Article #1: Universal Primary Education? Where's the quality?

This is the first in a short series of articles about the development of primary education in Nepal. The subsequent articles will include the results of a survey conducted amongst 50 primary schools in Kathmandu followed by some evaluation results of our Foundation programme of teacher training.

(And the reason for the photo will become clearer)

In August 2009 Nepal's government published their School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP), " ....... a long term strategic plan to achieve the goals and objectives of {Nepal} envisioned for the years 2009 to 2013/14. The plan contains the strategic interventions and estimated financial resources required for implementation".

The plan highlighted a number of Key Indicators and targets such as Pupil-Teacher ratios reducing from 41 to 34, Repetition Rates in Grade 1 reducing from 18% to 1%, Survival Rate at Grade 5 rising from 58% to 90%, Learning Achievement Rate (exam scores) at Grade 5 rising from53% to 80%, and a Literacy Rate rising from 69% to 90% in the age group 6-14 years.

The plan was then divided into specific sectors of education such as early childhood development, basic (primary) education, secondary education etc, as well as chapters on teacher professional development, financing, aid management, and a large appendix with a section entitled Quality Education.

Finally the Introduction section was quite specific about implementation of the plan with these words, " ...... the SSRP will be implemented in a phased manner ........ from 2009/10 onwards it will be implemented throughout the country focusing on the integration and consolidation of basic education (grades 1-8) and completing the process by 2012."

Obviously the sections of most interest to us are those concerned with Basic Education (grades 1-8, Teacher Professional Development, and Quality Education and our review and critique will amalgamate facts, opinions and suggestions across these three sections.

A great deal of the SSRP, quite rightly, is seeking to achieve Goal 2 of the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, Universal Primary Education by 2015, and the SSRP takes a "rights based approach" strategically and tactically in it's content and process. For example much is written about the rights of all children, whether male or female, whether Bahun or Dalit, whether in Humla or Kathmandu, to receiving an education. Many key indicators are focused on measuring enrolment rates and survival rates, priority funding is targeted on females, Dalit's and other indigenous groups, and some emphasis is given to education in "mother tongue" across the curriculum and geographically. However we believe that taking a rights based approach exclusively will detract greatly from the whole issue of the QUALITY of education which could become overly focused on getting more children into school rather than by giving a focus to "what actually happens in the school"! In fact a somewhat bold prediction might be that the initial effort in increasing enrolment will be matched by a corresponding FALL in completion rates unless more attention is paid to pedagogies, classroom resources, teacher performance, and the curriculum. It has always been our assertion that you can provide a brilliant education under a tree, with no building, provided the teacher is well trained, enthusiastic, and caring, and there is a good curriculum!

Some of the key points written within and relevant to the SSRP sections we have mentioned are as follows:

1. Flexible learning approaches will be employed (p13)

2. Continuous assessment and remedial support systems will be implemented (p13)

3. The SSRP will make sure that all schools are equipped with minimum enabling conditions .....to include the learning environment ... involving availability of qualified and trained teachers, curriculum and textbook materials, teachers time on task and extra curricular activities. (p16)

4. The goal of teacher professional development is to ensure that all teachers have the knowledge and skills required to effectively facilitate students learning processes.( p37)

5. 4050 Head Teachers will have completed a certified training course (p40)

6. Demand driven and refresher teacher training will be developed and delivered for all teachers over a five year period. (p40)

7. School Management Committees will be provided with funding to buy training for teachers on a need basis. 50,000 teachers will be targeted. (p40)

8. 1-3 months School Management & Leadership training will be developed and implemented for 4050 head Teachers (p41)

Now, admittedly we have been selective with emphasising these points, but they are all actionable items and therefore one would think that after 2.5 years there would be evidence of implementation and of trending improvements. Well think again! In the last 6 months our teacher training programmes have brought us into contact with about 200 teachers in the capital city and most of them have never even heard of the SSRP, have no idea of the planned interventions and the possible effects on their careers, and have had little or no retraining other than the odd half day here and there from District Education Offices. Where training HAD occurred their view of it is unprintable!

In addition to these points for critique and any evaluation of their implementation, the whole of the SSRP section on Quality Education concerns us. We have lost count of how many times over the past 3 years we have asked various stakeholders to define EXACTLY what is meant by Quality Education, and most times we get either a waffled set of statements about results/outcomes such as passing grades and exams, or an embarrassed silence. Imagine yourself as a Head Teacher wanting to improve the quality of education in your school; how would you go about it? Well first, you would have to define it, you know the sort of questions such as where are we now, where do we want to get to? Only then can you follow up with "how are we going to get there?". In our desperation we have started to use the analogy of a Kukra ko masu curry (chicken curry) in our courses and meetings by asking people "what is involved in making a QUALITY chicken curry?", and the best answer we have heard from one Head Teacher was "How do I know, I know what it should taste like but I've no idea how to cook one!". And therein lies the crux of the matter; you can define OUTCOMES as much as you like, (the taste of a quality chicken curry), but if you don't know the inputs or process (ingredients and method) you have got NO chance of making one. There was a bit of laughter on that course as you can imagine, but then there was a dawning realisation that without knowing the ingredients for and method of attaining quality education then the school was doomed to failure. Needless to say, the 20 delegates were very focused for the next hour as we enlightened them on the simple ingredients and methods for developing Quality Education in their schools!

We realise that it is easy to criticise things like this, there are many hard working people who have developed the SSRP and who are undoubtedly doing their best to implement it and the last thing they need is criticism from outsiders. So, with this belief we tried to engage with Asian Development Bank (ADB) and with ActionAid! Nepal in early April. (ADB hold the international donor's financial aid and ActionAid! are this year's coordinators of all the INGO's involved in SSRP implementation).We had one meeting with ADB, particularly the new in-country director and a number of project staff to discuss our perceptions, our teacher training work, and to offer our team and programmes to widen SSRP implementation around Kathmandu. We had another meeting with the Education Coordinator of ActionAid! to also outline our work and to offer our services for training.

The outcome from ADB was their requesting us to approach and convince the Ministry Of Education to allow us to conduct an evaluation of their Continuous Assessment Programme, and the outcome from ActionAid! was no reply to my offer of further meetings to agree actions before our departure from Nepal in early May. Neither responses are especially helpful, the former because it is not our place (nor focus) to convince the MoE to let us run or manage an evaluation project, and the latter for obvious reasons. It seems bizarre to us that as an organisation providing what we believe to be the best teacher training at the very least ActionAid! would want to assess our worth by observing and evaluating our programmes. We must be missing something?

So where do we go from here?

The answer to that will be in the next article when I have the survey results.