How to Show Your School's English Results to Prospective Parents

Most school websites describe results with adjectives. 'Excellent', 'outstanding', 'consistently high'. A parent cannot check an adjective. This article is about replacing it with a few numbers that a parent can understand, compare and check, without claiming more than the numbers support. It covers which results to show, how to present each one honestly, what never to publish, and how often to update. It ends with an example results panel for an invented school.

How should a school show its English results?

Show what pupils did, in three numbers: how much they read, the levels a cohort reached, and what they read. Give each number its period, the comparison it rests on, and the number of pupils it counts. Then say plainly what the number does not show. That is the whole method. A parent who reads such a panel can compare it with another school's, or with their own child.

The method rules out most of what schools publish now. A statement with no period cannot be checked. A percentage with no count cannot be weighed. A story about one pupil says nothing about the rest. The sections below take each part in turn.

What research on school marketing found

Oplatka and Hemsley-Brown (2004) reviewed the research on marketing in schools. They found 25 pertinent studies and grouped them under marketing perceptions, planning, strategies and promotion. They concluded by setting out the limitations of that research and the directions it should take. Treat what follows as a handful of studies, not a settled field.

Lubienski (2007) examined the promotional materials of schools in a highly competitive and diverse urban area in the United States. He found that emotional themes and images dominated. The materials, he argued, challenged the notion of parents making reasoned choices based on institutional effectiveness. He also found signs that schools used marketing to attract better-performing pupils rather than to improve education for disadvantaged ones.

DiMartino and Jessen (2016) studied branding at two new small public high schools in New York City. They looked at how and to whom the schools marketed themselves, and at the nature and type of information given to pupils and parents. They raised questions about what branding does to public education. Both studies are of state schools in US cities. We know of no equivalent study of private language schools.

The other side of the picture comes from Hastings and Weinstein (2008). In two experiments in a US public school choice program, low-income families who received simple test score information chose higher-performing schools more often. Parents act on clear information when they get it. The problem Lubienski (2007) describes is that schools tend not to give it. How Do Parents Choose a School? reports the wider research on what parents want.

Which results to show

Three kinds of result are worth showing, because a parent can understand each one and check it against their own child.

1. How much pupils read. Stories, books or pages finished by the typical pupil in a term. Give the middle pupil, not the average, and say how many pupils finished nothing.
2. The levels a cohort reached. The share of a class or grade at each CEFR level at the start and the end of a year, for the pupils checked both times.
3. What pupils read. A list of titles with their levels, for one class in one term. This is the easiest number to check, because a parent can open the books.

Levels need a caution. The Council of Europe (2001) describes the CEFR as 'an outline framework of six broad levels'. It says that establishing cut-off points between levels 'is always a subjective procedure'. It also warns that learners will probably need more than twice as long to go from B1 to B2 as from A2 to B1, even though the levels look equidistant on the scale.

So 'the class moved from A2 to B1' is a large claim, and most pupils will not change level in one term. Report steps inside a level as well, such as A2 to A2+, which the Council of Europe (2001) calls plus levels. CEFR Levels A1–C2 Explained (With Reading Examples) shows what each level looks like in reading.

Do not show scores from a test the school wrote itself unless you also say what the test was. A parent cannot check an internal score. An external exam result can be shown, with the number of pupils entered as well as the number who passed. How to Measure CEFR Progress by Cohort explains how to count level movement so that the number means something.

How to present a number honestly

A published number is a claim. Every claim needs three things beside it.

• The period. 'This year' means nothing after June. Write the term and the year: 'September 2025 to June 2026'.
• The comparison. The same pupils at the start of the year, or last year's cohort. Say which. Never compare your best class with another school's average.
• The count. How many pupils are in the number, and how many were left out. 'Of 49 pupils checked in both September and June' is a count. '90 per cent' on its own is not.

Then add one line on what the number does not show. Reading more does not prove reading better. A level reached does not say how long a pupil took to reach it. A cohort figure hides the pupils who struggled.

Size needs care too. Kraft (2020) reviewed how effect sizes in education are interpreted. He notes that effects which are small by the usual textbook standards are large compared with most real programs. He also notes that effects are larger when the test is closely aligned with the program. A quiz on the stories pupils read will show more gain than a general English test. His benchmarks are for studies with a control group, so do not label your own before-and-after figures 'large' or 'significant'.

What never to publish

Some things should not appear on a public page at all, whatever the pressure to fill it.

• An individual child's results. Not with a name, not with a photo, not with a first name and a class. A group number is enough. How to Publish Student Achievements Safely covers celebration without exposure.
• A best-case pupil presented as typical. 'One pupil went from A1 to B2 in a year' may be true. If she is the only one, saying it without the cohort figure misleads.
• A claim with no period. 'Our pupils reach B2' is a claim about no one and no year.
• A percentage with no count. A 100 per cent pass rate from three candidates is a different fact from the same rate from thirty.
• A comparison chosen after seeing the result. If you would have published the other comparison had it looked better, publish both or neither.

There is a deeper reason to be careful. Campbell (1979) observed that the more a quantitative indicator is used for decision-making, the more subject it becomes to corruption pressures. It then tends to distort the processes it is meant to monitor. He gave achievement tests as an example. When scores become the goal of teaching, he wrote, they lose their value as indicators of educational status. A school that publishes one number and then manages to it will, in time, publish a number that means less. Publish several numbers that check each other, and do not tie staff rewards to any of them.

How often to update

Update the panel every term, and print the date on it. A page dated two years ago tells a parent that either the school stopped counting or the numbers got worse. Both readings hurt more than an empty page. This is advice from practice. No study cited here tested how often a school should update.

A termly rhythm fits the school year. The same record that produces the panel also produces the term report for the board. How to Write a Term Reading Report for Your Board describes that report. Cut the parent-facing numbers from it, and the two will never contradict each other.

1. End of each term: refresh the reading volume and the reading list.
2. End of the year: refresh the cohort levels, with the count of pupils checked twice, and any external exam results.
3. Whenever a number is refreshed: change the date, and keep the definitions the same.
4. If a definition changes: say so on the panel, and do not compare across the change.

An example results panel

The panel below is for an invented school with invented numbers. It fits on one screen. Every number has a period, a comparison and a count, and the last line says what the numbers do not show.

The panel names no child, claims no cause, and makes no comparison with another school. A parent can still take it to another school and ask for the same numbers.

How iRead handles this

In iRead, school leaders see levels reached, words retained and stories completed, by class, grade and term. Each school can have a public page showing the packs it runs, featured stories with their values, and achievements, in aggregate numbers only. Individual student data is visible only to the school's own staff. A school can add a 'Reading School' badge to its own website, linked to its live public page.

Key takeaway

Replace the adjectives with three numbers a parent can check, date them, and say what they leave out. Then update them every term.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

1. Oplatka, I., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2004). The research on school marketing: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 375-400. doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534685
2. Lubienski, C. (2007). Marketing schools: Consumer goods and competitive incentives for consumer information. Education and Urban Society, 40(1), 118-141. doi.org/10.1177/0013124507303994
3. DiMartino, C., & Jessen, S. B. (2016). School brand management: The policies, practices, and perceptions of branding and marketing in New York City's public high schools. Urban Education, 51(5), 447-475. doi.org/10.1177/0042085914543112
4. Hastings, J. S., & Weinstein, J. M. (2008). Information, school choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(4), 1373-1414. doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.4.1373
5. Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241-253. doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798
6. Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67-90. doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X
7. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. rm.coe.int/1680459f97