Box 1. The ‘4As’ framework

Katarina Tomasevski has offered what is known as

the ‘4As’ framework and asserts that education

should be:

Available : education should be free and

government funded with adequate infrastructure

and teachers;

Accessible : systems should not discriminate and

positive steps should be taken to reach the most

marginalized;

Acceptable : the content of education should be

relevant, culturally appropriate and of quality;

Adaptable : education should respond to changing

needs of society and to different contexts.

Source: Tomasevski, K. (2006)

Citizens’ Education Report Nepal1

Education is integrally linked with human security, rights and development

(Amartya Sen 2002).2

I. Introduction

Nepal is party to all the international conventions3 in which education has been

declared and re-iterated as a fundamental human right. International laws on

human right, therefore, bind Nepal that it fulfils its commitment to such

declarations. What does this binding mean to the state? How can one be

assured that the state has fulfilled its commitment?

To explore these questions a survey of selected schools and communities was

carried out, primarily, to consolidate citizen’s views into this report. It uses the

framework of ten fundamental rights compiled by ActionAid International (see

Box 2). The publication entitled “Promoting Rights in School; Providing Quality

Public Education” has consolidated the 6 decades-long global discourse on and

declarations of rights to education summarising them into the ten fundamental

rights. The nations party and committed to declaring education a fundamental

human right could use the publication as a checklist to assess and assert their

level of compliance. The ten rights have also been informed by Katarina

Tomasevski’s (2006) ‘4As’ framework (see Box 1) vis-à-vis her strong critique of

the half-hearted, un-likeminded and fragmented convictions of the global

players (e.g., World Bank, UNESCO,

OECD) promoting education for all.

Universalising primary education

has always been an emphasised

aspect of all national level

education commissions formed in

Nepal since 1951, the year when

the country had just begun to open

schooling for public with merely a

little more than 200 primary

schools. That was also the year

when the country offered a fresh

ground for international experts to

experiment their theories of

development in an ecstatically

timid nation of unbelievably mixed peoples of more than 100 ethnicities, castes

1 Draft introductory chapter submitted by Roshan Chitrakar to Action Aid to contribute to the Citizen’s Education Report.

2Sen, A. (2002), Basic Education and Human Security, background paper prepared for the workshop on “Basic Education and Human Security,” jointly organized by the Commission on Human Security, UNICEF, the Pratichi (India) Trust, and Harvard University, in Kolkata, 2-4 January 2002.

3 Please list the conventions

and languages. The state’s focus coupled with growing external support on

expansion and access resulted in a massive growth of primary schools in the past

60 years. However, the issue of quality and equity was gravely felt and persisted

to date. The subtle interplay and relationship between educational provisions

and the plural social dimension characterised by contesting power relations is

often naively perceived, if not overlooked or ignored. Even with the

constitutional guarantee of education as fundamental human right people,

especially the poor and vulnerable, have been denied of this right. The Citizen’s

Education Report is an attempt to capture people’s voices on the ground and

unpack some critical issues analysed from the human rights perspective of the

way the “education-for-all” campaign is being delivered and managed in the

Democratic Republic Nepal.

A. Rights to Education and the EFA Context

There is no dearth of arguments or cases made in favour of education as a

fundamental human right. The UN started its campaign along this line through

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. In the subsequent

years, the right to education was reiterated in several other international

Box 2. Compilation of the ten fundamental education rights

All schools must respect the following fundamental rights:

1. Right to free and compulsory education: there should be no charges, direct or indirect, for

primary education. Education must gradually be made free at all levels.

2. Right to non-discrimination: schools must not make any distinction in provision based on

sex, race, color, language, religion, political opinion, nationality, ethnicity, ability, or any

other status.

3. Right to adequate infrastructure: there should be an appropriate number of classrooms,

accessible to all, with adequate and separate sanitation facilities for girls and boys.

Schools should be built with local materials and be resilient to natural risks and disasters.

4. Right to quality trained teachers: schools should have a sufficient number of trained

teachers of whom a good proportion are female; teachers should receive good quality pre-

service and in-service training with built-in components on gender sensitivity, non-

discrimination, and human rights. All teachers should be paid domestically competitive

salaries.

5. Right to a safe and non-violent environment: children should be safe on route to and in

school. Clear anti-bullying policies and confidential systems for reporting and addressing

any form of abuse or violence should be in place.

6. Right to relevant education: the curriculum should not discriminate and should be relevant

to the social, cultural, environmental, economic context and language of learners.

7. Right to know your rights: schools should teach human rights education and children’s

rights in particular. Learning should include age-appropriate and accurate information on

sexual and reproductive rights.

8. Right to participate: girls and boys have the right to participate in decision- making

processes in school. Appropriate mechanisms should be in place to enable the full,

genuine and active participation of children.

9. Right to transparent and accountable schools: schools need to have transparent and

effective monitoring systems. Both community and children should be able to participate

in accountable governing bodies, management committees and parents’ groups.

10. Right to quality learning: girls and boys have a right to a quality learning environment and

to effective teaching processes so that they can develop their personality, talents and

physical and mental abilities to their fullest potential.

Source: Charter on promoting rights in schools, Action Aid and Rights to Education Project

(2010).

conventions, namely, International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR),

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

(CEDAW), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). As already mentioned above, Nepal

has been party to all these international conventions and has pledged to

translate its commitments into action through the formulation and

implementation of necessary acts, laws, policies, strategies and programmes.

But fulfilling such commitments also meant inviting heavy financial burdens that

have been far beyond what the state could afford.4 The country, since it opened

up for external world in 1951, always relied heavily on foreign aid to meet the

costs of expanding educational opportunities and taking actions towards

meeting the goal of universal primary education. Much of the credit for the

educational expansion that we have seen to date goes to the 60 years of the

foreign assistance, although the country has largely been an experimental

ground for national and international “experts” whose contribution has not been

strong enough in overturning education from being elitist. With the changing

political scenario, however, the sector is more and more scrutinized with

increased participation of national stakeholders and the demand for its reform

and transformation is felt more intensely. Right to education is understood not

only as bringing all children to school but also ensuring that schooling is relevant

and contributes to enhancing human capabilities. In view of this, Education for

All should be understood as universal participation in quality-assured basic

education.

B. State’s Initiatives

The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007, under article 17, specifies that “each

community shall have the right to get basic education in their mother tongue as

provided for in the law [and] every citizen shall have the right to free education from

the State up to secondary level as provided for in the law.”

What does this constitutional provision entail? Clearly, the state is not assertive

enough to unconditionally establish basic education as a fundamental human right.

The constitutional provision of the rights to basic education and free education up to

secondary level is subject to interpretation by education law. Moreover, basic

education is still not compulsory in Nepal. What appears is that the state is playing

safe so that it is not held constitutionally accountable for having children out of

school as in reality there are still many children whose rights to free and compulsory

education have been violated. However, the government, with the support of the

international development partners, is mobilising resources and working toward

achieving the 2015 EFA goals.

Universal primary education remained high priority for the government, more notably

since the time of Basic and Primary Education Programme I and II (1990-2003). The

country showed more strategic policy commitments to bring all children to school

after the Dakar conference in 2000—the EFA 2003-09 Core documents was prepared

followed by Annual Strategic Implementation Plans that were guided by what was

4 About 20% (@ $100 million/year for 5 years) of the total cost of the School Sector Reform Plan is funded by foreign aid.

globally known as the Sector Wide Approach (SWAP).

The Ministry of Education has been working very closely with international

development partners to agree on, among others, basic frameworks and approaches to

finalising national concepts and strategic papers of education, e.g., the Core

Documents of EFA 2003-2009 and the School Sector Reform 2009-2015 that are

informed by the targets and goals set by EFA and MDG. Moreover, in the name of

achieving the goals and specific targets the Ministry of Education is pushed hard

toward subscribing to the globally prescribed process of, e.g., school governance,

decentralisation, planning and policy formulation. The globally defined core

principles, e.g. those underpinning SWAP (Winther-Schmidt, 2011)5, provide the

development partners the raison-d’etre to engage with the government. The MOE is

required to take the illusive role of leading the process of developing necessary

framework, policies, plans and strategies taking into account, however, the strategic

“advice” of the development partners. The following excerpt from the EFA 2003-09

Core Document (MOES 2002) exemplify how the government engages itself with the

development partners and other stakeholders in developing the national strategy

papers such as the Core Documents of BPEP and EFA:

The Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES) and the Department of

Education (DOE) developed a concept paper for the Nepal Education for All

(EFA) Programme 2004-2009 in 2002. A draft of this paper was presented in

the Basic and Primary Education Programme (BPEP) II Joint Government-

Donor Technical Review Meeting held in December 2002. Comments and

suggestions obtained from donors were incorporated and a revised concept

paper was disseminated widely to central line agencies, Regional Education

Directorates (REDs), District Education Offices (DEOs), Resource Centres

(RCs), District Development Committees (DDCs), and Village Development

Committees (VDCs) in January and February 2003. Consultations with civil

society and stakeholders at central, regional, district and RC levels were held

on the concept paper in order to collect suggestions and feedback from all

levels. This highly participatory process in the preparation and finalisation of

this document resulted in a consolidated concept paper that envisioned the

next basic and primary education programme in line with EFA visions and

objectives. (MOES, 2003, EFA 2004-09: Core Document, p. 8, emphasis

added)

While the government makes the claim of the “highly participatory” process of nation

wide consultation, evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the process is

nowhere to be found. Government documents do not annex the process nor do they

explain how community participation is ensured and why the process is valid and

reliable. Researchers have found a complete mismatch between the government’s

claim of wider consultation/participation and practitioners’ understanding/opinions.

Edward (2011)6, e.g., analyses the opinions of such practitioners on the ground in

5 Winther-Schmidt, E. (2011) 'Projects and programmes: a development practitioner's critique of the transition to a sector-wide approach to educational development in Nepal', Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9: 1, 51 — 65. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2010.513520

6 Edward, R. (2011). 'Disconnect and capture of education decentralisation reforms in Nepal: implications for community involvement in schooling', Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9: 1, 67 — 84. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2010.513532

West Nepal and concludes that the globally understood concepts like decentralisation

and participation make little, if any, sense at the community level. In the same vein,

Bhatta (2011)7 has pointed out that the global educational development agendas

related to universal primary education dominate the formulation of educational

policies, strategies and priorities in Nepal that require the policy level national

stakeholders to work more closely with and remain accountable to the donor

community rather than the local politician, civil society and communities.

The issue of concern is not so much about the global agenda but it is more of its lack

of local understanding and adaptation. Decentralisation of education, e.g., has not

been practised in its true spirit just as the School Management Committees and Parent

Teacher Associations stand merely as inanimate and dull entities. Every public

school is required to prepare its SIP (School Improvement Plan) but the concept, in

general, is ritualised with schools typically finding the task of preparing SIP

cumbersome and overburdening. Similarly, the progress monitoring process, an

intimate aspect of EFA, which the development partners are so keen on, is top-down

and not institutionalised by schools. The bi-annual compilation (Flash I and Flash II

reports) of school statistics and information is yet another process disowned by

schools and communities. Understandably, all these mechanisms have been put in

practice with a good intent of empowering local stakeholders to take ownership of

and control over school management and ensuring every child’s access to basic

education of good quality. But there has been only a trickled down effect on the

frontline stakeholders. Therefore, the potential of participatory and decentralised

management to transform school governance and improve access, quality and

efficiency in basic education is far from being realised. And with the persistence of

such a situation, the country is likely to lag further behind in constitutionally assuring

every child’s unconditional right to free and compulsory basic education.

C. Citizens’ and Civil Society’s Roles

With the lopsided constitutional provision of rights to education and the top-

down implementation mechanisms, there is a need for civil society and rights

activists to play their roles as critically as possible, make the issues known

widely and put pressure on the government. Unfortunately, the role of these

non-state stakeholders in influencing the education policies making processes,

among others, has been rather superficial (Rappleye, 2011)8. Staying within the

regulatory framework of the existing education law, the least that citizens can do

is to show interest and concerns on various aspects of schooling capitalising on

the states’ commitments on rights to basic education and EFA. Although the

SMC and PTA are alien concepts, they are the only available formal avenues

through which the community could participate in the processes of school

governance. For various reasons, these channels have not been utilised to their

7 Bhatta, P. (2009). Aid agency influence in national education policy-making: a case from Nepal's 'Education for All' movement in Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9: 1, 11 — 26. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2010.513283

8 Rappleye, J. (2011) 'Catalysing educational development or institutionalising external influence? Donors, civil society and educational policy formation in Nepal', in Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9: 1, 27 — 49. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2010.513517

full potential, hence community and parental ownership is far from being

realised in the processes of children’s schooling.

The community level stakeholders through SMC and PTA can raise issues

pertaining to, e.g., the serious discrepancies between what the government has

promised (nationally and internationally) and what actually has it accomplished

in ensuring education rights and EFA. Similarly they could also show interests in

other issues like the status of scholarship distribution, school plans and

programmes (e.g., SIP, school calendars), teacher and students’ attendance,

status of out-of-school children in the community and so on. The degree to

which schools operate responsibly depends, to a large extent, on whether the

community has shown interests on specifics of school business, participated in

defining progress indicators, targets and in planning and mobilising resources,

and on remaining informed of the progress dynamics and critically taking part in

monitoring the progress.

Ideally, the periodic information of individual schools collected for the Flash

Reports should allow the local stakeholders not only a better understanding of

the benefits that the schools are supposed to bring to the communities but also

play their roles (e.g. in SMCs and PTAs) more critically and meaningfully and be

able to contribute substantively to the school decision making and planning

processes. However, the problem, as revealed in this report, is that neither the

school authorities nor the SMCs have taken ownership of the school-specific

Flash data. Our researchers have found out serious inconsistencies between the

school realities and the information generated for the Flash Report. Therefore,

the roles that the SMCs and PTAs have play currently bear only a little, if any,

significance. The importance of the organised approach to addressing local

issues, such as that seen in the women and land rights movements, is not widely

acknowledged in the education sector and in schooling in particular. Although

some local level civil society organizations are working with SMCs and PTAs of

some schools across the country, their efforts are still sporadic and peace-meal

in nature.

D. Citizens’ Education Report: What and Why?

The Citizens’ Education Report team initiated and planned this study precisely

because of the lack of citizens’ perspective in the available public documents

prepared periodically from the assessments of the progresses made towards

improving public schooling and achieving EFA goals. We found a sheer lack of

concerted efforts and critical involvement of citizens, especially the stakeholders

at the local level, in raising locally experienced important issues pertaining to

rights to education and the school governance. As already flagged earlier on, the

current approach to collecting school information is neither participatory nor

does it yield authentic reports of actual school contexts. The school information

thus generated is utilised to formulate important educational policies and

strategies. It is also used as evidence to plan activities and allocate resources to

schools through DEOs. In effect, the policies, strategies, plans and resources

allocated generally mismatch the actual needs of schools and communities.

Therefore, the persistence of the absence of quality and equity in basic education

even with the seemingly affirmative policy support and prioritised national

investments can be attributed, to a reasonable extent, to the system’s lack of

serious effort to involve citizens seeking their perspective in the school reform

and improvement processes.

The CER is, therefore, a documentation of people’s views of what purpose the

school is serving and how education rights are assured (or not assured) in

schools. It asserts that locally engaged civil society organisations, with

appropriate technical support, are better placed to produce the school level

CERs through community mobilisation and participatory inquiry process and by

also working closely with school authorities to incorporate their analyses of

school facts, figures and contexts. The school level CERs, in essence, are the

foundation of those of the district and national levels.

The CER is understood to be an on-going research process, with the prospect for

annual (or 2 yearly) updates based on continued research in the already

surveyed schools along with the inclusion of more schools and wider

geographical coverage in the successive years. This was felt to be an ambitious

task, which would not be possible without multi stakeholders (national and

international) collaborations and a mutual willingness to mobilise required

resources. For ActionAid International Nepal, production of CER based on a pilot

research in some selected schools is both its priority and of immense interest as

promoting rights in schools is its global initiative for which a methodology was

being developed.

E. Objectives

The overarching purpose of this CER is to bring to light citizens’ perspective on

how education rights are promoted in schools and contribute to the school

sector’s effort to make policy and planning processes more participatory and

responsive. Keeping this overarching purpose in view AAIN led the piloting of a

participatory methodology to assess the implementation of education rights at

local level linking the outputs with policy discourses at local, district, national

and international level. The purpose was to initiate a participatory process

mobilising citizens and unravelling their perspectives to assess the

implementation of education rights at school, VDC and district levels. The CER

process emphasised the empowerment of citizens at local level to collect,

analyze, use and initiate actions for the implementation of education rights at

local level.

More specifically the CER process was initiated specifically:

• to develop and standardise a methodology for participatory assessment

of the extent to which rights to education is assured;

• to identify progress and challenges in the delivery of primary education

vis-à-vis the assurance of every citizen’s right to education

• to involve citizens and civil society organisations in the assessment

process and in the development of people centred advocacy tools; and

• to popularise education rights as echoed in the international/national

legal and policy frameworks.

F. The Approach

Just as the Charter on Promoting Rights in School was being developed at the

ActionAid global level, efforts were already underway in AAIN gathering some

initial thoughts and preparation of a draft concept note on a participatory

approach to inquiring and consolidating citizen’s account of how in Nepal the

state’s commitment to universal primary education was taking shape.

Subsequently, a study plan was prepared to pilot the approach in some

communities and schools. What must be underscored, however, is that the

schools sampled and the communities where they were located do not represent

the national context, hence the study findings cannot be generalised for the

whole nation.

For each of the sampled mid and far western districts of Nepal, the concerned

researchers working with the relevant stakeholders have prepared a district

CER consolidating the 3 to 5 schools surveyed. The national level CER, on the

other hand, is a consolidation of all 34 school-level CERs from these 9 districts.

District and school selection. Nine districts of the mid and far western regions,

where AAIN has its programmes on-going, were identified for the CER process.

These districts have the lowest HDI in Nepal and the 3 of them represented each

of the three distinct topographical belts, namely the Terai, Hills and Mountain. A

total of 34 schools were selected from these districts—three to four schools in

each district. Schools were selected in close consultation with local partners.

Deliberate efforts were made to make sure that the selected schools were

patronised by marginalised communities that were venerable to natural

disasters. The survey involved in-depth interactions with number of

stakeholders including SMC, PTA, head teachers/teachers, students and district

education authorities.

Indicators. The Charter on Promoting Rights in Schools expressed through 10

specific rights expected to be assured form the basis of this study. An analysis

framework was prepared that guided the identification of indicators specific to

each of the 10 rights (see Table xxx) and accordingly data were collected for

each of the indicators identified using mostly participatory tools.

Research tools. As already mentioned above, as a matter of agreed principle,

participatory process was adopted to guide the entire research activities. As

PRA tools have strong visualization effect and empower participants to analyse

the situation, these tools were deliberately used at various points during the

survey. The use of these PRA tools was complemented by several focused group

discussions and in-depth interviews. The PRA and other tools used are listed in

Box 3.

Box 3. Tools used during the CER survey of schools and communities

School catchment area mapping – documenting information on each household, including about

children in school or out of school; information on key categories of discrimination (e.g., caste, gender,

ethnic minority, disability); distances and travel times to school, etc.

School timelines – capturing key development in the school since 2000 (and possibly further back), e.g.,

trends in enrolment, teacher numbers and profiles, classrooms, SMCs, etc.

School transects walks – to review the infrastructure of the school and make observations on the

surrounding area.

Focus group discussion with SMCs and PTAs, teachers, students, discriminated parents / children who

have dropped out / are not enrolled

Review of school records

Open public meeting (advertised in advance) in the school, involving teachers, parents, children,

community leaders, local organisations etc.

G. Quality Assurance

As envisaged originally, efforts were made to make the CER a collaborative

undertaking while, at the same time, it was necessary for AAIN to implement the

project within the current fiscal year. The best that could be done to kick-start

the research was to associate with some relevant institutions and networks.

Possibilities of collaboration were explored with Nepal Participatory Action

Network (NEPAN), Education Network Nepal (ENN) and Kathmandu University

School of Education (KUSOED). Unfortunately KUSOED backed out from the

collaboration, although initially some of its key faculty members were very keen

to see KUSOED leading the project technically. This was mutually agreed during

the series of meetings in which the technical and logistic details of the project

were mapped out. KUSOED’s collaboration was perceived to be valuable not

only in the sense of adding value with technical rigor but also from the point of

view of immense research opportunities for KUSOED’s PhD and MPhil students,

particularly with the opportunity of undertaking participatory research

involving PRA tools. Unfortunately, all the efforts made to realize these

possibilities and opportunities proved futile, as an agreement could not be

reached on cost sharing and resource mobilisation particularly to meet the

university’s overhead cost and faculty members’ remunerations.

The remaining collaborators continued working together while collaboration of

some other national NGOs and academic institutions was sought and agreed.

The Innovative Forum for Community Development (IFCD), an established NGO

specialised on promoting non formal and basic education agreed to be part of

the project. Similarly the research and academic expertise required for the

project is sought from Martin Choutari. Besides that the project from the time of

its inception obtained assistance of a former Associate Professor of Tribhuvan

University who brought with him an experience in educational research, non

formal and basic education, literacy and educational policy studies. Forty locally

based NGOs working in the 9 districts, along with relevant AAIN staff members

were also important and valuable members of the CER team. Meanwhile, a five-

member Project Steering Committee (PSC) represented by the collaborating

organisations including the AAIN Country Director was formed to guide the

research team in methodology development and production of the final reports.

A technical team was also formed that was responsible for the day-to-day

implementation, quality assurance and reports production at different levels.

Most importantly, the PSC met number of times to discuss and arrive at a shared

philosophy and approach to preparing the CER. It adhered to taking

participatory approach to collecting necessary data whereby local people and

stakeholders would be using PRA tools to visualise their views. As the shared

philosophy and approach were put in practice the CER team ensured local

ownership of the CER process and outputs. Local partnership and sharing was

emphasized with an aim to bring together local participation and contributions

to the preparation of school specific reports, which in turn was expected to

facilitate the local planning process (e.g. contribution to School Improvement

Plan, Village Education/Development Plan, Municipal Education/Development

Plan, and District Education/Development Plan).

H. Implementation Modality

The preparation of the school, district and national level CERs involved following

phases:

First phase. As an important initial step, 30 lead researchers (representing local

NGOs, collaborating network and organisations) took part in a 5-day residential

workshop organised in Srinagar of Palpa district. The main purpose of the

workshop was to discuss the details about the CER concept, approach, tools and

the Nepali educational policies, structure and system related to EFA. A

comprehensive resource pack was drafted during the workshop, which was

simultaneously piloted in 3 relatively diverse communities around the district,

particularly, to use some PRA tools and organise focus group discussions in and

around some selected schools. Based on the pilot results and learning the

workshop participants prepared a final draft of the resource pack and oriented

themselves about the CER process.

Second phase. This phase was dedicated primarily to the CER survey of schools

and communities. It was carried out from September to October 2010. Prior to

the survey, the representatives of the collaborating organisations held a pre

briefing session to review and finalize the final draft of the resource pack

developed during the first phase. The session also drafted outlines of the school,

district and national level CER reports. Further, a 3-member team was formed

for each of the participating local NGOs to further orient other prospective

researchers, define roles, assign responsibilities, agree on the schools and

communities to be surveyed and actually carry out the surveys as planned. Prior

to wrapping up the field survey, the preliminary findings were shared in each of

the schools surveyed to ensure an initial validation of the information collected.

Third phase. Drafting of school and district level CER reports was the primary

activity carried out during this phase. A writing retreat of all the researchers

was organised for individual teams to prepare their respective drafts. The

research teams had had the opportunity for their products to be peer reviewed.

Following the drafting and reviews, each team also presented its draft

highlighting the key aspects, processes, findings and recommendations in

plenary sessions. The feedback and comments received on the presentations

were incorporated in the further drafts on which the teams, as their post writing

retreat activity, continued to work. By December 2010, the final drafts of the

school and district level CER reports were ready for sharing in the respective

schools and districts for validation. Each of the district CERs was a consolidated

version of the survey reports of 3 to 4 schools of the same district.

Fourth phase. The final drafts were sent back to schools for final validation in

early January 2011, while the district CERs were sent to the respective DEOs. In

each of the schools, the SMC, the head teacher and teachers were allowed at least

15 days to review the draft. Once they had reviewed the report, their concerns

and comments were discussed in a discussion session, which was also

participated by the research team, the concerned DEO Resource Person,

students and community people. The research team took note of the key

comments and feedback shared in the session, which were later considered in

finalising the report. This process of sharing and validating the report also

allowed the SMC, head teacher and teachers an opportunity to understand the

school-specific management and pedagogical issues and a confidence to be

committed to act on the issues more strategically. At the district level, soon after

the completion of the school validation sessions in all the schools surveyed, each

of the respective DEOs organised a further one-day sharing of the district CER.

Although the limited number of 3 to 4 schools consolidated into the district CER

could not be generalised for the whole district, it did allow the district level

stakeholders an in-depth account of local citizens’ perceptions of what and how

basic education was being delivered by the schools and assess the roles they had

played themselves.

Fifth phase. The school and district level CERs were consolidated to develop this

national level CER. The report is being published under the aegis of Education

Network Nepal, which will be widely circulated across the nation. A national

level dissemination seminar will be held in the last quarter of 2011. The event

will be an annual flagship advocacy event for AAIN.

Table xxx. Analysis Framework

Rights category Indicators (23) Specific information for analyses (83)

1. Right to free

and

compulsory

education

• Access of all school

age children to

school

• Provision of

scholarship and

other incentives to

increase access

• Direct and indirect

service fees

charged by the

school

• Roles of parents

and stakeholders

for free and

compulsory

education

• School’s legal status (approved or proposed)

• Situation and impact of ECD centres

• School age children by marginalisation, dalit, ethnicity, abilities and number of out of school

children and reasons for non-schooling

• Status of distance education for access in primary education

• Students receiving scholarship and its impact

• Impact of services and incentives provided to differently able children

• Impact of day-meal, distribution of oil etc.

• Is there any fees charged in basic level? What sorts of fees and the reasons for charging fees?

• Views of students, parents and teacher on the fees charged by the school

• Impact of fees on access

• Views of parents and students about compulsory education

• Efforts made by school, students and parents for free education

• Efforts made by other entities (NGO etc.) for free education

2. Right to non-

discrimination • Discrimination

between girls and

boys

• Discrimination

against

marginalised

children

• Other forms of

discrimination

• Types and status of gender discrimination in the school

• Discrimination between daughter and son within household

• Discriminatory practices of teachers (based on student competency, boys and girls, ethnicity)

• Number and enrolment status of marginalised children within the school catchment area

• Discrimination against children with different abilities

• Discrimination against children affected by HIV/AIDS, natural disaster and conflict

• Past incidents of ethnicity related violence in the school and their reasons

3. Right to

adequate

infrastructure

• Adequate

classrooms and

basic facilities

• Separate toilets for

girls and boys

• Status of school

infrastructure

• Adequacy of classroom and other physical facilities (compared to student number)

• Other services and facilities in the school (library, computer, playground, etc.)

• Plans to expand adequate physical facilities in future

• Availability of potable water and toilets

• Facilities offered to girls and female teacher during menstruation

• Availability and status of education during disaster

• Status of school infrastructure to withstand disaster

• Students’ and teachers’ awareness about disaster

• Access of differently able children to school infrastructure

• Time taken to commute to school and the farthest community and the social, economic and

ethnic structure of students coming from that community

4. Right to quality

trained

teachers

• Status of teacher

management

• Teacher number, ethnicity and gender

• Teachers’ tenure type, training, experience, salaries and other benefits

• Teachers trained in child rights

• Level wise teacher-student ration

• Class and subject wise teacher distribution

• Teachers capable to teach in local language or mother tongue and their status

• Arrangement of and reasons for replacement teachers

• Regularity of teacher meetings, agenda discussed and their implementation

• Respect and encouragement of and discrimination against teachers

• Teachers’ own view and views of other stakeholders about teaching profession and teachers

5. Right to a safe

and non-

violent

environment

• Violent

environment

affecting teaching

and learning

• Physical and mental punishment on students

• Possible violence against and vulnerability of children on their way to and from the school

• Possibilities and incidents of harassment, sexual exploitation, abuses against girls on their way to

and from the school

• Use of school premise for political and social activities and their impact on teaching

• Impact of and reason for disaster free teaching environment

6. Right to

relevant

education

• Local context and

the curriculum and

reading materials

incorporating

related skills

• Adult literacy and

non-formal

education

• Situation of local context and skill based curriculum

• The approach to linking local context with subject teaching (collecting case studies)

• Views of students, parents, teachers and other stakeholder about (and the reasons for or against)

the relevance and appropriateness of the current education.

• Participants’ and community’s views about non-formal education, alternative education, other

right assuring programmes and adult literacy.

• Impact of adult literacy and non formal education on the lives of the participants

7. Right to know

your rights • Awareness of child

and human rights

• Regularity of

information

received by

students and

parents from the

school

• Notification to and views of students and other stakeholders about education, child and other

rights

• Inclusion of education and child rights topics in the curriculum, textbooks and other educational

materials

• Arrangement for regular communication to students and parents about students progress

8. Right to • Participation of • Students’ participation in the school’s decision making process

participate students and

stakeholders in

school activities

• Status of child club (inclusion and participation in different activities)

• Regular participation of community, PTA, teachers and SMC in educational and infrastructure

development activities of the school

• Participation of stakeholders in the process of developing SSRP and the plan’s current status

• Participation of students in teacher selection

• Participation of NGOs in school development

9. Right to

transparent

and

accountable

schools

• Accountability and

inclusiveness of

the SMC

• Situation of the

Parent Teacher

Association

• Process of and inclusiveness in forming the SMC and PTA

• Stakeholders views (and the reasons for having those views) on the transparency and

accountability of the SMC and PTA

• What types of schools (public, community managed, private boarding or in the respective school)

are the children of SMC and PTA members, and teachers enrolled?

• Status and impact of stakeholders’ compliance to the code of conduct

• Transparency in collection and mobilisation of resources for school development

• SMC’s, PTA’s and head teacher’s awareness of their respective duties and responsibilities

• School’s accountability on the level of students’ learning achievement and work-accomplishment

status

• Formation of school finance committee and its effectiveness

• Notification to SMC, PTA and teachers on SSRP

• Views of stakeholders about the accountability and transparency of the head teacher and the

SMC

• Teachers’ and head teacher’s views (and the reasons for having those views) about the

accountability of the Resource Centre, training centre and the DEO

10. Right to quality

learning • Method of child

centred teaching

learning

• Contact time

• Timely availability

of textbooks

• Liberal promotion

policy

• Practice of child-centred teaching method and the status of teachers trained in that method

(teachers’ behaviour, attendance, and time spent in the classroom, etc.)

• Availability of ECD centre and its impact on teaching and learning

• Level wise teacher-student ration

• Students’, teachers’, parents’ and community’s analysis of the quality of education

• Development and use of annual and monthly plan. Status of the development of lesson plan and

preparedness

• Preparation and implementation of annual and monthly work-plan (discussion with teachers in

reference to the seasonal calendar developed with the community and the school’s work plan)

• Student attendance during different seasons

• Number of days that the school has opened, days of operation, days attended by teachers and

students, and the number of instruction days

• Availability of textbooks during this year and in the last year

• Regular co-curricular activities

• Teachers’ and parents’ views (and the reasons for having those views) about liberal promotion

policy