Supportive colleagues overshadowed by ineffective management and tension - Coach Commit Learning School House Employee Review

Some colleagues were genuinely supportive and collaborative — others seemed to treat workplace politics as part of their job scope. The centre team was generally excellent and dedicated, with the unfortunate exception of one individual whose behaviour raised serious concerns about professionalism and inclusivity. The CH was easily one of the strongest leaders in the organisation: approachable, knowledgeable, supportive, and someone who actually understood how to work with people. HO presented itself as one big family — and to be fair, many staff were warm, supportive, and always willing to help one another.

There seems to be an impressive number of 4- and 5-star reviews here. Whether they genuinely reflect staff experiences or simply the enthusiasm of management and their favourite spotlight-seekers is something future applicants can decide for themselves. One of the biggest operational challenges came from the ACH, who appeared far more interested in taking over the CH’s responsibilities than fulfilling her own. Instead of focusing on staff guidance, classroom support, or mentoring coaches, an extraordinary amount of time was spent repeatedly handling administrative and finance matters — often duplicating documents for reasons nobody quite understood beyond “someone from another centre did it this way.” Despite constant reminders from the CH to focus on her actual scope of work, the pattern never changed. Ironically, when issues escalated, the responsibility somehow always found its way back to the CH to resolve. Even while on leave, the CH was regularly contacted to handle incidents, parent matters, accidents, or conflicts that occurred in his absence. It became increasingly clear that “delegation” in this organisation often meant passing problems upward and waiting for someone else to clean up the situation. The constant nagging and micromanaging became so excessive that the CH would occasionally relocate himself to quieter corners of the school, including the library, just to complete his work in peace. More concerning, however, were the repeated racist and discriminatory remarks openly made about staff, students, and parents from certain races. Comments about particular groups being “problematic,” “smelly,” or “should not have children” were casually expressed in the workplace. The fact that such remarks could be made so comfortably perhaps says more about the culture tolerated within management than the individual herself. To his credit, the CH did challenge these remarks several times. Unfortunately, challenging inappropriate behaviour and actually addressing it organisationally appear to be two very different things here. The CLH was reportedly informed about these matters multiple times, yet no meaningful action was taken. When the CH eventually resigned, several staff members followed shortly after because working under such conditions had become unsustainable. Concerns were also escalated to HR, but the response largely felt like management protecting their preferred individuals rather than addressing serious workplace issues. Staff who spoke up were instead reprimanded, with conversations that felt more intimidating than supportive. Operations were also frequently disrupted by last-minute demands from finance and administration during active programme hours. There was a constant stream of urgent requests, duplicated paperwork, and unrealistic timelines — all of which reflected extremely poor coordination and planning from departments that expected efficiency from everyone else. Food quality for students was another recurring issue. Menus might have sounded creative on paper, but meals were repetitive, portions were often insufficient, and shortages became common enough that the CH personally purchased extra food for students using his own money without reimbursement. That probably says more about his character than the company’s. The logistics department similarly appeared to function more on favouritism than efficiency. Deliveries were frequently delayed, lesson materials arrived late, and food supplies occasionally arrived in questionable condition. Communication between logistics and curriculum teams seemed almost non-existent, resulting in staff constantly scrambling to prepare lessons without the required materials on time. Staff appreciation events, such as Teachers’ Day celebrations, were somehow consistently held in overcrowded venues with insufficient food — which, in hindsight, felt strangely symbolic of the overall employee experience. As for upper management: a great deal of shouting, very little listening, and an impressive level of confidence unsupported by emotional intelligence or empathy. Empty promises and self-congratulatory speeches seemed far more common than meaningful leadership or accountability. The company would benefit greatly from hiring competent professionals instead of individuals whose primary skill appears to be flattering management. Unfortunately, some people holding senior positions clearly lacked either the capability or professionalism expected for their roles, but connections seemed to matter far more than merit.

Stable chill and fun sometimes

Bad pay, need do everything