School Education Act: Put Children’s Future, Not Institutional Interests, at the Center

Nepal’s school education system has remained trapped for decades in temporary policies, outdated laws, political interference and disputes over jurisdiction. The Constitution guarantees compulsory and free education up to the basic level and free education up to the secondary level, yet in practice parents are still required to pay various charges even in public schools. Issues ranging from teacher management and headteacher selection to school administration, curriculum, regulation of private education and the division of authority among federal, provincial and local governments remain inadequately settled. The proposed new School Education Act, therefore, is not merely another legislative exercise. It is an opportunity to reshape the foundation of Nepal’s future generations.

The Ministry of Education has been collecting suggestions from teachers, students, parents, headteachers and local stakeholders across all seven provinces. Consultations have also been held on school management and curriculum reform. Such dialogue is positive. But past experience offers a warning: if legislation is ultimately shaped by pressure from narrow interest groups, extensive consultation loses its meaning. The first question facing the School Education Act should not be about transfers, promotions or benefits for teachers. It should be whether a child born anywhere in Nepal can receive quality education.

The greatest problem in Nepal’s education system is not access alone, but quality and inequality. Wealthier urban families can choose expensive private schools. Ordinary families are forced to spend a large share of their income in search of better education. In rural and remote areas, many children may have access to school buildings, but not necessarily to adequate teachers, laboratories, technology, language support or a competitive learning environment. In a country whose Constitution guarantees equal citizenship, a child’s future should not be determined by family income or birthplace.

The new law must therefore bring clarity in at least three major areas. First, political interference in school administration must end. The government has moved toward restricting direct partisan involvement in school management committees and strengthening the role of local governments. The intention is correct. Schools must not become recruitment centers for political parties, arenas for teachers’ unions to exercise power or instruments for local leaders to expand influence. Headteachers should be selected on the basis of competence and leadership ability, while teacher evaluation should be linked to genuine teaching performance and student learning.

Second, responsibilities must be clearly divided in accordance with federalism. The Constitution gives local governments significant authority over school education. Yet continuing ambiguity over teacher management, curriculum, examinations, recruitment and regulation has left schools themselves confused. The federal government may establish national standards, core curriculum frameworks and minimum teacher qualifications, but once local governments are given responsibility for everyday school administration, they must also receive adequate resources and accountability mechanisms. Keeping authority at the center while blaming local governments for failure is not federalism.

Third, “free education” must be transformed from a slogan into a real right. If the state declares secondary education free while students continue to pay under various headings, the gap between constitutional promise and everyday reality becomes obvious. The state may not be able to cover every cost immediately, but the law must clearly define which services are free, which expenses are borne by the government and whether schools are permitted to collect any additional charges. No child from a poor family should be excluded from quality education simply because of an inability to pay.

Curriculum reform, too, must go beyond replacing textbooks. Today’s students need to learn problem-solving, critical thinking, science, mathematics, technology, languages, history, civic responsibility and practical skills rather than simply memorizing facts. In an era of artificial intelligence and rapid technological change, a twentieth-century teaching model cannot prepare a twenty-first-century workforce. Teachers alone cannot be blamed for weak outcomes. They also need continuous training, modern tools and clearly defined responsibilities.

If the School Education Act once again becomes merely a compromise among teachers’ organizations, government agencies, private-school operators and political parties, Nepal will lose another historic opportunity. The student, not the ministry, not the teachers’ unions and not private-school owners, must remain at the center of the law.

The real test of the government’s ongoing consultations will come when the bill reaches Parliament. Every provision should be judged against one question: will this strengthen learning, equal opportunity and the future of Nepal’s children? Only when the answer is yes can it truly be called education reform.

School education is not merely an administrative matter for one ministry. It is the country’s most important public investment in its future generation, economy, social equality and ultimately the capacity of the nation itself.