Education spending is not a cost; rather, it is a return. Government-published data shows that Nepal cannot meet all targets of the 2030 SDG commitments without a deliberate and substantial increase in public education financing at the federal, provincial, and local levels.
The national monetary poverty rate stands at 20.27% on average, but in rural areas it is 24.66%. Sudurpaschim Province carries the heaviest burden at 34.16%, while Gandaki stands at 11.88%. These data indicate that a single financing strategy applied uniformly across Nepal will produce unequal results by design. Local governments in high-poverty provinces need disproportionately higher per-student investment than those in relatively better-off regions. The data demands differentiated allocations, not uniform ones.
The most compelling connection between poverty and education is that people with no formal schooling face poverty rates 2.5 times higher than those who complete at least primary school. If governments are serious about poverty reduction, they must be serious about keeping children in school, and that requires budgets placed in the right places at the right time.
Nepal’s Human Development Index (HDI) score of 0.622 places it 145th out of 193 countries. The gender dimension of this score reveals a structural problem that education financing must directly address. Male HDI stands at 0.661, while female HDI is only 0.567. Nepal ranks 125th globally on the Gender Inequality Index with a score of 0.487.
The financing gap, currently between 8.2% and 11.5% of total investment requirements, will widen if domestic revenue elasticity fails to keep pace with GDP growth.
The bulk of women’s economic contribution, concentrated in unpaid agricultural and domestic work, remains invisible in national income accounting. Until the government formally recognizes and values unpaid care work through formal policy provisions within GNI calculations, this invisibility will continue to distort poverty measurement and misallocate public resources. This can be addressed only through education.
Remittance inflows, at approximately 22% of GDP, offer a structural illusion of stability. Nearly 90% of this money goes directly to daily household consumption. It does not build schools, train teachers, or keep girls and marginalized children enrolled up to the secondary level. Relying on remittances to paper over education financing deficits is therefore not a strategy; rather, it is a deferred cost. Therefore, investment in education should be taken into consideration.
Approximately 7,010,808 students are studying across 35,951 schools in Nepal, including 27,010 community schools and 8,941 institutional ones. Net primary enrollment has reached 98.3% by 2023, and gross secondary enrollment has risen to 83.4%. These figures show progress, but they describe entry points only, not meaningful outcomes. Therefore, the discourse should be shifted toward outcomes.
When the system is examined from beginning to end, a different picture emerges. For example, an initial cohort of roughly 1.05 million students enters Grade 1. Only approximately 430,667 successfully complete the full school cycle. That is less than half. Basic-level retention stabilizes at 82–86%, but secondary-level survival collapses rapidly: only 67% of students remain enrolled by Grade 10, and just 41% survive to Grade 12.
Across the entire system, over 600,000 students disappear before completing secondary education. This is a systemic gap in the reporting system. Thus, IEMIS should be invested in promptly at different tiers of government.
Next, an estimated 770,000 children remain entirely outside formal schooling—350,000 who have never entered a classroom and 420,000 who dropped out prematurely. Together, they represent nearly 10% of Nepal’s school-age population, with the highest concentrations among Madhesi, Madhesi Dalit, and marginalized rural minority communities.
The Act Relating to Free and Compulsory Education, 2075 is a legal commitment. These numbers measure the gap between that commitment and its implementation. Therefore, the focus of all governments should be on adequate financing to implement these legal provisions promptly.
The reasons children leave are known and largely addressable. Poor learning outcomes driven by undertrained teachers, rote-learning-based assessments, unsafe school environments, etc., account for a large number of school dropouts. Socioeconomic pressure on families, where a child’s labor contributes directly to household survival, also accounts for a significant share.
Early, child, and forced marriage—predominantly affecting girls—occurs on a greater scale, concentrated at the secondary level in remote areas. Geography compounds all of these: multi-hour walks through monsoon floods and landslide-prone terrain convert extended absences into permanent dropouts.
For that, all tiers of government should invest in school zoning, hostel facilities, and school bus services with due consideration. Linguistic barriers further accelerate academic failure for children whose mother tongue differs from the language of instruction or Nepali. These are documented causes, each requiring adequate and targeted financing.
Nepal’s Gender Parity Index at the primary level shows near equilibrium between boys and girls in enrollment. Girls drop out at substantially higher rates at the secondary level, driven by early marriage pressures, SRHR awareness gaps, and socioeconomic expectations that reassign girls to domestic roles as they reach puberty. For this, targeted financing is required.
The deficit at the school leadership level is noticeable. Women hold approximately 19% of head teacher positions nationally, far below the 33% minimum mandated by the Constitution of Nepal. Technical and vocational education streams are dominated by boys.
Scholarship systems, while existing in policy, are not sufficiently need-based and frequently miss the most marginalized girls. Local governments have the authority and the obligation to correct these imbalances within their jurisdiction, if financing to act on that obligation is adequate.
SRHR knowledge, menstrual hygiene management facilities, separate and accessible toilets, assistive resources and sign language interpreters, legal literacy for girls, parenting education, greening education, etc., are not luxuries within school planning. Their absence is a documented driver of secondary-level dropout and low-quality education. These are preventable losses, and their prevention has a calculable cost that local government budgets must reflect adequately.
The National Planning Commission has quantified the investment requirement for SDG 4 at an annual average of Rs 297.7 billion from 2024 to 2030, representing 9.8% of the total national SDG investment pool of Rs 3,023.5 billion per year. The per capita education investment requirement translates to approximately US$74.2 annually.
Total SDG investment across all goals from 2024 to 2030 is estimated at Rs 21,164.7 billion, or approximately US$163 billion, with a projected annual financing gap of NPR 755 billion. Education’s 9.8% share of total investment may appear modest relative to others.
But education’s multiplier effect on every other SDG goal—including poverty reduction, health, gender equality, decent work, and institutional quality—makes it the highest cross-cutting return in the entire portfolio. Underfunding education does not just affect SDG 4; it undermines every other goal simultaneously. Thus, adequate financing for public education is essential.
Nepal’s graduation from Least Developed Country (LDC) status restructures the external financing environment. Concessional aid terms will be shifted. The country can no longer plan around the same external support architecture that has partially cushioned public education financing to date.
The IEMIS system has structural flaws. Grade repetition inflates entry baselines, private school migration appears as public-school dropout, and seasonal migration distorts enrollment figures.
The financing gap, currently between 8.2% and 11.5% of total investment requirements, will widen if domestic revenue elasticity fails to keep pace with GDP growth. In past fiscal cycles, education has absorbed such shortfalls disproportionately, being politically easier to underfund than energy or infrastructure. That pattern must end.
Education financing should be shifted to formula-based and equity-weighted fiscal transfers. Education grants from the federal government to provincial and local levels must move away from current spending patterns toward allocations weighted by Multidimensional Poverty Index scores. Sudurpaschim and Karnali must receive substantially higher per-student subsidies than Bagmati or Gandaki.
Early Childhood Education and Development must be the first funding priority. Currently, ECED teachers in many community schools are paid below the minimum wage prescribed by the Labor Act of Nepal. Teacher training for ECED should be aligned with the envisioned curriculum. Children who are not school-ready at Grade 1 entry become the repetition and dropout statistics of later grades. Investment at this foundation produces the highest return across the entire school cycle.
The financing model could be blended. Private sector capital and Nepal’s cooperative movement can be incentivized through tax policy to fund ICT infrastructure in schools, teacher workshops, climate-resilient school buildings, subject-wise labs, gender-friendly toilets, etc., in needy areas.
This shifts capital expenditure off the public budget, freeing state revenue for teacher salaries, professional development, and learning recovery. Non-resident Nepalis can channel remittance wealth away from daily consumption and toward ring-fenced equity funds prioritizing marginalized students.
Nepal’s exposure to floods, landslides, and glacial lake outburst floods perpetually threatens school infrastructure and learning continuity. Schools designed as community disaster-resilience hubs, equipped with solar power, alternative learning resources, clean water storage, and emergency shelter capacity, can access the Green Climate Fund and other global adaptation mechanisms. This approach addresses SDG 4, SDG 5, SDG 13, and SDG 11 simultaneously from a single investment.
Rote-learning-based assessment systems are pushing children out. Practical, life-skills-integrated curricula connecting school project work to agriculture, local markets, WASH, health, and entrepreneurship build relevance and retention simultaneously. Students who see the connection between their education and their daily lives stay enrolled longer. Assessment reform must be backed by teacher training, which must be backed by adequate budget.
Every rupee of education spending at the local government level must be transparently audited against specific SDG baseline targets, not reported generically as “education expenditure.” The Medium-Term Expenditure Framework tracking system must extend fully to local government. Without this, the government cannot measure what works and cannot redirect what does not.
The constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory basic education and free secondary education is already written into Nepal’s legal architecture. The 2019 National Education Policy articulates the same. The School Education Sector Plan provides the roadmap.
The IEMIS system has structural flaws. Grade repetition inflates entry baselines, private school migration appears as public-school dropout, and seasonal migration distorts enrollment figures. Until these are corrected and disaggregated data by gender, caste, disability, and geography are available in real time, localized intervention is impossible. Development partners should direct a meaningful share of their technical support toward data system strengthening, not just program delivery.
The communication and implementation gap between federal, provincial, and local governments currently results in own-source revenues and ODA being deployed through fragmented and duplicated local projects. A functioning intergovernmental coordination mechanism with defined roles, shared data platforms, and joint accountability frameworks is not administrative overhead; it is the operational backbone of any serious education financing strategy.
Nepal has achieved 41.7% of its SDG targets by 2023 and is expected to cross 60% by 2030. But 20% of progress measurements still lack reliable data, and the financing gap remains wide. With five years left, 600,000 students exiting the pipeline each cycle, and LDC graduation approaching, the pressure to move from plans to funded action is at its highest.
The constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory basic education and free secondary education is already written into Nepal’s legal architecture. The 2019 National Education Policy articulates the same. The School Education Sector Plan provides the roadmap.
What bridges the gap between all these policy architectures and a child completing Grade 12 is adequate, equitably distributed, accountable public financing for education. This must be the priority for every government planner, development partner, and policymaker working toward an inclusive and sustainable education system in Nepal.
Comment