School-based Communication Frankfurt, Germany
Managing resistance during structural change.
Brand transitions, dual-brand mergers, and organisational restructures share the same fundamental challenge: bringing stakeholders along when the decision is already made and some will inevitably oppose it.
This project shows how strategic communication works when the stakes are real, emotions run high, and there is no positive spin available.
The challenge
Four Grade 2 classes with declining enrollment were no longer economically viable heading into Grade 3. The solution was clear: consolidate into three larger groups. But in Germany, where class cohorts traditionally remain fixed throughout primary school, this presented a cultural disruption rather than a simple logistical problem.
Parents saw the merger as breaking a social contract around class stability. Teachers worried about managing larger groups and losing established classroom dynamics. The school board needed assurance that retention would hold. And the timeline demanded decisions for the following academic year.
The strategic tension: build stakeholder alignment around a change nobody wanted, in a context where transparency and rational argument were non-negotiable.
The approach
Frame the constraint as shared reality, not institutional imposition
The initial letter to families did not announce a decision. It presented a problem the school and families faced together: enrollment numbers, per-class costs, and the unsustainable trajectory if nothing changed. Parents could disagree with the decision, but they could not dispute the math. Credibility was established early by making the constraint visible rather than hiding behind vague strategic priorities.
Separate what is fixed from what is flexible
The consolidation itself was non-negotiable. That clarity allowed genuine agency around everything else. At town halls, the message was direct: "We will move to three classes. That decision is not for discussion. What we need your input on is how we structure those classes to support your children through this transition."
This eliminated false consultation. Parents were not being asked to approve the merger. They were being invited to shape its implementation. That distinction shifted the conversation from protests about whether this should happen to practical discussions about how it would happen well.
Build participatory process into the transition
Multiple touchpoints gave families real influence: trial groupings where students spent time in different class configurations, off-site integration activities where new peer groups could form naturally, and input sessions where families could advocate for maintaining specific friendships or flag concerns about peer conflicts.
The feedback genuinely shaped the final class compositions. Parents could not stop the merger, but they could influence who their child would spend the next years of their primary education learning alongside. That gave them ownership over the outcome even when they disagreed with the premise.
Channel resistance through institutional process
Multiple forums (round tables with parent association leadership, town halls with broader community, one-on-one conversations with vocal opponents) created structured channels where concerns could be expressed, documented, and addressed. This prevented opposition from organising independently. Parents who feel unheard become activists. Parents who feel their concerns are taken seriously become manageable stakeholders.
Every concern raised received a documented response. Not all concerns resulted in changes, but all received answers. That documentation proved crucial when resistant families threatened escalation.
The outcome
The merger proceeded on schedule. Three families withdrew from a cohort of 72 - 96% retention on a decision that fundamentally disrupted expected class stability. The three new classes integrated successfully, and by mid-year the initial resistance had largely dissipated.
More importantly, institutional trust strengthened rather than eroded. The families who stayed did so because they believed the school had handled a difficult situation fairly, not because they agreed with the outcome. That credibility became infrastructure. When subsequent challenges emerged (fee increases, curriculum restructuring, COVID-19 policy), stakeholders approached those decisions with measurably less resistance. The communication framework built during the merger became repeatable institutional practice.
The project demonstrates that when organisational change has no upside to sell, strategic communication focuses on process legitimacy rather than outcome enthusiasm. Separate fixed from flexible, acknowledge trade-offs honestly, channel resistance through structured forums, and build narrative around shared constraints.
When done well, stakeholders who disagree with a decision can still trust the institution that made it.
"Three families left. Sixty-nine stayed. Not because they agreed with the outcome, but because they trusted the process that led to it."