Educational Entrepreneurship (EE): Delineating and Highlighting Its Domain, Importance and Feasibility in Uganda's Context

Although government financial support for education is dwindling in many African countries, not many educational institutions have succeeded in devising internal mechanisms to enable them to continuously deliver quality education in quantity. Might the application of certain entrepreneurial strategies in educational management perhaps help to make a difference? What is educational entrepreneurship (EE)? How feasible is EE in a developing world education landscape like that of Uganda? Which challenges must EE surmount before it can envisage success? Using literature review methodology, this study attempted to find answers to such questions. Its aim was to delineate the EE domain and to highlight both its importance and feasibility in Uganda's context. The study makes two key revelations; first, indeed EE is clouded in conceptual mishmash, hence need for more scholarly attention; second, however salvaging EE can be to struggling educational institutions, it is not without serious challenges – even apparent contradictions – hence preference for a “moderate risk” approach to entrepreneurship within educational institutions.


INTRODUCTION
Educational Entrepreneurship (EE)±entrepreneurship carried out in education institutions±has received growing scholarly attention in recent years, particularly in the Western World [1]. This has been propagated by dwindling public and donor financing of education [2], on the one hand; and widespead failure by most educational institutions to generate their own funds from within [3], on the other. Nevertheless, the FRQFHSW RI ³((´ (GXFDWLRQDO (QWUHSUHQHXUVKLS VWLOO HOXGHV WKH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI PDQ\ %HVLGHV WKH feasibility of EE in a third world education landscape, like that of Uganda, also appears to raise more questions than answers. Delineating EE might therefore help to open the EE concept to both more scholarly attention (by researchers) and more empirical application (by practitioners±both educational managers and the wider business community). Hence the current study, which reviews existing EE literature with the purpose of delineating the EE domain and highlighting both its importance and feasibility in the Ugandan FRQWH[W 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH SDSHU ¶V REMHFWLYHs are four; namely, to: a) Shed more light on the meaning of the term Educational Entrepreneurship (EE), b) Delineate the scope of the EE domain, c) Highlight the potential significance of EE in the management of education in Uganda, d) Determine the feasibility of EE in the Ugandan context.

THE CONCEPT OF EDUCATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP (EE)
This study construes EE as the routine application of entrepreneurial competences to addressing VRFLHW\ ¶V HGXFDWLRQDO SUREOHPV 7KLV GHILQLWLRQ KRZHYHU LV UDWKHU WHQWDWLYH EHFDXVH LW IDOOV VKRUW RI unpacking the two complex conceptV RI ³HGXFDWLRQ´ DQG ³HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS´ 7KH SDSHU DWWHPSWV WR FODULI\ these two concepts first before fine tuning the definition of EE.
$PRQJ WKH PDQ\ PHDQLQJV RI WKH WHUP ³HGXFDWLRQ´ DUH WKH OLEHUDO RQHV ZKLFK WDNH WKH WHUP WR mean socialisation of the young±the process of teaching the young to live as useful and acceptable members of society [8]- [9]. This kind of education may even take place under informal settings such as at home or church/mosque [10]. However, more formal (technical) definitions of the term education link it with development of cognitive states of a person. This involves knowledge and understanding in depth and breadth, suggesting also that what is acquired is desirable [10], [8]. In this regard, [11] define education as experiences, both planned and unplanned, that take place within a setting specifically designed for learning±a SODFH FDOOHG VFKRRO ,Q D IRUPDO VHQVH WKHUHIRUH HGXFDWLRQ LV WKH ³SURFHVV ZKLFK LQWHQWLRQDOO\ WUDQVPLWV ZKDW is considered by society as valuable, in an iQWHOOLJHQW DQG YROXQWDU\ PDQQHU´ [12]. Against this backdrop, the FXUUHQW VWXG\ DGRSWHG WKH ODWWHU GHILQLWLRQ L H RQH RI ³IRUPDO HGXFDWLRQ´ RU ³VFKRROLQJ´ DW DOO OHYHOV LQFOXGLQJ early child, primary, secondary and higher education.
The second concept iV ³HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS´ $FFRUGLQJ Wo [13] µµHQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS LV ZKHQ \RX DFW upon opportunities and ideas and transform them into value for others. The value that is created may be financial, cultural, oU VRFLDO´ S +RZHYHU > @ offer a more precise definition of entrepreneurship as WKH ³SURFHVV RI FUHDWLQJ VRPHWKLQJ QHZ ZLWK YDOXH E\ GHYRWLQJ WKH QHFHVVDU\ WLPH DQG HIIRUW DVVXPLQJ WKH accompanying financial, psychological and social risks; and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personaO VDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG LQGHSHQGHQFH´ S 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ DOVR WDNHV HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS WR EH WKH process of creating (educational) value by both identifying given opportunities and passionately going forth to pursue them for personal and social gain. Thus, entrepreneurship is not just about creating business enterprises. It is about bringing a certain set of skills, intellectual attributes and innovative approaches to bear on solving problems in the public, for-profit and/or not-for-profit sectors [13].
In VROYLQJ VXFK SUREOHPV HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS PD\ WDNH DQ\ RQH RI WKH WZR GLIIHUHQW ³PRGHV of H[SORLWDWLRQ´ > @ ³,QGHSHQGHQW HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS´ RSSRUWXQLW\ SXUVXLW E\ VWDUWLQJ DQ LQGHSHQGHQW EXVLQHVV HQWLW\ DQG ³RUJDQLVDWLRQDO HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS´ SXUVXLW RI D business opportunity within an already existing RUJDQLVDWLRQ 7KH ODWWHU PRGH LV WHFKQLFDOO\ UHIHUUHG WR DV ³FRUSRUDWH HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS´ > @ or ³LQWUDSUHQHXUVKLS´±if a business initiative is spearheaded by lower-level individual employees [17]. Whatever the mode of exploitation, entrepreneurship is characterised by several elements (dimensions), three of which are taken to be more important [15]. These are innovativeness (a predisposition to engage in creativity and experimentation of new ways of doing things); pro-activeness (an active opportunity-seeking and forward-looking perspective±an attempt to lead rather than follow); and risk-taking (since considerable resources must be invested before return on them is known) [18]- [19].
The first objective of the current study being to highlight the meaning of the term EE, it is at this point that the hitherto illuminated meanings of the two concepts of education and entrepreneurship are FRPELQHG LQWR ³((´ $YDLODEOH OLWHUDWXUH VKRZV WKDW WR-date, a few scholarly attempts have been made to conceptualize the notion of entrepreneurship in an education management context [18]. The few attempts include [20], [13], [21], [22], [1]. It is with the help of these studies that the current study attempted to shed more light on the meaning of the term EE, particularly in a Ugandan context.
According to [13] (( ³LV DERXW DSSO\LQJ WKH VNLOOV DQG DWWLWXGHV LQKHUHQW LQ HQWUHSUHQHXULDO WKLQking and the entrepreneurial process to achieve innovative and sustainable impact and reforms with respect to the social mission of HGXFDWLRQ´ S ,Q WKLV UHJDUG WKH LGHD RI VRFLDO PLVVLRQ VRFLDO HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS LV D necessary condition for a valid conceptualisation of EE. However, by defining EE in terms of ³HQWUHSUHQHXULDO´ WKLnking, [13] definition presupposes that the meaning of the term entrepreneurship is already clear to readers. In other words, the definition focuses more on the description of EE than it does on its meaning. Secondly, [13] definition is rather wordy.
The second definition is by [20]. Here EE is defined as the instigation of certain changes in the public education system±changes that will disrupt, transform, or radically alter the way education is provided [20] $FFRUGLQJ WR WKLV GHILQLWLRQ QRW HYHU\ FKDQJH TXDOLILHV WR EH FDOOHG (( LW LV RQO\ ³UDGLFDO WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ´ FKDQJHV WKDW TXDOLI\ Moreover, the idea of disruption, transformation and radical alteration of the way education is provided is consistent with 6FKXPSHWHU ¶V QRWLRQ RI ³FUHDWLYH GHVWUXFWLRQ´ ZKLFK DOOXGHV WR D UHOHQWOHVV innovation mechanism by which new education processes replace outdated ones. It is also worth noting that, according to this definition, the ultimate goal of EE is improvement in the provision of education and not just monetary gain.
Another study that has attempted to define EE is [22], who view it as the strategic focus of HGXFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQV ³RQ FUHDWLQJ VKRUW DQG ORQJ-term opportunities for learning that will make a VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRU LQGLYLGXDOV DQG WKHLU VRFLHWLHV´ S 7KH DXWKRUV KDVWHQ WR add that while financial returns are a sufficient ingredient that ensures the quality of education in EE, they (financial returns) do not QHFHVVDULO\ FRQVWLWXWH WKH SULPDU\ FRQFHUQ RI (( (( ¶V SULPDU\ FRQFHUQ LV ³EXLOGLQJ KXPDQ DQG VRFLDO capacity to lead responsible, constructive educational initiDWLYHV´ > @. Finance becomes important mainly in view of sustainability by ensuring that educational programs initiated are of a consistently high standard. Thus, EE does not simply aim at the provision of education service; rather, it aims at continuous adaptation RI HGXFDWLRQ V\VWHPV WR VRFLHW\ ¶V FKDQJLQJ QHHGV LQ LQQRYDWLYH SURDFWLYH DQG DXGDFLRXV ZD\V WKDW UHVXOW LQ provision of quality education in quantity and in a manner that is sustainable. The last, and most recent, definition is by [1], who view EE as the process of identifying an educational problem, followed by the spotting of an opportunity to solve it innovatively±in a manner that adds value for both the immediate surroundings (micro context) and the broader education system (macro level). Just like the previous definitions, this definition implies that EE is about devising smart ways of solving educational problems.
Both in keeping with the foregoing definitions and in correcting their excesses, the current article defines EE as the innovative application of smart strategies to the management of education institutions in a ZD\ WKDW FDQ UHVXOW LQ WKH UHRUJDQLVDWLRQ RI D FRXQWU\ ¶V HGXFDWLRQ V\VWHP WR VXLW VRFLHW\ ¶V FKDQJLQJ QHHGV LQ D sustainable manner. This definition implies that entrepreneurial education managers are those who UHOHQWOHVVO\ VFDQ WKHLU HQYLURQPHQWV WR LGHQWLI\ VRFLHW\ ¶V FKDQJLQJ HGXFDWLRQal needs. Then they audaciously± but wisely±devise innovative strategies to address current and (emerging) future educational challenges and needs in proactive rather than reactive ways. Furthermore, entrepreneurial educational managers adapt strategies that are capable of transforming an entire educational landscape±even in radical ways.
Thus, EE transcends monetary rewards (financial motives) to enhancement of teaching-learning processes (social mission) [20]. As [13] put it, mere creation of a viable enterprise in the education marketplace does not necessarily qualify a venture as education entrepreneurship. EE is about applying skills and attitudes inherent in entrepreneurial thinking in the realisation of innovative and sustainable impact reforms to the social mission of education [13]. Propensity to (educational) innovation is therefore a strong measure of EE, particularly innovation that promises better and more quality in education service delivery [23]. Thus, with EE, entrepreneurship features are applied in school organisations essentially to enhance the success of schools in providing effective teaching and learning [24], and not just to make money. Yemini et al. [18] qualifies the innovations carried out as those related to school practices and standards in areas such as pedagogy (instructional strategies e.g. IT use); school organisational practices and structural designs that do not directly affect classroom techniques (e.g. adaption of a matrix management structure); and social concerns like creating arrangements to solve social problems (such as pupil absenteeism and teenage pregrancy). Other studies focus on applying innovative practices to solving educational problems, which, according to [25], concern four issues, namely: education distribution (kind of individuals to give education); curricula (skill, knowledge, attitude and value types to promote); pedagogy (how to go about teaching and learning); and resource mobilisation (which financial, human and other resources to use, and how to raise them).
Lavaroni and Leisey [26] UHFHQWO\ FRLQHG D WHUP ³HGXSUHQHXUVKLS´ LQ UHIHUHQFH WR HQWUHSUeneurship ZLWKLQ WKH UHDOP RI HGXFDWLRQ (( $FFRUGLQJO\ WKH\ GHILQH DQ ³HGXSUHQHXU´ DV ³$ SHUVRQ ZLWKLQ WKH SXEOLF schools who takes hands on responsibility in creating and developing a program, product, service, and/or technology for the enhancement of learning consistent with the stated goals of and supported by that organisaWLRQ´ > @. However, given the growing importance of the private sector on the educational landscape at all levels of education, it is not clear why Lavaroni and Leisey confine the definition of HGXSUHQHXUVKLS WR SHUVRQV ZLWKLQ SXEOLF VFKRROV $SSDUHQWO\ 8JDQGD ¶V FRPSHWLWLYH HGXFDWLRQ PDUNHW VHHPV to be promoting entrepreneurial practice more in private than in public education institutions.

ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPETENCES (ECs)
Educators who exhibit the qualities LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ¶V (( GHILQLWLRQ are said to possess µµHQWUHSUHQHXULDO FRPSHWHQFHV ¶ ¶ (&V . This is an attendant concept that deserves clarification. According to [27] WKH WHUP ³FRPSHWHQF\´ UHIHUV WR VNLOOV WDOHQW RU traits deemed adequate for performance of a given task. Competences issue from an integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable one to perform adequately in a given field [28]- [28]. Therefore ECs are a set of generic (transversal) skills, knowledge and DWWLWXGHV ZKLFK DUH NH\ LQ ³WXUQLQJ LGHDV LQWR DFWLRQ´ > @ and, thus, are characteristic of successful entrepreneurs.
Salient examples of discrete ECs that are key in EE are initiative, competitiveness, risk-taking and an ability to prioritise [13]. Comparing these with the three dimensions of an entrepreneurial orientation, risktaking clearly resurfaces. However, the other two dimensions are also implied. Innovativeness goes hand in hand with taking initiative, and competitiveness presupposes pro-activeness.
[30] Study conceptualises these (and other) discrete ECs into four generic areas, namely: strategic thinking and visioning, team building, communication and negotiation skills, and financial resource mobilization and optimisation. Available research further indicates that there are two sources of ECs (whether discrete or generic); namely, early home background (personality and self-image) and education (or training) later (acquisition of further skills, knowledge, experience) [30].
The current study contends that by borrowing a leaf from the corporate world and hence by exercising ECs in their routine operations, educational managers will be able to provide sustainable solutions to the tricky educational challenges before them. This study therefore contends that EE is a type (subset) of educational leadership. Just as educational management without (general) leadership is null and void, educational leadership without an entrepreneurial stance (proactive, risk-taking, competitive, strategic planning) cannot issue in educational excellence (sustainably providing answers to educational problems). Otherwise, as [18] posit, entrepreneurship is one feature of extraordinary leaders whose innovations or solutions to pressing problems bring about transformative benefits to education management. Also ³6FKRRO UHIRUP´ LV hereby construed to be a general term that describes attempts to change dramatically some of the operational premises and practices of both individual schools and entire educational systems [23]. In keeping with the fundamentals of ECs, the current study proposes the following model of an entrepreneurial school system; the model is adopted from [21] as RESPO±Responsive to changes in the QHHGV RI VWXGHQWV IDPLOLHV DQG FRPPXQLWLHV (VSRXVHV PHULWRFUDF\ DV ³WKH IDVWHVW OHDUQHU ZLQV´ 6WXGHQW-oriented±addressing the unique learning needs of different learners; Open to constant learning since operational environments are dynamic and keep evolving; Performance-driven±is effective without forgetting efficiHQF\ ³HIILFLHQWO\ HIIHFWLYH´

DELINEATING THE DOMAIN OF EE
After examining EE and the competences that characterise it, the paper turns to the domain of EE by answering the following questions: How can one tell that one has crossed the boundary of EE to mainstream business entrepreneurship (BE) or other territories? What are the different shades of EE? Is EE largely a pedagogic move±in view of enhancing teaching and learning±or is it a for-profit strategy±in view of economic gain?
Prominent scholars in EE contend that, in a strict sense, EE bears a social mission connotation [13], [21], [23]. This means that EE basically aims at creating both more and better opportunities for teaching and learning with improved equity and quality being at its core [23], [22]. However [22], acknowledge also that (because of the importance of sustainability) financial return sufficient enough to ensure quality is an important ingredient of EE. It is necessary to ensure that programs initiated are both enduring and of a consistently high standard. Thus, although in itself EE is not essentially a profit move, it should be profitable (at least in the long run) to ensure program continuity, quality and even quantity (escalation). To locate more vividly where EE lies in relation to other forms of entrepreneurship and to highlight its different faces, the current article adopts [20] ¶V PRGHO GHSLFted in Figure 1. Then SE (Social Entrepreneurship) is about innovative ventures bent on making communities better places to live in by, for example, developing affordable safe motherhood interventions (social value). In the education context, SE focuses on areas unattended to by the mainstream education system such as developing catch-up programs for slow-learning children. In this regard, SE intersects with EE [20].
The third domain is EE, which is about smart school interventions in view of better teaching and learning (educational value). Within an already existing educational institution, EE is referred to as educational intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship [15]- [16]. In Higher Education, EE is often WHUPHG ³DFDGHPLF HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS´, which focuses on running consultancies, research centres, copyrights, patents and science parks. It is however important to note that the success of institution-based EE has much  [23]. Note should also be taken of the fact that the three entrepreneurship domains are not mutually exclusive. Innovative interventions that cut across two or even three of the domains do exist. This article is however concerned only with EE types, some of which cut across other domains. According to [20], the EE domain consists of four forms/types code-named 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Figure 1.
The first form consists of entrepreneurial activities and/or ventures that exclusively belong to the domain of EE. Here the activities are both internally generated and institution-based (corporate entrepreneurship) such as school-based remedial classes or teacher retooling programs. The second form consists of profit-oriented supplemental businesses in the education sector. These are initiated either by ordinary business organisations or by educational institutions [20]. A business enterprise may run chains of transport or catering services to support schools in a given locality at a given fee. Similarly, it may publish curriculum materials or provide lab and ICT equipment to be paid for by schools [13]. Such a business may even be a bank providing venture capital for education services. On the other hand, a school may get into agri-business to subsidise its spending on food. Either way it is EE±of the second form.
The third consists of socio-educational ventures that focus on developing new answers to current social and/or ecological challenges in/through schools for the enhancement of social values [13]. Such ventures are initiated either by educational institutions or by community advocacy groups [20]. Whereas the former may initiate open literacy campaigns for the masses, the latter may launch a program for providing school-going children with subsidised mid-day meals, for example.
Lastly, and less common, are entrepreneurial activities that simultaneously cut across the three domains (EE, BE, SE) [20]. For example, a profitable business intervention may be devised in support of an educational initiative for socially disadvantaged families.
Corresponding research paradigms have also been proposed for each of the different forms of EE [20]. Whereas institution-based initiatives (Form 1) may better be studied using corporate entrepreneurship paradigms; ventures with a SE orientation may be studied using structuration theory, social capital, and/or social movements theories. For externally generated EE with a strong business orientation, one may employ paradigms existing in mainstream entrepreneurship literature poised on behavioural, managerial, economic and development perspectives.

IMPORTANCE AND JUSTIFICATION OF EE
There are scholars, who opine that an adoption of entrepreneurial behaviour in education that can result in both higher financial returns (profit) and more/better teaching and learning is practically impossible [23]. They believe that EE can easily end up serving the business (profit) motive at the expense of the pedagogical one. How then can one justify entrepreneurship in education?
Scholars, who are optimistic about the potential contribution of EE in enhancing quality education in quantity are many [30], [18], [26], [20], [21]. They contend that EE inspires educational administrators not only to comply with institutional demands (such as better grades), but also to take a proactive role in advancing initiatives that reflect the changing needs of their schools [18]. These views imply that by the very nature of the demands of their work, educational administrators should be entrepreneurs.
Secondly, available research indicates that education could gain from entrepreneurial leadership in such ways as confronting competition, mobilising resources, and pursuing a corporate approach to school management [30]. However, the irony is that, to-date, no single university in Uganda offers formal EE training to current or future leaders of education institutions. Indeed available studies reveal that many educational professionals lack entrepreneurship knowledge and competencies regardless of their considerable interest in the field of entrepreneurship [30]. The limited exposure university teacher trainees get in economics of education is too inadequate to equip them with key entrepreneurial competences such as opportunity identification, market assessment, value creation, and product positioning in education. Yet EE is crucial if educational managers are to think and act beyond current rules (policies) and resources. It could enable them to create new educational organisations to execute new visions [21]. In this respect, EE, both in principle and in practice, is needed for the development of educators who are able to cope and lead in a rapidly changing environment [22].
Looking more closely at the Ugandan context, public dissatisfaction with the quality of teaching and learning in schools is palpable, especially in public schools. This is demonstrated by the reality of semiilliterate school completers and unemployable higher education graduates [31]. The growing stakeholder demand for accountability and quality amidst dwindling public resources for education complicates an already complex situation. Today financial resources no longer originate only from government and parents, but also from private sector funds and even industry partnerships [22]. Such changes demand entrepreneurial  [30]. In such a setting, the role of networking in enhancing schools cannot be overstated. Indeed educational networking is more important today than ever before in an era where access to information is a primary factor in determining the success or failure of educational institutions. Also forming strategic alliances with other institutions±both educational and non-educational±is a critical success factor today [22].
In addition, economic liberalisation policies playing out in Uganda today have resulted into unprecedented proliferation of private educational institutions at all levels, which has culminated into cutthroat competition among education institutions [32]. Besides, 8JDQGD ¶V education landscape is increasingly becoming market-oriented and competitive in nature, hence the need for a more dynamic education entrepreneurship regime [20]. Thus, it is high time educational scholars, managers and policy makers appreciated the overdue wedlock between education and entrepreneurship. From a more academic perspective, there is need to stimulate more discourse in EE to create more awareness. Such discourse could also help to highlight key areas for potential investors in the industry [13].
However, as [23] observes, pessimistic voices towards adoption of entrepreneurship in education also ought to be listened to. Such voices have a potentially positive role to play towards EE, albeit a cautionary one. EE could easily get overboard; thus, it is helpful to warn educational entrepreneurs against their potential espousal of the profit motive at the expense of teaching and learning motives [26], [32]. To this end, pessimistic voices can be a valuable firewall (safeguard) that can protect education from illconceived EE initiatives [23].
Yet it is one thing for EE to be a commonly salvaging intervention in education management, and TXLWH DQRWKHU IRU LW WR EH IHDVLEOH LQ D JLYHQ D FRXQWU\ FRQVLGHULQJ WKDW FRXQWU\ ¶s legal framework and dominant school cultures. The next section shall therefore examine issues associated with the success of EE LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI 8JDQGD ¶V HGXFDWLRQDO ODQGVFDSH

FEASIBILITY OF EE IN UGANDAN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Available literature indicates that educational institutions are generally characterised by resistance to change [23], which could militate against the success of EE. Such resistance to change is rooted in the many conservative rules and regulations typify the operational framework of many VFKRROV ³)URP WKH SHUVSHFWLYHV of school leaders, professionals, and parents, the ability to pursue innovation and change is largely blocked due to the proliferation of sucK UHJXODWLRQV´ > @. However, literature also indicates that the success of EE in the short run is rarely a problem. The real problem is with sustainability of innovated changes over years and decades. Serious issues arise when it comes to the ability of schools not only to effect but±more so±to sustain change. There is something about schools that seems to stifle change, eventually returning to the previous way of functioning. Even new schools that start out with strong departures from existing practice seem to eventually move back towards the norm [23]. There are three explanations for this phenomenon, namely; traditional/conservative school cultures, schools as mutating agents, and the school as a conserving organisation [33], [23].
By ³VFKRRO FXOWXUH´ is meant HGXFDWLRQDO VWDNHKROGHUV ¶ ZLGHO\ VKDUHG FRQFHptions and behaviour about the norms of how schools should function [23]. Available studies indicate that a traditional or conservative school culture abounds in many educational institutions [16], Ugandan schools inclusive. The culture is both restrictive (no individual initiatives taken without superior authorisation) and bureaucratic (too many levels of approval) [34]. It inhibits creativity, prevents new programs from being developed, and thus poses a challenge to EE [14]. This is so because to effect EE innovation LV WR VXJJHVW WKDW FHUWDLQ VFKRROV ¶ decade long traditions are to be reformed or even dropped altogether. Thus, although prior staff training is necessary in introducing EE, it can only be sufficient in ensuring cosmetic staff buy-in; otherwise usually WKHUH DUH PRUH GHHSO\ URRWHG DVSHFWV RI VFKRRO FXOWXUH WKDW RXJKW WR EH DFFRUGHG PRUH DWWHQWLRQ ³,W LV >VWDII@ attitudes and routinised modes of operation that are the greatest obstacles to change, not a laFN RI VNLOOV´ > @. Part of the culture of many schools is bureaucracy, which is known for wearing down enterprising LQGLYLGXDOV WR WKH H[WHQW RI PDNLQJ WKHP TXLW VFKRROV IRU ³WKH\ DUH IUHTuently viewed as cynics, rebels, who do not conform to the standards set by the corporation [school]´ > ].
The second explanation for lack of long term success of entrepreneurial innovation in education is WKDW PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ QRW VFKRROV DUH PXWDWLQJ DJHQWV RI UHIRUP DQG QRW YLFH YHUVD ³,Q IDFW ZKHQ UHIRUPV DUH forced on schools, the school often has more influence in modifying the reform than the reform has in modifyinJ WKH VFKRRO´ > @. This rationale is certainly related to that on school culture±schools are active FRPPXQLWLHV XQLWHG E\ GHHSO\ HWFKHG FXOWXUHV WKDW FRXOG UHVLVW WKH ³LQYDVLRQ´ RI DOLHQ Sractices such as those necessarily implied by EE. ³0XFK RI WKH DWWHPSW WR HIIHFW HGXFDWLRQDO FKDQJH DQG LQQRYDWLRQ KDV IDLOHG because of the ill fit between the reform and the extant culture of the school inducing the school to defuse the cKDQJH DWWHPSW´ >23]. The last explanation is that society does not as much seem to expect schools to play revolutionary roles as it expects them to play conservative ones [33], [23] 6FKRROV DUH QRUPDOO\ WDNHQ WR EH ³FRQVHUYDWLYH institutions charged with the primary goal of preparing the young to acclimate to and participate in the cultural, social, economic, and political life of an existing social entity´ > @. Usually it is society that changes schools, and not vice versa [33]. Change in school/educational practice is usually a response to some PDMRU WXUQLQJ SRLQW V ³GLVUXSWLYH´ HYHQW V WKDW LV DUH DOUHDG\ DOLYH LQ VRFLHW\ ³1RUPDOO\ LQQRYDWLRQ LV introduced to educational organisations by managers responding to exterQDO SUHVVXUHV´ > @ > @ concurs that EE may more easily succeed if pressure to go entrepreneurial originates from outside (schools), not from within. Otherwise, according to [33], with the exception of a few teachers, just a few administrators, and very few schools, everything is designed to bring change into the system from outside that system. This view however implies that, though exceptional, there are cases of successful±internally initiated±EE. Ugandan schools could learn from such cases.
Even then, a certain question remains unanswered: why do educational institutions usually resist change and/or innovation? One of the best overall answers is given by the new institutional theory [23]. The theory explains that, The greater the dependence of an organisation on another organisation, the more it will become similar to them [sic]; the greater its dependency for resources on a given organisation, the more it will become isomorphic to that organisation; the less certain the relation between means and ends, the greater it will model itself after those organisations that appear to be successful [23].
For EE in Uganda, these hypotheses imply that unless society/social institutions on which schools depend (for learners, resources...) are the ones mounting pressure to schools to adopt certain entrepreneurial innovations, the innovations are not likely to succeed. If there are major changes in those external institutions IDPLOLHV HPSOR\LQJ ILUPV WHDFKHUV ¶ XQLRQV SROLWLFDO IRUFHV WKH LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLOO FUHDWH SUHVVXUH IRU D new isomorphism within schools [23].
No wonder then that major reforms in education usually coincide with significant changes in the social, political, and economic institutions that schools depend on for inputs.

Even those [authors]
with more activist interpretations of school change accept the limits imposed by institutional theory. All of them acknowledge that this dependency is the main challenge to innovation in education and the success of the educational entrepreneur.
[Otherwise] to ignore the forces that undermine long-term change in education is to repeat the futility that has characterised virtually thousands of well-intentioned attempts to alter education [23].
For Uganda, these views point to the need to appreciate the role of social movements in education for opening windows of opportunity for entrepreneurial change (See EE 3 in Figure 1). These might be social PRYHPHQWV SUHVVXUH JURXSV VXFK DV 37$V 3DUHQWV ¶ DQG 7HDFKHUV ¶ $VVRFLDWLRQV 81$78 8JDQGD 1DWLRQDO 7HDFKHUV ¶ 8QLRQ DQG 81$36, Uganda National Association of Private Schools and Institutions).
In another perspective, Uganda should learn also from the EE situation in other countries. In the US, it is reported that EE finds itself in serious dilemma [26]. Whereas authorities demand that school administrators and teachers be enterprising; the latter are labelled insubordinate or even selfish when they initiate creative ventures. This discourages creative teachers [33]. There is also demoralising organisational politics, as well as envy from peers [36]. Such realities have made some authors like [33] conclude that EE is LPSRVVLEOH ZLWKLQ WKH 86 VHWWLQJ ³,Q UHDOLW\ WKH RQO\ ZD\ D WUXO\ HQWUHSUHQHXULDO WHDFKHU FDQ IXQFWLRQ LV E\ leaving the system he or she wants to positively influence. It LV QRW WKH WHDFKHU ¶V IDXOW ,W LV WKH V\VWHP LWVHOI which has become so politicised and overly regulated that it LV DW IDXOW´ > @. These views imply that even in Uganda, EE must be ready to face some certain and uncertain opposition, both from within and from outside educational institutions.
It is the European setting that offers Uganda some clearly successful EE cases. For example, in order to reorganise and reinvigorate her public schools, Sweden devised an entrepreneurial program known DV ³LQWUDSUHQDG´ PHDQLQJ ³LQWHUQDO FRQWUDFWV´ > @. The contracts gave staff a high degree of autonomy to foster entrepreneurial practice in their departments and schools. The overall outcome was a more market-and output-oriented management perspective among staff. In addition, this innovation enabled schools both to UHWDLQ WKHLU HQWHUSULVLQJ VWDII PHPEHUV DQG ³WR LQIXVH LQWUDSUHQHXUVKLS >((@ LQWR WKH SXEOLF VHFWRU´ > @. Uganda could take such an open/win-win approach.
For the case of private schools, although literature has often reported them to be more conducive for EE than public schools [34], this is not necessarily true for them all [14]. Only those schools that leave sufficient room for individual cross-functional teams, semi-autonomous venturing and experimenting can nurture an entrepreneurial culture [16]. As [37] FRQWHQGV ³VRFLDO LQVWLWXWLRQV WKDW DUH UXQ GHPRFUDWLFDOO\ DQG encourage independent thinking are more likely to produce individuals with entrepreneurial qualities than those with a less free atmospherH´ S > @ $dvise might therefore also apply to Uganda; that for EE to succeed in any educational institution, be it private or public, there must be a significant change in the way such an institution is governed, organised DQG DGPLQLVWHUHG ,Q D ZD\ (( SUHVXSSRVHV ³D IODW RUJDQLVDWLRQDO structure with networking, teamwork, and mentors abounding, resulting in a cross-fertilisation of ideaV´ > @. 2WKHUZLVH LW UHPDLQV WUXH WKDW ³HGXFDWLRQDO FKDQJH [including EE] does not come eaVLO\´ > ; prior adjustments have to be made ± both to staff DQG SDUHQWV ¶ mind-sets and to managerial structure. These considerations are of paramount importance to educational administration and management in the Ugandan setting, in view of securing the success of EE.

CONCLUSION
The study makes the following conclusions. First, concerning the meaning of EE, the study defines EE as the innovative application of smart strategies to the management of education institutions in a fundamental way that can lead to the re-RULHQWDWLRQ DQG UHRUJDQL]DWLRQ RI D FRXQWU\ ¶V HGXFDWLRQ V\VWHP WR VXLW VRFLHW\ ¶V FKDQJLQJ (economic, social-cultural and political) needs in a sustainable manner. This definition transcends monetary rewards to include improvements in teaching-learning processes in view of better quality in education service delivery. The definition also considers EE as part of educational leadership in respect of the leadership qualities of pro-activeness, willingness to take risks, competitive aggressiveness, autonomy and strategic planning. In other words, the definition depicts entrepreneurial education managers as extraordinary leaders whose innovations or solutions to pressing school problems bring about transformative benefits to education service delivery.
Second, the scope of the EE domain comprises of four categories, namely: entrepreneurial activities and/or ventures that exclusively belong to the domain of teaching and learning such as innovative teaching approaches, remedial classes or teacher retooling programs (EE 1; Figure 1); profit-oriented supplemental businesses in the education sector such as transport, catering, cleaning services, publication of curriculum materials and/or provision of lab or ICT equipment to be paid for by schools (EE 2; Figure 1); socioeducational ventures, which focus on developing new answers to current social and/or ecological challenges in/through schools for the enhancement of social values such as providing school-going children with subsidised mid-day meals (EE 3; Figure 1); and, finally, entrepreneurial activities that simultaneously cut across the three domains above such as a profitable business intervention devised in support of an educational initiative for socially disadvantaged children (EE 4; Figure 1).
Thirdly, on the significance of EE in Uganda today, EE is capable of igniting educational managers to think and act beyond compliance with current rules and resources, institutional demands and accountability regimes to adopt a proactive role in advancing initiatives to create new educational organisations and execute new educational visions. Besides, such entrepreneurial oriented educators will be able to cope and lead more effectively in the current dynamic educational environment characterized by: a highly liberalized, privatized and marketised education sector; a growing public dissatisfaction with the quality of teaching and learning in schools; rising stakeholder demand for accountability amidst dwindling public resources for education; and the growing need for educational networking and strategic alliances with both educational and non-educational audiences. Entrepreneurial competencies acquired by educational administrators and managers alike can enable them to adopt a corporate approach to school management, by introducing educational resource mobilization competencies needed to provide quality education in quantity.
Finally, although available literature shows that the fortunes of EE may render it an irresistible initiative at both institutional and national levels, its success in the Ugandan context should not be taken for granted due to the following considerations: educational institutions are generally characterised by resistance to change; challenge of sustainability of innovated changes in the long run; existence of a restrictive and bureaucratic school culture that can easily inhibit creativity or prevent new programs from being developed; the propensity of schools as mutating agents of reform other than the other way round; and, lastly, the limited expectation of society for schools to play a revolutionary role in nation building. Combined, these factors can militate against the success of EE. Even then, smart edupreneurs could network with wider groups both within and outside schools to garner support, and thus outwit several of these challenges.

RECOMMENDATIONS
a. There is need for educational scholars, managers and policy makers to appreciate the overdue wedlock between education and entrepreneurship. From a more academic perspective, there is need to stimulate more discourse on EE to create more awareness. Such discourse will also help to highlight key areas for potential investors in the education industry. forces about the importance of EE in stimulating society (on which schools depend for learners and resources) to mount pressure on schools to adopt certain entrepreneurial strategies in their education service delivery. c. As regards the feasibility of EE in Uganda, pessimistic voices towards adoption of entrepreneurship in education should be taken seriously but objectively. Otherwise, a hasty implementation of EE could be FRXQWHUSURGXFWLYH LQ DW OHDVW WZR ZD\V )LUVW HGXSUHQHXUV ¶ SRWHQWLDO HVSRXVDO RI WKH SURILW PRWLYH DW WKH expense of teaching and learning could put the realisation of national educational goals in jeopardy. Secondly, it might rub overriding school cultures, societal expectations of the school and existing regulatory frameworks on the wrong side, hence arousing undue opposition. d. For EE to succeed in both public and private educational institutions, there is need for a significant change in the way these institutions are both organised and administered. Given that EE presupposes a more flat organisational structure with networking, teamwork, and mentors that result in a crossfertilisation of ideas; there is need for prior adjustments both to staff mind-set and managerial structures.