Nepal is struggling against poverty, hunger and inequality. But it is essential that education be available to all people regardless of their socio-economic status, class, caste, gender and physical distance. That’s why we made a commitment to provide education for all (EFA) by 2015 end. We agreed upon the conditions of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on the one hand and EFA on the other, and turned our focus on providing primary education to all citizens. The MDG need assessment shows a huge funds shortage to achieve the MDG in education. The report has suggested that the government increase investment in education. Similarly, EFA 2004-2009 is facing a financial crunch as well with the Ministry of Education (MOE) not being able to receive the expected amount from the donors. Both of them stress that more needs to be invested in education. Hence, an analysis of the allocation for education is important.

The budget has been increased by Rs. 1.72 billion as compared to last year’s budget. To the naked eye, this looks good. But the government has not kept its commitment of not decreasing the education’s share in the budget from 17 per cent. At a time when little money has been put into improving the current educational system, this budget does no justice to the education stakeholders. Considering the country’s inflation rate, the education budget increment is meaningless.

The budget envisages a restructuring of education. Restructuring primary education in grades 1-8 and secondary education in grades 9-12 requires the restructuring of many administrative, legal, financial, physical and human factors. The budget also aims to achieve these ends by the end of the next fiscal year, which is almost impossible. The concept is a good one but it calls for more investment. The budget also fails to address the issue of compulsory school education, which is the demand of time.

The budget is regressive with regard to maintaining equity in education. At a time when the student bodies of major ruling parties and education experts are calling on the government for more equity by emphasising less private involvement or even scrapping of the private sector involvement in school education, this budget gives the private schools an added impetus. The government has asked each private school to enrol one Dalit for every 50 students. It has also asked private schools to pay tax by December 2006 to avoid fines.

All this appears good, but the government’s intent to promote education as a business rather than social service sector is now obvious. This shows that the Ministry of Education tells one thing and does the other. This also demonstrates the lack of commitment on the government’s part to provide school education to all the citizens on its own. The government does not seem liable to educate all Nepali children. In this regard, the budget seems capitalistic. It also neglects an important link between education and employment. It has failed to emphasise vocational education once again.

There are some good points in the budget. Educating the children of the martyrs for free up to the Bachelor’s level is a recognition and a tribute to the martyrs. The provision to provide each Dalit Rs. 350 per year paves the way for the downtrodden group to enter mainstream education. Announcement of 50 per cent scholarships to girls is a right step towards achieving gender equality. Special provision for lower secondary children of Karnali zone is another positive step. However, the budget is silent on monitoring its use.

What should the education budget have looked like then? The government should have made primary education compulsory for all children. The government could also have demonstrated its will to promote equity in education by discouraging the involvement of private sector in school education. This would have helped reduce the gap between the haves and have-nots from childhood. It could also have addressed the issue of shortage of funds to meet the MDG in education.

Furthermore, the budget could have assured the disadvantaged groups that all their school age children would be educated within a certain period. The budget could have promoted the use of ICT in school education to make Nepali education compatible with the needs of the 21st century. The budget should have addressed the access problem in education by announcing open education system in the country. Skill-oriented education at school level could have been another agenda.

This budget has also discouraged development partners from pouring in more money in the education sector in the coming year. The same old agenda in the education sector will be useless if it fails to meet the challenges of global competition and incorporate the spirit of the 21st century. There the government seems to lack vision to lead the country. Otherwise, it could never have approved this kind of pessimistic budget for the education sector.

Dr Wagley is professor of Education, TU