If the private sector does not like to be imposed a heavy regulation that would derail their investments, then the onus is on them to come up with alternatives
At the end of the day, private schools and colleges were able to amend the proposed School Education Bill in their favour.
From their point of view, the most controversial issue was the mandatory transformation of private learning education institutions into trusts.
As someone that has been working in the past and now doing pro bono work in the field of social and human development, I must admit that I really liked the idea of turning private, money-making organisations into not-forprofit entities. The initial provisions would have made it mandatory for these commercial entities to be turned into trusts within five years from the bill becoming law.
I do admit, from the other side of the "aisle", that five years' time would not have been sufficient for an entirely profit-making organisation to be transformed into a completely different legal entity. If you are a group of investors putting huge amounts of money into a college, then you might have probably taken loans, and you try to break even according to adetailed business plan. In a way, it is unfair to suddenly change the rules of the games at this point.
At the same time, the final, till provisional, compromise that was included in the last draft of the Bill, would only force new players to register their schools and colleges as trusts.
Wouldn't these new entities be at a disadvantage in comparison with the fully commercial entities already in operation? If such a provision were to be, at the end, incorporated, it would certainly create an "uneven" level playing field.
The only way forward is to further establish a dialogue, an open and transparent mechanism that can bring together all the stakeholders on the same table and discuss other solutions.
The discussions should be based on the following premises.
First the private sector must be recognised as a key actor in the education sector.
With this acknowledgement, goes also the admission that running a school with good infrastructures and good teaching professionals is truly an expensive business.
The second point is that Nepal should aim at creating a truly national educa-tional system in which the private sector works along their community-run, government schools.
One of the goals of the governments at all levels should be to bridge the gulf between private and community schools. It is not an investor or a principal of a private school who should turn around local public, community schools. Yet the private sector must play apart, must have a role, and with this, I come to the third point.
Private schools and colleges have a societal mission: they cannot just remain only commercial entities purely driven by the concept of maximisation of their investment. While it is clear that they should not be at a loss and that the shareholders and key executives running the school should be adequately compensated for their investment and work, it is essential to enforce the conceptthat the private sector working in the education field has a social mission.
First of all, I am talking about implementing the scholarships programme for vulnerable students as per the law and also to become as transparent as possible in terms of the fee structure. On the latter point, perhaps the current structure, as per the rules and regulations, is abys-mally low, and that's why it continues to be ridiculously ignored by the private schools and colleges.
There might also be other ways for commercial schools to play a bigger role in the creation of an equitable, just and even educational system in the country.
The best way forward could be to undertake joint research and studies and have public discussions where investors, representatives of civil society, academicians and governments (again at all its levels) coulddiscuss in an open and transparent way.
If the private sector does not like to be imposed a heavy regulation that would derail their investments in their schools and colleges, then the onus is on them to come up with alternatives. Maybe a solidarity fund, enabled by them, could be set up and managed transparently.
Now I also do understand that private schools and colleges do already pay their taxes. Therefore, why should they put additional money, resources that risk going to waste? Again, I go back to my point that the private sector involved in such a key and vital area like education must understand that the logic of profit maximisation is not the right approach. Perhaps, a light private-public entity, a sort of foundation with special statutory powers, could be set up and run by the private educational sector, with the aim of channeling the resources stemming from the proposed fund to meritorious community, public schools.
Twins between private and community, public schools could also be supported.
My vision is to create the conditions for private investors to see themselves and also be recognised as social entrepreneurs with a big social role in the society, without losing a penny.
Rather than mandatory imposition of a new set of regulations, maybe the government at all the three levels could reward or incentivise, also through a special tax regime, those private entities in the education (also health) sectors that are showing more stewardship towards their social mission.
I do admit that such conversation is going to be a difficult one, but if we keep the best interest in mind, that's the national interest to make the country prosperous and thriving, then solutions might arise.
Maybe we need to take more time, and we should not rush this aspect of the bill at the moment. Maybe the whole country needs to find the common will that will allow to re-think and re-imagine the whole education sector with the full involvement and recognition of the private sector.
So, I wrap up this piece with the following appeal: "Let's talk, folks, let's have a conversation. Do you think it is going to be worthy?"You already know my answer.
A version of this article appears in the print on October 11, 2023, of The Himalayan Times