Introduction
When we are discussing education, the foremost question is who is
talking about whose education? As a development professional with
critical understanding of education’s role in the life of a
majority of children who either have no access even to basic
schooling or have indirectly been prevented to go due to
politico-economic reasons, I am also a guardian dissatisfied with
the average private school for its missed priorities and
misunderstandings about education and feel deeply helpless with
the situation of government schools.
The consequences of privatisation
I see privatisation of schools as the central issue of Nepal’s
education, more than the lack of resources or the production of
two classes of citizens. Private schools have contributed to
lessening the government’s burden in schooling. They might also be
preventing the draining out of money from the country. But the
core concern is that the existence of private schools is deprives
government schools of attention from influential and resourceful
people.
Policy statements, position papers and the concern expressed by
donors show indifference to this problem. It will be unjust to
throw all the blame on private schools. People who appreciate the
value of education and are prepared to work hard for their
children’s education feel that it is of no use to send children to
public schools. Private schools have destabilized people’s minds
about the existing schools. People do not think anymore how to
improve existing schools, but only how to pay the fees for private
schools for their children.
Mismatch between critical needs and educational services
It is not that government is not putting in money. Significant
amounts are being spent on government schools all over Nepal. But
there is much focus on physical materials, buildings, etc. with
little attention paid to software aspects. The teacher’s role is
hardly appreciated and the content of teaching rarely discussed
even in so called learned circles. People concerned with education
tend not to realise this. There are numerous reports in the media
about leaking school roofs, sarcastic comments about students
having to study in the open. Compared to this, media focuses less
on absence of teachers, and the problems of teachers in teaching
regularly are hardly reported. It is pathetic to have lousy
textbooks at private schools where they change uniforms three
times a week or more. Imitating private schools, government
schools are also emphasizing uniforms even if the children do not
have two meals a day. Apparently, we could not realise that
education is more than benches and buildings. We have paid no
attention to the relationship between teachers and students. We
have failed to motivate teachers. They are given wonderful
training with wonderful theories on how to teach children. But the
training does not seem to cover what they need to present in
school. We have hardly said anything about the problems that
teachers are facing. And political parties are happy enough as
long as they remain loyal party cadres.
The reason for children not coming to school is not just the fees.
Much of our effort has revolved around demanding a free education
without taking another important factor – food - into
consideration.
In Wasbang (see box above), the UML government talked loudly about
their free schooling plan for up to class 10. Ward chair of the
neighbouring ward Ram Bahadur Praja was happy that now, even poor
children could study up to class 10. But when we looked closer at
the situation, it turned out that only two persons in Wasbang had
graduated from that primary school. Forget about class 10.
Overshadowed by adult literacy
On the unrealistic assumption that it is quicker to make adults
literate, much effort has been put into adult literacy. But adult
literacy is like irrigating sand, and it has only diverted our
energy and resources. No more than one percent of the population
has been made literate since the mid 50s through adult learning
(AL). The contribution of AL to overall literacy is thus
insignificant.
Children’s
motivation
There is also the pertinent issue of children’s motivations not to
go to school. These include discrimination, language problems and
beating by teachers. Generally, girls are not encouraged in
school. Furthermore, children who are not performing well, do not
like to get exposed. This discourages them from going to school.
Further, Dalit – so-called low-caste – children are harassed by
their fellows and by teachers. Children need strong zeal to face
such discrimination. And although Nepali is a lingua franca for
most communities in Nepal, many children from indigenous
backgrounds do not understand it. In the far west, children do not
understand eastern dialects, and vice versa. On top of that,
teachers beat children discriminately: as low caste and non-Nepali
speakers often do not meet teacher expectations, they are more
often subject to punishment compared to high caste children. The
teacher is often high caste also. Culturally, many Aryan groups
consider themselves superior and discourage the way of life of
non-Aryans. Harassment by teachers is one important reason for
children’s reluctance to go to school and early drop-out, although
this has never been reported.
Inadequacy of national attention
If we ask local leaders what is their next priority after roads
and electricity, they are likely to say they want a 10+2 school.
It is natural for them to want that as their own children need
such schools. Villagers are hardly represented in the local
leadership and therefore, although a majority of children in
remote areas are illiterate, the focus happens to be on 10+2
rather than on ensuring basic literacy for most children if not
all.
Examples of affirmative effort
Definitely, people have made much affirmative effort all over the
country. Following are some examples:
l The concept of right to education was introduced to the Dalits
in Southern Achham and fisher folk in Nawalparasi. People were
organised to demand resources from local governments. In both
cases, the VDCs agreed to pay the school fee for children of these
people.
Of course, fees were not the only limitation. But the funding
increased the schooling of children. This shows that – sometimes
with some pressure – VDCs should be made interested in setting
aside money to cover the fees of marginalised students. In Achham
this was handed over to a Dalit Committee to ensure that funds
were not misused.
l In the hills of Makwanpur and Chitwan, midday snacks were
provided to school children. It increased attendance
significantly. This practice has been reported to have had much
positive impact elsewhere too.
l In Khotang, an NGO organised local leaders and approached the
district education office to make sure that every child had access
to schooling as well as access to complain about the teachers.
With input from VDC funds and pressure, most of the schools became
regular, as teachers started attending to their duties. A
household combing was done by the NGO to make sure no child was
left out.
l Efforts at mixing mother tongue and Nepali in the literacy
process was useful with the Chepang people. Using Devnagari
script, they held discussions in Chepang and created words both in
Nepali and Chepang. The same process can be used in schools
without additional cost if the teacher is bilingual.
l In Achham the issue of Dalits and caste discrimination was
introduced among teachers and students. Although not all teachers
were supportive, support from just a couple of teachers made Dalit
students feel confident and secure enough to come to school.
Interpretation
The above points can be summarised in the following programmatic
sequence:
Sensitization and organisation of the target community, building
confidence to demand resources on equitable basis, taking
attention to education as a right as well as extending attention
to the teachers;
Critical Orientation for Local Leaders on Importance of Primary
Education, investment in education and the concept of rights;
Motivational input to Teachers for self-appreciation as well as on
the rights of minorities;
Matching material input: funds from the government, midday meals
from other sources.
If proper wages are provided to the teachers and the basic needs
of children are met, teacher motivation is the key in the given
situation of government input to education. Only the teachers’
strong commitment to their own value as teachers can counter the
unnecessary proliferation of private schools. This is where the
thrust of civil society should rest. NGOs have to come out of the
Adult Literacy cocoon, which of course does not mean that they
should not do literacy work at all.
Teeka Bhattarai is an education researcher, focused on primary
education.
Email: teeka@info.com.np
References
Bhattarai, Teeka and D Adhikari. 2002. Poleka Makai ra Sabaika
Lagi Shiksha (Corn-cobs and Education-for-All). Kantipur Daily, 9
October, 2002
Bhattarai, Teeka R, J Basnet and A Bhattarai. 1998. Alochanatmak
Anaupacharik Shiksha Kirna Ra Kasari: Zindagibata Sikne Jamarko
(Critical Non-formal Education Why and How: An Attempt to Learn
from Life), Education Network, Kathamndu.
Bhattarai, Teeka. 1999. Voluntary Sector on Education: an Array of
Opportunities Await. (A case presented to a dialogical seminar on
Voluntarism and Foreign Funding) Society for National
Concerns-Nepal and Finnish Association of NGOs (Kepa), held in
Kathmandu.
Bhattarai, Teeka. 2000. Praudh Sakhsarata Chahinchha? (Do We Need
Adult Literacy?). Literacy Day Souvenir. Non-formal Education
Centre, Ministry of Education and Culture, Kathmandu.
Bista Dor B, 1984. Fatalism and Development. 1992. Orient Longman,
New Delhi.
Dreze, Jean and A Sen. 1997. India: Economic Development and
Social Opportunity. Oxford India Paperbacks, New Delhi.
Gautam, Keshav and T Bhattarai. 1999. Nepal’s Primary Education:
Alienated from whom it is Intended for. A paper presented to the
South Asian Conference on Education, Institute of Education,
University of Delhi, India.
|
A
Story of Wasbang
Wasbang is a small village in the northern hills of Chitwan,
primarily inhabited by Chepangs, one group among Nepal’s many
indigenous groups. In Wasbang, there is one national primary
school.
In
1992, the District Development Committee provided corrugated
GI sheets for roofing and some financial assistance for
furniture for the school. A teacher was engaged to teach.
Villagers constructed a school building by themselves. There
were quite a few students. Later, the school was approved by
the government for up to third grade.
In
1996, the local people pulled the walls down and took the GI
sheets out. None of the material was considered useful because
new standards of shiksha bikas (education development) had
come along. Villagers constructed the basic structure of the
school again – on a little bigger scale. They worked
enthusiastically because they would get paid. They completed
the job as far as the means were sanctioned by the government.
After no money became available, the school building remained
unfinished for at least one academic year (this one did not
remain as long as another one in Syamrang, the next village,
which hosted two incomplete schools for about two years). The
motivated teacher got himself transferred.
For other teachers, teaching without a building was out of
question. Although there were now in principle three teachers,
you would be lucky if you could find just one of them in
place. They were often reported to have gone to the ‘Resource
Centre’ or for training, and the number of students decreased
compared to when the old building and the old teacher had been
there.
When talking with the new teachers, you could make out that
they have been imparted good skills and concepts of teaching.
It did not seem, however, that their training had included
actually having to teach.
People from NGOs next door to the school mentioned their
absence. In comparison to those of NGO staffs, teacher wages
are low - sometimes too low. The salary of teachers working in
such harsh conditions is the same as for those working in the
plains.
Perhaps, teachers are the basic input needed. The Basic and
Primary Education Project cannot spend money on wages. The NGO
next door cannot supplement the salary because it will affect
neighbouring schools. (Adapted from Teeka, 2000) |
|
BPEP
In
line with the Education for All policy, the Basic Primary
Education Programme, BPEP, was launched in 1992 with the
financial and technical support from Denmark, Norway, Finland,
the European Commission and the World Bank and had the aim to
ensure access to quality basic education to all children in
Nepal. In 1999, BPEP I was extended for five years (BPEP II)
and will be closing around July 2004. The main focus of BPEP I
was on access. During the initial seven years, more than
14,000 classrooms were constructed, another 7,500 were
rehabilitated and 400 resource centres were established.
Although only about half of the planned 54,000 classrooms to
be constructed during BPEP II have been completed, more focus
has been allocated also to the quality aspects of education,
including teachers’ training, curriculum development, teaching
methods, etc.
Source: Nitya Nanda Timsina in Kathmandu Post, December 13,
2003 |
|
Nandakali Sunar’s daughter Chandra Maya was beaten up by the
teacher to the point where the stick broke into pieces. The
classroom was dark and she had copied wrong from the
black-board. She was night-blind. Since that day, Chandra
Maya, now 13, refused to go to that school. She lost two years
before she started in another school. Nandakali’s oldest
child, Nar Bahadur, 15, works for a distillery in Almora,
India. Nar left school two years ago when he was harassed by
his teachers for not wearing a uniform.
Excerpt from Bhattarai and Adhikari, 2002 |
Back to Contents
