Nepal’s public education system has been in shambles for a long time due to political instability and poor governance, as documented in a collection of research papers published by Martin Chautari, School Education in Nepal (2021). Recent directives issued by the Minister of Education and Sports, Sasmit Pokharel, are attempts to alter course. The current government might indeed be equipped to make sweeping changes due to its historic mandate. Following one of Minister Pokharel’s directives, the Curriculum Development Centre is in the process of revising the school-level National Curriculum Framework (NCF) under a task force led by the Dean of Kathmandu University’s School of Education. “The goal is not cosmetic change but systemic transformation…and the new NCF must be relevant, responsive and rigorous,” he implored at the mid-July orientation session.

Radical restructuring?

Despite good intentions, the NCF revision may not translate to actual change on the ground. Several studies, such as the report by the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre—Reforming Nepal’s education system for greater integrity and improved outcomes—have pointed out glaring disconnects between policies and practice in Nepal’s education sector over the decades due to a culture of corruption, fragile monitoring systems, improper teacher management, and a general lack of trust. It might be time to introduce innovative models of school structure and governance, such as charter schools, which function on the basis of a contract between the government and a committee of stakeholders.

Funded by the government but operating with a degree of autonomy, the first charter school started in Minnesota in the United States in 1991. Since then, it has spread across the country, with each state having their own laws governing the establishment, regulation and functioning of charter schools. Similar public-private models have since been running in other developed countries like the UK, Canada and Sweden. Japan, Pakistan and Qatar also have similar models. An article published in 2016 by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers described how New Delhi was also considering ‘government partnership’ schools that would bring in private operators to run public schools.

Attempts at decentralising education

During the first half of the 20th century, most public schools in Nepal were founded and managed by local communities, and were called by different names based on differing principles and goals: English, Bhasha, Basic, Sanskrit and so on. In 1957, massive protests erupted, especially in Tarai, against the government’s directive to use Nepali as a medium of instruction in all schools. Later, the Panchayat government (1960–1990) took control of the education system, mandating “a uniform education system in the country with a single language of instruction”. Nationalising and centralising the education system in a diverse, multicultural society was like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

After the dawn of democracy and neoliberalism in the 1990s, the private sector proliferated and public schools deteriorated. The state began a process of decentralisation in the early 2000s, but the ongoing People’s War hampered these efforts. Federalism and a demand for decentralisation were a response to the centralised bureaucracy detached and disconnected from most of the country. Although the current Constitution of Nepal explicitly grants local governments authority to manage all aspects of school education, this has been a point of contention, with teachers’ unions staging protests, wanting to be part of the cadre of the central government.

From chaos comes order

A paper published by Kuber Prasad Bhetwal in 2022, Effectiveness of Local Curriculum Implementation in Nepal, has a list of findings and suggestions from his field study in Sankhuwasaba’s primary schools. Most interviewed teachers supported teaching local curricula that include local issues. Charter schools could similarly be founded with goals and visions that suit local culture, language and needs. But the paper also identifies that building new curricula and systems is hampered by a lack of human resources. Sankhuwasaba’s district administrative personnel had minimal experience with local curriculum development and implementation.

Given Nepal’s multilingual, multiethnic reality, provincial and local governments are best positioned to deliver education. They should be supported to design unique charter schools and hire and train experts who are more responsive to and knowledgeable about local issues. Perhaps a radical systemic restructuring will be a worthy experiment, although we have to be wary of commercial interests, especially in the delivery of public services. There is already widespread discontent regarding a lack of proper regulation of profit-seeking private schools. But I’m simply offering an option out of the quagmire that has been Nepal’s public education system.

We must consider alternatives suitable for a diverse populace. Charter schools won’t be perfect, but a massive overhaul will create opportunities to tap into young talents and mobilise them across the country—similar to how Teach for Nepal has been functioning. Since we already have three tiers of government, and the Federal Education Act has still not been passed, this might be a moment to truly imagine a new system that could work with the local and provincial governments to deliver educational services effectively and efficiently. It will undoubtedly be extremely challenging to imagine and implement large-scale changes. But if the government is indeed serious about improving public services and creating a long-lasting impact, it should take bold, radical steps and make arrangements accordingly.