An "open letter" to the Director General of DoE, Nepal

Something seems to be stirring in the Department of Education at last as measures are announced to enact a performance management system to combat the poor quality of education delivered in community schools.

The DoE Director General (DG) Lava Dev Awasthi has announced that the government is planning to make teachers more accountable in community schools by implementing a "Grade Teaching System. For each of grades 1,2,3 there will now be one teacher who would teach all subjects.The DoE said that a circular has been sent to all schools across the country to arrange grade teachers for students of grades 1, 2 and 3.

The DoE Director Tek Narayan Pandey further stated that from now onwards the government school teachers would be tightly monitored and evaluated based on the achievements of their students. Previously the government had not tried to hold teachers accountable nor have the teachers attempted to apply new teaching techniques, which are the major causes behind the decreasing charm of public schools, added Pandey. 

“In future, the district education offices will have to prepare progress reports of both students and teachers from each school and submit to the Department of Education. If students score poor marks in a particular subject, the teacher in question would be given warnings to improve their teaching techniques. We will provide them with training if they need it,” Pandey claimed. 

The government can cut grants to schools that fail to show improvements over time. 

And so, although I have known Dr Awasthi since early 2010 and probably been a thorn in his side ever since, I must give credit where it is due. Here is my "open letter" to him sent today:

"Dear Lava

I have just been reading about your implementation of a Grade system for grades 1,2,3 in community schools and a clear performance management system with teachers being monitored by DEOs and held accountable for meeting standards. This is a very big step forward and one that I agree with totally. I congratulate you on taking this action which if professionally implemented will have a massive effect on uplifting quality in your schools.

When we first met in 2010 and created our first MoU, the SSRP had just been published. It is full of teacher/principal development issues and the Annex contains a set of Teacher Standards with section 2.c stating that "Quality of teachers is ensured by assessing their performance and providing them opportunity for professional development". It is encouraging to at last see positive steps being taken to implement something so important to your overall strategy.

If you recall it was on the basis of the SSRP that we at Nepal Schools Aid expanded our programmes of teacher training across the Valley. We created a wide range of modern teacher development programmes which we delivered to 400 teachers in 2012. We worked with 86 schools and tried to engage outwards into Terai, Jhapa, Nuwakot and other areas. We have shown our programmes to NCED and offered to hand over all of our specialised materials once 5 of their master trainers receive input from us, but we have not received any firm decision from them. In fact we set up the new NSA to assist in the delivery of the SSRP and I want to reaffirm our commitment to you and to that task with my staff in Kathmandu available to help in any way they can. 

We look forward to continuing our work in Nepal and trust that your implementation of teacher performance management and NSA's continued teacher development work will bring to fruition everything that is desired in the reform of your education system.

Best regards

Brian"

Making Nepalese classrooms more interesting?

According to a 2012 flash report of the Department of Education (DoE), 82 percent of children enrolled in Grade 1 reach Grade 5 while 32.5 percent of students quit school by the time they reach grade 8. The situation is worse at the secondary level. Over 55 percent of students are out of the school system by the time they reach grade 10. The highest dropout rates are in grade one (7.9 percent), grade eight (7.1 percent) and grade six (6.3 percent) for grades one to eight, according to the report. Aiming to control the high dropout rate and bring out-of-school children (OSC) back into the school system, the government has decided to launch special enrolment and retention programmes in 27 districts with special focus on eight Tarai districts with the highest number of OSCs. 

“Along with new enrolments, a special campaign aimed at minimising the high dropout rate by creating an environment for the students to continue their education will be conducted,” said Lava Deo Awasthi, DoE director general. The month-long campaign, scheduled to begin on April 15, aims to mobilise teachers’ unions, mother groups, children’s clubs and forest consumer groups. The campaign will be held in two phases and will welcome students with garlands for the first 15 days, followed by a door-to-door programme in the second half starting from May 1. Awasthi said NGOs and INGOs working in the education field will also be mobilised in the campaign with each of these organisations given a certain area and target.

The DoE is planning to increase the enrolment rate at the primary level to 90 percent through the new drive in the eight Tarai districts, said Awasthi. The programme will target bringing 66,526 students into the school system and controlling their dropout rate. The department has directed all District Education Offices to ensure that no student is out of the school system. In order to boost the ER, the government has also announced cash incentives. Students from Dalits and marginalised communities as well as poor families will be provided with special scholarships. The DoE pointed out that various factors including poverty, long distances to school, disability, illness, language barriers, politicisation, migration and children’s dislike for school are the main reasons for dropouts. 

“Our assessment shows that we can retain students to a large extent by improving the academic environment in schools,” Awasthi said. “From this academic session, the DoE will focus in making classrooms more interesting.” 

Now, I have known Dr Awasthi since 2009 when the SSRP was first launched and intend to ask him to ensure that we at NSA are involved in this "programme" too. So I encourage everyone to write to him too, especially with some views on how he can "make classrooms more interesting", because giving garlands and paying children to enrol in schools has NOT worked for the last 3 years. Adopting a "bums on seats" approach does NOTHING to improve retention. It's the TEACHERS who need to be more interesting, so DO please write to him via the Department of Education which shows his email address as lava.awasthi@gmail.com

Should there be MORE or LESS private schools in Nepal?

An article in today's Republica describes the increasing negative focus towards private schools in Nepal, either because parents are having to pay higher fees or because of the government's directive to regulate the private schools in areas such as class sizes. Many of the factors are counterproductive in their attempts to get control.

The article's author comments; "The most damaging of the new rules is that the new Act requires all private schools to have a minimum of 22 students in a single grade, and a minimum of 115 students for a primary school, 165 for a lower secondary and 220 for secondary schools. This new law, if followed judiciously, will make it difficult to open new schools. If you want to open a school and you can find only 21 students for a class, you are out. Research shows that smaller class sizes are assets in schools. In the US some states have laws limiting the class size to not more than 18 students in primary schools. Top quality schools actually have class size limits for maximum students, not minimum students!" "Also the regulation should focus on making the pricing mechanism more transparent, and making it difficult for schools to exploit parents. Here are some ideas: Mandate that schools publish the cost of education in an easily understandable format. That is, all schools should follow the same format, so parents can compare. Standardize the way fees are charged. Don’t allow private schools to charge whatever they want, whenever they want. Allow for increasing fees, but not more than inflation, and show the maximum total cost for parents. Make the admission fee a onetime only policy." The author concludes with; "As for making quality education available to poor students, an obvious way is to improve the quality of government schools, but that is wishful thinking. The best way to provide quality education for the poor is to encourage private schools in rural areas by giving them tax breaks, or giving poor students vouchers to attend private schools. Another idea is to have a policy where the government selects students in a national level exam in the fourth grade, and places students in private schools of their choosing, similar to what they are doing in private medical colleges. Nepal needs more private schools, not less. Private schools are opening up so frequently because there is a higher demand, but smaller supply. They survive because they provide value." 

The most concerning comment is "an obvious way is to improve the quality of government schools, but that is wishful thinking." If this statement carries any weight then Nepal Schools Aid may as well close down NOW! What do you all think?

Regular Newsletter-March 2013

Just published our regular Newsletter, click below to access it or subscribe:

Newsletter March 2013

Nepal Education: Low priority, more expense!

This article in today's Himalayan Times is so accurate and honest from one of the country's top educationalists, Dr Mana Prasad Wagley, it is worth printing here in full:

The MoE remains unsuccessful in preparing concrete plans for quality‚ while the donors have remained unsuccessful in streamlining their investment to produce quality. From the lessons learnt‚ let us commit to build a foundation to promote quality. 

"Authorities at the Ministry of Education (MOE) always create a hue and cry in public education trying to justify the lack of funds. In fact, the highest budget in the social sector has been allocated for public education for the past several decades in Nepal. Out of the 34,000 schools in the country, barely five hundred can be traced as good educational institutions depending upon their products at the time of the final examinations. Some three hundred schools cross 70 per cent pass rate in the annual SLC examinations. What about the other more than 90 per cent of the public schools? Nobody cares about them; neither is the MoE nor the local authorities are accountable for this. This stupidity has made all Nepali people shed tears because 78 per cent of all the students studying in this country are in public schools. The irony is that instead of trying to make this part qualitative, the Department of Education remains busy in regulating the private schools, spending almost half a year in 2012; the regulations, however, have no guarantee to be implemented.

A multi-donor project has failed to improve public education in Nepal. The evaluation documents of the BPEP, EFA, SESP, SEDP, and others are there as evidences. Besides, there have been many researches conducted about the different components of public education by independent agencies in the past two decades. However, nothing has improved except for the number of students in schools. There have been promises in plan documents including EFA and SSRP, through which the government ensures quality education for all. This slogan has been just like the slogan of the political parties at election time.

What does the MoE do then? It simply changes one word or the other every year from the previous educational plans and programs and produces it to the NPC. And the NPC endorses the same and forwards it to MoF providing justifications for the financial package. In fact, the MoF, sometimes, raises questions on the program and justification before allocating the budget for education. However, this meager effort has made no impact at all. In this manner, the MoE has been surviving with the least probability of sustaining the fate of public schools in Nepal. The approval of the mushrooming private schools is one of the evidences that the MoE wants public education privatized in this country. The next evidence is that MoE has now stopped affiliating private schools in the urban areas, but it does not restrict the same for rural sector. This means the MoE wants the flood of private schools in rural sector so that public education will be crippled. This “privatization of education mindset” of MoE authorities, who earn their living by public taxes, is not tolerable at all. If they really think that they could do nothing for the benefit of public schools, let all the public schools be run by the private companies. If that should be the case in Nepal, they have to be ready first to close down the MoE and DoE. Is there any accountability on the part of the MoE? Have they ever come up with an agenda for quality improvement? Have they installed student and teacher support systems in schools in a substantive manner? Have they been able to promote the quality of public education by spending 17 per cent of the national budget that comes from the sweat and blood of the taxpayers? Have they ever realized this hard fact? The answer to all these questions is a big “No”. How can they then justify the positions they are holding at different levels in the MoE and DoE? 

The donors’ part is also lethargic. They always measure the progress based on disbursement. Only spending money can never guarantee quality. They should have spent money for the improvement of the system not by distributing money in different echelons. Have they been able to improve the curricula and textbooks? Have they been able to improve the student assessment system? Has there been any qualitative improvement on the part of teachers and SMC? Has there been any improvement in SLC examination results of the public schools? The answer to all these questions is again a big “No”. Then why are they spending their taxpayers’ money in Nepal for nothing? It is another shame on their part. Do they know that Nepal’s education system is teacher-centered and not student-centered? Let us take only one example: our system guarantees the monthly salary of teachers but never guarantees the quality of education of the children enrolled. Now, they have to rethink the way they are spending millions of dollars for the past three decades in Nepal. Either support the substantive and visible quality education or do not support at all.

We cannot justify the huge expense made in education sector neither by the government (now 78 per cent) nor by the donors’ (22 per cent). Then why should one worry about investing at all? This indicates that the MoE has remained unsuccessful in preparing concrete plans for quality on one hand and the donors remained unsuccessful to streamline their investment to produce quality on the other. From the lessons learnt, let us commit to build a foundation to promote quality by hitting hard on the past nuisance." 

Dr. Wagley is an educationist - See more at: Himalayan Times

An obvious solution to a not obvious problem?

In recent years the pass rate of students taking the SLC has fallen dramatically, and yet there still seems to be no "consensus" (a much used word in Nepal) as to the main cause(s). Yesterday, a report in the Himalayan Times  laid the blame squarely on the politicisation of the education system, as well as blaming interference from donor agencies.

KATHMANDU: Leaders from various political parties and education experts today demanded that education sector be made free of politics. 

Speaking at a discussion on Higher Education Policy, they said quality of education was not improving in Nepal due to political interference, especially in higher education. Politics has completely ruined Nepal’s education sector, said Mahendra Panday, a CPN-UML politburo member. 

UCPN-Maoist spokesperson Agni Sapkota blamed the multi-sectoral interference for the deteriorating quality of education in Nepal. 

Stating that education policies were designed and guided by donor agencies, he said, “Due to influence of donor agencies, the government has failed to implement even the basic education policy in Nepal.”

However this is an ageing chestnut, and represents only one view. What do educationalists in Nepal actually think is/are the main causes? Well, a month ago I wrote to about 100 educationalist contacts in Nepal and asked for their views to the question "Which factor has contributed the most to the falling SLC results?" and here they are:

1. 55% Low teaching standards

2. 36% Incorrect teaching methods

3. 5%  Inadequate classroom resources

4. 2%  Poor schools infrastructure

5. 2%  Low quality Principals

We had a 40% return which isn't bad, but I would be the first to accept that a wider audience or response may have altered the result, all I can report on is what was chosen.

So, given that this group of educationalists in Nepal think that teaching methods and teaching standards are to blame, then why should we dance around the obvious that these are the two things that need investment and/or sorting out to improve education quality in the country? Focus on the teachers, help them, train them, coach them, guide them .............. or replace them.

Ministry of Education listens at last!

Today is a historic day, not only have the bones of King Richard III been found after 500+ years, but NSA has at last opened the door of Nepal's Ministry of Education!

At 1.00pm Kathmandu time, Babita and Sangita gave a one hour "showcase presentation" to directors and staff at the national education centre (NCED) of the Ministry. Followed by more than an hour of discussions and questions, I think we can say that they are positive about our programmes, their content and our delivery approach. 

It has taken us 5 years of work, 3 years of "badgering", and an exchange of emails and short meetings since August 2012. But today thanks also to the continued support and efforts of Maya Rai, the Deputy Director at NCED we finally have a breakthrough.

Our offer to the Ministry/NCED has been consistent:

1. We will train any number of your own teacher trainers you wish.

2. We will show you and provide (as appropriate) all of our programme materials.

3. We will work together with you in collaboration to develop selected schools in Kathmandu

4. We will endeavour to provide specialist expertise from the UK in appropriate educational topics

Now, we wait for the inevitable negotiation which will follow, trying hard not to just "give away the words without the music!". Everyone wants our materials, but you don't become a historian by reading a history book! 

And finally, thank you, thank you , thank you to everyone who has supported us financially, intellectually, and emotionally to get to this stage. Now for stage 2!

Asia Foundation slams education in Nepal

A report released last week by The Asia Foundation gives a detailed analysis of the mismanagement of health and education services in 13 VDCs of six districts and (surprise, surprise) concludes that the capacity of institutions at the local level and the quality of services they provide have not improved after 13 years since the Local Self Governance Act went into effect, depriving the people of the democratic dividend. 

Baburam Bishwakarma of the Centre for Investigative Journalism comes to a similar conclusion about government neglect in improving the quality of education at the local level. For example since the incentivisation scheme was invoked to increase the number of children entering schools, government-run schools in the districts have been inflating the number of students enrolled in order to cash in on the state's incentive programme. Therefore people up and down the line in the bureaucracy and local political parties are on the take, and everyone gets a share. 

The story, published in Shikshak magazinethis month, exposes how the Ministry of Education couldn't be bothered to deal with it!. The plan to improve the quality of education and ensure accountability by transferring management to local communities has backfired, with a powerful few capturing school management committees and pocketing kickbacks from construction of school infrastructure and procurement of books and stationery. I include here the link for Shikshak but only my wife can read it in our house, so if you are not Nepali ..... hard luck! 

(http://www.teacher.org.np/index.php?)

So, to give you a flavour of the Asia Foundation report (all 39 pages of it) here are a couple of paragraphs from the section on Education. As you will see it gives an opinion about both poor physical infrastructure and poorly qualified teachers.

(http://www.asiafoundation.org/publications/pdf/1167)

The Education Sector

Despite the intent of the LSGA to enhance educational performance by devolving relevant authority, the performance of the education sector faces major challenges, including the politicization of faculty through labor unions, hijacking of SMCs agenda by local elites, and in the absence of local elections, the exercise of political power in communities moved from the conventional spheres of political contestation through elections to local bodies to other community-based organizations such as SMCs.

The education sector in Nepal is extremely politicized, more so perhaps than any other service sector. Collusion manifests primarily through political interference in areas involving significant funds, such as construction of school buildings or other large procurements, or where they can gain politically by engaging in patronage politics, as in teacher recruitment and disbursing locally administered scholarships.

The intent of devolving the education sector was to improve academic standards in the nation’s public schools, but the rampant diversion of resources has produced the opposite result. As a result of all this, despite the nation’s huge investment in educating its citizens, parents across the country who can bear the cost prefer to send their children to private “boarding” schools.

Low quality of education. 

The poor SLC results are one indicator of the failure to provide quality public education in Nepal. In addition to the extreme politicization of the schools and the failure to represent the true interests of stakeholders, two other factors play an important role in this failure. The political corruption of teacher recruitment results in poorly qualified faculty and politically appointed teachers who are focused on politics instead of pedagogy.

The corruption in school construction and other procurement processes means that students are forced to study in a compromised environment, negatively affecting their capacity to learn. As a result of all this, despite the nation’s huge investment in educating its citizens,

parents across the country who can bear the cost prefer to send their children to private “boarding” schools.

IN SUMMARY: This is a damning report and further evidence of corruption, failing responsibility, and also collusion, all contributing to the downward spiral of the quality of education in Nepal. From management committees, Principals, teachers, District Offices, all the way up to the Ministry of Education, ALL must take the blame for the failure. As the report says, and as many of us know, the billions of £££ poured into state education since the formulation of the SSRP alone in 2009, has had very little impact. The finances have been there all the time, but just not spent on education!