KATHMANDU: On May 18, the subcommittee under the Education, Information and Technology Committee of the Federal Parliament submitted its report on the School Education Bill to the main committee.
Teachers who had returned home after nearly a month-long protest—demanding their concerns be addressed in the bill—have expressed dissatisfaction with the subcommittee’s report and warned of launching fresh protests.
There are growing concerns that the private education sector is attempting to influence the bill in its favor, with speculation that the ruling coalition is sympathetic to these interests.
In light of these developments, key questions arise: What does the socialist-oriented constitution envision for school education? What are the contentious points in the draft bill?
Addressing these critical issues, Narayan Aryal interviewed noted educationist Dr. Bidyanath Koirala, asking him some pressing questions.
What kind of School Education Bill does the Constitution envision?
The Constitution advocates for progressive realization. That means while free education for all may not be immediately feasible due to limited resources, it must remain the long-term goal. The market demands everything now—but constitutional thinking is more phased.
Today, perhaps only up to Grade 5 or 6 can be made free. Ultimately, education should be both free and compulsory, but given the current financial limitations, a gradual approach is more realistic.
What kind of school management does a socialist-oriented constitution demand?
The essence of socialism is to take from those who have and give to those who don’t. However, there’s a prevailing misconception that support should be distributed equally to both groups.
For example, it’s reasonable to provide sanitary pads or school meals to children from low-income families—but should we be offering the same benefits to those from wealthy families?
True socialism is about equitable justice, not equal distribution. We’ve mistaken equality for equity.
What role should the private sector play in a socialist-oriented school system?
Ironically, those who drafted the socialist-leaning Constitution are also running private schools. In socialist language, there’s a concept of “up out”—meaning private institutions can exist, but the gap between private and public education must be bridged.
Right now, government schools are not performing well. Once they improve and gain public trust, students will naturally shift back from private schools, which are fundamentally profit-driven.
The government isn’t in a position to shut down private schools. Political parties—whether Nepali Congress, UML, or Maoists—have all benefitted from them. Public statements against private schools are often performative, lacking genuine constitutional understanding.
During the bill drafting process, the idea of converting private schools into guthis (trust-run institutions) was discussed. What’s your take on this?
This is an interesting concept, but we must ask: what does it mean for a private school to become a guthi? Look at Ulens or Siddhartha Banasthali—do they function as guthis, and what fees do they charge?
The issue isn’t whether a school is a guthi or not, but how people-oriented its practices are.
We once proposed a model: allocate 60% of school earnings to teachers and staff, 20% for institutional development, and the remaining 20% as profit. But that proposal never gained traction.
In a guthi model, unlike in private schools, the benefits could be shared more equitably—teachers at institutions like Ulens or Rato Bangala are well-paid. In private setups, however, profits often go disproportionately to investors. While I’m not saying guthi is the only alternative, it is a viable direction to explore.
Considering investment, can the government afford the current cost per student in public schools?
In places like Jiri Municipality, the government spends NPR 5,000 per student per month. Tokha Municipality spends around NPR 2,600. Meanwhile, private schools are operating at just NPR 1,900 per student. This raises questions of sustainability and efficiency.
If we’re talking about fairness and justice, we need to assess how to integrate or regulate the private sector, while also bringing government spending under control. Most importantly, public schools must be reformed—there is no alternative.
Is the current draft of the Education Bill constitutional?
No, the draft of the current School Education Bill does not align with the Constitution. Instead of focusing on broader constitutional mandates—such as making education free and compulsory—it has become entangled in issues like teacher salaries and benefits.
Rather than debating what is or isn’t possible, the discussion should center on how constitutional promises can be fulfilled. There are several practical ways to approach this:
Municipal self-sufficiency: Take Kathmandu Metropolitan City, for example. The federal government didn’t need to fund it—Kathmandu can sustain itself. The government should only provide financial support to those municipalities that cannot raise sufficient resources on their own. This is a workable, differentiated approach.
Means-based contribution: Those who can afford to pay for education should do so, while those who cannot should receive it for free. This system can be implemented through a progressive taxation model.
Municipal Education Funds: A dedicated education fund can be established at the local level. Municipalities can manage this fund and use it to cover costs when needed.
Chartered schools: Another approach is the chartered school model, where schools are independently operated but receive a fixed amount of funding from the government. Any additional expenses can be covered by the school itself.
The prevailing mindset is that the government must cover all educational costs. But realistically, the government cannot fund everything.
The Constitution calls for practical and scientific education—something that should be provided by the teachers. However, instead of focusing on educational delivery, we’re busy opening institutions to teach vocational skills.
Can a law contradict the spirit of the Constitution?
Absolutely not. But we must also recognize that the Constitution itself was a product of compromise—and so are many of the actions being taken now.
The real dilemma is this: should we interpret the Constitution as a document of progressive realization, or should we implement its provisions literally and immediately? That’s one challenge. Another is the lack of clarity regarding the role of private schools.
Also, teachers need to take greater responsibility for the quality of education. They often blame the curriculum, textbooks, policies, or legal frameworks—but seldom themselves.
Yet, when asked: “Who prepares the exam questions?”, “Who checks the answer sheets?”, or “Who passed a student who didn’t study?”—they go silent. It is, in fact, the teachers who have compromised education quality. They must acknowledge this. It’s not stated in the Constitution, but the law can and should address it.
Take the amendment to the Education Act of 2075 B.S., which stated that by Baisakh 2085, every child should have attained a Grade 8-level qualification. Who ensured implementation? No one.
What we need is a clear division of responsibility: Access: The municipality’s responsibility. Quality: The teachers’ responsibility. Management: The school management committee’s responsibility.
Teachers can be offered loans for facilities, which they repay from their own income—a practice common in many Western countries. If we follow this structure, the constitutional vision of education can indeed be realized.
Comment