ventures
From these examples, and the findings of earlier research about how educational SEVs may generate, share and capture value, it is reasonable to conclude educational social en- trepreneurship encompasses a wide-range of activities which address opportunities regular state school systems have neglected. As such, educational social entrepreneurs create value by recognising and acting upon opportunities to address unmet educational needs in edu- cation systems around the world. Because low-income families typically cannot afford to pay the full costs of an education, educational SEVs are likely to give away market power, in a monetary sense, by lowering the price of education, and increasing supply, for the benefit of their beneficiaries (Agafonow,2015, p. 1055).
Educational SEVs generate value by addressing an under-supply of education for pupils who have not been served well by regular schools. These pupils are at-risk of exclusion from education, further training and opportunities which can help them to earn higher wages or work at highly-skilled jobs that will improve their wellbeing and sustain their capacity to have a meaningful life over the long term. They and their families might also feel neglected or unvalued by one-size-fits-all approaches to curriculum and schooling in public school systems that may not make it easy for educators to use different approaches
(Bishop, O’Sullivan, and Berryman,2010, pp. 75–6; McNaughton,2011, p. 25). One way
educational SEVs can meet these needs is by providing alternative forms of schooling that either charge low fees, or use a form of income-generating activity to support them. They may draw upon the know-how and resources of local communities to establish and run a
school.
The low-cost independent school model suggests that it is possible to blend for-profit and social objectives, as is usual in all social entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, sceptics or critics of private schooling or educational entrepreneurship argue that these objectives are incompatible, and will lead to poorer outcomes than regular public education. De- pending on the mix of financial opportunities and constraints, some educational social en- trepreneurs’ value capture strategies are likely to be different to other social entrepreneurs, insofar as they may have a small potential for earning revenue or generating profit from fees. These educational social entrepreneurs may have to rely more on income-generating activities besides school fees or subsidies, such as accessing funding through social bonds, philanthropy or government grants, contracts or subsidies to finance their ventures.
With limited prospects for capturing value, the main ways educational SEVs are likely to share value is by improving the educational opportunities and outcomes of children marginalised by regular state schools, relative to what they would have experienced in reg- ular schools. Even so, educational SEVs are immune from using strategies, such as market- ing or their location, to protect their market position. How much effort educational SEVs expend on protecting their position might depend on such issues as whether ventures are subsidised to enrol children with special needs, or whether laws and regulations determine whom, and how, they should serve their beneficiaries. Nonetheless, research suggests ed- ucational social entrepreneurs might deliberately tackle problems related to educational under-achievement, such as poverty or economic development, if these objectives support their educational mission (Chand & Amin-Choudhury,2006; Chand & Misra,2009; Too- ley,2005; Tooley, Bao, Dixon, & Merrifield,2011; Tooley & Dixon,2005,2006). Educa- tional SEVs stand to have their most important effects through direct and indirect impacts which are not captured in the price of the service they provide.
Thus, the innovations that educational SEVs develop, or use, to support these goals should be studied closely. The innovations which educational SEVs use may include, for example: using a particular pedagogy or curriculum that is more tailored or appropriate to a community or group; involving family and community members more in education; or improving access to schooling that some at-risk pupils might not have been able to attend before. The combination, or recombination, of these product and process innovations might bring about positive, transformational change where regular education or schooling has not.
These observations suggest the framework presented in chapter 3 should be adjusted to reflect how educational SEVs are likely to create value. Figure 4.1 shows the key change is to the value proposition, where it is proposed educational SEVs place more emphasis on their educational and social missions than producing a financial surplus. As noted above, educational SEVs’ main sources of revenue are not likely to be from those who receive an education. Finance is likely to come from other stakeholders in ventures’ value chains. While more highly-educated children are likely to produce returns to society, these returns will not be reaped until decades after these children have left school. To demonstrate im- pact to stakeholders, educational SEVs may have to focus more, in the immediate term, on outputs, and whatever they can contribute to community development over a five to ten year period. The scale and scope of educational SEVs’ innovations, and how widely they are adopted, are likely to be important determinants of impact. Educational SEVs’ innovations might contribute to disruptive, positive transformational change throughout education systems, local communities, and perhaps even society at large in the long-term (Hess,2006, p. 46).