Unified Curriculum Ends Educational Divide

I quote one of our politicians: "I began learning the alphabet in the sixth grade, so I am not as fluent in English as those who have been studying it since preschool." In his statement, we discern a sense of sorrow stemming from the deprivation of the opportunity to learn English, which causes him shame on the international stage, particularly when delivering public speeches representing Nepal.

Let us now turn to the matter at hand. Nepal government has been making significant investments to improve the quality of education in public schools. These efforts focus on infrastructure development, the establishment of computer labs, and the expansion of extracurricular activities. While these initiatives are commendable, a substantial disparity continues to exist between the educational experiences offered by government-run schools and their private counterparts, undermining the goal of providing equal opportunities for all students.

Gap

In government schools, students are taught subjects such as Bigyan (Science), Ganit (Mathematics), Arthashastra (Economics), and Lekha (Account) primarily in Nepali. In contrast, private schools teach subjects like Science, Mathematics, Economics, and Accounts in English. This difference in the medium of instruction creates a considerable gap between the two educational systems, perpetuating a divide between students from government and private schools. Although the core subjects may appear similar, the language of instruction — English in private schools and Nepali in government schools — significantly affects academic outcomes, particularly in sectors like recruitment by prestigious banks, multinational corporations, and research institutions, where English proficiency is often a critical factor in hiring decisions.

English-medium education has increasingly become a marker of perceived quality. It is often seen as superior, with students from private schools regarded as better equipped for high-paying jobs, both at home and abroad. On the other hand, students from government schools, whose education is primarily in Nepali, face considerable disadvantages. Their limited proficiency in English restricts their access to global job markets, particularly in multinational companies, where English is a vital skill. This language barrier often prevents them from accessing opportunities that could lead to better salaries and career advancement. As a result, students from government-run schools find themselves largely confined to a narrow range of opportunities, primarily within government jobs offered by the Public Service Commission, where competition is intense.

The linguistic divide has profound implications for the future prospects of government school students. The lack of proficiency in English places them at a disadvantage in the global job market, marginalising them from the high-paying, competitive positions that private school graduates often secure. This exacerbates social and economic inequalities, reinforcing a cycle in which those educated in government schools struggle to achieve the same success as their peers in private schools.

If Nepali were recognised as a language at the United Nations, akin to Chinese, Arabic, Russian, Spanish, etc. it could serve as a valuable tool for global communication, enabling students to access international opportunities and participate more fully in the global economy. However, given Nepal’s status as a developing country, Nepali remains largely confined to domestic use, limiting the global utility of the language. As a result, graduates from government schools, who are primarily educated in Nepali, face considerable challenges when competing for international job opportunities, further entrenching their exclusion from the global workforce.

Paradoxically, graduates from private schools are often perceived as more capable, despite the fact that teachers in these schools are typically less experienced and less trained. In contrast, government school teachers undergo a rigorous selection process, followed by extensive exams and training administered by the Nepal Education Council. While it is not my intention to criticize private school teachers, the discrepancy is striking. Despite the superior qualifications of government school teachers, their output is often perceived as inferior, while private school teachers, who may have fewer qualifications, are producing superior results. This discrepancy highlights flaws within the governmental education system, which must be reformed for the betterment of our students' future.

This has led to a situation where graduates from government schools are frequently considered inferior, despite having similar — or even superior — potential. The underlying issue lies in the type of education being provided. Private schools offer a modern, internationally aligned curriculum with an emphasis on subjects like Science, often taught in English. In contrast, government schools continue to follow a more traditional approach, focusing on subjects like Bigyan in Nepali. If we acknowledge the importance of modern subjects in today’s globalised world, it becomes imperative to ensure that government school students receive the same quality of education to compete on equal terms.

To bridge this gap, it is essential that both government and private schools adopt a unified curriculum. This would ensure that government school students are equipped with the same skills, knowledge, and competencies as their private school counterparts, enabling them to compete in the global job market. It would also help eliminate the stigma faced by government school graduates, who are often perceived as less capable simply because they were educated in Nepali or did not receive a curriculum aligned with international standards.

Equitable society

If private schools are regarded as superior, and government employees — who are funded by taxpayer money — choose to send their children to private institutions for the English-medium education, why not implement English-medium instruction in government schools from the playgroup level through to the master's level? This would level the playing field, providing equal educational opportunities for all students, regardless of socio-economic background. It is crucial for education policymakers to avoid perpetuating a dual education system—one for the wealthy and another for the poor — that places an undue burden on students and restricts their ability to succeed in a competitive global market.

In conclusion, to empower Nepal’s youth and ensure equal opportunities for all, the education system must be unified. By providing all students — whether in government or private schools — with high-quality, globally competitive education, we can enable them to excel on the world stage and contribute meaningfully to the development of the nation. Only through this reform we can hope to bridge the educational divide and create a more equitable society where every student has the chance to succeed, regardless of their background.

(The author is the chairman of Nepal Akashaya College, Kathmandu)