The recent month-long teachers’ movement, which was driven by the demand for the immediate enactment of the Education Act, has underscored the need for urgent reforms in Nepal’s community education system. While the movement primarily focused on securing professional rights and employment stability, it largely sidelined issues related to the quality of education—raising concerns about whether such protests truly contribute to meaningful educational reform.
Although the movement did not directly address systemic improvements, some of its outcomes are expected to indirectly benefit school education. However, once the protest gained momentum, discussions around key policy issues that should have been addressed in the Education Act were overshadowed by demands for teachers’ rights and benefits. Experts argue that workplace stability and social security are key to unlocking educators' full potential.
Despite this understanding, various categories of teachers have been created over time—often due to political favoritism and donor-driven programs—leading to further complications. A lack of timely problem-solving by authorities has emboldened protestors, allowing them to dominate education discourse more than the official mechanisms.
Two major factors are seen as the primary reasons behind the delay in passing the Education Act. First, existing education policy mandates that institutional schools be converted into trusts after a certain period, a point of contention. Second, the government has yet to clearly decide whether to enforce the constitutional provision of free school education or to redefine the objective of school education altogether.
This delay is further complicated by a conflict of interest. Many political leaders own institutional schools and hold influential positions in the education sector. This dual role hinders the creation of unbiased legislation. Moreover, although the constitution and laws guarantee compulsory and free education up to grade eight, in practice, community schools continue to charge parents monthly fees under various pretexts, including for “support” and administrative costs. Even the Examination Board collects fees under the guise of registration and exam charges.
Given these realities, there is growing acknowledgment within the current leadership that making school education entirely free may not be feasible without compromising quality. As the debate continued following the submission of a parliamentary subcommittee’s report, attention remained fixed on teacher adjustments—such as increasing the number of positions and making temporary or contract-based teachers permanent—rather than addressing deeper issues within the education system.
Meanwhile, data from the Economic Survey sheds light on structural challenges within community schools. Of the 27,990 community schools operating nationwide, 15,965 have fewer than 100 students. Organizing proper teaching and staffing for such small student populations is highly complex. Another 9,704 schools have between 100 and 500 students, while only around 1,600 schools enroll more than 1,000 students—suggesting that only a small fraction meet the criteria for being considered standard schools.
This data indicates that the current focus of debate is detached from the pressing needs of the education sector. In light of this, restructuring and consolidating schools should be part of the broader reform agenda. While merging schools may be necessary, it alone cannot solve the problem. Instead, implementing multi-grade teaching systems with appropriate teacher training in sparsely populated areas could address the challenges more effectively.
As the government prepares to introduce the new School Education Act, it is crucial to base reforms on ground realities. A task force composed of independent experts should be formed to study the actual conditions of community schools. Without considering factors such as Nepal’s diverse geography, migration patterns, and shifting parental attitudes, any hastily prepared legislation risks exacerbating existing problems. While the government has proposed issuing the act by July 29, education stakeholders argue that taking four to six additional months to develop a more comprehensive and responsive law would be more beneficial in the long run.
