The School Education Bill, currently being debated in Nepali community as well as parliament, was introduced primarily to implement the provisions of Constitution of Nepal. According to the Constitution, secondary-level education falls under the exclusive rights of local governments. However, nine years after the constitution promulgation, local governments have yet to exercise these rights fully. While the bill ostensibly seeks to make education competitive, technology-friendly, employment-oriented, and production-focused, its actual provisions suggest a lack of clear direction and substantial flaws that demand urgent attention.
One of the bill’s most glaring weaknesses is its heavy reliance on delegated legislation. It contains 75 provisions that defer essential policy decisions to the federal ministry, undermining the core principles of federalism. The bill leaves critical decisions—ranging from the formation and responsibilities of key education bodies to the appointment and terms of service for school officials—in the hands of the federal government. This centralization creates a bureaucratic bottlenecks that is at odds with local autonomy, increasing dependency on the federal ministry even for routine administrative matters.
The bill significantly curtails local governments’ ability to make independent decisions, which contradicts the spirit of the constitution. Local governments are barred from creating laws that conflict with federal provisions, but with so many aspects of education controlled by the federal ministry, how can local bodies exercise their constitutional autonomy? This issue becomes especially critical in light of Clause 157 which mandates that provincial and local governments align their education-related laws with federal standards. However, the bill fails to specify when these standards will be established or by whom, further complicating local governance.
The bill’s over-delegation leaves many critical issues unresolved. For example, the processes for establishing the Department of Education, National Examination Board, Curriculum Development Center, and other key bodies, along with their roles and responsibilities, are not adequately addressed in the bill. Moreover, the bill provides no clarity on how private schools, which have seen significant private sector investment, will be integrated into the new system. While the bill mandates that private schools operate under educational trusts, it fails to address what will happen to existing private institutions or the substantial financial investments already made by private stakeholders in those institutions.
The bill proposes the creation of several centralized structures, including a National Curriculum Council, Curriculum Development Center, and Educational Quality Testing Center, but it fails to explain how these bodies will collaborate with local governments. This lack of coordination is a recipe for inefficiency. Furthermore, the National Curriculum Council, to be led by the education minister, is unlikely to function effectively due to frequent government changes. It would be far more practical for such an important body to be led by a subject expert rather than a political appointee.
Public education in Nepal has long been plagued by quality issues, and the government has spent billions in an attempt to improve it. However, without strong administrative reforms and accountability measures, this investment has not yielded the desired results. The bill also misses an opportunity to address the inefficiencies in school management, leaving principals responsible for a wide range of duties without providing the necessary administrative support. There is no mention of measures to improve school governance or hold teachers accountable for their performance, which could have been critical components of a comprehensive education reform.
It is essential for lawmakers in federal parliament to engage in serious, constructive debate on the bill and ensure that the final legislation reflects the national needs and aspiration of the people.
One of the most important discussions missing from this bill is how the national curriculum should be structured. Should Nepal aim for a uniform curriculum that caters to all students, or should there be flexibility to adapt to local needs? This is a crucial question in an increasingly globalized and competitive world. Nepal’s education system must prepare students not only for local job markets but also for the global economy. The bill fails to address how the curriculum will achieve this balance, nor does it propose mechanisms to ensure that students are equipped with the necessary skills and competencies to compete internationally.
The School Education Bill has the potential to transform Nepal’s education system, but as it stands, it falls short of that goal. By centralizing power in the federal ministry and leaving key issues to delegated legislation, the bill undermines local autonomy and misses critical opportunities for reform. It fails to provide clarity on the integration of private schools, the establishment of vital educational bodies, and the role of local governments in the management of schools. Most importantly, the bill does not address the urgent need for curriculum reform or the importance of making education relevant to both national and global job markets.
It is essential for lawmakers to engage in serious, constructive debate and ensure that the final legislation reflects the national needs and aspiration of the people. Only through such reform can Nepal build a competitive, equitable, and effective education system.
Tara Bahadur Bhandari is Senior Vice Chairperson at National Federation for Right to Information.
Comment