In the wake of Nepal’s youth-led political shift, there is a renewed sense of hope across the country, a belief that things can be done differently, that long-standing systems can be re-examined, and that policy can begin to reflect the realities of the people it serves. For educators, this moment feels deeply personal. Between my parents and myself, we have spent close to six decades in education, shaping classrooms, preparing teachers, and building institutions. From this vantage point, of experience, responsibility, and continued investment in Nepal’s future, I often reflect on a crucial need: that the education policy we shape must be truly inclusive, adaptive, and reflective of the needs of a modern Nepali society.
A modern education policy must recognize that private schools are not merely optional institutions but an essential part of a diverse education ecosystem. Free education, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is vital, but so too is the right of communities to access schools that meet the specific needs of their children. These principles are not mutually exclusive. Private schools fill gaps, whether through higher accountability, specialized programs, or approaches that prioritize skills alongside academics. In a diverse society, no single system can serve every child and family equally; providing choice ensures that students have access to environments where they can meaningfully learn and grow.
The policy must also actively encourage international collaboration. Thousands of Nepali students leave the country each year in search of better educational opportunities. This is not only a reflection of aspiration, but also of gaps within our own system. An education policy that allows schools to engage with global resources, pedagogical practices, and academic collaborations creates the possibility of strengthening learning at home. Affiliations, teacher training, access to international content, and the ability to bring in expertise from outside Nepal are not departures from national identity. Rather, they are ways of ensuring that Nepali students are not learning in isolation and remain connected to the advancements shaping education globally. A more open system allows schools to evolve, innovate, and remain relevant and dynamic in a rapidly changing world.
One of the reflections of how inclusion is understood in policy lies in the way language is treated within the curriculum. Nepal’s classrooms are far more diverse than policy often acknowledges. This diversity is not only diverse in terms of returning students or international learners, but also across communities within Nepal whose mother tongue is not Nepali. When proficiency in Nepali language and literature is assumed, and when subjects like Social Studies are taught exclusively in Nepali, the medium itself can become a barrier to learning.
Creating flexibility within this structure, whether through alternative Nepali language learner tracks in
place of standard language and literature, or more accessible approaches to teaching Social Studies in the language of comfort, allows students to engage with content more meaningfully. This adjustment would not only support Nepali returnees but also ensure that students from diverse linguistic communities within Nepal are not disadvantaged by a one-size-fits-all requirement. At the same time, it creates space for all learners to connect with Nepali language and culture in ways that are accessible and relevant. Inclusion, in this sense, is not about lowering standards, but about ensuring that language enables learning rather than limits it.
Diversity within the teaching community is equally essential. The ability to bring in educators from different backgrounds, including international faculty, strengthens cross-cultural understanding, enriches pedagogical practice, and exposes students to multiple perspectives. These are not peripheral advantages; they are central to preparing students for a global and interconnected world. Yet, practical barriers such as restrictive hiring processes, visa restrictions, and high costs often make this difficult. Addressing these constraints would allow schools to build more dynamic, globally relevant learning environments, aligned with broader national aspirations of openness, collaboration, and growth.
At the same time, inclusion must extend to students whose needs fall outside conventional systems.
As I explored in my 2025 op-ed titled ‘The Invisible Student’, every child has the right to education and the ability to move through it with dignity. Flexible pathways, curriculum modifications, accommodations, and alternative forms of certification are not exceptions; they are essential to ensuring that education serves every learner it is meant to reach. Only then can the principles of human dignity and equity, central to any modern education policy, be truly upheld.
If Nepal is to foster collaboration, innovation, and growth, its education system must be open enough to evolve and responsive enough to reflect the realities of its learners. This includes students across geographies, languages, abilities, and aspirations. Schools that are able to respond to this diversity are better positioned to nurture not just academic success, but confidence, adaptability, and a sense of belonging.
Such an approach also carries implications beyond the classroom. When students feel that the system reflects their realities and aspirations, the impulse to look outward for opportunity begins to shift. Retention of talent, meaningful engagement with the Nepali diaspora, and the ability to attract learners from beyond our borders all emerge more organically from a system that is innovative, relevant, and inclusive at its core.
The opportunity before this government is significant. An education policy that is open, equitable, and future-ready has the potential to shape not just institutions, but the direction of the country itself. If done well, it can create a system that retains talent, and positions the country as a hub for learning in the region.
