Mana Prasad Wagley

There are millions who need survival skills more than the certificates provided by formal educational institutions.

Nepal has been investing a lot of money in the education sector for the past several years. Its commitment to universalisation of primary education has attracted many donors to invest. For example, in the past 13 years, millions of dollars have been spent in the form of loans and donations. The budget 2005/06 also showed Nepal’s increased commitment to education. The share of education budget has now reached 17 per cent, which is not less than what other countries in the region spend on education. The Tenth Plan/PRSP has promised universalisation of primary education for better future living and earning. It also envisages 90 per cent NER in primary schools, 70 per cent literacy for 6+ age group and 55 per cent female literacy rate by 2007. The MoES has pledged to increase the investment and efficiency by reducing dropouts and repetition rates. The Education Act and Regulations have taken into account these commitments. All these supportive elements can be considered Nepal’s progress in achieving educational goals.

The question is how many children join formal schooling and how many complete their school education? The situation is appalling. Around 30 per cent of the primary school age children are out of school. An estimated 60 per cent complete their primary school cycle and among them less than 40 per cent join the lower secondary level. Only one child out of 1,000 enrolled in grade one completes his/her school education and passes SLC. The failure rate in SLC is around 70 per cent. The literacy rate has not gone beyond 50 per cent. Eight ethnic groups have literacy rates below 20 per cent, most of them even below 10 per cent. The educated unemployment rate has reached an alarming 50 per cent. Brain drain is increasing. The insurgency has forced the youth to quit their agricultural profession and become wage labourers. In this situation can we talk about formal education structure alone? There are millions of people who need survival skills more than the certificates provided by formal educational institutions. Moreover, the so-called educated people also require skills to earn and feed their families. Neither the schools nor the colleges have provided such skills for Nepali youths. That is why the rate of educated unemployment is rising each year. In the absence of associating education with industry and commerce, the business sector is also suffering from not getting the kind of quality manpower they are looking for.

All this stresses the need for technical and vocational education in the country. We have such provisions through the Council of Technical Education and Vocational Training (CTEVT) and other TEVT sectors. Unfortunately, they have not been able to fulfil the demand nor have they been able to attract qualified persons in their programmes. One of the major reasons behind this is the absence of career path associated with the degree provided by CTEVT and other TEVT sectors. The notion is that training in TEVT sector is meant for the low achievers and/or those who cannot continue their formal higher studies. This wrong notion has led the country not to prioritise TEVT sector. The evidence of which can be drawn from the budget allocated for this sector. On the one hand the government does not have any manpower plan that is technically sound for the development of the nation, on the other, it is spending a huge amount of loan and grants on such education which yields 70 per cent school failure rate each year. Another question is, how many people are attracted towards the programmes run by the TEVT? Very few. Those who join TEVT sector are deprived of their further education. Neither do they have upgrading chances in their own skill area nor are they allowed to join equivalent general education available in the country. This is unfortunate for the development. Unless one can see one’s career path in the type of education one is receiving, there will be no motivation for it.

Thus, it is high time the government thought about these issues and devise a long term plan to allow open door policy in general education and technical/vocational education. Unless open door policy is adopted the country will not be able to have technical manpower. Instead of so-called nationalistic education, can the government take bold steps in revising educational

policy in this respect? Curriculum revision in the old way has no meaning at all. The government must know that the kind of product it is getting from general education has neither been able to lead the country nor been useful for the development needs. A non-formal approach to education is today’s demand. Since the formal schooling has not been able to cater to the majority, an alternative measure must be designed. Keeping the progress vision for another 20 years it is already late to devise educational policy that covers the majority of population for their survival skills and most importantly for their involvement in the development at par with other nations.

Dr Wagley is professor of Education, TU