Something that particularly caught my attention was Nepal’s education system. My research on Nepal’s education has revealed that the system has a variety of ailments and problems, such as high teacher absenteeism, over-powerful teacher unions and student associations, lack of student retention, and oftentimes want of facilities or resources. These have led to a loss of faith in the public school system and, with the lack of teacher accountability, steadily worsening issues. These structural difficulties aside, I wondered what Nepal’s education system has brought to its students.
After grade 10 Nepali students face their biggest and most anticipated challenge: The School Leaving Certificate Exam, or SLC. In my neighborhood in Tikathali I watched the kids prep for the SLC, the terminal exam of Nepal’s secondary education system. Many jobs require an SLC pass and all nine subjects must be passed in order to pass overall. Being such a significant examination, it thus dictates teaching methods and curriculum set in schools. It is currently the only gauge for students’ academic abilities and school quality, yet, I wondered, as many do around the time SLC results are reported, is it actually a good evaluator? Terminal testing is vital, and a way to maintain a standard of education is essential in every country. However, the SLC has been often criticized for prioritization of materials impractical to students, creating an overemphasis on rote memorization, and being implemented with widespread cheating.
My own education, mostly in the United States, emphasized the importance of critical analysis and the ability to think and turn things over in one’s head. Presenting an argument and supporting it with logic and reasoning and being able to effectively state your ideas was continually stressed by my teachers. I feel that American and Western society puts much in one’s capacity for creativity and original thought. Opinions of teachers are formed on their ability to teach material while encouraging critical analysis over memorization or suppression of students’ ideas. This is so much at the core of my being that I cannot but help wondering how Nepal’s education system is serving its students, particularly in English and science.
One of Nepal’s Millennium Development Goals is to have 100 percent of children in primary school. However, even when Nepal reaches this goal, what benefits will these children reap from their education?
One of Nepal’s Millennium Development Goals is to have 100 percent of children in primary school, and currently the Secretary of Education estimates that over 90 percent of children in Nepal are currently attending primary school. However, even when Nepal reaches this goal, what benefits will these children reap from their education? How much of what is taught in schools emphasizes critical thinking and creativity over rote memorization; how much is applicable to these children’s daily lives and how much is promptly forgotten? Answers to these questions are difficult to attain, and by which criteria can they be judged? Different education systems have various ways to evaluate students, and by examining such tools the system as a whole can be studied. In Nepal, there does not seem to be many compulsory methods for judging students’ abilities, and from an American’s perspective the pass mark for these tests (and to graduate to the next class) seems low. I wondered, what do students, teachers, and preparers think of the test? Does the test necessitate that much of what students do in school is purely memorization? I wondered how highly do Nepalis view critical analysis, or the need for it?
The SLC seems to be emphasized everywhere I go, but upon cursory examination it seemed to counter so many of the ideas expressed above. To examine whether the SLC places an over emphasis on memorization and encourages cheating, I closely examined a sample of schools in and just outside of the Kathmandu Valley, using English classes as an indicator of the amount of rote memorization students used in school. Could students read, speak, or understand English? Though both teachers and students were extremely variable in their grasp of the language, in general, a preference of English over Nepali was cited by both, and could be seen in the fact that many schools were transitioning to English medium from Nepali and in the advertising schemes of private schools. In every school, even English medium ones, I usually found at most between one and three teachers who had an adequate grasp of English. I asked a teacher at a school transitioning to English medium what she would do once she had to teach in English, as she was not comfortable in speaking in it. “I’ll manage,” she said. “The other teachers will help me.” In my opinion it was one of the biggest problems I found: The lack of good English teachers or English speakers in a community rapidly converting into English medium.
I visited private schools, both large and small, various government schools, and a community school. Everyone seems to have strong opinions about everyone else - a good thing, perhaps, as it shows pride in one’s school, methods, and students. Everyone had an issue with something in education, be it private school fees, the difficulty in getting people to pay them, late delivery of government textbooks, lack of resources, and more. I went to various teacher training sessions, and was surprised by the changes they wanted to implement. Classes where students participate! Lessons which are not just based on lecturing! Creating syllabi, determining the pace of lessons throughout the year, the amount of marks each trimester should have. These changes are things that I think of as requirements for a class, for a good teacher and an effectual lesson. However, when I traveled to schools I found that classes are mostly teachers only lecturing, and requiring students to memorize entire passages from textbooks, or giving students answers to the questions after lessons and then having them commit the answers to heart. I found that teachers, principals, and students all believed that the SLC was important and very useful to students, but I found that their reasons were mostly talking about terminal examination, rather than the SLC itself. I also talked with students who had studied abroad after the SLC and other education professionals, who were on the whole critical of the SLC, its implementation, or its format. Many had issue with Nepal’s education system as a whole, but for a variety of infrastructural reasons over curriculum itself. Most were pessimistic about improvements as they looked to the government, but do not believe that education is currently a priority to those in charge. Though this may not be the case, everywhere I went I found a variety of school networks, organizations, and non-government organizations which are dedicated to improving the school system and standard of education. Though some I spoke to considered this to be just a drop in the bucket, as the government was the only institution set up for significant improvement of the system as a whole, I am optimistic about the system’s ability to change, given time and dedication.
(Writer is a student of Pitzer College in Claremont, USA and is attending the college’s study abroad program in Nepal.)
Related story
Butwal launches perspective development plan
