Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself

Standard: Should a town council in rural Japan merge its two primary schools?

You run the case. Read the prompt, answer questions from the notes below, and share data only when the candidate asks for it or gets stuck. Score at the end.

Case timer

00:00

Target length:

1. Read the prompt aloud

Read it slowly, then pause. Let the candidate ask questions before they structure.

A town council in a mountain area of Japan runs two public primary schools. The number of children is falling. Should the council merge the two schools into one, and how?

Format note: Difficulty: Standard. Format: candidate-led, with interviewer dialogue. Industry: Public sector and education. Region: Japan. Interview length: about 30 minutes. The company is fictional and all figures are illustrative.

2. Answers to clarifying questions

Give these answers only if the candidate asks. If they ask something not listed, give a sensible answer or say it does not matter here.

If asked: How many pupils are there, and where is this heading?
Answer: The larger school has 120 pupils. The smaller one, in a valley 12 km away, has 60, and births suggest it will have 35 in six years (illustrative).
If asked: What does the town pay for each school?
Answer: For this case, the town pays for buildings, support staff and running costs. That is JPY 80 million a year for the larger school and JPY 60 million for the smaller one. Teachers are paid from other budgets (illustrative).
If asked: What would a merged school cost?
Answer: A merged school at the larger site would cost JPY 95 million a year, plus 3 school buses at JPY 8 million a year each. The smaller school also needs earthquake strengthening costing JPY 300 million if it stays open (illustrative).

3. The hypothesis a strong candidate states

Listen for an early, testable guess like this one. It does not need to match word for word.

Each school has costs that do not shrink with fewer pupils, so merging should save money. My hypothesis is that bus times and the valley community decide how to do it.

4. A model structure

Compare the candidate's structure with this one. A different split can be just as good if it is clean and fits the problem.

Value of merging = yearly running saving + building work avoided, weighed against travel time for pupils
- Key: Running cost of two schools against one merged school
- School buses for pupils from the valley
- Earthquake strengthening avoided
- Pupil numbers and cost per pupil over time
- Bus ride length and the valley community

5. The working, step by step

Each step shows how a strong candidate works it out. Share a new fact from it only when the candidate asks or is stuck, and let them do the math: the result in the dark box is what they should reach.

Step 1: Cost today
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "JPY 80 million plus JPY 60 million, in JPY millions a year."
Cost of two schools (JPY millions a year): 80 + 60 = 140
Step 2: Cost after merging
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "The merged school plus 3 buses."
Cost of the merged school (JPY millions a year): 95 + 3 × 8 = 119
Step 3: Yearly saving
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "The difference."
Yearly saving (JPY millions): 80 + 60 - (95 + 3 × 8) = 21
Step 4: Ten-year value
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "Ten years of savings, plus the JPY 300 million of strengthening avoided. I will ignore discounting for a first view."
Ten-year value of merging (JPY millions): (80 + 60 - (95 + 3 × 8)) × 10 + 300 = 510
Step 5: Cost per pupil today
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "At the smaller school, JPY 60 million over 60 pupils."
Cost per pupil at the smaller school today (JPY): 60,000,000 ÷ 60 = 1,000,000
Step 6: Cost per pupil in six years
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "The same cost over 35 pupils."
Cost per pupil at the smaller school in six years (JPY): 60,000,000 ÷ 35 = 1,714,286
Step 7: Curveball: the bus ride
What a strong candidate does: Interviewer: "Parents say the longest bus ride, 50 minutes, is too long. A fourth bus would cut it to 30 minutes." Candidate: "The yearly saving becomes:"
Yearly saving with four buses (JPY millions): 80 + 60 - (95 + 4 × 8) = 13
Step 8: Ten-year value with four buses
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "Ten years of the smaller saving, plus the strengthening avoided."
Ten-year value with four buses (JPY millions): (80 + 60 - (95 + 4 × 8)) × 10 + 300 = 430

The recommendation to listen for

At the end, say: "The CEO walks in. What is your recommendation?"

The council should merge the two schools at the larger site and run four buses, not three. First, merging cuts the town's yearly cost from JPY 140 million to JPY 119 million, a saving of JPY 21 million. Second, it avoids JPY 300 million of earthquake strengthening, so the ten-year value is about JPY 510 million. Third, the smaller school's cost per pupil would rise from JPY 1 million to about JPY 1.71 million as pupils fall to 35. A fourth bus keeps the longest ride to 30 minutes and still saves JPY 13 million a year, or JPY 430 million over ten years. Hold meetings with valley parents before deciding, and offer the old building to the community.

Risks a strong answer names: Young families may leave the valley if its school closes; Bus routes may be cut by snow in winter.

Next steps: Hold meetings with parents in the valley before the council votes; Test the bus routes in winter conditions.

Strong versus weak

A strong answer

Compared the running cost of two schools with one, counted the building work avoided, and paid for a shorter bus ride rather than ignoring the families.

A weak answer

Said small schools are part of the community and should stay open, with no view on cost, pupil numbers or the building.

Score the candidate

Score each criterion from 1 to 5. A 2 or a 4 sits between the descriptions.

This case has no exhibit. Score Exhibit reading on how the candidate used the data you gave them: did they pick out the number that matters and say what it means?

Structuring

1: No clear structure, or a memorized framework that does not fit the problem.
3: A sensible structure, but with some overlap, a gap, or no clear priority.
5: A structure built for this problem, with no overlap and no gaps, a stated hypothesis, and a clear first step.

Math

1: Frequent errors, no units, or needed heavy help to finish.
3: Right answers but slow or messy working, or one error caught late.
5: Accurate and clearly narrated, with units, a sense check, and what the number means.

Exhibit reading

1: Read the chart aloud without finding the number that matters.
3: Found the key number but gave only part of the so-what.
5: Pulled the right number quickly and said what it means for the case.

Synthesis

1: Summarized what was done, with no clear answer.
3: Gave an answer, but with weak reasons or no next step.
5: Answer first, then two or three reasons with numbers, the main risk, and next steps.

Communication

1: Hard to follow: long silences, no signposting.
3: Clear most of the time, with some rambling.
5: Calm and concise, signposted each step, and checked in with the interviewer.

Total

0 out of 25

Score all five criteria to see the band and the feedback template.

Next: another case in Partner mode

Swap roles and run the next case, so you both practise answering and scoring.

Run the next case: Valuing a school group with peer multiples Choose another case