Are academic open days in private schools helping learners or merely impressing parents?

There is a peculiar ritual in Kenya's private schools that deserves serious scrutiny. A week after schools close for the holidays, parents return to the same institutions they have just left, this time to collect report forms, receive fee invoices for the next term and attend what schools proudly call Academic Open Day. 

The occasion is presented as an opportunity for teachers, parents and learners to review academic progress, identify weaknesses and agree on practical interventions. In theory, it is an excellent idea. In practice, however, some Open Days have degenerated into expensive public relations exercises characterised by choreographed praise, questionable financial demands and conversations that leave parents wondering whether anything meaningful has actually been achieved.

An Academic Open Day should be the educational equivalent of a medical clinic. When a patient visits a doctor, the objective is not to admire the hospital, congratulate the medical staff or listen to an elaborate explanation of how excellent the facility is. The objective is to establish the problem, understand its causes and prescribe an appropriate remedy. Similarly, when a parent attends an Open Day, the central question should be simple: What is happening to my child academically, and what are we going to do about it?

The process should involve three principal participants: the teacher, the parent and the learner. Each has a unique contribution to make. The teacher brings professional knowledge of the learner's classroom performance, strengths, weaknesses and learning habits. The parent provides information about the child's home environment, study routines, emotional well-being and access to learning resources. The learner, meanwhile, offers a personal account of the challenges encountered in understanding concepts, completing assignments and preparing for assessments.

When these three perspectives converge, an accurate diagnosis becomes possible. When one is excluded, the diagnosis risks being incomplete. Unfortunately, some schools appear more interested in the ceremony surrounding Open Day than in the educational intervention it should produce.

Consider a learner who has consistently performed poorly in Mathematics. A meaningful discussion should establish whether the problem arises from weak foundational knowledge, inadequate practice, absenteeism, poor teaching methods, language difficulties or a lack of confidence. The parties should agree on specific interventions, establish targets and determine when progress will be reviewed. By the next assessment, there should be evidence of whether the interventions worked.

Instead, a parent may spend several minutes listening to a teacher explain how bright, disciplined and promising the child is, only to discover that the actual performance remains disappointing. The conversation ends with vague assurances that the learner will improve next term. The parent leaves encouraged, the teacher returns to the staffroom, and the child returns home carrying the same academic weaknesses.

What, then, was the purpose of the meeting?

The greatest weakness of some Open Days is the substitution of reassurance for accountability. Parents do not pay school fees merely to receive comforting speeches. They pay for an educational service that should produce measurable learning outcomes. While schools cannot guarantee that every learner will attain the highest grades, they have a responsibility to explain performance honestly, identify learning gaps and demonstrate what they are doing to address them.

An Open Day that repeatedly identifies the same weaknesses without proposing new interventions is not an academic clinic. It is a routine recital of problems whose solutions remain permanently postponed.

Worse still, the occasion can become a carefully choreographed exercise in public relations. The school showcases its facilities, celebrates selected achievements and presents an impressive picture of academic excellence. Teachers speak confidently about the institution's commitment to quality education. Parents are reminded of the school's reputation, its vision and its investment in the future of their children.

There is nothing wrong with schools promoting their achievements. Private institutions operate in a competitive environment and must communicate their value to parents. The problem begins when marketing takes precedence over honest academic evaluation.

A school cannot convincingly claim to have conducted a successful Open Day simply because parents were impressed by the presentation. The quality of the occasion should be measured by the accuracy of the diagnosis, the practicality of the interventions and the progress subsequently recorded.

The question is not whether the school looked good on Open Day. It is whether the learner will learn better because of it.

The financial dimension makes the experience even more uncomfortable. Open Day often coincides with the collection of fee invoices for the subsequent term. Parents arrive expecting an academic consultation but may leave feeling that the occasion has also become an opportunity to extract additional money from them.

Schools have legitimate operational expenses, and some may have genuine reasons to communicate additional charges. However, an academic meeting should not become a platform for introducing questionable levies, pressuring parents into unplanned purchases or presenting optional services as if they were compulsory.

Parents already shoulder substantial educational expenses. They deserve transparent explanations of school fees and any additional charges, together with adequate information about their purpose. Financial communication should be clearly distinguished from academic feedback so that the discussion about a child's learning does not become entangled with pressure to pay.

When a parent feels compelled to agree with everything the school proposes for fear of being perceived as difficult, the partnership between home and school has already been compromised.

Another troubling feature is the apparent reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths. Some teachers may hesitate to acknowledge weaknesses in their teaching methods. Some parents may resist accepting that inadequate supervision at home contributes to poor performance. Some learners may offer excuses rather than confront their own lack of effort.

An effective Open Day must accommodate difficult conversations. Professional accountability is not hostility, and honest feedback is not disrespect. If a teacher's instructional approach is ineffective, that concern should be investigated. If a learner consistently fails to complete assignments, the issue should be addressed directly. If a parent is unable to provide the support expected, the school should explore realistic alternatives rather than simply assign blame.

Education thrives on honesty, not carefully negotiated excuses.

There is also a fundamental question about the learner's place in these meetings. Too often, adults discuss children as though they were absent from their own education. Yet a learner who does not understand why they are struggling is unlikely to take meaningful ownership of improvement.

Learners should be encouraged to explain their difficulties, reflect on their performance and participate in setting realistic targets. This does not mean abandoning adult responsibility. It means cultivating accountability and helping learners understand that academic improvement requires cooperation rather than passive dependence on teachers and parents.

Ultimately, the success of an Open Day cannot be established by the number of parents who attend, the speeches delivered or the promises made. It must be demonstrated by what happens afterwards.

Every meeting should produce a clear action plan identifying the learner's weaknesses, the interventions required, the person responsible for each intervention and the timeline for reviewing progress. Schools should maintain records of recurring concerns and assess whether previous recommendations have worked. Parents, too, must honour their responsibilities, while learners should be held accountable for agreed commitments.

Most importantly, schools should be willing to examine their own effectiveness. If the same learner attends four consecutive Open Days and receives essentially the same feedback, the institution must ask whether its interventions are working.

An Open Day that produces no meaningful change in a learner's performance is an appointment without a cure.

Private schools must resist the temptation to confuse parental satisfaction with educational effectiveness. A parent who leaves smiling is not necessarily a parent whose child is receiving effective academic support. Likewise, an impressive presentation is not proof of excellent teaching, and a promising report is not a substitute for demonstrable progress.

Open Days remain valuable opportunities for strengthening the partnership between teachers, parents and learners. But their credibility depends on a willingness to confront weaknesses, question ineffective practices and demand results.

The ultimate test is brutally simple: After all the meetings, assurances, invoices and handshakes, is the child learning better? I highly doubt it.

If the answer remains no, then perhaps it is time for private schools to stop staging academic performances for parents and start performing academically for learners.