Why some Corporate Edventures in school systems are failures sooner than later?

Largely, the corporate interventions to educational systems were more on a philanthropic note or on a social support basis till early seventies. The attitudinal shift from ‘business of education’ to ‘business in education’ started in late seventies and gained momentum from mid-eighties. Aggressive participation of venture capitalists for investments in education with a profit note did bring a commercial dimension to the transaction of education both at the school level and at the higher education level.

While private participation in education was indeed a welcome intervention given the extent of work that had to be done in the Indian subcontinent, the role of government has been more on facilitation without any major change in the rules that govern the systems of educational organizations. Mentoring and monitoring had to be the focus , but conventional rules and  ‘policing’ the system forced unhealthy and corrupt practices for easy access and undeserved  branding.

While one understand the idea that “ Rome was not built in a day” , many institutions that started with a fanfare and huge budgets with imposing infrastructures did not meet the targets and could not deliver the assured quality in academics. They do survive as participants in a marathon but are basically failures in their own concept. Many may not agree with the reality and say that ‘they are still working it out’ – ‘they are still re-engineering’, but the reality is far from their own statements.

Some issues for that led to such misadventures are:

1. Poor field study – Many corporate engaged expert market surveyors to identify good locations for educational start ups. The focus of many of these players were either on the absence of quality institutions in a given area, absence of competitive institutions, affordability for quality education, resource paradigms in the locations and the like. These inputs were statistically true, but there was not adequate measurement about the social psyche of the people in the area. Hence, people who were trained to low cost education systems had serious doubts about their investments in such organizations.  Numbers did not pick up. Huge expenditure in marketing did not pay dividends. Schools started monitoring admissions on hourly basis least realizing that it is a long drawn process. They held the academic heads responsible for their inability to attract the populace by one means or the other. Their exercise failed to generate the faith in the community as the infrastructures were still in the completion process and the message that ‘not fit (ready) for use’ impacted their reach.

2. Mismatch between the promises and the delivery:  In a number of new ventures, the promises made were sky high, but even after a period of two years their delivery was less than ten percent. Quality brochures were indeed a delight to view but the parents started questioning and hence increasing disappointment forced them to shift their faith. The investors least realized that at least a sizable portion of the commitments made have to be fulfilled on a time bound basis or there must be evidences to show that the process is on.

3. Poor HR support:  Many of the institutions which had excellent infrastructure did not have a qualified and experienced team. All that could be done was to mobilize some faculty from the existing schools or colleges nearby who were otherwise unhappy with the earlier institutions by paying them some attractive packages.  Absence of quality staff and hence resultant inefficiency in delivery processes brought dismay to the parents. This reduced the lure for these institutions subsequently.

4. Dichotomy in leadership:  While corporate thinking for running an organization has its own rewards, the leaders were not adequately sensitive to educational sensitivities. Conflicts between administrative heads and academic heads surfaced in most of these institutions. The frequency in change of academic leadership impacted the team and hence frequent changes in delivery processes. The message went wrong to the community.

5. Poor investments in empowerment: While enormous investments were made in infrastructure, the staff were not paid adequately even to the basic prescribed levels. Thus the institutions failed to attract competent staff. The managements wondered why they should invest in empowering teachers as they may leave after empowerment. Hence the quality continued to remain poor. “Saving from the salary payable to staff” was a totally wrong insight in the management concept.

6. Inefficient pedagogical interventions:  While many schools fancied to call themselves as ‘world’ ‘global’ ‘international’ and similar terms, the pedagogical interventions were far below the expected levels. The encouragement to outdoor and co-curricular activities and their advertisement and marketing were considered spectacular performances, thus the frames marginalizing the soul – the academics.  Paid advertisements, paid branding of the institutions through the media was not indeed a good marketing proposition.

Apart from some of these major reasons, there are many.. It must be understood that returns on investments from educational institutions run on ethical practices do take time, but they are certain. The investors need patience and should address to core issues so that a sustainable development takes place in such ventures.