We don’t have an ideas problem in education, we have a financing problem
This blog was originally published on edufinance.org.
Recently in Oxford, as a side event alongside the Skoll World Forum, Andrew McCusker and I co-hosted a session for Opportunity International EduFinance with colleagues from Opportunity International UK and a brilliant mix of partners, investors, and practitioners to tackle a simple but urgent question:
How do we move beyond grants to unlock the scale of capital needed for education systems?
The discussion has stayed with me even more following the publication of McKinsey & Company’s new report, “Beyond the Grant: How Philanthropy Can Rewire Education Financing”, developed with the International Education Funders Group.
The report makes a powerful case: the education financing challenge is now simply too large to solve through grants alone. With an estimated $97 billion annual financing gap in low- and lower-middle-income countries—and declining development assistance—philanthropy must increasingly act as catalytic capital, helping unlock much larger pools of public and private investment.
What was particularly encouraging for our team was seeing Opportunity International’s EduFinance model highlighted in the report as one of the education financing approaches that has already been tested and proven effective.
McKinsey specifically points to the role of financing for affordable non-state schools, delivered through local financial institutions, alongside technical assistance that strengthens school leadership, governance, financial management, and learning outcomes.
For me, the report was both a validation of the work already happening across EduFinance and a reminder of how much more is possible.
Similarly, the session alongside Skoll reinforced that while proven models already exist, there is still enormous opportunity to build new financing approaches that can mobilise more capital, reach more learners, and better connect education outcomes to sustainable financial systems.
Because sustainable education systems will not be built through capital alone. They require financing linked to quality, outcomes, and long-term system strengthening.
What I found most energizing during the session wasn’t just the validation of existing models, but the quality and practicality of the ideas that emerged when we pushed ourselves to think differently about what comes next.
Rather than focusing on programs, we challenged ourselves to consider what genuinely investable solutions could look like over the next two years.
A few reflections that stayed with me:
- Girls' Education
There was strong consensus that scholarships alone won’t get us to scale. The conversation shifted towards financing models that support families while allowing capital to recycle and grow over time. - Education to Employment
The real gap isn’t only access to training; it’s the transition into jobs. Some of the most compelling ideas linked financing directly to employment outcomes, aligning incentives across providers, employers, and students. - Education Quality
We talked a lot about moving beyond funding inputs to financing outcomes, particularly around teacher development and school leadership, and how mechanisms such as development impact bonds could tie capital to measurable improvements in learning.
What struck me most was how grounded the discussion was. These weren’t theoretical concepts. They built on existing financial systems, proven tools, and models already working in different contexts around the world.
For me, it reinforced something important: our role isn’t just to deliver programs. It’s to help shape financial systems that work for education at scale.
Over the coming months, colleagues will continue hosting similar conversations around the world, bringing together investors, philanthropists, practitioners, and education leaders to identify the strongest ideas - and the partnerships needed to put them into practice.
Because ultimately, we need to move faster: from conversation to capital, and from pilots to scale.