Abstract
This paper reviews provision of free
education policy in Nepal and shows how the paradox is created in the practice.
Nowadays, it is widely accepted that school education is a public good and the
government must bear the responsibilities of providing free school education to
its citizen. The government of Nepal also has already expressed its commitment
to free school education to all citizens and has documented this right as a
fundamental right in the constitution. But, at the same time, it follows the dual
education policy of public education system and private education allowing
charging the fee to the students.. In this context, this paper shows the
present education policy documented in constitution and different Rules and
regulations of Nepal Government and attempts to demonstrate how they contradict
in practice and the mission of ‘free school education to all’ as a right is
questioned by the government in practice itself.
(Key words: public good, education,
education policy, private education, public education)
Introduction
Two years ago, I was working as a
Principal in a school of Kathmandu as a principal. I had to hire an office
Assistant for the school. Out of some candidates, with certain criteria, I
selected a lady for the post. She was from poor economy background and inquired
me about the rules of the school whether the school teaches her children at
free of cost. As per the rules, I informed her that school bears 50% cost of
her children if they are enrolled over there. At the moment, she calculated her
salary, her husband’s income and decided to enroll their two children in class
V and VII.
Everything went
smoothly that year. Her children were doing wonderful result. Next year,
unfortunately, she could not continue the job at our school. She and her
husband came to school and requested me to continue same facility about their
children as they could not afford more fees. But the scenario of the school was
already changed. School was promoted to ‘A’ Level and has increased lots of
facilities along with fee. As per the rules of the school, I said to them ‘ I
cannot do anything regarding fees’ They were enjoying the previous facilities
because of their mother who was working at the school. Finally, they decided to
take the children out of the school reluctantly to admit them in governmental
school despite their strong desire to teach in private school where they had
more trust for quality education.
A question
triggered my mind, with a sense of guilty. Had the government taken the
responsibility of free education, the parents would not have taken those
children from the private school against their desires. The Principal, a person,
taking a role of providing education, was helplessly sending children out of
school simply because their parents could not afford the fee. It was the time
when our nation had just promulgated the constitution with the commitment of
free education up to the secondary level from the state assuring the ‘Every
citizen shall have the right of access to basic education (Article 31, Constitution
of Nepal).
Then onwards, I
started pondering over the issues that ‘can education be provided at free of
cost to all the children?’ I came to know that ‘Everyone has the right to
education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental
stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory (Article 26, Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). I
further enquired about the issues and came to know that the government of Nepal
has already shown its commitment through different documents about the free
school education to all.
It is the paradox that, ‘Right to
education’ has been accepted as a fundamental human right and every child
deserves it but the story of free education is just like a myth in Nepal due to
the dual policy of the government. On the one hand it is promoting private schools
allowing them charging the fee and on the other hand, has announced free
education to all. At this juncture, Nepal’s commitment to universal schooling,
enshrined in its constitution, more as political rhetoric than policy reality
(Carney, 2003). He means to say that in policy level, the government announced
education free to all just to appeal the people politically. In the
documentation it has been accepted as a fundamental right but in practice, it
has become just a political agenda far from people’s access. The state has
shown its commitment in the international forums and documents but it is not
found in the real ground. It has become merely political slogan to appeal the
people. It is not materialized by everyone.
Provision of educational policy of Nepal at Presnt
The constitution of
Nepal 2072, ensures the free education
upto the secondary level. It has been accepted as a state responsibility. in
other word, it recognizes school education of every citizen as a public
good.The article 31 of the constitution mentions the ‘Right to Education’ as:
Right
relating to education: (1) Every citizen
shall have the right of access to basic education.
(2)
Every citizen shall have the right to get compulsory and free education up to
the basic level and free education up to the secondary level from the State.
(3)
The citizens with disabilities and the economically indigent citizens shall
have the right to get free higher education in accordance with law.
(4)
The visually impaired citizens shall have the right to get free education
through brail script and the citizens with hearing or speaking impairment, to
get free education through sign language, in accordance with law.
(5)
Every Nepalese community residing in Nepal shall have the right to get
education in its mother tongue and, for that purpose, to open and operate
schools and educational institutes, in accordance with law.
Likewise the article 39 of the
constitution assures the Right of the children as ‘Every child shall have the
right to education, health, maintenance, proper care, sports, entertainment and
overall personality development from the families and the State. Here it is to
be marked that education of the child is the fundamental right guaranteed by
the state.
Similarly, under the Directive Principles and Policies of education in the
constitution ,the article 51 (H-2 and
3) mentions private sector investment made in education service oriented
by regulating and managing such investment, while enhancing the State's
investment in the education sector, to make higher education easy, qualitative
and accessible, and free gradually.
The Constitution, the fundamental law
of the nation, defines education as a fundamental right. In other words it
accepts education as a public good. Therefore, now the government of Nepal must
take it seriously and has to take the appropriate steps to fulfill the declared
‘Right to education.
Concept of Public Good
Concept of Public good comes from the
economics. In economics, Anything fall under the public good when the good,
commodity or service is provided to someone and while consuming it, or using it, another person will not be deprived of it
at the same time. Such commodity or services can be provided publicly without
cost at the same time for all. Oxygen of the atmosphere and social security
falls under the public goods. In other words, Public Good refers the individual
consumption of good which does not make the good unavailable to others. It does
not prevent non-contributors from enjoying the good and if provided, the good
will be available to all.
Likewise, the Private
Good can be understood as opposite to public good, an excludable, allowing
owner to prevent those who have not paid for the good from enjoying its
benefits (Poloni, 2013). Likewise Bhatta
(2014) elaborates the idea of public good as an imagined and communal space in
which goods valued by society become collectively owned and shared through
respectful and open contestation and negotiation. He means to say that the
public good is used by all the people collectively and no one should be deprive
of consuming it at free of cost. In a nut shell, public good suggests those
goods which can be consumed by many people at the same time without paying its
cost and at the same time, consumption by one person does not deprive other
people from its consumption.
Education as a public good:
There is a hot debate over whether the
education is a private good or a public good. If education is regarded as a
public good, the state has to bear all the cost of education of the children.
The policy of paying and managing for the education may vary but the state
should shoulder the responsibility of school education in all forms. This
school of thought has been taking universal approval in the world.
Nowadays education
has been accepted as a fundamental human right. Every child has the right to
education without any hindrance. The governments have to guarantee this right
to every child assuring ‘availability, accessibility, acceptability and
adoptability’ (Tomasevsky, 2001) of the school education. No child or the parents should be forced to
pay for the school education as it is the fundamental right of the child to get
the education. Some scholars argue that a government policy of providing
universal and free education makes it a public good (Sen, 2000; as qtd. in
Menashy, 2009). When the government accepts education as a fundamental human
right and makes commitment of providing it at free of cost, it takes the form
of public good. The welfare states have to guarantee the right of its citizens
from ‘womb to tomb’. In this regard ‘school education is entirely
responsibility of the government’ (Koirala, 2015). When the state steps towards
welfare state, education must be its first and foremost responsibility.
The private schools
have been charging the fees to the students and children’s right to free
education is violated. The policy of the government regarding the private
school questions the very sensative spirit of the free education as a
fundamental human right. As argued by Acharya
(2007), education has traditionally been seen more as a development tool than a
right of an individual.
At the same time many studies and reports emphasize
the problem areas within the education sector as ‘inadequate access and low participation,
low retention of students at all levels, low levels of educational quality’ (Carney,
2003). It proves that schools are not easily accessible, and even if it is
available there are many questions about the quality education of the public
schools where the state has funded. It is not about whether the children are
sent to school but most importantly how qualitatively they have been injected
through education system.
On the other
hand, Some scholars argue that state withdrawal in favor of privatization’
with ‘market anchored conceptions of schooling’, and engineering and
legitimizing a departure from decades of the welfare state (Zajada, qtd. in
Sing, 2015). His concern is that when the state allows privitization and lets
the market decide the cost on the basis of competioton, it is the sheer example
of retreating from the concept of welfare state. In this point, state is
getting back from its primary responsibility of providing education by
transfering its responsibility to ‘market anchored conceptions of schooling’.
It means unless and untill, state alone bears the burden of educational cost,
and lets the market to decide the cost in the name of privitization, it can not
be called a welfare state. No welfare state can claim that education is free to
all.
The government,alone could not manage school education and introduced the
privitization policy to ensure education but unfortunately, it questioned the
very spirit of the government’s policy of education as a public good. The
concept of privitazation does not recognize the school education as a public
good rather seeks to make profit from it which is not bad initself. Therefore,
it is obvious that the state can colaaborate with private sectors to fulfil its
commitment. It’s obvious providing education needs expenses whether it is
managed by the government or the private sectors but the expenses have to be
born by the state. The state should not withdraw its hand from the
responsibility of the eduaction even though private sectors get involved there.
Present status of
school education
Talking
about the school system of Nepal, There are basically 2 types of schools:
Public and Institutional. The government bears the expenses in the public
school especially the salary of the teachers where as in institutional schools,
they can charge the tuition fees and extra fees to the students to run the
school. In case of public school also it is not completely free as students
have to pay the money for uniform, stationeries, exam fees, and in other
topics. The government has shown the commitment for the free education but at
the same time does not take all the responsibility of education. As a result,
Not only private schools but also, to some extent, public schools have charged
the fees to the students. Providing
salary to the teachers is not enough, Mathema (2007) argues that it is not
therefore uncommon for public schools to charge admission or examination fees
for the students in order to meet daily school needs. At the same time, the
studies have shown that it is not just the lack of physical, instructional, and
human resources public schools of Nepal suffer but even when resources are available, there is no teaching and
learning. Courses are not completed in time. Teacher absenteeism is high. Even
if the teachers are present in schools, teachers do not teach. As a result, “The
rural schools in Nepal basically serve the role of disqualifying rural young
people from roles in society and turning them into failures. (Stephen Mikesell,
as cited in Mathema 2007)
The private schools of Nepal have
contributed Less than 20% in total. The latest data shows that only 15.3%
students study in primary level, 16.2% in Lower Secondary level and 19.3 %
study in Secondary level (MOFA 2017). Looking upon the above data one might
argue that private schools cover only about 20 % of total students but what about other 80 %? How can we argue that government
has not paid for its peoples’ education?
The question has gravity on serface level. Obviously, almost 80% students
attend the governmental schools funded by the government. But the question is
not how many children attend the governmental school but have they been
provided quality standard education? The effectiveness of any school is
heavily influence by the quality of teaching, and the skills, motivation and
commitment of its teachers (UNESCO, 2008).
But this argument seems to far from the reality. Some scholars like ( Koirala, 2015) argues that the government is failure to offer quality education
to all children due to shortage of funds.
Education has been accepted as a key
asset to develop the nation. Unless and until people remain uneducated, the
prosperity of the nation also will be like a mirage. In this sense, every
nation, nowadays, attempt to address education as a primary source to develop
the nation. Therefore, they spend around 25% budget in education for quality
education and to ensure education to every citizen. While making policy of the
education, they focus on the adequacy, equity, efficiency use of the budget in
the education sector.
Obviously, many developing countries
like ours, suffer from funding in education. Despite the fact, they must
allocate maximum budget in education sector assuring quality education. The
state has to ensure adequacy of the budget, promote equity and perform
efficiently. (World Bank, 2012)
Source: SABER-Finance Team, World Bank.
The above figure emphasizes how
the educational budget should be allocated. The education policy must ensure
adequate budget system so that no children should be deprived of any facility.
At the same time, education should be provided to all regardless of barriers.
In case of schools, they should not be concentrated only in urban area; rather
even in far remote area also it has to be ensured to all. There should not be
any discrimination on any basis. Unless and until, equity is maintained, we
cannot claim that education is provided to all. Likewise, Performing
efficiently demands result. Providing schools facility is not sufficient, how
they have been performing matters most. Therefore, the above figure tells that
the education has to be provided assuring adequacy, maintaining equity and
ensuring efficiency for which much more financial support needs. If we see the
education system of Nepal from these lenses, we will not be satisfied to say
that Nepal provides free quality education to all as a public good.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, every
child is entitled to education free of cost as an inalienable right, and access
to education should not be based on capacity to pay fees which often are
exorbitant (Singh ,2015). Nepal also has shown its commitment to free education
to every child as a fundamental human right but
due to the existance of private schools and government’s tendency to bear only the
salary of the teachers in public schools, the schools have been charging the
fees to the students. It is against the
concept of education as a public good.
Therfore, on the one hand, ‘Interventions are also
needed to improve the quality of teaching and learning in public schools’ (National
Review of S.D.G.2017). They have to be upgraded not only in term of physical
structures but also in quality. On the other hand, issues related with
privatization of education which deprives the education to be a public good,
has to be addressed by the government to accomplish the goal targeted in the
constitution. Private schools can have a supportive role in education for to
but the state has to ensure the education as a public good.
References:
Acharya, Sushan. (2007). Social inclusion. Gender and equity in
education SWAps in South Asia. Kathmandu: UNICEF.
Bhatta, S.D. (2014) Nepal Private
Sector Engagement in School Education: retrieved from https://olc.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Session%203_0.pdf
Carney.S. (2003) Globalisation, Neo-liberalism and the
Limitations of School Effectiveness Research in Developing Countries: The case
of Nepal, Globalisation, Societies and
Education. Vol. 1,(1):P., 87-101, DOI: 10.1080/1476772032000061833
Constitution of Nepal (2072)
Kathmandu: Pairabi Publication.
Koirala, A.(2015). Debate on public and private schools in Nepal. International Journal
of social science and management. Vol. 2, (1): P.3-8. retrived from Doi:
10.3126/ijssm.v2i1.11882
Mathema, K.B. (2007) Crisis in Education
and Future Challenges for Nepal, European
Bulletin of Himalayan Research. Vol. 31: P. ,46-66
Menashy, F. (2009).
Education as a Global Public Good: the applicability and implications of a
framework, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(3), 307-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720903166111
National Planning Commission. (2017) National Review of Sustainable Development
Goals. Kathmandu.
Poloni,
L. (2013) Education: A public or Private Good. Hot Topic Café, April 3,
Singh,K. (2015). Safeguarding Education as Public Good
and Regulating Private Providers. SAGE
Publications retrived from
DOI:10.1177/0049085715574322,
Tomaševski,K. (2001) Human rights obligations: making education
available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. Gothenburg: Right to Education Primers
UNESCO. (2008) Education for
all by 2015 will we make it? Paris. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001548/154820e.
pdf
World Bank, (2012) Education Finance: It’s How, Not simply How much, that counts .Education Notes. (February)
No comments:
Post a Comment