The present days attempt to modernize education beyond exams by inserting digital platform into daily teaching practices—is key to creating meaningful and lasting change. This could make a real difference in teaching and learning atmosphere. Modern teaching methods (e.g., project-based learning, AI tutors) foster deeper understanding and real-world skills.

But in Ethiopia, these days about 50 to 55% of teachers consider leaving the profession due to living cost challenge, less payment in the field, especially in government schools. The high rate of turnover among teachers, due to deteriorating working conditions—particularly in different schools is a big challenge.

We need a mechanism to resolve this serious problem now more than ever. It is one thing to say we should implement all the means to bring quality education in the country and it is another to slow the processes of the change to this effect.

Addressing these challenges requires not only acknowledging the need for robust mechanisms but also ensuring swift and effective implementation—particularly in sectors like education, which is initial step for long-term resilience and growth.

To address the 50-55% of teachers need who consider economic change in the profession, systemic reforms must focus on financial incentives, housing support, professional autonomy is necessary. Raising tax exemption level or tax deductions from salaries of government teachers or from other taxes or offering income incentive may help reduce the burden of life challenge.

Providing supplemental income opportunities like encouraging schools to build teachers house and setting programs like economic empowering of teachers with a policy allowing teachers to benefit from weekend, night school and summer teaching revenue over and above their basic salaries with less or no tax etc.

AI enable adaptive learning, automate administrative tasks (e.g., grading), and provide real-time feedback to students. Hybrid learning is now an essential method, with 93% of students satisfied with online options. Some schools are blending in-person and digital formats to accommodate diverse needs.

However, disparities in tech access in different schools localities require investments in infrastructure for underserved communities. This remains a critical barrier to equitable education. The disparities stem from socio-economic, geographic, and infrastructural challenges, but targeted investments and policy interventions can help bridge the gap.

Low-income families often cannot afford devices (laptops, tablets) or reliable internet, or Wi-Fi. This  leave students at a disadvantage in digital learning. Most Schools in underserved areas struggle with no or outdated hardware and insufficient IT budgets, perpetuating cycles of inequality and challenging them to come forward in modern digital education.

Rural areas frequently lack high-speed internet due to low population density and high development costs. Underserved urban schools also may face connectivity gaps due to malfunction of infrastructure.

Further, digital literacy gaps with students and educators in marginalized communities often due to lack of training to effectively use technology, exacerbate disparities even when devices are available.

Teachers and students may receive little to no orientation on how to use apps, platforms, or devices. Thus, just providing gadget or devices alone is not the end. It is only the first step. Without the skills and confidence to use them, technology risks becoming shelf ware rather than a tool for empowerment.

Besides, digital tools may not be localized or adapted to community needs and languages. Such short fall behind in the tech-driven classrooms, widen learning gaps and inequality. There is a need for workshops led training in local languages by trusted trainers to build comfort and confidence in digital aps application. Pairing tech-know-how volunteers with educators and students helps reinforce learning.

The shift toward digital learning has created opportunities for greater inclusivity. Yet significant gaps and issues remains to be addressed for students with disabilities, those in remote areas, and individuals facing security barriers (e.g., conflict zones, restrictive regimes).

For developing countries, at least for some period, the future of education in developing countries lies in hybrid models—blending in-person and online learning—to ensure accessibility, flexibility, and quality for all students, including those in remote areas, with disabilities, or facing security barriers.

Government must take more serious and immediate measures to establish hybrid education system now more than ever. Delaying action any further will only exacerbate the challenges faced.

While hybrid education may not completely solve all the problems, taking decisive steps without hesitation will undoubtedly help to mitigate the difficulties and pave the way for improving quality in education till further step.

Prompt and committed government intervention is essential to address the current challenges effectively and to improve the overall quality of education for the future.

A hybrid system to modernize and improve quality education combines the strengths of both traditional in-person teaching and online learning to create a flexible, personalized, and engaging educational experience.

Modernizing education through digital access & infrastructure for a hybrid education system could truly bridge gaps and unlock new opportunities leveraging technology and innovative pedagogies to address diverse learner needs and adapt to changing circumstances. This will help students to be better prepare for the demands of a rapidly changing world.

Thank be yours for reading this little piece

Quid pro quo—Latin word is “something for something”—It is a neutral concept at its core. In business, law, and everyday life, it simply refers to an exchange where ‘’ I give you something, and you give me something in return’’ transaction is processed.

There is nothing inherently wrong in giving or receiving something in exchange for something else, but in legal contexts quid pro quo often refers to something that is in fact illegal. But in legal or ethical contexts, the term takes on a more sinister tone.

So while the phrase itself isn’t inherently negative, the context in which it’s used often reveals whether it’s just normal transaction or troublingly transaction. In corruption cases, if a public official offers a favour or service or benefit in exchange for personal gain (like a bribe), that’s a quid pro quo transaction processed in the illegality play field.

If somebody uses normal government service line being official employee  in government structure or other institution  to gain undue benefit be it in terms of money or other exchange twisting the purpose of the service to personal advantage leveraging his/her position that rightly score point in the basket of Quid pro quo triangle. 

The Quid pro quo version are many in different area. In workplace harassment like pushing someone in illicit manner to do undue things by offering a job benefit (like a promotion) in exchange for sexual or other favours, that’s Quid pro quo not just unethical but it’s illegal.

If someone abuses one’s normal duty power in the form of give and take exchange for personal advantage Quid pro quo is in illegal line. Any arrangement where transactions are switched explicitly or implicitly with the intention of driving undue benefit on the line, singly or in a group is a Quid pro quo that  cross legal territory especially if it involves corruption, bribery or exploitation.

Besides, extortion or forcing someone to provide benefits under threat or coercion is also a kind of Quid pro quo on involving negative impact. Similarly, public corruption is one form of such act where a government official engages with undue exchange violating normal laws for personal gain. There is also workplace harassment which can be regarded as typical quid pro quo scenario where such exchange is underscore employment, demanding sexual favours or other benefits in exchange for promotions/job security etc. against the labour law.

Quid pro quo itself is a neutral concept as stated earlier (meaning “this for that”), but it becomes unlawful when the exchange includes sleaze, pressure, or manipulation, violating laws or ethical limits. It certainly is a criminal offence if it is done against the law where civil lawsuit shall be run in the court room which may lead to penalties like fines or imprisonment. By and large, the line between legal and illegal quid pro quo conditions depends on the nature of the exchange and whether it violates specific laws or ethical standards.

 Whether legal or illegal, quid pro quo requires mutual involvement in transaction. The playfield takes two to tango. But both parties may or may not play equally to score a balanced point in the game. They both may or may not come equally complicit or legally liable. But most often they are not found not at equality. The legal verdict after due process depends whether both parties knowingly or unknowingly break the law or if the exchange crosses into illicit territory or if the law find one accountable beyond reasonable doubt. Come what may, the party found on the wrong side shall be held accountable.

Though there is no such thing as inherently wrong in quid pro quo arrangements, quite often there is imbalance or asymmetry paradox between the parties that share the deal. Its application often becomes problematic when one party holds disproportionate leverage in the operation. The harasser on the one hand may drive undue benefit over the victim on the other hand. This undermines the “voluntary” nature of the exchange.

Besides, even if the victim “consents”, the asymmetry tips a complex and tense legal landscape. The imbalance  in power dynamic render the agreement illusory which paint the platform legally  grey colour. It’s obvious that the stronger party faces minimal risk, while the weaker party bears disproportionate consequences

When complaints on such case comes to the legal play field, the atmosphere in the courtyard, fuels grievances. Sometimes, the courtroom becomes not just a venue for justice, but a battleground for credibility, dignity, and often, trauma. Some critics argue, if due and fair chance is not given to both litigants at proper legal platform, the aftermath of court verdict will leave lasting scars, not just legally but socially and psychologically. Further, if either party—especially the victim—feels unheard, or that procedural fairness was compromised, it creates havoc. Sometimes what matter most is how justice is administered than just the outcome.

If it is proofed that one drives or demands undue favour or benefit leveraging the power imbalance, the harasser is guilty while the victim is not complicit. The law often places accountability squarely on the guilty shoulder irrespective of whatever bold asymmetry that exist between the plaintiffs in a fair legal platform. Often the blackmailer shall be guilty while the victim is not. Every time the one who violates civil and sometimes criminal statutes will be penalized while the one with undue pressure shall not be free.

In fair trial, many legal systems strive to uphold verdict that rely on due process outcome. For many it is acceptable to be legally declared guilty or otherwise in due process. Reasonable systems of justice aren’t just about analysing law—they’re about protecting human dignity and trust in fairness, even amidst messy realities. In criminal proceedings, it typically requires an investigation, and a beyond reasonable doubt evidence to hold someone accountable for alleged charge.

 Those who exploit power imbalances to extract undue favours or benefits (e.g., through coercion, blackmail, or harassment) are held accountable, while victims of such misconduct are not deemed complicit.

Due process is the bedrock of fairness, ensuring that no one is punished arbitrarily or without a legitimate opportunity to defend themselves. This protect against wrongful convictions and safeguard the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But, quid pro quo often is done with asymmetrical power play. Come what may, due legal process will avoid the tension between due process vs. power asymmetry paradox with quid pro quo.

This gives fair justice with the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, with due consideration for burden of proof on accusers, and providing right to mount a defence with all justifiable information to the case at hand. This will help the truth to prevail over speculation at all condition. These values echo across all legal process be it in quid pro quo or otherwise.

Thank you so much for reading this little peace