, teachers and administrators is community, and this term seems to accurately reflect the relationship among the school’s various stakeholders.

Perception of entitlement
The benefits of community building and parental engagement in a for-profit school undoubtedly outweigh the pitfalls associated with the ironic existence of an empowered parental community whose members have aspirations and expectations of influencing and shaping the policies of what is ultimately a privately owned business. The irony comes from the fact that the parent body might feel entitled to hold influence over what are business decisions. As consumers, they certainly have the right to vote with their dollars and their feet, but because the product, in this case, is their children’s education, they may feel that their influence can and should extend beyond the payment of tuition.

Ironically or not, the community feel and experience of my school is one of the most definable characteristics of the institution, and the parents are truly engaged, perhaps even more so than at some not-for-profit schools.

For parents, membership in a school community is a voluntary and essentially a self-defined experience. Some choose extensive involvement and others choose not to opt in. There is nothing in the school’s legal agreement with the parents either defining or inviting participation. Engaged and happy parents are clearly essential for the continued existence of any independent school and their engagement undoubtedly has a positive impact on the school experience of their children. However, there is clearly a limit to the extent that this engagement can have on school policy and operations.
Public school parents can resort to and appeal to both elected and appointed administrators and politicians, and parents at board-governed schools are reliant on the elected representatives within their organizations, but neither public nor not-for-profit schools could be considered truly democratic institutions.

However, membership in these institutions, and the communities defined by them, often lead to assumptions and expectations akin to that of citizenship within a participatory democracy. This is a dangerous misconception, whether it is based on the perceived entitlement of the various community members or merely as a result of their enthusiasm toward an institution.

Some parents may be caught in the “customer is always right” mode of thinking and others may want so badly for the school to succeed that they are convinced that they must know best how things should work. In either case, the sense of their own membership-citizenship could easily lead to disappointment and resentment once they recognize their limited influence on a school’s operations, particularly in a for-profit institution. It is thus incumbent on school leadership to be very clear as to what membership in a given school community does and does not include. In the end, however, parents hold the most powerful move of all in their decision each year whether or not to re-enroll their children at a given school. Whether as a citizen or as a consumer, the parents will ultimately vote with their feet.

If today’s independent-school parents are indeed what author Carl Honoré has labeled “hyper-parents,” then we must assume that they have, perhaps to a historically unprecedented extent, an intense desire to be involved in their children’s education. A school must accept the reality that its parent body will seek an active voice and a certain level of involvement. It is thus incumbent upon school administrators not only to provide appropriate outlets through which parents can express themselves, but also to make clear the limits of healthy parental influence. By providing widespread and varied opportunities for parental participation in the ongoing dialogue that exists within any school community, a school must not, however, give parents the impression that they are taking part in a participatory democracy.

Clarify the boundaries
Assuming that the parents at our schools share the millennial sensibilities consistent with their generation, it is vital to engage these key stakeholders using careful and effective communication, and to establish boundaries that delineate and define their role within the school community. It must be clear to all stakeholders (teachers, students and parents) that decision-making remains in the hands of the school administration. It must also be understood that all forms of parental input, whether gathered through website feedback forums, telephone calls, e-mail or more formally through parent surveys or a parents’ council, will be listened to and considered, but that this input will merely inform rather than dictate the decision-making process within the school.

A school’s parent body can be actively engaged in ways that will appeal to a broad range of parents. Clearly some parents will be more comfortable than others providing feedback through the school website, while others prefer to knock on the principal’s door. This variety of ways of engaging provides the dual benefit of limiting “parking lot gossip,” as well as providing administration with valuable information about the extent to which the parents feel that the school is delivering on its mission. However, as a school is not a participatory democracy, it must also be made clear that a parent survey is not a binding referendum, and its results will ultimately be used to inform rather than shape school policy. Knee-jerk responses to parental input will be obvious to all and will most likely alienate many teachers and parents. Consider an administrative decision to remove a popular teacher for reasons that cannot be shared with the parents. Such a decision could evoke parental uproar and the need for the school to listen to resulting concerns. It is essential that parents do not mistake the administration’s willingness to hear them out with the possibility that the decision will be revisited. Encouraging dialogue on a given issue should not be mistaken for the potential for administrative acquiescence on that issue. The dialogue, in itself, can be healthy as long as the parents understand that their voices will be heard, but that the school may not satisfy their immediate desires.

Recognize common goals
In all schools, but perhaps even more so in newer for-profit environments, it is important to build understanding and a sense of trust among all constituents. For a new school to succeed, owners, administration, parents, teachers and students, even if for divergent reasons, must ultimately desire the same thing: The long-term evolution and success of the school. For the parents, their own children’s success is paramount, but this perhaps can only be achieved within the context of the school’s success. However, it must be clear to all that the administration is leading the way to this successful future. Ultimately, parental input can be used in either a healthy or unhealthy way, and how an administration uses it can determine the future direction of a given school.

The parent committee anomaly
The existence of formal parent committees can be a difficult challenge for independent schools, and are completely avoided at some for-profit institutions. There are few business models that allow for the creation of a formalized organization of its customers, with the express intent of influencing the practices and policies of that business. If a formal parent body is created, there will rightly be assumptions and expectations among its participants that their collective voice will be heard. Schools must be mindful of creating a powerful parental voice unless there is a clear intention to both listen to and perhaps act upon the will of that voice. At my school, an arms’ length parent fundraising body exists as an outlet for parents to indirectly support the school through tax-receiptable donations. With these funds, the parent body provides the school with non-capital extras that have greatly enhanced the students’ experience over the first decade or so of the school’s existence. While it states explicitly in the association’s constitution that fundraising and the subsequent purchasing of educational materials for the school is its sole raison d’être, it became, at times in its existence, a forum for the expression of parental concerns about specific school operational issues. To the credit of the association’s executive over the last few years, the explicitness of its mission has been re-clarified and it again functions as initially intended.

With the re-clarification of the parent association’s role within the school community, a number of highly involved parents identified a vacuum for formal parental involvement outside of the fundraising milieu. For these parents, a parents’ association needed to be more about the school’s policies and future direction, and a small group approached the school administration for permission to attempt to get this new organization off of the ground. More than a year into the emergence of this second formalized parent group, its exact structure and future role within the school community remain unclear. However, while the administration recognizes the potential value of such a group, its establishment must be done with great care in order to maintain a balance between parental engagement and parental control and to ensure that the group’s relationship with the school is a healthy one.

A delicate balance
The presence of an engaged and active parent body is a clear indication that we have created a viable school community; however, the extent to which the parents’ engagement is consistent with the overall goals of the school must be carefully examined. In a for-profit environment, the existence of the school as an educational institution and its existence as a business enterprise must be balanced delicately. Parental confidence in both sides of the equation is vital, and the focus in a successful for-profit school must be firmly aimed at the school-as-educational-institution. However, a school must be somehow able to engage parents in a healthy educational dialogue that will strengthen their sense of belonging to the community without inviting input into the business side of the operation. Whether they see themselves as part of a community, or simply as paying customers, parents at for-profit schools (and perhaps at all independent schools) must recognize the autonomy of the school ownership and administration in the advancement and fulfillment of the school’s mission as both an educational institution and as a business.

Whether it is for-profit or not, a school must keep business issues squarely in the background. As such, it is more prudent for a school, as an educational community, to issue a survey examining its students’ homework habits, for example, than one asking about the impact of a potential tuition increase. In either case, however, what is done with the survey results, and perhaps more importantly, what the parent body expects will be done with the results is key. There is clearly a certain satisfaction on the part of parents associated with being engaged and involved with their children’s school. For some, and I suspect this is the case for many at our school, this engagement provides added value to their overall school experience. For some parents, either those with a particular interest or background in education, participation in a healthy ongoing dialogue about our specific school, and about education in general, provides them with a sense of satisfying involvement that for others might be achieved by helping in the classroom or working on a fundraising initiative. However, delineating the boundaries of what is healthy and what is meddlesome is key, as it is to establish which, if any, issues are open for debate.

Whether with the noble intention of building a strong educational community or with the perhaps equally noble pursuit of building a viable and enduring business, capturing the imagination of a school’s parent body is crucial. But with the sophisticated and heavily involved parents who are attracted to independent schools today, this must be achieved within a tactful balance. Careful consideration must be taken to determine what exactly the parents, as consumers, perceive they are purchasing when they pay thousands of dollars per year in tuition. Education, without question, is a complex commodity, and today’s private-school parents are complex consumers. Ultimately, parents pay tuition on a yearly basis in the hope of providing their sons and daughters with a superior educational experience.

What must not be ignored is that many parents may also perceive that they are buying a stake in an educational community, and that their and their peers’ engagement and involvement in the school is part of the package. As such, the parent-as-consumer must be treated with care, as with engagement and involvement comes entitlement and perceived power. While it is the students of any private school who are arguably the end-users at each institution, the parents are clearly the consumers. While it is clear how tuition fees help shape the students’ experience, unless a school can delineate what part of the school experience the parents have purchased, it runs the risk of creating an unhealthy and perhaps untenable parent-school relationship.

Recognition to all constituents of the complex and potentially problematic role of parents in any private school is probably a good place to start. The parents are consumers, yes, but the uniqueness of the product and their emotional attachment to the users of the product (their children) make them consumers like no other in any marketplace. Only once there is a clear understanding and acceptance of the challenges of defining the role of parents within private schools, can school administrators attempt to legislate, through contract, constitutions or other mechanisms, the rules of engagement between a private school and its parent body.

School community must be built and nurtured, but also clearly and carefully defined. It is the duty of a responsible administration to define the role of its parents, and whether they are seen as community members, or citizens or merely as a very unique type of customer, their role must be clearly and carefully communicated to all school constituents.