Student Unions and Private Schools Clash Over Teacher Recruitment and Education Policy
Student unions across Nepal have taken a strong stance against the proposed changes to teacher recruitment systems, emphasizing the need for open competition to ensure quality education. Meanwhile, private school operators are also resisting certain provisions of the School Education Act, raising concerns about their operational autonomy.
The 16 student unions, affiliated with both ruling and opposition parties, issued a joint statement urging the government to prioritize merit-based recruitment. They argue that teacher qualifications should be the primary criterion for appointments, aligning with the constitutional principle of inclusion. According to the student organizations, the School Education Act must guarantee that all teacher positions are filled through open competition.
This demand comes at a time when political parties, including those aligned with the Nepal Teacher Federation, are pushing for increased reservations for temporary teachers in permanent postings. The current draft of the School Education Bill proposes that half of the vacant positions be filled through open competition, while the other half would go through internal selection. However, there has been significant debate over this ratio.
A subcommittee under the House of Representatives’ Education, Health, and Information Technology Committee initially agreed on a 75:25 split between open and internal competition. But following discussions between Education Minister Rajhuji Pant and members of the Nepali Congress, the proposal was revised to a 60:40 ratio. Some lawmakers had even suggested granting all temporary teachers permanent positions in one go, but this idea faced resistance.
The bill’s progress has stalled since July 6, despite the minister’s request for additional consultation time. House committee members attribute the delay to the government’s reluctance to finalize the proposal. As a result, the committee has shifted its focus to the Media Council Bill, leaving the School Education Bill in limbo.
The Nepal Teacher Federation has set an August 5 deadline for the bill’s endorsement. With just four days left, the future of the legislation remains uncertain. The student unions have warned that further delays could hinder the implementation of critical reforms in the education sector.
In addition to demanding fair recruitment practices, the student groups have called on all three levels of government—federal, provincial, and local—to significantly increase unconditional investment in school education. They believe this will help manage school staff and improve the quality of public education.
Private school operators have also expressed concerns about the potential impact of the School Education Act on their operations. The National Private and Boarding Schools’ Association, Nepal, has urged the government to ensure that private schools continue to operate under the Companies Act. They argue that these institutions cannot be converted into non-profit trusts or made free.
The association claims that the School Education Act must explicitly state that schools operating under the Companies Act cannot be classified as non-profit. This is seen as a crucial step to protect the autonomy of private educational institutions.
The High-Level National Education Commission, established in 2018, recommended a gradual transition of private investment in education into trust-based models over ten years. This aligns with the constitution’s vision of a socialist-oriented society, which emphasizes strengthening the public sector. The commission also advised managing the entire education system under a unified structure, with privately funded schools becoming service-oriented institutions within a decade.
As the debate over the School Education Act continues, the voices of student unions, private school operators, and various stakeholders highlight the complex challenges facing Nepal’s education system. Balancing merit-based recruitment, institutional autonomy, and long-term policy goals remains a critical task for policymakers.
