KATHMANDU: After prolonged deliberation, the Education, Health and Information Technology Committee of the Federal Parliament has agreed to move forward with a draft of the School Education Act that effectively allows for-profit and commercial investment in education, reinforcing a dual education system in Nepal.
Despite initial proposals from various lawmakers to limit or ban private investment in education, a consensus was reached in favor of recognizing private sector involvement.
Lawmakers from the Maoist Center party—once known for opposing education commercialization during the armed conflict—and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) also endorsed the decision, signaling a shift in position that may further entrench class-based disparities in education.
Most lawmakers at the Sunday meeting acknowledged the current impracticality of banning private investment in education. Nepali Congress Whip Shyam Ghimire and Education Minister Raghuji Pant argued that the constitution does not prohibit private education and that investment must inherently allow some profit.
Minister Pant stated, “The private sector cannot operate without earning a modest profit. What we mean by service-oriented is limiting—not eliminating—profits in education.”
Pant also emphasized the historical need for private schools, recalling that Nepali students once traveled to Darjeeling or Dehradun for quality education. He maintained that public schools should serve the needy, while private schools offer choice for those who can afford them.
Ghimire echoed this sentiment, calling for practical language in the bill. “Are we realistically in a position to reduce or prohibit private schools within the next 15 years? The country’s economic reality must be taken into account,” he said.
The Maoist party, once vocal against private schools, has shown internal division on the issue. MP Devendra Poudel proposed a gradual transition toward making private schools non-profit, suggesting a time-bound approach.
However, fellow Maoist MP Rekha Sharma dismissed such plans as unrealistic, stating no concrete discussion or consensus had been reached within the committee.
Nepali Congress MP Chandra Bhandari also refrained from taking a definitive stance, but supported Sharma’s view that private schools could eventually be made more service-oriented.
He clarified that there was no extreme opposition to private education or calls for nationalization during committee discussions.
This evolving stance, especially among former opponents of educational privatization, marks a significant policy shift—one that may further formalize the divide between public education for the poor and private education for the privileged.
As discussions on the School Education Bill neared conclusion, lawmakers emphasized the need to align Nepal’s education system with the country’s socialist-oriented constitution by gradually transforming private education into a more service- and welfare-oriented model.
One member stated, “We must also consider the constitution’s socialist principles—education and health should be service-oriented. Let’s monitor private schools more closely. As Rekha ji suggested, if we can find language that supports a gradual shift toward a service- and socialism-oriented system, I believe we can reach a solution.”
Proposal to bring private schools under Guthi system
Nepal Samajwadi Party Chairman Mahendra Raya Yadav proposed that all private schools be brought under the Guthi (trust) system within 15 years.
“Private schools are currently operated under the Companies Act and cater mainly to high-income families,” he said. “To make education accessible for ordinary citizens, private institutions should be gradually integrated into a Guthi framework.”
Reversal of earlier stances by key lawmakers
UML MP and former Education Minister Bidya Bhattarai, once a strong advocate for making private schools service-oriented, softened her position during Sunday’s critical committee session.
While citing international examples such as Singapore and stressing the state’s responsibility to improve public education, she ultimately acknowledged the government’s weak implementation of the Compulsory and Free Education Act.
“Private schools should operate in a public welfare manner. We’ve written provisions for scholarships of 5%, 12%, and 15%—but implementation has been weak,” she admitted. “It’s time to reflect on how our lack of commitment led us here.”
RSP lawmaker Sumana Shrestha, who had consistently called for private schools to become non-profit entities, stood by her position. However, her proposals—including a 15-year deadline for the transition and equal teacher pay between private and public schools—were passed without broader support or detailed deliberation.
Shrestha noted the ambiguity around what constitutes a “service-oriented” model, saying, “The term is vague. Some may think 1,000% profit is reasonable, others might say 100%. That’s why the law should clearly define private education as non-profit.”
Three guiding principles finalized
Committee Secretary Dasharath Dhamala summarized the final agreement reached on the private education sector. “There is consensus on three core principles: private schools should be service-oriented, operate for public welfare, and transition gradually to non-profit models,” he stated, adding that with these points settled, no further discussions on the matter will take place in the committee.
Comment