The leadership meeting starts badly. The group owner has put a single slide on the screen: five campuses ranked by examination results, top to bottom. The principal of the campus at the bottom, Mr Haddad, spends the next twenty minutes explaining that his campus took in forty students mid-year from a school that closed, many of them two years behind. He is right, and everyone in the room knows it, but the slide has already done its damage. Next term, he quietly tightens mid-year admissions. The group's results improve. The families who needed a place go elsewhere.
Comparing campuses is one of the most useful things a group can do and one of the easiest to get wrong. This post sets out how to build comparisons that are fair, and how to use them so they lead to better practice rather than defensive behaviour.
Start from the question, not the ranking
A ranking answers "who is top?". That is rarely the question leadership actually needs answered. Better questions are:
- Which campus is improving fastest, and what changed?
- Where is a campus doing noticeably better than similar campuses, so we can learn from it?
- Where is a campus slipping against its own past, so we can help early?
- Which differences are explained by the families each campus serves, and which are not?
Write the question at the top of the report before choosing the figures. It changes which figures you choose.
Five rules for a fair comparison
1. Use rates, not totals
A campus with eight hundred students will always collect more money and record more absences than one with two hundred. Compare collection as a share of fees due, attendance as a share of possible sessions, and results as a share of students reaching a standard.
2. Make sure the definitions match
A comparison is only as fair as the counting behind it. If campuses define "late" or "collected" differently, the comparison measures bookkeeping habits rather than performance. Settle definitions before publishing any comparison.
3. Compare each campus with itself
The most honest comparison is a campus against its own previous term or year. It removes most differences in intake, location and fee level. A campus that moved from eighty to eighty-six per cent collection has done something worth noticing even if another campus sits at ninety.
4. Read trends, not snapshots
One month can be distorted by a festival, an illness outbreak or a delayed bank transfer. Look at three to six months together before drawing any conclusion.
5. Group similar campuses
Where campuses differ a lot, compare within bands: city campuses with each other, newer campuses with each other, campuses with similar fee levels together. A new campus in its second year should not be judged against a flagship with twenty years of reputation.
Context worth recording beside the numbers
Some differences are real and are not anybody's fault. Recording them next to the figures stops the same conversation happening every month. Useful context includes:
| Context | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Mid-year intake | New arrivals often start behind and need time |
| Scholarship and concession policy | Lower collection may reflect a deliberate choice |
| Campus age | Newer campuses are still building systems and reputation |
| Staff turnover | A term with many new teachers will show in results |
| Local events | Weather, transport disruption or local holidays affect attendance |
Keep the context short and factual. Its purpose is to explain, not to excuse. If a campus has had mid-year intake for three years running, that is a planning matter, not a reason to ignore the results.
How to discuss comparisons
The way a comparison is presented decides whether it helps. A few practices make a large difference:
- Principals see their figures first. Share each campus's data with its principal a few days before the group meeting. Nobody should learn about a problem from a slide in front of their peers.
- Ask before concluding. When a figure stands out, the first move is a question to the campus: what is happening here? Often the answer is useful and unexpected.
- Celebrate method, not position. When a campus does better, ask it to explain what it does. Make the practice the hero, not the ranking.
- Avoid public league tables. A ranked list shared widely encourages campuses to manage the number rather than the work. Keep detailed comparisons within the leadership team.
- Agree actions, then check them. A comparison that leads to no action was only a scoreboard. Note one or two agreed actions and look at them again next month.
Common mistakes
- Ranking on a single measure. Results alone, or collections alone, push campuses to sacrifice everything else for that measure.
- Comparing raw totals. Size dominates and the comparison says nothing about performance.
- Ignoring improvement. A campus that improves steadily from a low base deserves as much attention as the one at the top.
- Reacting to one month. Single-month swings are often noise.
- Tying pay or bonuses directly to rankings. It reliably encourages gaming. If incentives are used, base them on agreed improvement goals reviewed with context.
An illustration: learning from the quiet campus
Consider a group of four campuses. Collection rates sit between eighty-two and eighty-eight per cent, except for one smaller campus which has climbed steadily from seventy-nine to eighty-seven over three terms. It is not top, so it has never been discussed.
Looking at self-comparison rather than rank, the group director, Mrs Tanaka, notices the climb and asks the campus bursar, Mr Mensah, what changed. He explains that he calls each family with a balance two weeks before the due date, not after, and offers to split the amount where needed. Families who agree a plan in advance almost always keep to it. The practice costs a few hours a month. The next term, two other campuses try it.
No ranking would have surfaced that. A comparison built around improvement did.
Frequently asked questions
Should campus comparisons be shared with all staff?
Share each campus's own trends widely; that builds ownership. Keep detailed cross-campus comparisons within leadership, where context can be discussed.
How often should campuses be compared?
Monthly for operational measures such as attendance and collections, termly for results. Look at the year as a whole before making significant decisions.
Where to go next
Fair comparison depends on consistent definitions and data recorded the same way at every campus. Our guide to managing a multi-campus school group covers that foundation. In Scolvia, the reports module shows each campus on its own and the group together from the same entries, which makes like-for-like comparison possible without spreadsheets.