Ameyaa Case Series: The School That Was Doing Well | School Transformation
This is an illustrative case written for discussion. The school, the people and the events are fictional. Any resemblance to a real school or person is coincidental.
Arvind Kapoor had chaired Riverside Academy’s board for fifteen years, and he had rarely felt as comfortable about the school as he did that evening.
He had founded Riverside in 2010 on land next to his family’s textile business, in a fast-growing city in central India. It had begun with 300 students and two buildings. It now had 2,400 students, a waiting list for Kindergarten and Grade 1, and Class 12 results that the local newspaper printed every May. Fees had risen steadily without much complaint. The school had paid back its construction loans three years early. When friends in business asked Arvind how the school was doing, his answer was always the same: very well.
Most of that, he knew, was because of Dr Meera Iyer.
Meera had joined as principal nine years earlier, when Riverside was going through a difficult patch: two principals in three years, falling results and unhappy parents. Within two years she had turned it around. She knew every teacher by name and most students too. She sat in on classes, took the toughest parent meetings herself, and personally reviewed every board exam plan in the senior school. Teachers described her as demanding and fair. Parents trusted her completely. At admissions open days, families asked to meet her before they asked about fees.
The question
The board met quarterly in the conference room above the administration block. The September meeting followed its usual pattern: results, admissions, the new sports complex, the fee proposal for next year. Everything was on track.
Under any other business, Nandini Rao spoke. She had joined the board six months earlier after a long career leading a technology company’s operations in Bengaluru. She was the only board member without a family or business connection to Arvind, and she had a habit of asking questions the others had stopped asking.
“Can I raise something that isn’t on the agenda?” she said. “Everything we’ve heard tonight is excellent. But I noticed that almost every answer to every question was ‘Meera is handling it.’ So I want to ask plainly. What happens to this school if Meera leaves?”
There was a short silence. One member laughed and said Meera wasn’t going anywhere. Arvind said, honestly, that he had never really thought about it.
Nandini continued. “In my old job, we called this key-person risk. If one person leaving could seriously damage the business, we treated it as a risk to manage, not a compliment to that person. I’m not suggesting anything is wrong. I’m asking whether we know what we would lose.”
Arvind promised to look into it before the next meeting.
What Arvind found
Over the following two weeks, Arvind did something he had not done in years. He spent time inside the school asking questions rather than receiving reports.
He spoke with the vice principal, Rakesh Sharma, a loyal and hardworking colleague who ran timetables, transport, examinations and discipline efficiently. When Arvind asked how Rakesh would lead academic planning if he had to, Rakesh was candid. “Meera does that. She decides what each department focuses on every year. I make sure it happens on schedule.”
He asked the senior school coordinator how teachers planned their lessons. Each department did it differently, she said. Some planned together; most planned individually. What kept quality consistent was that Meera reviewed the plans and gave feedback herself.
He asked about new teachers. Riverside replaced about one in six teachers every year, mostly because of relocation and marriage, which was normal for the region. New teachers learned “the Riverside way,” the coordinator explained, by observing experienced colleagues and through Meera’s classroom visits. There was no written induction programme. “We’ve never needed one,” she said. “Meera is the induction programme.”
He looked for documentation. The school had policies, all of them written for its affiliation and reviewed for inspections. But the things that seemed to make Riverside work, such as how weak students were identified and supported before the board exams, how teachers were given feedback, and how decisions about academic priorities were made, were largely not written down anywhere. They lived in Meera’s routines and in the habits of the people who had worked alongside her.
Then, almost by accident, Arvind learned something else. A friend from the chamber of commerce mentioned that a well-known school group was opening a large campus four kilometres away the following year, and that its recruiters had been approaching senior staff at established schools across the city. Arvind did not know whether Meera had been approached. He realised he did not feel he could ask her without it sounding like an accusation.
The decision
The night before the next board meeting, Arvind sat at home with his notes. He could see three broad paths, and none felt entirely right.
The first was to secure Meera. He could offer her a significant raise and a long-term contract, perhaps a performance bonus tied to results. It was fast, it was within his control, and it would almost certainly keep her for several more years. But it would not answer Nandini’s question. It would only postpone it, and every year the school’s dependence on one person would grow.
The second was to begin planning succession: identify and develop a future principal, perhaps hire a deputy with strong academic leadership skills. It made sense, but he worried about the message. Would Meera see it as a vote of no confidence? Would she leave sooner?
The third was harder to describe. It involved making the school less dependent on any single person: writing down how Riverside actually worked, building planning and feedback systems that ran without Meera personally driving them, and developing leadership across the middle of the school. It sounded right in principle. In practice, he did not know where to begin, how long it would take, what it would cost, or whether it might disturb something that was working well. His instinct, built over thirty years in business, said that you do not fix what is not broken.
And yet he could not shake Nandini’s point. In his textile business, he would never have allowed one manager to be the only person who understood how the factory ran.
The board would meet at ten the next morning. He needed to recommend something.
Questions for discussion
If you were on Riverside’s board, which of Arvind’s three paths would you recommend, and why?
Is Riverside a strong school, or a school with a strong principal? How would you tell the difference?
What would you want to know about your own school before answering Nandini’s question honestly?
How would you raise this topic with Meera without damaging the relationship?
Ameyaa’s commentary
Riverside is not a failing school, and that is precisely what makes its situation easy to overlook. Its results, admissions and finances are all healthy. Nothing in the quarterly reports signals a problem. The risk only becomes visible when someone asks a question about the future rather than the present.
What Nandini has identified is a pattern that appears in many successful schools. Quality is real, but it is held in people rather than in the way the school works. An exceptional principal can carry a school for years through personal attention, judgement and relationships. The difficulty is that this kind of quality does not transfer. When that person leaves, much of what made the school strong leaves too, and successor principals often inherit a reputation without the systems that produced it.
Arvind’s three paths are not really alternatives. Retaining Meera buys time. Succession planning protects the leadership position. But only the third path addresses the underlying question, which is whether Riverside’s quality would survive a change of leader or a difficult year. The most effective schools usually pursue all three together, and the best partner in the third is often the principal herself, since no one understands better than Meera what would need to be written down, built and shared.
The more useful question for any owner or board is not whether their principal is good. It is how much of what makes their school good would remain if that principal moved on tomorrow.
If that question gives you pause, Ameyaa’s free School Self-Assessment takes about five minutes. It asks twenty plain questions across five themes and shows where your school stands and where to look first.
Comments