Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

Purpose: We aim to explore critical capability concerns or the success factors of privately owned small and medium level educational institutes operating in Peshawar, Rawalpindi, and Islamabad cities of Pakistan.

Methodology: The mixed method approach (qualitative and quantitative) is used employing two studies. In study-1, the qualitative data was collected through face to face interviews involving 38 school owners. Analysis of qualitative responses provided 18 organizational capability factors that were believed pivotal for entrepreneurial success in school education. In study-2, we aim to assess the relationship between organizational capabilities (independent variable) with school performance (dependent variable). Organizational capabilities were measured using 18 items comprising of capability factors determined in study-1. School performance was measured using 8 items instrument adapted from existing literature. All items were rated on a 5 point Likert scale using a sample of 186 individual teachers, managers, and owners of schools. Stepwise regression analysis was used for the purpose of data analysis.

Findings: Results indicate that there is a significant positive correlation between organizational capability and the school performance. Financial resources, working environment, and energy crises are the critical capability concerns which if addressed well could contribute to the entrepreneurial success and school performance.

Limitations: The study is conducted only in three cities of Pakistan. The sample size for the questionnaire is limited to 186 respondents and interview to 38 respondents only. Cross-section design is used because of the time and resource limitations.

Implications: The study has important implications for school entrepreneurs, teachers, academicians, researchers, and policy makers. The capability concerns or the success factors validated here can be used effectively to improve the students’ learning and the school performance. Policymakers need to consider these important elements while devising policies. Researchers may undertake further research with large samples and diverse cultures to validate the effectiveness of these variables. Longitudinal and experimental designs may also be employed. Teachers may consider the importance of teaching quality, work environment, and other elements tested here to improve the school performance and learning for students.

Originality: The combination of independent variables or the capability concerns for school success used here have rarely been used to the best of our knowledge. The study is conducted in three cities of Pakistan – a developing country; so the cultural context is really important, especially when the country is largely impacted by shortage of electricity which has unique impacts on school performance.

Keywords

School Entrepreneurs, School Performance, Private Educational Institutions, Energy Crisis, Financial Resources, Work Environment, Pakistan.

1. Adeyemi, T. O. (2008). Organizational climate and teachers’ job performance in primary schools in Ondo State, Nigeria: An analytical survey. Asian Journal of Information Technology, 7(4), 138-145.
2. Akareem, H. S., & Hossain, S. S. (2012). Determinants of education quality: What makes students’ perception different? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Open Review of Educational Research, 3(1), 52-67. 
3. Ali, M., & Naviwala, N. (2017). Should we double the education budget, or seek the 100 pc literacy? Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com/news/1335342, Accessed on January 28, 2017.
4. Bickford. D. J., & Wright, D. J. (2006). Community: The hidden context for learning. Retrieved from https://www.educause. edu/research-and-publications/books/learning-spaces/chapter-4-community-hidden-context-learning, Accessed on April 15, 2017.
5. Bowondor, B., & Rao, S. L. (2004). Management education in India, its evolution and some contemporary issues. Research paper published by All Indian Management Education.
6. Bullock, C. C. (2007). The Relationship between School Building Conditions and Student Achievement at the Middle School Level in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Dissertation for Doctor of Education, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.231.9271&rep=rep1&type=pdf, Accessed on March 23, 2017.
7. Edwards, B. W. (2006). Environmental design and educational performance with particular reference to ‘green’ schools in hampshire and essex. Research in Education, 76(1), 14-32. 
8. Flutter, J. (2006). This place could help you learn: Student participation in creating better school environments. Educational Review, 58(2), 183-193.
9. Hoffman, R. G. (1976). Student descriptions of instructional characteristics as relevant indices of teaching effectiveness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland. Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/19622, Accessed on July 10, 2017.
10. Iqbal, M. (2012). Public versus private secondary schools: A qualitative comparison. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 6(1), 40-49.
11. Jimenez, E., & Lockheed, M. E. (1995). Public and private secondary education in developing countries: A comparative study. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 309. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/MarlaineLockheed/publication/44 820470_Public_and_Private_Secondary_Education_in_Developing_Countries_A_Co mparative_Study/links/546f48cc0cf216f8cfa9d1d4/Public-and-Private-Secondary-Education-in-Developing-Countries-A-Comparative-Study.pdf, Accessed on March 10, 2017.
12. Khan, J. H. (2005). A global guide to management education. Retrieved from http://www.gfme.org/global_guide/pdf/161-166%20Pakistan.pdf, Accessed on March 5, 2017. 
13. Kumar, R., O’Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2008). Association between physical environment of secondary schools and student problem behavior: A national study, 2000-2003. Environment and Behavior, 40(4), 455-486.
14. Lewin, K. M., & Stuart, J. S. (2003). Research teacher education: New perspectives on practice, performance and policy. Sussex: MUSTER Synthesis Report, Department for International Development (DFID) Educational Papers. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/12882/1/er03049a.pdf, Accessed on July 12, 2016.
15. Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 539-556.
16. McEwan, P. J. (2015). Improving learning in primary schools of developing countries - A meta-analysis of randomized experiments. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 353-394.
17. Mishra, B. K., & Mishra, A. K. (2004). Privatisation of higher education: A sociological interrogation. Delhi Business Review, 5(2), 13-17.
18. Moos, L., Krejsier, J., & Kofod, K. K. (2008). Successful principals: Telling or selling? On the importance of context for school leadership. International Journal for Leadership in Education, 11(4), 341-352.
19. Mosteller, F. (1995). The tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The Future of Children, 5(2), 113-127.
20. Rastogi, L., & Das, P. (2002). Re-engineering educational institutions through smart cards. Delhi Business Review, 3(1), 91-113. 
21. Rowntree, D. (2015). Assessing students: How shall we know them? London: Nichols Publishing Company, New York.
22. Rudd, P., Reed, F., & Smith, P. (2008). The effects of the school environment on young people’s attitudes towards education and learning. National Foundation for Educational Research, Berkshire. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502369.pdf, Accessed on June 13, 2017.
23. Singh, M. K., Nagy, H., Villanyi, L., & Kaposzta, J. (2008). The entrepreneurship model of business education: Building knowledge economy. Delhi Business Review, 9(2), 1-10.
24. SMEDA. (2007). SME Policy 2007. Retrieved from http://www.smeda.org/index.php?option=com_fsf&view= faq&catid=3&faqid=48, Accessed on January 5, 2017.
25. Solanki, R. B. (2004). TQM in higher education. Delhi Business Review, 5(1), 109-111.
26. Thapa, A. (2013). Does private school competition improve public school performance? The case of Nepal. International Journal of educational Development, 3(4), 358-366. 
27. Thrupp, M., & Lupton, L. (2006). Taking school contexts more seriously: The social justice challenge. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(3), 308-328. 
28. Verstegen, D. A., & King, R. A. (1998). The relationship between school spending and student achievement: A review and analysis of 35 years of production function research. Journal of Education Finance, 24(2), 243-262.
29. World Bank. (2017). Pakistan Development Update. Growth: A Shared Responsibility. Retrieved from http://documents.world bank.org/curated/en/536431495225444544/pdf/115187-WP-PUBLIC-P161410-77p-Pakistan-Development-Update-Spring-2017.pdf, Accessed on May 7, 2017.