Legal promise, practical gaps: School education neither free nor compulsory – The Rising Nepal

Report on Nepal’s Compulsory Education Act and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1. Introduction: Aligning National Policy with SDG 4

In 2018, the Government of Nepal enacted the Act relating to Compulsory and Free Education, 2075, a legislative measure designed to align with the nation’s constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory basic education. This Act is a critical component of Nepal’s commitment to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. A key provision of the Act stipulates that from 2028, citizens who have not completed basic education (up to grade eight) will be disqualified from government services and various forms of public and private sector employment and enterprise. This policy is further supported by the School Education Sector Plan (SESP) 2022-2032, which reaffirms the state’s obligation to provide universal basic education.

2. Current Status of Basic Education and SDG Target 4.1

Despite legislative frameworks, Nepal faces significant challenges in achieving SDG Target 4.1, which calls for the universal completion of free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education. The gap between policy and reality is evident in national education statistics.

• Target Age Group (Basic Education): 4-12 years
• Out-of-School Children: According to the Education Management Information System (EMIS), 412,243 children in this age group are out of school, representing approximately 15% of the total population in this demographic.
• High Dropout Rates: Student retention remains a major concern, undermining educational continuity.
  • Grades 1-5: 8.2%
  • Grades 6-8: 5.4%
  • Grades 9-10: 4.7%

3. Barriers to Universal Basic Education

Multiple systemic and socio-economic barriers hinder Nepal’s progress towards its educational goals, impacting several interconnected SDGs.

1. Socio-Economic and Regional Disparities: Factors related to poverty (SDG 1) and inequality (SDG 10) are primary drivers of low enrollment and high dropout rates. These challenges are particularly acute in the Karnali and Lumbini provinces and include a lack of parental awareness, long distances to schools, and the necessity for children to engage in household responsibilities.
2. Budgetary Insufficiency: Officials from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST) identify inadequate funding as a major impediment. This shortfall prevents the effective implementation of targeted programs and compromises the principle of “free” education, as many community schools are forced to levy fees for operational costs, creating a barrier for low-income families.
3. Governance and Accountability Deficits: Inter-governmental conflicts between the three tiers of government over authority and responsibility have created implementation gaps in the education sector. Furthermore, a lack of consistent policy and accountability has limited the government’s promise of free and compulsory education to mere rhetoric, according to the National Campaign for Education.
4. Lack of Targeted Interventions: While the government has implemented general programs such as free textbook distribution, mid-day meals, and scholarships, there is a notable absence of targeted interventions for the most vulnerable children who require specialized support.

4. The Challenge of Inclusivity: Addressing SDG 10

A significant number of children with multiple disabilities remain outside the formal education system, a direct challenge to the “leave no one behind” principle of the SDGs and the goal of reducing inequalities (SDG 10). While the government is constructing one special residential school in each province, officials acknowledge the logistical difficulty of serving a geographically dispersed population of children with disabilities. Municipal authorities report facing serious challenges in providing adequate educational resources for this group. Although the Act includes an exemption for individuals unable to acquire education due to severe health or disability, the systemic failure to provide inclusive education remains a critical issue.

5. Future Outlook and Implications for SDG 8

Education experts suggest that the primary obstacle is a lack of political will rather than a scarcity of resources, advocating for flexible learning models such as distance and online education. The impending 2028 deadline raises concerns about the Act’s potential to inadvertently violate citizens’ rights. If a large segment of the population remains without basic education, their disqualification from formal employment will severely hamper progress towards SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by creating a systemic barrier to economic participation.

The current circumstances indicate that without significant and immediate government intervention, the law may need to be amended to prevent the widespread disenfranchisement of citizens from economic and civic life. A failure to address the root causes of educational exclusion will undermine Nepal’s broader sustainable development agenda.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article primarily addresses issues related to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a central focus on education and its interconnectedness with poverty, inequality, and governance.

   • SDG 4: Quality Education: This is the most prominent SDG discussed. The entire article revolves around Nepal’s “Act relating to Compulsory and Free Education,” the goal of ensuring all citizens complete basic education (up to grade eight), and the challenges in achieving this, such as high out-of-school numbers, dropout rates, and the failure to provide genuinely free education.
   • SDG 1: No Poverty: The article explicitly links poverty to educational barriers. It states that “poverty, school distance and household responsibilities contribute to low enrollment and high dropout rates.” Measures like mid-day meals and scholarships are mentioned as interventions to mitigate the impact of poverty on education.
   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights inequalities in educational access for vulnerable groups. It specifically mentions the large number of “students having multiple disabilities also out of schools” and the particular challenges in enrolling children in poorer regions like “Karnali and Lumbini.” The law’s exception for individuals with disabilities is also a point of discussion regarding inequality.
   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article points to significant institutional failures that hinder educational progress. It mentions an “ongoing conflict among the three tiers of government,” “budgetary insufficiently,” a “lack of consistent policy and accountability,” and a failure to implement constitutional guarantees, all of which are relevant to building effective and accountable institutions.
   • SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article connects education directly to future economic participation. It states that the law will disqualify those without basic education “from being elected, appointed or nominated to any post in any institution established in the governmental, non-governmental or private sector,” thereby linking educational attainment to access to decent work.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. The article is centered on Nepal’s effort to enforce “compulsory and free basic education” up to grade eight, which is a core component of this target. The challenges of high dropout rates and out-of-school children are direct obstacles to achieving it.
   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations. The article’s focus on the “large number of students having multiple disabilities” being out of school and the government’s plan to build “special residential schools” directly addresses this target of ensuring access for the vulnerable.
   • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all. The article mentions government measures like “free textbook distribution, mid-day meal programmes, scholarships, and the provision of sanitary pads” as interventions to improve school attendance, which are forms of social protection aimed at helping poor and vulnerable families keep their children in school.
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… disability… or other status. The article discusses the exclusion of children with disabilities from the education system and the potential economic exclusion of citizens who fail to complete basic education, making this target highly relevant.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article’s critique of the “ongoing conflict among the three tiers of government,” insufficient budgets, and the “lack of consistent policy and accountability” directly relates to the need for more effective and accountable institutions to implement the education law successfully.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions several explicit and implied indicators that can be used to measure progress.

   • Out-of-school rate (Indicator 4.1.4): The article provides a precise figure for this indicator. It states, “Currently, 412,243 children of the age group are out of school… The number is 15 per cent of total population of this group.” This is a direct measure of progress towards Target 4.1.
   • Completion rate / Dropout rate (Related to Indicator 4.1.5): While not providing a completion rate, the article gives specific dropout rates which are inversely related to completion. “EMIS data show that 8.2 per cent students drop out between grades one and five, 5.4 per cent between grades six and eight, and 4.7 per cent between grades nine and ten.” Tracking these rates measures progress in retaining students.
   • Proportion of schools with access to basic services (Related to Target 4.a): The article implies a lack of resources by stating that schools “continue to charge minimal fees to cover expenses such as teacher salaries, support staff, electricity, and other operational costs.” The need for schools to “manage funds for utilities, private resource teachers, and extracurricular activities on their own” indicates a gap in public funding and provision of basic services, which is a measurable indicator.
   • Government expenditure on education: This is a key implied indicator. The article repeatedly cites “budgetary insufficiently” and “insufficient budget” as major challenges. An analysis of the education budget as a percentage of the national budget would be a quantitative indicator to measure the government’s commitment.
   • Parity indices (Indicator 4.5.1): The article implies the need for this indicator by highlighting disparities. It points out that children with “multiple disabilities” and those in specific regions (“Karnali and Lumbini”) are disproportionately out of school. Measuring the enrollment and completion rates for these specific groups compared to the national average would serve as a parity index.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: risingnepaldaily.com