Редакция журнала «Позитивные изменения»
Позитивные изменения. Образование. Школа будущего. Тематический выпуск, 2022 / Positive changes. Education. The school of the future. Special issue, 2022
Building the School of the Future, or How to Properly Invest in an Educational Project
Natalia Gladkikh
DOI 10.55140/2782–5817–2022–2-S1–88–99
The field of education has always been of particular interest to impact investors. The new generation, which will be an inevitable participant in the construction of the future, seems an extremely fertile audience for investment. The range of possible capital involvement in social change in the education of children and youth is quite broad, from grants and scholarships for the gifted and leaders to the modernization of the entire education system on a national or even global scale.
Natalia Gladkikh
PhD in Psychology, Leading Expert, Centre for Technological Innovations, Institute of Social and Economic Design at the Higher School of Economics
In this article, Natalia Gladkikh, Head of the Analytics Department at the Positive Change Factory and Editor-In-Chief of the Positive Change Magazine, offers possible interpretations of the results of the School of the Future Model study conducted by the Factory in spring 2022[19], and offers several suggestions as to what might be an effective strategy for investments in school education for impact investors interested in opening Schools of the Future.
POSITIVE CHANGES IN EDUCATION
There are many examples when an investor chooses to contribute to positive changes in education by establishing a secondary school. Such examples in Russia are Letovo, the New School, and Khoroshkola schools that have opened in the last decade. Many projects can also be seen in Armenia – for example, Ayb School or UWC Dilijan International Boarding School are known far beyond the country’s borders. It seems that in Armenia, school education has been chosen as one of the main strategies for impact investments.
Some of the examples of private investments in school education are more of a social business, while others are more of a social impact, contributing to the development of the school system. The business model underlying the school’s model also depends on this – in some places it is on the border of break-even, and in other schools it makes a high-margin business.
The financial model of the school can be socio-entrepreneurial at the choice of the investor (which does not involve making a profit, but has at its core a mechanism for financial sustainability). That is, when the cost of education and income from other types of services cover the existing costs, and profits are invested in the expansion of the project. Another option is the subsidized model (involving regular investment) or the classic business model (maximization of profit generated by the investor).
And while choosing a financial model is not that difficult since this is a common task for any business, everything is much more complicated with educational model.
STRATEGIES FOR CHOOSING EDUCATIONAL MODELS
Who can invest in general secondary education? For example, a developer of residential projects with an obligation to build social infrastructure facilities. Or any other investor who considers it important to achieve social change (impact) in this very area, interested in maximizing the social effect of the investment and focused on choosing a model that will achieve this goal.
Let us consider the options for choosing strategies for investment for the second type of investors, i.e. those who aim to make a meaningful contribution to changing the school system – in the neighborhood, in a particular community, in the country or in the world.
1. EDUCATIONAL FRANCHISE
The first thing that comes to mind when choosing an educational model is to focus on something that is already working successfully and stably and provides a guaranteed or at least «time-tested» option. As our study showed, there are not many proposals on the market, especially if you take local projects created in Russia and following the Federal State Education Standards (or generally assuming certification by the standards of Russian school education).
Some of the examples of private investments in school education are more of a social business, while others are more of a social impact.
The most «popular» franchise option is the International Baccalaureate (IB) program. Many private schools and impact-investment projects follow the path of buying a foreign franchise. The great advantage of this option is that graduates can enter many universities around the world without additional exams, using only the results of the IB program certification. In fact, the creation of this global continuity of school and university education, regardless of the country where general secondary education is received, is the basic idea of the International Baccalaureate. A nice addition is also the availability of developed program components not only for elementary, middle, and high school, but also for kindergarten.
The main disadvantages of this model are, first, the lack of continuity between the International Baccalaureate and the basic program of Russian schools. A child who has studied, say, in a secondary school under the IB program, will find it very difficult to return to the space of a school relying on the Federal State Education Standards (FSES) – there is no correspondence between the programs even at the subject level. In addition, only two Russian universities accept IB results. This together means that this educational model involves a "one-way trip" (without the possibility of returning to a school that relies on the FSES) and, apparently, only in the direction of getting a higher education abroad.
An analysis of this model in the domain of characteristics of the School of the Future highlighted in our study[20] also points to some limitations. First, the lack of opportunity to individualize the curriculum. In the study we came across the fact that even if the contract with the educational organization working under the International Baccalaureate program specifies the development of an individual route for the student, the implementation of this clause may be reduced in practice, for example, to the division of groups according to knowledge of the English language and only be limited to this. It is impossible not to mention the criterion of selectivity of such schools – education under the International Baccalaureate program in the vast majority of cases has a high cost, because it involves a significant part of the cost of paying for the «franchise» itself, which also depends on the dollar and European currency exchange rates, which the school must pay on top of other, traditional costs of wages, rent, etc. Some schools, like Letovo, offer scholarships that can cover up to 100 percent of tuition, but at Letovo, selection is based on other criteria (such as exceptional academic knowledge).
The most popular franchise option is the International Baccalaureate (IB) program. Many private schools and impact-investment projects follow the path of buying a foreign franchise.
Generally speaking, based on current market offers, when using the option of buying an educational franchise, we are talking about a certain «average» and easy-to-replicate version of the educational model. As one of the participants in our study, the creator of a network of schools in Moscow, said, "We want to build VkusVill in school education." At the same time, as other experts note, it is difficult to talk about the innovation of the proposed educational approach and its flexibility to changing conditions, the needs of students, the needs of the area, etc. In other words, if our goal is to make non-fundamental but large-scale changes (simultaneous and easy launch in multiple areas), then a franchise might be a good option. But if the decision is made to build the School of the Future, even if only in a few areas, we should definitely consider other options.
When choosing the option of the «proprietary» educational model, it is worth using an evidence-based approach and guarantee of objectivity in the evaluation of the proposed approach and its results.
2. SELECTING A PARTICULAR TEAM/METHOD
Another option could be the selection of a particular team or educational (often "proprietary") program. In the case of proprietary programs, it is worth immediately noting the importance of the possibility of disengaging an educational method/ approach from its creator, in case the investor's goals go beyond opening one school. Just like the unique school Apelsin that cannot, apparently, «replicate» and go outside St. Petersburg without its creator Dima Zitzer. Just like, basically, the fact that no new schools based on the legendary Summerhill School model have emerged in England.
Another difficulty in choosing a "proprietary approach" or working with a particular team that has a ready-made educational program may be the lack of evidence/guarantee of the claimed results, on the one hand, and their subjective reevaluation by the author, on the other. In our study, we encountered several cases in which the authors of their own educational methods, extremely passionate about their approach, found it difficult to describe the results of using these methods and, even more so, to rely on an evidence-based approach. Here we may be talking about venture capital investments, although in the case of education, it seems that the evidence-based approach is still preferable. The option that the experiment «failed» means several dozen or even hundreds of children who were taught "wrong things" in a “wrong way."
Thus, in addition to meeting the characteristics of the School of the Future identified in our study (lack of selectivity, the possibility of individualization of the curriculum, etc.), when choosing the option of the “proprietary" educational model, it is worth using an evidence-based approach and guarantee of objectivity in the evaluation of the proposed approach and its results.
3. CREATING A PROJECT TEAM TO OPEN A SCHOOL
The third option, which seemed to us the most preferable, is the creation (or selection) of an educational model by a project team specifically created for the opening of the school. There are many examples of this model, and there are entire institutions that offer services for investors to open «turnkey» schools.
It is worth noting that teaching staff and school administrators often lack time to update practices, but this is an important component if we are talking about designing the School of the Future.
We think it is important to note a number of points.
Firstly, the work of any such project team must involve a research unit – a study of the territory, current approaches, situation, challenges, etc.
Secondly, the work of such a project team may not be limited to the framework of the "contract to create a school", but can continue in the future as a tool to support the School’s team. It could be a kind of a "academic council" that brings together specialists interested in the development of the school system, with expertise in this area. The existence of such a council could provide, on the one hand, an update of the approaches and practices used, taking into account the latest developments and technologies, and on the other hand, act as an aggregator and integrator of the experience of all the projects that are launched. It is worth noting that teaching staff and school administrators often lack time to update practices, but this is an important component if we are talking about designing the School of the Future.
If the investor is determined, and the investor’s vision of the project is at the level of a meaningful contribution to positive change in the educational system, it is likely to be not just one school, but a network of schools – newly opened or upgraded. In addition, the council’s activities can also include outside projects that, for example, need to share experiences and receive feedback, evaluate the social impact of their project, etc.
THE SCHOOL OF THE FUTURE: GROWTH POINTS FOR EXISTING APPROACHES
Based on our research, we identified the key important characteristics that the School of the Future must have, including the ability to create an individual educational path for a child, inclusivity in the broadest sense (for both gifted children and children with disabilities), lack of selectivity, including by the criterion of affordability, etc.[21] Let us consider some ways in which these characteristics might be taken into account when building the School of the Future.
First of all, it is worth noting two important related characteristics – inclusivity and individualization of the curriculum and the educational environment as a whole. It seems that the School of the Future, if we see it as a tool for creating impact, positive social change, is a School "close to home", accessible to any family, both geographically and financially. In fact, this situation of relative homogeneity and accessibility of school education can be observed in many countries around the world, including «model» schools, for example in Scandinavia. And this is one of the important differences between the existing strategies of impact investment in Russia, which is quite understandable: if it is possible to open one school, let it be the one with the highest level of selection and it will be attended by the «smartest» students not only of the city, but also of the country. In this case they will inevitably show high results in Academic Olympics, get high USE/IB scores and enter the best universities in Russia and abroad, which gives clear and easily measurable social effects. Another strategy is to select more on the basis of financial considerations. By the way, it is obvious that not every family, even in Moscow, can afford the Brooks International School, which costs more than 2 million rubles a year. But it is very likely that such a school will give better opportunities for admission to foreign universities, knowledge of English close to the level of a native speaker, etc.
At the same time, 80 % of the remaining children will continue to go to school with classes of 40 or drive across town to a really good school where they managed to get in. Remembering the Pareto principle, we can certainly hypothesize that 20 % is enough to change the quality of life for the remaining 80, but we cannot always expect them to return when they graduate overseas.
How could it be otherwise? It seems that here, first of all, it will be necessary to consolidate the efforts of all parties interested in the development of general secondary education in the country. Here it is necessary to create a "new trend" of impact, positive change, spelled out honestly and in detail in the theory of change[22] for each project. As well as the investor's genuine interest in changing the situation, the desire to achieve meaningful positive change, and an honest, unbiased analysis and choice of ways that will contribute to this.
Accessibility is inextricably linked to inclusivity, which is understood as the ability to take into account the individual characteristics of children. Inclusivity is an important characteristic of the person of the future.
Accessibility is inextricably linked to inclusivity, which is understood as the ability to take into account the individual characteristics of children. It does not matter if it is a high ability to master any subjects (including giftedness) or, on the contrary, difficulties in learning (for example, dyslexia, hearing impairments, visual impairments, autism spectrum disorders, etc.). We can say that inclusivity is an important characteristic of the person of the future. It is the understanding that another person may be different from you, but just as important and valuable as you are, even if they cannot do something that you can. A tolerant attitude toward «otherness» is formed when everyone in the class is comfortable, everyone works in the mode that suits them, and there are no those for whom the whole class has to "painfully wait”. This is the basis for creating an environment where there are no conditions for bullying to occur.
Is it possible to create such an environment? The experience not only of foreign schools, but also of a number of Russian schools, shows that it is. Its creation requires both a physical environment that takes into account the interests of children with different needs (including emotional release rooms, etc.), and the formation of a teaching staff – an institute for tutoring, special educators, speech therapists, etc. In the existing formats of inclusive schools in Russia, this is more often implemented by having a resource center that brings together teachers and other professionals who are able to adapt and develop educational programs for children with different needs. In this case, the part of the program that can be mastered by all together is actually mastered together, sometimes even without division into age groups. For subjects that require individualization, small mobile groups are created, or lesson content is adapted so that everyone could moves at their own pace. Children who find group activities difficult or uncomfortable come to individual classes while participating in extracurricular activities, community interaction programs, etc.
It is important that the school team has the freedom to plan its activities. This is the component that is missing from the curricula of average secondary schools in Russia.
One of the most interesting examples of inclusivity that we found in our research was the ILI school in St. Petersburg, which has no special admission tests and is willing to work with any children who come to this school. To that end, a large tutoring service was established that has the capabilities and tools to work with children with a wide range of educational needs. Interestingly, colleagues from the ILI school actively share their experience as a methodological center for the development of tutoring institutions not only in St. Petersburg, but also in other regions of the country.
All of these characteristics can be included in any school program that can be determined and regularly updated/adjusted by the "academic council" described above. It turns out that we are talking about introducing the fundamental principles and landing them in a specific territory and in a specific community, on the basis of a specific educational program developed with the participation of the academic council and the team of the school itself. Thus, it is not the specific elements of curricula that are proposed for implementation, but the criteria for developing such models for each particular school. It is important that the school team has the freedom to plan its activities. As many experts noted in our study, this is the component that is missing from the curricula of «average» secondary schools in Russia. We are talking about both the possibility of independent planning of learning activities, and the ability to independently determine the content of the necessary methodological tools, the procurement of exactly what is required, etc.
SCHOOL AS A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER
We see great potential in developing the idea of the School as a center for community development. We assume a broader understanding of community than is commonly used for schools, usually involving the creation of a community of parents and alumni. In our case, we are talking about the School as the center for the development of the entire area in which it is located. And this is a mutual exchange: by developing the area, the school, in turn, develops itself.
How can this interaction be organized? In our opinion, it can be about creating a fundamentally new educational environment, which will include all the opportunities offered by the local community. It can include local authorities, businesses, non-profit organizations, and generally all residents of the area. School thus becomes a school based on real life. In other words, why should we model life in the classroom when it is all around us?
Here it is worth recalling the ideas of Anton Makarenko and other educators who spoke of the importance of introducing real life to children and the value of such experiences for them. This should also include consonance with the peculiarities of the course of age-related crises, which fall on the school years, when the characteristics and attributes of adulthood are important, professional self-determination occurs, etc. It is worth noting that this idea of a "school for life" is at the heart of many modern approaches, from the Finnish educational model to phenomenon-based learning.
How can such an idea be put into practice? In our view, it may be a matter of research first, aimed at "inventorying the resources" of the local community. What organizations exist in the area that are willing to cooperate? What resources from such organizations could be used in the educational process? By resources we mean both immediate resources (available premises, equipment, etc.) and areas of expertise, as well as areas of tasks that could be accomplished by students. In the process of creating such a map of the area, especially when it comes to just starting a project, the issue of staffing for the school can also be addressed. As noted by the experts in our study, attracting people who are eager, ready and excited, who are in love with their field of expertise, not always even with a pedagogical education, is one of the trends in the market, at least in private school education.
By understanding the available resources, we can begin to plan their integration into the educational process, both in the program of mastering specific academic subjects and project activities, conduct hackathons to solve local community problems, lectures by invited experts from among local residents, summer internships, provide opportunities for part-time work for students, opportunities to learn skills under supervision, develop business plans for businesses, participate in volunteering and many other activities.
We see great potential in developing the idea of the School as a center for community development. And this is a mutual exchange: by developing the area, the school develops itself.
On the other hand, there is a mutual exchange – the School also provides available resources to be used by local residents under different conditions beneficial to all parties, to the extent that does not harm the educational process, but allows the use of resources as efficiently as possible.
Speaking of the possibilities that such an educational environment «extended» to the local community can provide, we can list a large number of positive effects, which, for example, characterize the Scandinavian educational model. This includes developing soft skills, systems thinking, understanding the context of phenomena, developing an entrepreneurial mindset, and many others. One cannot ignore the vast possibilities of forming a so-called "social portfolio", which has long been part of many educational programs at various levels (from IB to the Stelify program at the University of Manchester[23]). It is also worth mentioning the great potential of active development of the area with such community consolidation as an additional impact effect.
Of course, the implementation of this approach will require the solution of many issues, from the adaptation of the environment to the requirements of legal rules applicable to children to safety issues, seemingly difficult to overcome. However, the experience of other countries that have succeeded in creating a School open to community interaction gives hope for the viability of such a concept in Russia as well.
BUILDING THE SCHOOL OF THE FUTURE TOGETHER
As we noted earlier, it seems that one of the fundamental principles of an effective impact investment strategy in schooling is collaboration and openness to engagement. This manifests itself at the level of tactical decisions – the activities of the "academic council" (the coordinating, project center for the opening of the Schools of the Future). It brings together leading experts who translate best practices in school education and are able to adapt it to the changing reality, not only keeping up with the times, but also being ahead of them. Or in the implementation of the principle of the School’s openness to the local community, combining the resources of all members of this community.
But the principle of cooperation and openness is also important for creating positive change at the level of social impact, that is, at the level of communities, areas, society, and the country as a whole. And this requires consolidation of the efforts and strategies of all parties interested in such changes. It is quite possible to build one School, but when there are many such Schools, when it is not necessary to move to another country or even another district to study in them, when the quality education of the future is available to every child, we can really talk about systemic change and meaningful impact.
In conclusion, we must say that the Positive Change Factory is ready to take on the role of a unifying methodological center for creating systemic changes[24]. Our standard of activity involves planning and evaluating projects in the field of impact investments based on the evidence-based approach, openness of the data obtained and, most importantly, interest in systemic and significant changes of the living standards of the society.
