Overhaul Archaic Examination System

Formal education in Nepal began after the democratic movement that toppled the 104-year-old Rana regime in 1951. The country’s political system has undergone a sea change since then, but one system has remained unaltered: the examination regime. Nepal, irrespective of the political transformation from an autocratic monarchy, partyless Panchayat regime, multiparty democracy with monarchy to the federal republic polity, has been imposing a rigid, opaque, discouraging and outdated examination system. 

Elsewhere, examinations are held to promote and evaluate learning. But in Nepal, they are operated to intimidate learners or students. A closer look at the nomenclature vividly demonstrates it. The educational entity entrusted to operate exams is termed ‘The Office of the Controller of Examinations.’ It epitomises Nepal’s ill-reputed bureaucracy, which places authority over facilitation. Names are not simply words. They connote institutional characteristics. What Nepal now needs is an institution that facilitates learning achievements, promotes transparency and accountability. 

Opaque, centralised system 

The National Examination Board for secondary education appears, at least in name, institutionally neutral. Yet its operational culture mirrors bureaucratic rigidity that characterises the Office of the Controller of Examinations. The system has made a farce of the democratic political system, which is predicated on transparency and accountability. The examination system is neither transparent nor accountable. No students have access to scrutinise their learning outcomes. The examination system is centralised in a federal republican polity. What a ridiculous act!

The most disgraceful part of the examination system is that the marked answer sheets are neither made accessible for inspection nor returned to the examinees. The evaluation criteria are so rigid that it is not meant for promoting students, but disheartening them. First, the examinations, particularly after the school education, are seldom held on time. Second, results are never published on time. Third, students can acquire their academic transcript only from the Kathmandu-based ‘Office of the Controller of Examinations.’ 

If an examinee fails, they have to wait a full circle to appear in the re-exam as the result of ‘retotaling’ takes more than a year to be public. How can a nation hope to produce an accountable citizen who has to pass such an ordeal of opacity and inaccountability to fail in an examination? The irresponsible citizens and unscrupulous bureaucrats are the product of such an education system.

According to the Education Act, school education begins with pre-primary and ends with grade 12th. If that is the legal definition of the school cycle, the logic of imposing high-stakes public examinations becomes questionable. Here comes the question: How come the district-level exam conducted in grade 8 and the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) after grade 10 are legal and relevant? 

These are not administrative issues, but rather a serious flaw in education policy. Why are children punished by imposing illegal and irrelevant exams that not only cost their parents, but also their precious childhood? The present pedagogy promotes rote learning and instils fear in students.

The consequences are dire. Students who fail or receive the lowest grades in the SEE can neither pursue higher studies of their choice nor find jobs. The current letter grading system has removed the term ‘failed,’ but discrimination persists. Examinees who score the lowest are not allowed to study further. This is not only a stigma but a crime against humanity.

According to the Economic Survey 2024/2025, in the academic year 2024/25, 86.5 per cent of students continued their studies up to Grade 8, while 66.9 per cent studied up to Grade 10, and only 40.6 per cent up to Grade 12. The disappearance of students is not only daunting but also symptomatic of the failure of our education system.

Such an examination system comes with a price. The sheer waste of time, energy, and money puts psychological pressure on students and their parents. Nepal has witnessed repeated public concern over students' mental health during examination seasons. Such a system should not only be questioned but also brought to an end. Transparency, timeliness, and accountability should be the non-compromising factors of a credible evaluation system. 

First, when students are denied the opportunity to see how their responses were assessed, the process ceases to be educational and becomes merely declaratory. The Ministry of Education has flouted the Supreme Court decision that requires the authority to make marked answer sheets accessible to examinees.

Second, the office must publish the academic calendar at the beginning of an academic year, including admission, filling out online forms, examination and publication of results. Hundreds of students have missed their enrolment with scholarships, migration deadlines, and employment opportunities due to unnecessary delays in conducting exams and publishing results. 

Third, results must be published within a month. Digital tabulation and computerised record-keeping have made it possible to publish results with high accuracy and within a given timeline.

Transparency and timeline 

The provision of retotaling must be replaced by the return of marked answer sheets. Almost all examinees have to reappear for the exams they fail, as the results of retotaling come months later. This renders the remedial mechanism practically meaningless and grossly violates constitutional rights. An appeal process that concludes after the next examination is regressive.

The combined effect of opacity and delay results in waste of time, energy and resilience. What should be a system of evaluation turns into a system of attrition. This is one of the major factors behind the youth exodus for higher education and low-skilled jobs abroad, which has drained the brain from Nepal. 

Returning marked answer sheets, enforcing strict result deadlines, and ensuring that re-evaluation concludes before the forms are filled for the next examination cycle are not radical reforms. They are minimum administrative standards. If Nepal aspires to reform governance, retain its youth and strengthen the education system, reform of the examination culture must begin with transparency and time discipline.

(Sedhai is a freelance writer.)