Former education minister Amod Prasad Upadhyaya played the main role in the formulation and implementation of the 1972 Education Act (seventh amendment).What follows is the substance of a talk that journalist Sudarshan Ghimire had with him about the Education Seventh Amendment, the Education Ministry and the educational plan.

How do you evaluate now your term as education minister?

I joined the ministry with the belief that Nepal will not be able to compete in the modern age unless education is made to respond to social and individual needs. As education minister my very first attention went towards how school level education could be brought on track. My thinking here is that before 1972, education in Nepal was a partnership effort between the people and the government, and the performance was good. After 1972, a situation arose where education seemed all of a sudden to become the responsibility of the government alone, and the public became divorced from it, and apathetic. I have come to the conclusion that it was at this time that the quality of education in Nepal started declining. Because, with the public largely apathetic, it became left to the government alone to bother whether classes were held or not, what students studied, what resources the schools had of their own or did not have, etc. Under these circumstances there was a steady erosion of quality and a steady decline in school attendance.

The idea was that we should go for guardians-oriented management committees to encourage the involvement of parents and the larger society. Such committees should have powers to mobilise resources and other administrative functions in order to foster among the people themselves utmost empathy towards their schools. Another aspect of this line of thinking was that teachers should only be hired on the basis of definite criteria of quality. To that end, efforts were indeed made to develop a reliable system. But the main problem was that when taking up work in a sector beset with all manner of problems, it took a few months just to comprehend the internal issues involved, and another two to four months to debate these issues. As a consequence it was difficult for any definite shape or dynamism to emerge.

Education should be needs-oriented. But we gave excessive emphasis only to education of a general nature. This was a serious mistake in the past. What is the use of an education that does not enable one to make a living? General education was useful neither for any societal mission, nor for the individual. That was why we made a policy decision to use the physical infrastructure of existing secondary schools for imparting technical and vocational education in the mornings or evenings in whichever way it was convenient. This would avert the additional financial burden of putting up new buildings, apart from the additional benefit that would accrue from imparting education with a practical application. For this purpose, 15 schools were selected in the first year, three in each development region. And there was a definite rule about funds, with the government providing a 100 percent grant in the first year, an 80 percent grant the second year and block funding by the fifth year. After that, the school would manage with the fees raised from students. The attempt to lay down such a system was made because quality control and monitoring would not be possible without the government and the people working together.

The idea of handing over schools to the community has now come to the fore. Was this also decided on during your time?

No. I myself have not understood what handing over to the community means. When I was in office, people came to see me once or twice, including the resident representative of the World Bank. The matter was later raised with the Finance Ministry also. I asked, “How are we going to hand over to the community when both government and people are working under a partnership concept?”. After all, the community had been given its responsibility. So it was not right from a policy point of view, and it also ran counter to the spirit of the seventh education amendment.

Then how has it cropped up now?

What is one to say…? This is in fact an example of the tendency to superimpose foreign models. There is so much poverty in the country. We are now talking of charging school fees from grade six onwards. But not everyone is in a position to pay such fees. There are many who would be hard pressed to pay even ten rupees a month. With such people in mind, we should waive fees for 20 percent of the poor, be they children of Dalits, ethnic communities, Brahmins, Chhettris, whatever. The state should make the necessary investment for this.

To what extent do you think foreign aid has helped the education sector in Nepal?

It is for those who are knowledgeable to say how much money has been spent and what gains have been made from this. But the important thing is to ask what kind of benefit it has brought about on the whole, what kind of tendency has taken hold as a consequence. Foreign aid has not been able to develop in us any sense of ownership. Because of this, no matter how much physical and other infrastructure has been put in place by the Basic Primary Education Programme or any other project, nobody took it upon themselves to make such infrastructure last. Whatever the amount invested, what good has it done?

We have a tendency of not working very hard, be it in the administrative or political set up. And if donors bring this up, we say that we do not have the money either. At such times, we do not stop to ponder what adverse social impact this will have on us in the future. What kind of impact will there be on the educational system and other auxiliary entities? Our tendency to accept things passively without any proper evaluation has emerged as a big problem. We should be able to explain our national needs properly to donors and tell them that at this crossroads, this is how we wish to proceed, and they should agree to this. In my talks with almost all representatives of countries extending assistance in education, I asked for investment in the development of technical education and its expansion. I used to tell them that Nepal is facing a growing Maoist problem. The problem of unemployment is getting worse. You wish to see peace in Nepal, yet why do you hesitate to invest in the kind of education that will enable the Nepalese to make a living? Why do you not wish to see the development of skills that will make this possible? Let a man find employment within the country if possible, or if not go abroad where he can make a little more money so that he can support his family with his own income. That will at least prevent him from taking the wrong path.

I asked: Are people like you, who want to see Nepal through to good times, not interested in this approach? When I pressed them in this way, they would agree grudgingly to do a little bit, by and by. The fact of the matter is that they are not interested in investing in technical and vocational education.

Did you do such things during your term in office?

I did. The government has now taken a loan from the World Bank to “hand over management of schools to the community”, and this was a proposal which came from the Bank when I was education minister. The Bank’s resident representative said to me that schools should be handed over to the communities, and the bank would provide funding for that. In reply I said to him that we are running the schools as a partnership between the government and the people. The seventh amendment to the Education Act has given this concept an even more concrete shape and arrangement has been made for selection from among the parents themselves for membership on the management committees.

It is said that foreign aid has only corrupted our system and made us still more lazy and incompetent.

As long as we do not ourselves identify the real needs of the country and wear ourselves out in the effort, nothing will come of foreign aid. If all assistance comes from abroad, it will not carry much significance nor will it have any durable impact.

Whatever foreign investment came in the past, got disposed of in its own way. It never reached down to the levels targetted. This was a weakness in the administration. It was we who put together the curriculum. And it was we who should have seen to the quality level of the teachers who would put that curriculum into practice. How is teaching at the schools, and how are their daily activities proceeding? Is the curriculum meant for one academic year being completed in time; what kind of results have the examinations brought? There was no monitoring of any of these questions. The only thing that happened was that those who made the policies grew sleek.

It is to be found that every project for reform in education has been brought in suddenly without the involvement of teachers who are the implementers of reform. The role of teachers seems to have been subjected to neglect. What do you have to say about that?

True. It is indeed true that the government has not given teachers an adequate role in the decision making process and has not been able to inspire them to take up their duties and responsibilities wholeheartedly. During my term also, nothing concrete could be done about this from the government’s side. However, efforts were made through the Seventh Education Amendment to ensure greater answerability towards the schools. Teachers are an important part of the picture and there can be no doubt about this. Furthermore, in a developing country like ours, the phenomenon of illiteracy is so huge, and the teachers have a powerful role in bringing the illiterate into the mainstream. Teachers should not be discriminated against when it comes to material facilities. When the question of raising salaries came up in the past, teachers were even told that they would not be getting their raise while civil servants were being given theirs. This was met with opposition and the salaries did get raised on par with the civil service. Non-discrimination between civil servants and teachers has now become a norm. Another thing now is capacity enhancement. Some new technology or other is continually being developed in the world. In order to keep up with such developments, there should be effort on the part of government, and teachers also should strive to remain updated. One should not harbour the attitude that a book that one had read to pass an examination needs never be turned to again. That is why the concept of liscensing teachers was implemented, with due regard for legal process.

The emphasis has now come to rest on primary education. You were the one to sign the Dakar Declaration calling for education for all by the year 2015. Looking at it now, do you think that we can meet that goal?

The government should indeed make the effort. It should motivate the community and society. Means and resources should be provided for, mobilized. If that is not enough, such a huge international commitment will never see fulfilment. But unfortunately we are still unable to move towards the goal, and this is a matter of great sadness.

What do we need to do to attain our goal? The number of illiterate people still stands at 46 percent. According to the education ministry’s own statistics, 20 percent of children remain outside the school system. What should be done to bring them into the literate fold? The country is also wracked by conflict now. There is no money for investment.

However, there is something encouraging in the air. Wherever parents-oriented management committees are active, there have been some increases in the number of children coming to school. Competition may have had a bad effect in some places. This is something that will be rectified in course of time. But when there is a burgeoning in the number of students, another problem comes to the fore, and that is the shortage of classrooms. This is something that should be tackled through mapping. Schools built where they are not needed should be removed to where there is a need. The private sector should not be allowed to invest only where the facilities are in place and the returns are good, but a definite set of regulations should be worked out to make it mandatory for them to reach out to the remote areas also. If this will have a positive effect, why not go for it? If government and the private sector work together to address the needs, we will definitely be able to move towards our goals. Such effort is also a must for closing the gap between private and public schools.

We did indeed strive to close this gap. But it was not right to clip the wings of private schools just because they were doing well. Improvement should take place in the quality level of community schools. What this calls for, is streamlined management, a partnership approach between people, government and the like.
The community and parents are very concerned about schooling in the private sector as this is naturally run along business lines. If the results of one school are not good, they will not enroll their children in that school a second time. Given this consideration, such schools will make sure to maintain their standards.

In your experience, what are the problems in implementing education ministry policy? Given the huge size of educational manpower, what is holding up the enforcement of policy and regulations?

It is not that there are no educated people at the Ministry of Education. When it comes to performance, the main problem is lack of commitment. If the political leadership is not committed, it becomes extremely difficult to carry on with one’s work. Another big problem is the rapid changes in leadership. My point of view was that parliament itself should endorse the policy on education and parliament should also review it at every period. But I did not get the opportunity to do anything about it. The main point is that regardless of who becomes minister, the machinery for carrying out the work remains the same. Cooperation is needed from the same employees. If there is commitment in the political leadership and among key officials such as the administrative chief, the departmental chief and the secretary, much can be expected of the existing system.

What is your suggestion for structural reform at the education ministry?

The structural layout is all right. That is the way it is, with district education offices, district education committees, the regional education directorates, departments and ministries. But these entities should cultivate direct contact with the people and stimulate their interest and concern. No matter how much improvement and change take place in the infrastructures, the results will not be good until we develop a working style which is capable of addressing every question raised by the people. That is why the weight of people’s representation in the education committees has been increased. For the management committees of private schools also, arrangement has been made for mandatory inclusion of parents’ representatives as well as elected representatives from the ward. The leadership level and the ministry should be paying attention to how answerability towards the people can be ensured.

The entity that implements policy is the bureaucracy itself. Is it not so?

What is called for, is taking the bureaucracy, the people and the representatives of the people together and ensuring answerability in every way. Whatever the unit, there should be answerability towards the people. Nothing should be done without the endorsement of the people. In a democracy, the people have to be taken into confidence. Otherwise no system of governance can operate in this day and age. If we advance together in this way with the inclusion of the people, it will bear fruit sooner or later.

While working as Education Minister, what kind of problems and challenges did you encounter at the ministry?

The Education Ministry is a veritable heap of problems. There are a great many of them. I did not set out to tackle them all at one go. My endeavour was to improve the situation steadily and continuously. It was not possible to take care of all problems within just two years.

There were some things that you wanted to do but could not. Does this make you feel any remorse now?

I had a keen desire to open at least one technical and vocational school in every election constituency. I felt that if this could be completed, within five years, Nepal’s current needs would be met. Accordingly, I started out with just 15 technical schools on a pilot basis. But in the meantime I had to step down as minister because of political reasons.

The formal education which is given at present has only been generating unemployment. Had we been able to provide technical and vocational education, youths in large numbers would have developed into skilled manpower and they would have been able to generate their own employment. This is also the need for Nepal’s long term balanced development.

Sudarshan Ghimire is a journalist, member of Education Journalists Group and has written several articles on education issues.

Back to Contents