When a country is at a crossroads, education system should lead the country in the right direction. Although the Interim Government (IG) will remain busy in conducting constituent assembly polls in June, necessary homework in education sector is a must.

The National Planning Commission (NPC) completed its homework in designing three-year interim plan for all sectors. The Ministry of Education (MoE) also submitted its plan to the NPC. The planning was made on the basis of centralised political structure of the country. Now we have decided to go for a federal structure. Thus the planning needs to be overhauled considering the autonomy of federal states in education. In this context, the MoE should think of designing a plan for the future rather than wasting time mending past mistakes.

The fact is that there will be no way out in educational reform if we only tried to cover the potholes of the past. That’s why our educational system is always in controversy without having any capacity to lead the country towards the right direction. A long-term visionary planning in education is, therefore, the need of the time. The new minister for education should be able to convince all the agitating groups to come up with a strong solution to smoothly run the education system. The students’ unions, the teachers’ unions, the professors’ associations, NGOs and INGOs, educational experts and other stakeholders should all be positive in this regard. Without wasting much time, the minister should call a meeting of all representatives to decide the national policy of education. Unless policies are settled there will always be confusion about the provision of autonomy to federal states.

Moreover, the MoE should be clear about national standards of education. In absence of such standards we are bound to evaluate the school education on the basis of SLC results, which is not a right practice. Once national standards are established the federal/provincial standards, district standards and school standards can be developed accordingly. Based on all these, the policies of curriculum development, instructional processes and assessment of students are determined. Each state, after it finalises its standards commensurate with the national ones, will then get autonomy in deciding the curriculum, textbooks, qualification and professional development of teachers, monitoring and supervision mechanism, accountability system, evaluation of students and so on. This will, in fact, promote healthy competition among federal states. The minister has to prioritise these activities.

On the one hand, we have signed the WTO, which means more challenges in higher education sector, and on the other we have to cope with the 21st century challenges in education sector. In order to make Nepal competitive in global education, the MoE should have a vision at least in three layers: national, regional (SAARC) and international levels. It is thus important to keep the educational scenario in SAARC and other countries in mind before envisaging Nepal’s future education course. In this global age, Nepal cannot stand alone. The lack of such vision in the past made Nepali educational institutions mere factories producing unemployed youths.

To perform this gigantic task, the minister should be able to integrate both professionals and bureaucrats. Until now educational policies have been made by the bureaucrats alone. In fact, technical service providing institutions of the MoE should be led by professionals. In the absence of such professionals, the activities of National Center for Educational Development, Curriculum Development Center, Non-formal Education Center, CTEVT, and HSEB will always remain in controversy. Although professionals were invited to suggest educational plans in the past, ironically, their opinions were never taken seriously by the bureaucrats. Time is most opportune for the education minister since all major political parties have joined hands for a common purpose. Political consensus is essential to implement any policy of the nation and education is not an exception. That’s why this interim period can be a boon for visioning educational plans and policies. If a political consensus on education cannot be made this time, we will have to repent again cursing one or the other ruling parties as we did in the past. This is another challenge for the new minister.

Can Nepali people be assured that the MoE, this time, will not be engaged in appointments and transfers? Can one expect that the minister will not only remain busy in formal opening programmes or seminars? Can we see the minister engaging in debates, discourse and interaction with stakeholders and experts from all corners of the country? Can the minister lead with specific guidelines of educational future of the country? These are people’s expectations from the new minister in the IG.

Dr Wagley is professor of Education, TU