The government is considering entrusting the private sector with the responsibility to cooperate and even run community managed not for profit schools.
With this policy still in the making, there is an opportunity to reflect and introspect about the entire education sector in the country.
With a bit of imagination the current educational landscape mirrors the aviation market with premium airlines charging higher prices for good quality services. On the other side of the equation, you get low cost/no frills competitors where, by paying less, you are simply happy to reach destinations safely.
Before thinking about partnerships, it is important to think if and how community not for profit public schools can do a better job and become the equivalent of Air Asia in the education sector: low cost but highly successful.
The truth is that education like health is not a “normal” market where the best products thrive and prosper through competition. Special and essential safeguards are needed.
Moreover the problem in Nepal is that liberalization of the education system has resulted in private individuals having the possibility to set up for profit educational businesses as well as, communities becoming empowered to be in charge of education at the local level. This has not been regulated and did not create the needed level playing field for genuine and positive competition.
I am talking about genuine and positive competition because at the end of the day we should not compare the education sector like a commercial battlefield in the soft drink industry. The two are not like Coke and Pepsi.
Community schools were never in a position to meet their obligations to provide free education and at the same time investing in infrastructure, teacher’s training and all others important aspects that are easily provided by private for profit schools.
The average resources made available by the Ministry of Education for one community school will never match the resources made accessible for a private for profit schools by its shareholders.
Therefore private for profit schools should be encouraged to establish partnerships with community managed public schools. But at the same time, can a genuine, fair win-win situation emerge from such collaborations or will any such efforts simply imply a takeover by the private institutions and an annihilation of the concept of not for profit education?
Two conditions should be met before talking about partnerships: first it is essential to reinforce not for profit community schools with more incentives and stronger oversight; second, private for profit schools must encompass a more “social” mission.
Communities must be empowered in terms of resources and skills to harness their capacities. Real incentives based on benchmarks with a strong accountability mechanism should be made accessible to local communities in charge of various schools. It is ironic that such policies are already in place but not implemented.
New performance based schemes should be designed where each district educational offices announces special grant competitions to award, e.g. the best 10 or 15 community schools in the districts. The winning schools will not only receive a considerable financial boost but also support for a multiyear tailored made capacity building “pathway”.
As part of it, these schools should be requested to nourish a nearby weak community school through school twins.
These measures will help in setting the conditions for a better level playing field in the sector but only structural reform of how district education offices operate, including stronger popular oversight, will see this implemented. However, this won’t be enough.
We also need to demystify the myth that all private schools are doing an excellent job. Many of them are actually providing below standards services and this must be fully addressed before allowing partnerships that won’t bear any fruit.
Most importantly, we need to rethink the role of profit education, i.e. goals and mission. We need to ensure that for profit schools are able to do a much better job in meeting social obligations, including investing in accessibility and inclusion, any learning institution is should be responsible for. I am not referring simply to the provision of scholarships for low income students, a legal mandate often neglected.
Education should be open for business opportunities and delivered by multiple actors but it must always be considered as a “public” good, not as a standard business. Creating social value should be the guiding principle and not just a CSR “add on”.
We should ensure that for profit private schools first and foremost meet their social obligations primarily towards communities in which they are located. Making the school profitable would be still paramount but other considerations, agreed and shared with student’s families, local associations and groups will be equally important.
A drop in the profits will be offset by a much higher social return. Investing in such a unique sector like education, requires a strong sense of social justice and fairness, not unscrupulous behavior.
For profit private schools interested in working with community schools could start sharing their best practices and progressively think creatively about new models that can include partial or even full ownerships of their community partners. But first they should see themselves as more financially viable social enterprises rather than hunting predators, offering a real service to the nation.
As for Air Asia there is no limit in their skies, the same could be true for new thriving social businesses in the educational sector in Nepal.
Add new comment