Educating the Nation Through Schooling

The Status of School Education in Nepal

Pramod Bhatta and Archana Mehendale

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Institutionalization of the Modern School: Developments in the Early 1950s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3The System of School Education in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6The Growth in Enrollments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Equity in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Improvements in Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Constitutional and Legal Frameworks on Education Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13The Governance of School Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15State Funding for Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17The Growing Significance of Education Privatization in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Challenges and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Abstract

Nepal, once seen as an “education virginland,” has made rapid progress over theyears in establishing an education system. After Nepal emerged from the Ranarule in 1951, one of the first ambitions of the new, multiparty democratic regimewas to institute a national, uniform, and universal system of education in thecountry. The establishment of the Ministry of Education with external assistanceand the National Education Planning Commission laid the foundation of aneducation system that brought together diverse schools being run by local com-munities. The structure of school education and the policy frameworks governing

P. Bhatta (*)Martin Chautari and Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepale-mail: pramodbhatta@gmail.com

A. MehendaleCentre for Education Innovation and Action Research, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai,Indiae-mail: archana.mehendale@tiss.edu

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020P. M. Sarangapani, R. Pappu (eds.), Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia,Global Education Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5_16-1

1

them has been gradually evolving in tandem with the global norms and policyinfluence of development partners.

This chapter provides a critical-historical overview of the development andinstitutionalization of modern education in Nepal. The developments made withregards to improving access to education, equity, and quality of education arepresented. The chapter also presents the constitutional and legal frameworks thatmake education a right of every citizen of Nepal and discusses the institutionalevolution of the governance structures related to regulation and funding of schooleducation. Critical issues related to education privatization and the role of donoragencies is highlighted.

Keywords

Education policy · Governance · Privatization · School education · Nepal

Introduction

A common way of portraying Nepal’s educational development is to describe acomplete lack of education until 1951. Daniel Wright, a British resident surgeon inKathmandu during the British occupation of India, is oft-quoted for his comparison,in his book History of Nepal (1877), of the existence of schools in Nepal to that ofsnakes in Ireland – there were none. Much later, Hugh Brian Wood, a professor at theUniversity of Oregon who was invited by the Government of Nepal in the early1950s through the United States Operations Mission (as the US Agency for Inter-national development, USAID was then known) to play a leading advisory role inthe development and institution of a national system of education in Nepal, wrote:

Nepal had come into the middle of the twentieth century with virtually no education system;she was relatively free to design her own system to meet the needs of her own people – atextbook case if there ever was one. (Wood 1987, p. 22)

This tendency to portray Nepal as an “education virginland” was not limited toforeigners but also subsequently quickly internalized by Nepali scholars, especiallythose closely involved, together with Wood, in instituting a modern system ofeducation in the early 1950s. For instance, Krishna Raj Aryal, a member of theWood Commission and Nepal’s first education secretary had noted a “completeabsence of education” (Aryal 1970, p. 88). However, there is also ample historicalevidence that various forms of education have continued to exist for thousands ofyears in the territory belonging to present day Nepal. Nepal has had a long history ofthe oriental education, which continues to date in religious form. Such educationforms were usually continued through religious institutions in the forms ofGurukuls,Gumbas, and Madrassahs. It can be seen that in the early 1950s, the notion ofdefining education in terms of the modern Western school had clearly taken hold

2 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

(Parajuli 2012; Rappleye 2019). Since then, Nepal has come a long way in institutinga modern, national, and universal system of education.

This chapter provides a critical-historical overview of the development andinstitutionalization of modern education in Nepal. By modern, we refer to theparticular avatar of school education that emerged in the aftermath of the Industrialrevolution in the Western World, what has been aptly called the “western” school(Fuller 1991). The chapter traces the rise of modern education in Nepal, examinesthe current status of such education by looking at access and equity, and quality ofeducation. It also describes the institutional evolution of school governance andconcludes by highlighting a number of policy issues affecting the growing crisis oflegitimacy of the public-school system. In doing so, it focuses especially on the post-1950 period when Nepal embarked on the road to modernization and developmentby successfully overthrowing a century-long autocratic Rana rule (cf. 1857–1951).The chapter provides a critical review of the successive reform initiatives in theeducation sector, particularly in school education, that were initiated after 1951through support from various international aid agencies (especially USAID), andhow these shaped the subsequent evolution of the system. In doing so, the analysisfocuses on the relative successes and failures of these initiatives in instituting anational and universal system of education that has rhetorically sought to provide arelevant and high-quality education to all Nepali children. The chapter concludes bydiscussing the current problems and challenges facing the sector, and how the policyand political rhetoric has been (or not been) engaging with these issues. At the outset,it is also important to highlight what the chapter does not cover. While touching uponthe cross-sectoral issues broadly, the chapter does not provide comprehensivedescription of the specific thematic areas such as curriculum and textbooks, teachermanagement and professional development, student assessment and examinations,school governance, and other related issues in school education.

The rest of this chapter is structured as follows. It starts with a brief discussion ofhow the western/modern school was institutionalized in the early 1950s. What followsis a discussion of the structure of school education, the developments and achieve-ments made in the areas of access and equity and quality of education. This alsoincludes the legal commitments made by the Nepali state towards making education aright of every Nepali citizen. Discussion thereafter focuses on the institutional evolu-tion of the governance structures related to school education. In the subsequentsections, the chapter discusses some of the critical issues related to education privat-ization and the role of donor agencies. The chapter concludes by highlighting some ofthe critical policy issues impinging on school education in Nepal.

Institutionalization of the Modern School: Developments in theEarly 1950s

Nepal has witnessed various episodes of modern school establishment. Although1951 is widely seen as the date after which Nepal pursued systematic efforts atdevelopment of a national educational system, there had been some sporadic efforts

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 3

at educational development and expansion during the Rana regime that started in1847. Much has been written elsewhere about the tradition of education before 1951(see, for instance, Nepal Education Planning Commission 1955). The first Britishstyle of English school was opened in Kathmandu palace premises in 1859 after JungBahadur, the first Rana Prime Minister, visited the UK. The school providedinstruction in English medium through Indian and British teachers recruited fromIndia. However, entrance to this school was limited to the children of the Ranafamily and their high-level courtiers. There were a few sporadic efforts undertakenduring the reign of various, so-called liberal Rana prime ministers. It was some40 years later, during the reign of Bir Shumshere that a discussion was held on whattype of education (general or vocational) should be promoted and what medium ofinstruction (Nepali, Sanskrit, or English) should be used in Nepal. As early as 1902,eight Nepali students had been sent to universities in Meiji-era Japan to study theeducational progress of Japan and learn vocational education in areas such asammunition engineering, mining, agriculture, applied chemistry, and ceramics(Basnet 2003). More systematic efforts at educational development were carriedout in 1901, during the short reign of Deb Shumshere who through a declarationmade primary education universal and promptly opened a large number of BhashaPathshalas (Language Schools) and also decided that Nepali be the official mediumof instruction. However, he was soon ousted from power. Soon after, in 1905,Srestaa (clerical) schools modeled on the Macaulayan schools in India wereestablished mainly to produce clerical workers required by the gradually burgeoningRana bureaucracy. Likewise, in 1918, Nepal’s first college of higher education wasestablished and affiliated to the University of Calcutta at first, and later to Universityof Bombay in India. The number of such schools and colleges increased nominallyin the subsequent years. However, in the late 1940s, together with the growingMahatma Gandhi-led movement in India, Rana prime ministers also experimentedwith the Indian style of basic schools, an experiment which was short-lived. Duringthe terminal years of the Rana regime, efforts were also made at expanding oppor-tunities to schooling as well as establishing Nepal’s own university.

In general, however, the Ranas were not encouraging of mass participation ineducation. They regarded educational institutions as fertile grounds for politicalrecruitment and upsurges against their oligarchic regime. Thus, there were no realeducation policies and no concerted efforts towards the spread of mass educationduring the 104-year Rana rule. The schools that were in operation were intendedsolely to produce the required manpower for the government’s administration andfor communication with foreign powers, especially the British Raj in India. Mostprofessionals in Nepal at that time were not the products of Nepal’s education systembut were graduates of schools in India. Until 1951, Nepal had 310 primary andmiddle schools, 11 high schools, two colleges, one normal school, and one specialtechnical school. The average literacy rate in the 50s was 5%, with male literacybeing 10% and female literacy less than 1%. Only 1 child in 100 attended school(Savada 1991). The schools that existed were not open for the masses but remainedelitist for the selected few, belonging to and close to the ruling classes in the country.

4 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

However, after the Rana regime was overthrown in 1951 through a democraticrevolution led by the Nepali Congress party, things began afresh for Nepal’seducation sector (and for other sectors as well). After Nepal emerged from theRana rule, one of the first ambitions of the new, multiparty democratic regime wasto institute a national, uniform and universal system of education in the country. Thispost-1951 period assumes prominence in the rise of the modern education system asit signaled the pursuance of policies aimed at systematic development of a uniformand universal system of education. As Nepal embarked on the road to modernizationand development in 1951, Nepal began to express faith in, and materially expandschooling in order to look modern and to signal mass opportunity. As was theworldwide trend, the first effort was to create a national system of education andfor this purpose a national Ministry of Education (MOE) was required. So, imme-diately after the political changes of 1951, a national MOE was established and aneducation minister was appointed. At about the same time, the United Statesgovernment began to extend both technical and financial assistance to Nepal forthe development of an education system. The American education advisers (drawnmainly from the University of Oregon in the early stages) were instrumental, alongwith the MOE of Nepal, in forming a National Education Planning Commission(NEPC) in 1954 that, for the first time, sought to comprehend the extent and type ofeducation in the country, identify priorities for the development of a national systemof education, and chart out a national course of action for the same.

In these early years of educational development, rapid expansion of educationwas seen as the sine qua non of success of democracy, development and nationalintegration, and “an opportunity to fight darkness and bring light into the country” asreflected in the following statement:

Almost all countries in Asia have launched education plans with push and drive at breakneck speed to wipe out illiteracy and make democracy a success . . .. “We must educate ourmasters,” at the earliest possibility. If ignorance and illiteracy remain for a long time,democracy will spell doom and disaster. (NEPC 1955, Acknowledgements)

As a result, there was growing assertiveness of the state in the establishment andoperation of the modern school. Universalization of primary education became astated objective of the Nepali state in the aftermath of the democratic revolution in1951, as well as an active endeavor of the community people. Why did the Nepalistate pursue this goal of universalizing primary education after 1951, when it did noteven have an idea of the extent of educational coverage in the country? Reasons forthis should be searched in Nepal’s desire to be a modern state and catch-up witheducational progress in other parts of Asia and the world. At various times, differentmotives such as strengthening democracy, bringing about economic development,and national integration and creation of nation-state citizens have been used by thegovernment to justify this emphasis on mass education. To borrow from Bruce Fuller(1991), the state-led expansion of mass education opportunities signaled its com-mitment to the democratic ideals as well as its belief in the role of education to bringabout economic development and modernization.

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 5

However, the establishment and operation of schools initially started as a coop-erative enterprise, in which local community members took the lead role. There arevery few instances of the state establishing a school. Rather, it was the educated andpolitically connected people in the community that took the lead in establishing andoperating the school initially, after which they would approach the state for supportin its operation and for upgrading. Thus, there was a diversity of schools operatingunder various conditions and mediums of instructions, creating serious obstacles tothe state desire to create a national, uniform and universal system of school educa-tion. This was seen as obverse of the political changes that occurred in the early1960s, when King Mahendra dissolved the democratically elected parliament,banned all political parties, and instituted a partyless Panchayat system of gover-nance headed by the Monarch. It was after the early 1960s, and more so after theimplementation of the National Education System Plan (NESP) in 1971, that themonarchical Nepali state started to assert and assume more control over schools andstarted the process of nationalizing all hitherto community established and operatedschools. Later in 1996, when the People’s War was declared, literature indicates thatschool buildings were attacked as they represented state symbols of subjugation andtactical targets. Educational issues became linked to political issues with demandsraised for universal education, and mother-tongue education. Education disparitiesincreased due to displacement of thousands of teachers and adverse teacher-pupilratios (Pradhan 2018; Pherali 2011; Van Wessel and van Hirtum 2013).

The System of School Education in Nepal

The structure of school education has been gradually evolving in tandem with theglobal norms related to what school structure and organization should look like. Fora long period, Nepal’s school education system consisted of 5 years of primary,3 years of lower secondary, 2 years of secondary, and 2 years of higher secondaryeducation. In fact, until 1989, school education consisted of grades 1–10 only, withthe higher secondary education (then known as proficiency certificate level orintermediate level in popular terminology) falling under the ambit of universityeducation. However, this has been restructured in recent times, especially with theimplementation of the School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP) in 2009. The new schoolstructure comprises at least 1 year of early childhood education and development(ECED), 8 years of basic education, and 4 years of secondary education (Table 1).

During the course of their school education, all students are required to sit for anumber of board examinations. For instance, all students are required to take part inthe basic level examinations (conducted at the end of grade 8), the results of whichdetermine their access (or lack thereof) to secondary education. Likewise, they haveto sit for the secondary education examinations (SEE) at the end of grade 10. Until2015, the SEE was called the school leaving certificate (SLC) examination andstudents had to pass in all the eight subjects to pass in the SLC and be eligible forentry to higher secondary education. However, single subject certification and lettergrading system were introduced in 2015 to do away with the passing and failing in

6 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

the SLC and to reduce inefficiencies in the same. Entry to the higher secondaryeducation (grades 11–12) is contingent on obtaining the minimum required GradePoint Average (GPA) in the SEE examinations. Thereafter, in grades 11 and 12,students can opt for either the science, management, humanities, or educationstreams, which again is determined by the GPA obtained in the SEE. Technicalstream is also introduced from grade 9 onwards.

The Growth in Enrollments

When the Rana regime was overthrown and replaced by a democratic government in1951, there were only 321 primary schools attended by about 8,500 students and 11secondary schools with 1,700 students out of an approximate population of 8 million(Ministry of Education 1971). The literacy rate was estimated at a mere 2%. Theseare the earliest education data for Nepal hitherto available. The post-1951 period wascharacterized by an explosive growth in the number of schools, students, andteachers. From 1951 to 1970, the number of primary schools increased by over 20times and the number of students by over 50 times. The number of secondary schoolsincreased by over 90 times, and the number of secondary students by over 60 times(Table 2). Although the percentage of student enrolment also increased during thisperiod, even by 1970, only one-third of primary school age children were enrolled inschools and only one-fourth of those who were enrolled in primary schools wouldtransition to secondary schools (Table 3).

Quantitative expansions in school numbers and enrollments have continued andshow an upward trend, though not as rapidly, after 1971. Table 4 shows this

Table 1 Structure of school system in Nepal

Age Grade

School System Structure

Pre-2009 Post-2009

16 12 Higher Secondary Education(Grades 11–12)

Secondary Education(Grades 9–12)15 11

14 10 Secondary Education(Grades 9–10)13 9

12 8 Lower Secondary Education(Grades 6–8)

Basic Education(Grades 1–8)11 7

10 6

9 5 Primary Education(Grades 1–5)8 4

7 3

6 2

5 1

4 P1 Early Childhood Education andDevelopment/Pre-PrimaryEducation

Early Childhood Education andDevelopment/Pre-Primary Education (Atleast 1 year)

3 P2

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 7

Table

2Exp

ansion

ofeducationin

Nepalbetween19

51and19

70

Level/Year

No.

ofscho

ols

No.

ofstud

ents

No.

ofteachers

1951

1961

1970

1951

1961

1970

1951

1961

1970

Primary

321

4,00

17,25

68,50

518

2,53

344

9,14

1–

–18

,250

Secon

dary

1115

61,06

51,68

021

,225

102,70

4–

–5,40

7

Higher

233

4925

05,14

317

,200

–41

71,07

0

(Sou

rce:Ministryof

Edu

catio

n19

71)

8 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

quantitative expansion after the 1970s. It can be seen that during the period 1979–2018,the number of primary schools increased three times and the number of primary studentsby nearly four times. At the lower secondary level, the increase in the number of schoolsand the number of students has been over four times during the four decades between1979 and 2018. Table 5 shows the Gross Enrolment Rate (GER) and the Net EnrolmentRate (NER) over the past two decades. At the primary level, the GER is more than ahundred and the NER is also almost hundred percent. At the lower secondary level, onecan find that the GER and the NER increased significantly from 2010 onwards.However, the GER an NER are both considerably lower at the secondary level andthe ratios have slightly fallen after 2010. Nepal’s school education subsector is oftenportrayed as a showcase of success especially with respect to the massive gains made inenhancing access and equity. It is also worth emphasizing that gender parity index (GPI)in NER has been achieved at almost all levels. For 2017–2018, the GPI was 1.00 forgrades 1–5, 0.97 for grades 6–8, 0.98 for grades 9–10, and 1.04 for grades 11–12(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology 2017). This shows significant progressmade in promoting gender equality in education and achievement of the targets set underthe Sustainable Development Goals.

Indeed, in the past 65 years, when Nepal embarked on a systematic developmentof a modern education system, the feat achieved in school education is quiteimpressive. The number of primary schools increased from 321 in 1951 to 31,624in 2018 and number of secondary schools increased from 11 to 8,950 in the sameperiod, representing a nearly 100-fold increase in primary and over 800-fold increasein secondary schools.

There are 35,991 Early Childhood Development (ECD) and Pre-Primary Classes(PPC) in operation and a total of 944, 392 children were enrolled in ECDs/PPCs inthe end of the school year 2015–2016. Enrolment in preprimary education consti-tutes more than 80% of 4-year old children (Department of Education 2015). Thenumber of students enrolled in Grade 1 with ECD/PPC experience increased from36.2% in 2008 to 55.6% in 2013 (National Institute for Research and Training 2017).

Table 3 Expansion in student enrolments between 1951 and 1970

Year

Primary Secondary Higher

% of primary schoolage(6–10 years) children

% in terms of primaryenrolment

% in terms of secondaryenrolment

1951 0.9 19.0 20.5

1961 15.8 12.0 24.4

1970 32.0 23.0 16.0

(Source: Ministry of Education 1971)

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 9

Table

4Exp

ansion

inscho

olsandenrolm

entsbetween19

79and20

18

Level

No.

ofscho

ols

No.

ofstud

ents

1979

/80

1990

2000

2010

2018

1979

/80

1990

2000

2010

2018

Primary

10,136

17,842

25,927

32,684

31,624

1,04

3,33

22,78

8,64

43,62

3,15

04,95

1,95

63,97

0,01

6

Low

erSecon

dary

3261

3964

7289

11,939

14,504

408,90

734

4,13

895

7,44

61,69

9,92

71,86

6,71

6

Secon

dary

704

1953

4350

7266

8950

a12

0,83

836

4,52

537

2,91

4811,91

01,114,46

9

(Sou

rce:Ministryof

Edu

catio

n,variou

syears)

a Includesscho

olsop

eratinggrades

9–12

asagainstscho

olsop

eratinggrades

9–10

intheprevious

years

Note:Until19

80,P

rimaryeducationconsistedof

grades

1–3,

andlower

second

aryconsistedof

grades

4–8

10 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

Equity in Education

The dramatic improvements that Nepal has achieved in terms of enhancing accessand participation in school education can be attributed to the rapid rise in the numberof schools, provision of free textbooks, abolition of school tuition fees, scholarshipsfor girls, Dalits, disabled and other marginalized community students, provision offree midday meals for primary-level students in the selected food deficit areas, andrecruitment of female teachers especially at the primary level. At the ECD/PPC level,17.5% of the children are Dalits and 39.1% belong to Janajati. Based on the share ofgirls and boys in ECD/PPCs, the GPI with regard to Dalit and Janajati children are1.05 and 1.01, respectively, which shows a higher level of participation of Dalit aswell as Janajati girls. At the primary and lower secondary levels, the gender ratios arefairly balanced. The average percentage of girls at the end of the school year 2015–2016 in Grades 1–5 was 50.4 and in Grades 6–8 was 50.5. The Flash Statistics 2015–2016 show that the percentage of Dalit students in total students at primary levelchanged from 19.9% at the beginning of the school year 2015–2016 to 19.1% at theend of the school year. There was also slight decrease in the share of Janajati studentsboth in primary and lower secondary levels, by 0.3% and 0.7%, respectively, at theend of the school year. For secondary school level, the average percentage of girls inGrades 9–10 was 52% and was 51% in Grades 11–12. The grade wise percentage ofDalit and Janajati students from the total students at the both secondary and higherlevels remained almost same during the school year 2015–2016 (Department ofEducation 2015).

The establishment of special schools and special classrooms for children withspecial needs and offering scholarships has been a contributing factor for ensuringthe right of access to children with disabilities. Yet, implementation of these initia-tives remains weak. The percentage of school attendance among 5-year old childrenwith disabilities is 40.5% compared to 70.8% attendance among those who do nothave disabilities. Among those between 5 and 10 years, 35% of children withdisabilities do not attend schools compared to only 5% nonattendance among

Table 5 Gross enrolment ratio and net enrolment ratio between 1979 and 2003

Gross enrolment ratio Net enrolment ratio

Levels 2000 2010 2018 2000 2010 2018

Primary 124.7 (114.7) 139.5 (144.8) 132.3(136.0)

81.1(75.1)

94.5 (93.6) 97.2(97.1)

LowerSecondary

63.2(54.0)

94.5 (97.0) 108.0(108.9)

39.4(33.7)

69.3 (68.5) 87.4(87.3)

Secondary 43.8(36.0)

66.3 (66.5) 60.6a

(60.0)25.5(20.9)

46.5 (45.9) 43.9a

(43.7)

(Source: Ministry of Education, various years)aSecondary education denotes grades 9–12Note: Figures in parentheses show the percentage for girls

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 11

those without disabilities. Girls with disabilities are also less likely to attend schoolthan the boys (Eide et al. 2016).

Improvements in Quality

While it has been easier to demonstrate significant progress in access (shown by thenumber of schools and student enrolments), it has been extremely challenging toshow progress in the quality of education. Planners, educationists, media, and evencommon people have been unanimous in their conviction that the quality of educa-tion in public schools is poor, and actually declining. According to the FlashStatistics II for 2015–2016, 15% of students enrolled in Grade 1 did not appear forthe final examination at the end of the school year; an average of 7% did not appearfor final examinations from Grades 1–5 as well as in Grades 6–8. The average schoolattendance days have also decreased at all levels, with attendance in Grade 1 beingthe lowest (168 days) in 2015–2016. Although there is a reduction, the dropout andrepetition in grade 1 continues to be high. The dropout rate for Grade 1 fell from6.5% in 2015, to 4.8% in 2016 and 3.6% in 2017 and repetition rates fell from 15.2%in 2015 to 14.3% in 2016 and 13.9% in 2017. For Grade 8, the dropout rate fell from6% in 2015 to 5.7% in 2016 and 5.5% in 2017. The repetition rates fell from 4.5% in2015 to 4.4% in 2016 to 3.9% in 2017 (Ministry of Education 2015, 2016a; Ministryof Education, Science and Technology 2017). This has implications for the internalinefficiencies of the education system and results in wastage of scant resources.

Quality of education in Nepal, as elsewhere, is largely measured in terms ofstudent performance in the national board examinations. The most important suchexamination is conducted at the end of grade 10, which used to be called the SchoolLeaving Certificate (SLC) examination that has been renamed Secondary EducationExamination or SEE. Pass rates in these examinations have been low historically(Table 6), especially in mathematics, science, and English subjects. On average, thetotal pass percentage has been well below 50%, and of those who passed, themajority obtained a second division (obtaining total marks below 50%). Moreover,private schools accounted for about 80% of the total pass percentage whereas thepublic schools accounted for around 20% of the pass percentage, although thepercentage share of students was quite the opposite. Further, these results havecontinued to reveal stark disparities in the performance between public and privateschools, with private schools showing better results and boys outperforming girls.Even with the implementation of letter grading and single subject certification in the

Table 6 Performance in School Leaving Certificate Examinations

Year

Pass percentage

Distinction 1st division 2nd division 3rd division

2014 10.44 48.22 39.17 2.16

2015 11.09 46.81 39.80 2.28

Source: MOE (2014, 2015)

12 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

SLC/SEE since 2015, there has been no real improvement in the grades and GPAobtained by the students, showing that examination reforms have not really beenable to generate a backwash effect in everyday classroom teaching and learningprocesses (Table 7).

A more worrying picture of education quality has emerged from student perfor-mance in the national assessments of student achievements. Since 2009, Nepal hasalso conducted periodic National Assessments of Student Achievement (NASA) forgrades 3, 5, and 8. The Basic and Primary Education Project I and II (BPEP I&II)were supported by the World Bank and aimed to strengthen the institutional capac-ities of the education system for better efficiency and quality. These projectsconducted national assessment tests, but these were on a sample of students. Theuse of standardized national student achievement tests to measure learning outcomeshas not been institutionalized so it is difficult to obtain evidence regarding the qualityof education in public schools. Nonetheless, NASA results clearly show that learn-ing achievement of the majority of students in public schools has been well below50%, and that there has been no improvement; rather there has been a slide in theachievements since the institution of NASAs (see Table 8 below). Even the earlygrades reading assessments show that student performance is poor, indicating thatstudent continue to do poorly across the entire school education cycle. This lack ofexpected learning at all levels reflects that the school system has not been able toensure quality of learning in schools as students move from one grade to the next.

Constitutional and Legal Frameworks on Education Rights

As described earlier, Nepal does not have a very long history of state-supportedformal education for the masses, and the idea of state-provided free and universaleducation originated in tandem with the efforts aimed at instituting a national system

Table 7 Performance in School Leaving Certificate Examinations by gender

Year

Pass percentage

Boys Girls Total

2014 49.43 38.27 43.92

2015 54.39 41.23 47.79

(continued)

Table 8 Student performance in NASAs

Subject # Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8

Year ! 2012 2015 2012 2015 2011 2013

Nepali 63 52 60 46 49 48

Mathematics 60 45 53 48 43 35

English – – 54 47 – –

Science – – – – – 41

Social – – – – 49 –

(Source: Ministry of Education, various years)

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 13

of education after 1951. Nepal committed to universalize primary education eversince the first 5-year plan for education in 1956. This plan aimed at voluntaryuniversal primary education by 1975 and compulsory universal primary educationby 1985. In the subsequent years, this commitment has been reiterated in the nationaleducation policy documents, periodic development plans, and even the constitutions.It should be noted that free and compulsory education had been piloted in variousmunicipalities during various times in the 1960s and after the 1990s. The Ministry ofEducation has been implementing programs related to free and compulsory basiceducation in at least one Village Development Committee in each of the 1,053resource centers of the MOE.

Since 1951, Nepal has promulgated seven different constitutions. In terms ofconstitutional provision, the recognition of the right to free and compulsory educationhas been growing stronger in the recent avatars of the constitutions. For example, theConstitution of 1990 only loosely recognized education as a fundamental right. Article18 (2) of Part 3 (Fundamental Rights) of the 1990 Nepal constitution stated that “Eachcommunity shall have the right to operate schools up to the primary level in its ownmother tongue for imparting education to its children” (Constitution of the Kingdomof Nepal 2047, 1990). However, both the Interim Constitution (2007) and the Consti-tution of Nepal (2015) (Constituent Assembly Secretariat 2015) strongly recognize theright to free education as a fundamental right. In this regard, the Interim Constitution2007 states that “Every citizen shall have the right to receive free education from thestate up to secondary level as provided for in the law” (Article 17 as amended by thefirst two amendment acts 2063 and 2064 in 2007). Likewise, Article 31 of Part 3(fundamental rights) of Nepal’s Constitution 2015 states that “Every citizen shall havethe right to access in basic education” and that “Each citizen shall have the right to freeand compulsory basic education and free secondary education from the state” (Con-stituent Assembly Secretariat 2015, p. 11). Based on the Federal Constitution, 2015,Nepal has also enacted a Free and Compulsory Education Act in 2018 that reiteratesthe right to education. The Act states that every citizen has a right of equal access toquality education. This includes a liability of the government to provide at least 1-yearearly childhood development, primary, and secondary education free of cost (NepalLaw Commission 2018). However, there are observations that the state has not beenserious enough in ensuring education as a right because substantial public resourcesare not currently being made available to the education sector for implementing thelegal provisions by the state through its annual budgets (Kushiyait n.d.).

In addition to the legal mandates, Nepal has also committed to the globaleducation targets regarding “education for all” ever since the Karachi regionalconference in 1966, and reiterated subsequently in the world conferences on educa-tion for all in Jomtien (1990) and Dakar (2000) and then recast in the UN Millen-nium Development Goals (2000) and more recently the Sustainable DevelopmentGoals (2015). Towards the realization of these targets, Nepal initiated the imple-mentation of a series of national reform programs originating from the late 1980s(with the twin objectives of enhancing access and equity, and improving quality),and continuing till date under various names. These include the Basic and SecondaryEducation Programs (BPEP) I & II (1992–2004), the Education for All program

14 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

(2004–2009), the School Sector Reform Plan (2009–2016), and the School SectorDevelopment Plan (2016/17–2022/23).

The Governance of School Education

Nepal has experimented with different ways of governing its schools. As statedearlier, the majority of public schools that exist in Nepal currently were notestablished by the state but opened and operated by the local communities. Nepaldid not have a Ministry of Education before 1951. The limited numbers of govern-ment schools in existence were controlled by a Board of Education. Immediatelyafter 1951, the government established a Ministry of Education headed by aneducation minister. This organizational structure extended to the schools through anetwork of inspectorates at the zonal level and sub-inspectorates at the district level.The district sub-inspectorates supervised and monitored the government schoolswhile they had only nominal authority over the functioning of the government-aidedbut community run schools. The vast majority of the schools were private schoolswhich remained outside this bureaucratic framework.

The Nepal National Education Planning Commission (NEPC) established in1953 had as its core objective the establishment of a uniform and universal nationalsystem of education. One of the first priorities for the government was to bring all thedifferent types of schools into a common organizational and bureaucratic frame-work. However, the rate of expansion in the number of schools established andmanaged by the local communities severely outpaced the capacity of the Ministry ofEducation to support, monitor, and supervise them leading to the existence ofvarious types of schools in a haphazard manner. Thus, profound changes wereintroduced in the organizational structure of the educational bureaucracy after theimplementation of National Education System Plan (NESP) in 1971.

In this restructuring, the central level underwent substantial expansion throughfunctional differentiation into planning, administrative, technical, and evaluationdivisions. Instead of the Zonal Inspectorates, NESP introduced Regional Educa-tional Directorates (REDs, 3 initially but later increased to 5) and their functionaldifferentiation closely resembled the pattern at the central level. Under the REDswere the District Education Offices (DEOs) which in turn deployed school inspec-tors to monitor and supervise the schools. The various types of schools that were inexistence before 1971 were all nationalized by the NESP and converted intogovernment schools, thus enabling the DEOs to extend their authority (which wasboth administrative and supervisory in nature) to all the schools under their geo-graphical or territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the role of the School ManagementCommittees (SMCs) was severely curtailed and they were renamed school supportcommittees, expected only to support in the construction of physical facilities of theschool.

This basic organizational structure of 1971 has largely persisted in the pre-federal(pre-2017) structure of the education bureaucracy although it has undergone bothstructural and functional complexity. First, the central structure has become more

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 15

complex, with the multiplication of various specialized autonomous organizations.This was partly because many of these organizations had been in existence but hadnot been officially included in the formal organizational structure of the ministry. Butit was also because of the demands made by various donor agencies supportingspecific aspects of school education reforms in the country. For example, theNational Center for Educational Development (NCED) and the nine PrimaryTeacher Training Centers (PTTCs) are products of the Asian Development Bank-sponsored Primary Education Development Project (PEDP). Similarly, the Depart-ment of Education (DOE) was added after the extension of BPEP as a regularprogram of the Ministry of Education in 1999. Although the DOE has taken overmost of the functions of the REDs at the regional level, REDs nonetheless continueto exist, albeit with substantially reduced functions but not a reduced structure.BPEP has also added Resource Centers, staffed by Resource Persons, to provideprofessional support to the schools at the local level.

These initiatives continued in the 1990s and thereafter, signaling greater role forthe school community in school planning, programming and budgeting, expendi-tures, and school management through elected SMCs and parent-teacher associa-tions. In general, prior to federalism (2017), schools were administered in acentralized manner, with the Ministry of Education and its central line agenciesresponsible for overall planning and policy making, curriculum and textbooks,examinations, and teacher recruitment, deployment, and professional development.At the district level, there was a district education office that performed the role of aninspectorate. Schools received various earmarked conditional grants for salaries,textbooks and materials, scholarships, etc. largely based on the student size and werethe primary units responsible for spending the majority of education budget. Thiscreated the illusion of what is often referred to as fiscal decentralization whereas inreality it was nothing more than a mere decentralization of expenditures.

It is also important to emphasize the impact of federalism on the education systemin recent years. Nepal, after going through the second loktantrik revolution (democ-racy movement) in 2006 abolished the monarchy and laid the foundation for afederal system of governance. After 8 years of consecutive constitution draftingprocess through two successive constituent assemblies (2008–2012; 2013–2016),Nepal finally had a federal constitution promulgated in September 2015. Thispromulgation of the new Federal Constitution in 2015 has heralded significantchanges in the governance of school education. According to the new constitution,school education (basic and secondary) is the exclusive prerogative of the localgovernments. There are 753 local governments that are further categorized intourban municipalities (Nagarpalika) and rural municipalities (Gaunpalika). How-ever, school education can be said to be in a state of flux currently as more time isneeded to settle the constitutionally delineated functions of school education basedon practice and negotiation among the federal, provincial, and local governments.The constitution has devolved most of the school education-related functions to thepurview of the local governments. However, many of the devolved rights andfunctions are yet to be fully exercised by the local governments in the absence ofthe requisite legislation.

16 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

State Funding for Public Education

After 1951, Nepal had systematically pursued expansion of a uniform, universal, andnational system of education (NEPC 1955) with a significant support from USAID.Although less than 10% of USAID funding went towards education between 1952and 1961, it helped lay the foundation for the national education system which wasessential to spread a common language and a sense of national identity. For over adecade, USAID assistance accounted for nearly 70% of all funds allocated toeducation development in Nepal (Skerry et al. 1992). Since then, the growth of aidvolume for primary education in Nepal rapidly increased (Mihaly 2002; Sharma2002) and basic and primary education emerged as a priority subsector for interna-tional assistance in Nepal. The ushering of the multi-party democracy “facilitated amore multicultural and inclusive view of education” (Bhatta 2011, p.16).

In the post-1990 period, Nepal has increased its capability to support publiceducation. Since then, a number of large-scale education reform projects/programshave been implemented in a phased manner, mostly through donor funding. TheJomtien Conference on Education for All and the formulation of the Basic andPrimary Education Projects (BPEP) in the 1990s had a significant impact on thecountry’s primary education. Supported by major donors such as the World Bank,DANIDA, JICA, and UNICEF, the project created a parallel structure that ranoutside the MOE structure with the help of contracted positions. The second phaseof the BPEP was launched after the Dakar conference and was embedded within theregular structure of the Ministry as a national priority program and anchored by theDirectorate of Education. The focus shifted to decentralized planning with theDistrict Education Plans triggering the release of aid. Reform programs such as theEducation for All Program, 2004–2009; School Sector Reform Plan, 2009–2016;and the more recent School Sector Development Plan, 2016–2023 helped to enhancestate capability to support schools, particularly in the areas of construction, text-books, scholarships, and teachers.

However, as we argue below, the state has fallen short of fully funding publiceducation as well as taking the lead role in the management of such institutions. Ingeneral, public schools are entitled to government funds for teacher salaries, text-books, scholarships, and school physical infrastructure development. State grants topublic schools also comprise funds for school management, grants for libraries andlaboratories, and other miscellaneous nominal grants. Based on the amount ofgovernment support provided, public schools in Nepal are categorized into: fullygovernment-aided and partially government-aided schools. The major differenceamong these categories is with respect to whether they have swikriti (approval) oronly anumati (permission) for school operation, with the swikriti-prapta schoolsentitled to the specified quota of permanent teacher positions whose salaries areprovided by the government. Such a distinction between state approval and statepermission for school establishment and operation (as described in the EducationRegulations) clearly has implications for how schools get established and operated inthe country (see below for a discussion of this) and how schools are eligible for andentitled to state resources.

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 17

However, the provision of government funding becomes very complex in practicebecause of the policy of counting schools by levels rather than as absolute units. Inthis process, a school providing primary, lower secondary, and secondary levels iscounted three times. Due to the policy of upgrading, the different levels/grades inschools are typically established at various times. Therefore, in reality, a primarylevel in a school providing education up to higher secondary level may be fullyfunded by the government (if it is approved), and the lower secondary and secondarylevels in the same school may be only partially funded (if they have permissiononly). In other words, a given public school may be fully funded (this would be rarethough), it may have a fully funded primary level and partially funded lowersecondary and secondary levels, or all levels may be only partially funded dependingon its status as swikriti-prapta or anumati-prapta school. Therefore, it can be clearlyseen that the state does not cover the full costs of operation of the vast majority ofpublic schools. Such a policy towards school education financing has led to a greatdiversity in how the public schools are funded and managed.

The most important, and also the costliest, resource available to a school are itscadre of permanent teachers. According to the Education Regulations, a schoolapproved by the Ministry of Education is eligible for a specified number of perma-nent teacher positions. According to the Education Regulations, a primary level/school is entitled to up to three teachers based on the number of students, a lowersecondary level is entitled to additional four teachers, and a secondary level (9–12) isentitled to 8 teachers. However, such provision is clearly inadequate, especially inthe context of grade and subject teaching, and in the case of schools that operatesections within classes due to large student size. Further, the allocation of permanentteacher positions is determined largely by whether a school has been grantedapproval or only permission for its operation. Teacher provision is made only forthe approved schools; however, since 1994 the government has not added any newpermanent teacher positions, as a result of which the government has also not givenapprovals to new schools or levels. It should be noted that during 1995–2005, whenno new quotas for permanent teacher positions were created, state expenditures onthe armed forced more than doubled; subsequently, the state started to rely on Rahat(para) teachers, leading to a deprofessionalization of the teaching profession. There-fore, according to an analysis of the Ministry of Education’s EMIS data, a largenumber of public schools do not have even a single permanent teacher and evenmore have three teachers or less (Table 9), leading to a net shortage of teachersestimated at anywhere between 65,000 and 75,000. As a result, the majority ofpublic schools hire teachers privately using “internal” resources. According to astudy done in Kailali and Doti districts as part of the Nepal Citizen’s EducationReport, around 42% of teachers working in the schools were hired using privateresources. Out of 25 schools studied, only four teachers were recruited by thegovernment, the rest of the teachers were hired privately, thereby creating a resourceburden for the school management and parents (ActionAid Nepal and Norad 2017).This in turn has led to serious inequities, especially for schools that were establishedquite late in education history, mostly after 1990, and most likely in the more remoteor marginal areas.

18 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

This then brings us to the question of how free is “free” education. Evidenceshows that the incidence of paying fees is significant at all levels of public schools.The Nepal Citizen’s Education Report (ActionAid Nepal and Norad 2017) showedthat of the 20 schools surveyed in Kailali district, all were charging fees. Likewise,according to a survey conducted by the World Bank in 2014, 5.1% of all incomegenerated by the surveyed schools was from student fees. Further, donations fromcommunity, and internal sources other than fees accounted for an additional 4% ofthe total revenues (New Era 2014, p. 93). The data on government expenditures ineducation fits neatly with the household expenditures that show that Nepali familiesare paying substantially in terms of sending their kids to schools, an amount that maybe comparable to the amount of taxes paid by families in more advanced economies(New Era 2014; UNESCO/IIEP-US and Global Partnership for Education 2016).

Nepal has a least developed economy and its economic growth rate was estimatedto be 5.9% in the financial year 2017–2018. About 21.6% of its people (over 6million) are below poverty line (Ministry of Finance 2018). Nepal allocates less than5% of its GDP to education and around 15% of the national budget to education.Within the education budget, highest allocation is made to primary education and thehighest share goes towards payment of teachers’ salaries (Kushiyait n.d.). However,the share of primary education is reducing and that of secondary education isincreasing in recent years. In 2010–2011, 64% of overall spending was allocatedto primary education and it fell to 54.1% in 2015–2016. On the other hand,secondary education was allocated 16.9% in 2010–2011 which increased to 21%in 2015–2016. The government funded 66% of education expenditure in 2014–2015. Assistance from development partners in the form of grants and loans consti-tuted 13.1% of government education expenditure in 2013–2014 (National Institutefor Research and Training 2017). In order to implement the constitutional commit-ment of providing free education from early childhood education to secondaryeducation to all Nepali citizens, it is estimated that a sum of NPR 197.85 billion(approximately USD 1.613 billion) is needed. This is nearly more than double thecurrent financial allocation of NPR 71.89 billion (approximately USD 581.86million) (Kushiyait n.d.). The School Sector Development Plan (SSDP) for 2016–2023 provides a budget US$6.46 billion for the first 5 years. Eleven percent of thiscost is provided by international donors, including the World Bank, Asian Devel-opment Bank, and the European Union (Ministry of Education 2016b).

Table 9 Teacher provision in public schools

Level

No. of community schools with

Zero teacher One teacher Two teachers Three teachers

Primary 1,483 2,404 4,190 11,539

Lower Secondary 1,071 4,313 1,355 1,828

Secondary 504 713 2,015 648

Total 3,058 7,430 7,560 13,015

Source: Ministry of Education (2016c)Note: A school that has all three levels is counted three times

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 19

The Growing Significance of Education Privatization in Nepal

In the context of a more conducive environment for the establishment and operation ofprivate schools in post-1990 Nepal, the pace at which private schools continued toexpand in the country has been rapid, similar to the scenario in higher education (seeBhatta 2015), even though the public education system continues to be prioritized bothfinancially and legally by the government and many aid agencies (Figs. 1 and 2).According to the MOE, enrolments in private schools have more than doubled at alllevels: from 6% to 15.3% at primary level, 7.6–16.2% at lower secondary, and9.7–19.3% at secondary level between 2005 and 2015 (Department of Education2005, 2015).

Private schools in Nepal are not homogenous, and they comprise elite Englishmedium schools, international schools, as well as low-fee paying schools. There area number of salient features of education privatization in Nepal. The first of theserelates to geographic and socioeconomic inequities in the provision of and access toprivate schools. In general, private schools are concentrated in urban areas (such asthe Kathmandu Valley) and geographically more accessible regions (such as thesouthern plains adjoining India known as the Tarai/Madhesh). Another region withsignificant number of private school enrolments is the area covering the Western Hilldistricts that have historically enjoyed high levels of literacy and school education.Geographical inequities in the distribution of private schools and share of studentsare depicted in Figs. 3 and 4 below. The Tarai region has the largest share of privateschools (42%), followed by the Hilly region (28%) and the Kathmandu Valley(27%). In fact, in Kathmandu, the district with the highest concentration of private

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Primary Lower Sec Sec

Fig. 1 Growth in the number of private schools, 1990–2015. (Source: Bhatta and Budhathoki2013; date for 2015 has been updated based on Department of Education 2015)

20 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

schools, about 78% of all schools are private and 70% of the total students attendprivate schools. In Lalitpur, another district with a high concentration of privateschools, 58% of all schools are private and 62% of all students attend privateschools. In contrast, private schools account for only 3% of all student enrolmentsin the entire Mountain Region. Within these broad geographical zones, there aresignificant interregional variations in the share of private schools. In particular, theEastern Mountains, Mid- and Far-Western Mountains, and the Far-Western Hillshave a very low share of private schools (Department of Education 2015).

The increasing role of the private sector in the provision of school education hasled to several inequalities. There is a difference in performance between studentsstudying in public schools and private schools. Private schools in general havetended to have better pass rates in the SEE, as well as better scores in the periodicnational assessments of student achievement conducted by the Ministry of Educationfor grades 3, 5, and 8 students (Thapa 2015; Education Review Office 2015).

There are significant gender disparities in access to private schooling. Accordingto the Ministry of Education, the gender parity index (GPI) in basic and secondarylevels in private schools is only 0.77 compared to 1.10 in community schools(Department of Education 2015), an indication of significant gender disparities inaccess to private schools (ActionAid Nepal and Norad 2017). There is a difference ofmore than 14 percentage points between the enrolment share of boys and girls inprivate schools. In contrast, there are more female teachers in private schoolscompared to the public schools. According to the MOE, female teachers constitutenearly 54% of the total teachers at the primary level in private schools compared to39% in public schools. However, the scenario changes in the secondary level, wherethe share of female teachers decreases to 23% in private schools and only 15% in

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Primary LS Sec

Fig. 2 Growth in the number of Students in Private Schools, 1990–2015. (Source: Bhatta andBudhathoki 2013; data for 2015 has been updated based on Department of Education 2015)

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 21

public schools (Department of Education 2015). It should be noted that, according tothe government regulations, primary school teachers require lower academic qual-ifications and are paid less than the secondary teachers. Further, private school

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Mountain

Hill

Tarai

Kathmandu Valley

Fig. 3 Share of Private Schools across the Eco-Development Regions. (Source: Department ofEducation 2015)

-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Mountain Hill Tarai Kathmandu Valley

Public Private

Fig. 4 Ratio of students attending Private and Public Schools across Eco-Development Regions.(Source: Department of Education 2015)

22 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

teachers, in general, are provided with lower salaries and benefits as compared topermanent teachers in public schools.

With respect to the socioeconomic dimensions of participation in private schools,evidence from the Nepal Living Standards Survey III suggests that 60.1% of theindividuals from the richest income quintile currently enrolled in school/collegewere attending private institutions, compared to only 6.4% from the poorest quintile(Central Bureau of Statistics 2011). Moreover, of those enrolled in school/college,56.1% in urban areas were attending private schools/colleges as compared to only19.6% in rural areas (ibid.). This has led to a gradual “pauperization” of publicschools (Bhatta 2014), in the sense that public schools are becoming residual placesfor the poor as the rich migrate to private schools.

Another issue of public concern related to education privatization is related withthe growth of for-profit private schools. Most private schools in Nepal are registeredas company schools, i.e., they were established as and operate largely for profit,indicating the rise of commercialization of education (Bhatta and Budhathoki 2013).Furthermore, schools that were asked to self-accredit based on the provision andquality of physical and educational infrastructure for the determination of feeceilings, were catering mostly to middle and upper-class households as opposed tolow-fee schools catering to poor and lower-class households (Bhatta and Budhathoki2013). Such schools place a very strong emphasis on English, in some casesexplicitly discouraging students from using non-English language within the schoolpremises. Private schools are also mandated to ensure that the service conditions ofteachers and non-teaching staff are at par with the minimum government norms andstandards. However, the hiring of uncertified, under-qualified, and untrained teachersfor low salaries and long working hours has led to “deprofessionalisation of teachingin private schools, which undermines the need for teacher education and professionaldevelopment” (Bhatta and Pherali 2017, p. 5). This may well be in response to thedesire of parents to educate their children through English medium. Educationprivatization has also heralded a growing penetration of international curricula,examinations, and non-degree education programs in Nepal’s school education(and higher education) accessed by those from higher middle classes and upperclasses. These include the GCE-A level, Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE), international baccalaureate (IB), and tertiary degrees. Significantly, privateschools under individual proprietorship are gradually being merged into chain ornetwork schools.

Challenges and Issues

Nepal has seen a significant role played by international donors in development. Inearly years, international assistance helped establish the education system and inmore recent years, it has aided meeting the global goals set under the Education forAll and SDGs while also determining the direction and targets set in the nationalpolicies. Even though the national plans and strategy papers were prepared by thegovernment of Nepal to avail external assistance, there has been substantial aid

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 23

agency influence and support in their formulation. The subsector approach has alsoseen an increasing use of conditionalities and lack of dialogue and participation fromthe educational officials at district levels, communities, and SMCs. This has “led to a‘transcendisation’ of educational policy-making” (Bhatta 2011, p. 22) wherein theprocess of making national educational policy moves beyond the central governmentto a supranational body like an aid agency. The role of the government is reduced to amanagerial one and is limited to the handling of inter-agency coordination, meetings,and the production and supply of various documents on request. As Bhatta argues,“the issue of national ownership has, interestingly, shifted from ‘ownership overcontent’ to ‘ownership over process’, primarily because the contents have been pre-determined” by “decisions taken at the bi-annual joint government-donor reviewmissions” (Bhatta 2011, pp. 23, 22).

However, it must be noted that the gap in education financing is presently verylarge and the dependence on external assistance is significant. Mobilization ofdomestic resources from taxation and internal sources for the purposes of investingin education has been a neglected area (Kushiyait n.d.). The resulting decline ofquality of state education and poor learning levels in schools has made parents withspending capacities to move their children into the private education system. Thishas further helped expand and strengthen the private sector which has now become apowerful and organized interest group that resists government regulation andweakens the role of the state. Schools under individual proprietorship are graduallybeing converted into chain or network schools involving mergers, acquisition, andpartnering, indicating the rise of more organized and powerful groups in the educa-tion sector (Bhatta and Pherali 2017).

The private education sector is not a homogenous category but consists ofdifferent kinds of schools, managed by different interests. The mechanism forensuring compliance of a diverse set of private schools involves regular monitoringvisits by district education officials. However, this is compromised due to insuffi-cient human resources and weak institutional arrangements at the district level. Weakcompliance and regulation have resulted in prevalence of several low-fee payingprivate schools that focus on rote learning while simultaneously deprofessionalizingthe teaching profession.

On the other hand, the community schools supported by the government are notentirely free, despite the constitutional provision guaranteeing free education frompreschool until secondary level. In most cases, schools charge fees for variouspurposes which are generally compulsory (ActionAid Nepal and Norad 2017).Furthermore, the households contributing towards payment of teachers’ salariesfurther burdens the disadvantaged. While the enrollment rates and school participa-tion rates have improved significantly, the challenge of improving quality of educa-tion in terms of ensuring internal efficiency as well as producing learning outcomespersists.

24 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

Conclusion

After the Rana rule, despite a late start in establishing a system of formal education,and while struggling with its low-income economy and limited resources, Nepal hasmade significant strides in education progress over the past several decades. Chil-dren have access to a wide network of schools, run by communities as well as theexpanding private sector. Gender parity goals have been met across the differentlevels of education. This is supported by a constitutional and legal framework thatrecognizes right to free education and the duty of the state to provide free education.Nepal has received substantial external assistance and support to build its educationsystem and has also been influenced by aid agencies and international targets. Likeother countries in the region, Nepal has also witnessed the increase in privatization ofeducation, growth of low-fee paying schools, and the exit from community schoolsof those who can afford to pay. Given the heterogeneity of education providers andtheir interests, the original policy aims of building a national universal educationsystem remains unrealized.

Furthermore, as this chapter points out, a number of issues continue to poseserious challenges and dilute the progress already made. Issues of equitable educa-tion and internal efficiency of the education system tend to regress the achievementsmade. Schools providing poor quality of education as demonstrated in schoolleaving certification as well as assessments is a matter of concern. But equallycritical is the need to question the constricted notion of education that is encouragedby schools, mostly private, in order to demonstrate success on highly standardizedexams. As Nepal is poised to overcome its economic disadvantage, reap its demo-graphic dividend, and strengthen its democratic polity, building a strong educationsystem becomes an imperative.

References

ActionAid Nepal and Norad. (2017). Nepal citizens’ education report. Retrieved from https://nepal.actionaid.org/sites/nepal/files/nepal_national_citizens_education_report.pdf on 11 Mar 2020.

Aryal, K. R. (1970). Education for the development of Nepal. Kathmandu: Shanti Prakashan.Basnet, K. (2003). 100 years of Nepal-Nippon. Nepali Times. Issue # 175 (19 Dec 2003–25 Dec

2003). Retrieved from http://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id¼6142#.Xml_bahKhPY on11 Mar 2020.

Bhatta, P. (2011). Aid agency influence in national education policy-making: A case from Nepal’s‘education for all’ movement. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(1), 11–26.

Bhatta, P. (2014). Public desire for private schooling in Nepal. In I. Macpherson, S. Robertson, & G.Walford (Eds.), Education, privatisation and social justice: Case studies from Africa, South Asiaand South East Asia. Oxford: Symposium.

Bhatta, P. (2015). Privatization through affiliation: Trajectories of higher education expansion inpost-1990 Nepal. Studies in Nepali History and Society, 20(2), 303–333. Retrieved from http://www.martinchautari.org.np/files/SINHAS-Articles/SINHAS-Vol.20-No.2_Pramod-Bhatta.pdf on11 Mar 2020.

Bhatta, P., & Budhathoki, S. (2013). Understanding private education scapes in Nepal. London:Privatisation in Education Research Initiative (PERI)/Open Society Foundations.

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 25

Bhatta, P., & Pherali, T. (2017). Nepal: Patterns of privatisation in education. A case study of low-fee private schools and private chain schools. Education International. Retrieved from https://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/Research_Nepal_final.pdf on 16 Mar 2020.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Nepal living standards survey 2010/11. Statistical report Vol 2.National Planning Commission Secretariat. Government of Nepal. Retrieved from https://time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/statistical_report_vol2.pdf on 11 Mar 2020.

Constituent Assembly Secretariat. (2015). Constitution of Nepal 2015. Unofficial translation byNepal Law Society, IDEA and UNDP. Retrieved from http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/nep155698b.pdf on 11 Mar 2020.

Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047. (1990). Dated 9 Nov 1990. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4fa10.html on 11 Mar 2020.

Department of Education. (2005). Flash I report 2005/06. Sanothimi/Bhaktapur: Department ofEducation.

Department of Education. (2015). Flash II report 2015–16. Sanothimi/Bhaktapur: Department ofEducation.

Education Review Office. (2015). Report on National Assessment of Student Achievement (NASA)2013 (Grade 8: Mathematics, Nepali and Science). Kathmandu: Education Review Office.Retrieved from http://www.ero.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/NASA_2013_Grade_8_Report.pdfon 11 Mar 2020.

Eide, A. H., Neupane, S., & Hem, K. G. (2016). Living conditions among people with disability inNepal. SINTEF Technology and Society, Department of Health Research. Retrieved fromhttps://www.sintef.no/globalassets/sintef-a27656-nepal-printversionfinal.pdf on 16 Mar 2020.

Fuller, B. (1991). Growing up modern: The Western state builds third world schools. New York:Routledge.

Interim Constitution of Nepal 2063. (2007) (repealed). Dated 15 Jan 2007. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/46badd3b2.html on 11 Mar 2020.

Kushiyait, B. K. (n.d.). Research report on financing gap in education. National Campaign forEducation Nepal (NCE-Nepal). Retrieved from http://ncenepal.org.np/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Education-Financing-Gap-research-report.pdf on 11 Mar 2020.

Mihaly, E. B. (2002). Foreign aid and politics in Nepal: a case study. 2nd edition. Kathmandu:Himal Books.

Ministry of Education. (1971). The national education system plan for 1971–76. Kathmandu:Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. (2014). Nepal education in figures 2014 at-a-glance. Kathmandu: Govern-ment of Nepal.

Ministry of Education. (2015). Nepal education in figures 2015 at-a-glance. Kathmandu: Govern-ment of Nepal.

Ministry of Education. (2016a). Nepal education in figures 2016 at-a-glance. Kathmandu: Gov-ernment of Nepal.

Ministry of Education. (2016b). School sector development plan 2016/17-2022/23 (BS 2073/74-2079/80). Retrieved from https://www.globalpartnership.org/content/nepal-school-sector-development-plan-2016-2023 on 16 Mar 2020.

Ministry of Education. (2016c). School Sector Development Program - Teacher Rationalizationand Redeployment Plan (2016/17-2023). p.6. Retrieved from: https://www.doe.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/18fe973c8531bccad18c000e217eb37e.pdf on 13 May 2020.

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2017). Nepal education in figures 2017 at-a-glance. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.

Ministry of Finance. (2018). Economic survey 2017/18. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.Retrieved from https://mof.gov.np/uploads/document/file/for%20web_Economic%20Survey%202075%20Full%20Final%20for%20WEB%20_20180914091500.pdf on 9 Apr 2020.

National Education Planning Commission (NEPC). (1955). Education in Nepal: Report of theNational Education Planning Commission. Kathmandu: Bureau of Publications.

26 P. Bhatta and A. Mehendale

National Institute for Research and Training. (2017). Nepal education sector analysis. Kathmandu.Retrieved from https://www.globalpartnership.org/sites/default/files/2019-05-nepal-education-sector-analysis.pdf on 13 Mar 2020.

Nepal Law Commission. (2018). The act relating to compulsory and free education, 2075. Retrievedfrom http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/archives/category/documents/prevailing-law/statutes-acts/education-act-2028-1971 on 16 Mar 2020.

New Era. (2014). Nepal education studies 2012/13 school and household survey. Kathmandu:World Bank.

Parajuli, L. R. (2012). From controlling access to crafting minds: Experiments in education in LateRana Era. Studies in Nepali History and Society, 17(2), 297–331.

Pherali, T. (2011). Education and conflict in Nepal: Possibilities for reconstruction. GlobalisationSocieties and Education, 9(1), 135–154.

Pradhan, U. (2018). National education system in Nepal: Between the ‘local’ and the ‘global’. InEducation in South Asia (pp. 165–183). London: Bloomsbury Publications.

Rappleye, J. (2019). Origins of the faith: The untold story of Hugh Wood, American DevelopmentAssistance in the 1950s, and Nepal’s Modern Education System. Studies in Nepali History andSociety, 24(1), 105–141.

Savada, A. M. (1991). Nepal: A country study. Washington: Government Publishing Office for theLibrary of Congress.

Skerry, C. A., Moran, K., & Calavan, K. M. (1992). Four decades of development. The history of U.S. assistance to Nepal 1951–1991. Kathmandu: United States Agency for International Devel-opment (USAID). Retrieved from https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABR755.pdf on 11 Mar2020.

Sharma, S. (2002). Half a century of foreign aid. In Mihaly, E.B. (ed.) Foreign aid and politics inNepal: a case study. p. xix-lx. Kathmandu: Himal Books.

Thapa, A. (2015). Public and private school performance in Nepal: An analysis using the SLCexamination. Education Economics, 23(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2012.738809.

UNESCO/IIEP-US and Global Partnership for Education. (2016). National education accounts inNepal: Expenditure for education 2009–2015. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/nepal-nea-report.pdf on 11 Mar 2020.

Van Wessel, M., & van Hirtum, R. (2013). Schools as tactical targets in conflict: What the case ofNepal can teach us. Comparative Education Review, 57(1), 1–21.

Wood, H. B. (1987). Nepal diary. Oregon: American Nepal Education Foundation.Wright, D. (1877).History of Nepal. New Delhi/Madras: Asian Educational Services. Reprint 1990.

Translated from the Parbatiya by Munshi Shew Shunker Singh Pandit Shri Gunachand.

Educating the Nation Through Schooling 27