Is Free Education in Nepal a Myth?

After hearing the stories of some of Rukmini Foundation’s scholars, it is clear that scholarships and/or “free education” programs are not always a guarantee that students will remain and succeed in school. 

Empowering girls and women in Nepal through the provision of education, basic healthcare, gainful employment, and leadership opportunities, is the key to building and sustaining safe and productive communities, particularly in poor, underserved, and hard-to-reach areas.  

Nepal is one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world, with 25% of the population living below the poverty line, and an unemployment rate of 46% (CIA World Factbook). Lack of access to basic healthcare and education, poor nutrition, climate changes, child marriage, and sex trafficking, are some of the critical challenges the country faces.

Despite Nepal taking significant steps, particularly to meet the millennium goals of universal primary education and promoting gender equality and empowerment of girls and women, there is still much to do to ensure that education is not only accessible but is also of a high quality.

In order to combat barriers to accessing education in Pharping, Nepal, public schools are offering “free” education particularly for children aged between 6 and 13 – but dropout rates are still high. Are students finding it hard to cope with the curriculum? Do they get to a point where they no longer want to stay in school?

There are a number of factors that contribute to the lack of success of such programs, particularly for female students:

• some students find getting to school challenging, if not impossible, given where they live in proximity to the school. Most schools do not offer boarding. With unreliable modes of transportation, spending an hour and more walking to and from school is not feasible, or even safe, in the long-term;
• female children, particularly in rural environments, are usually not considered as valuable as male children. It is often assumed that sons are more likely to secure good jobs. Before free education programs came into being, when faced with a choice of educating their sons or daughters, most times, the daughter will be pulled out of school even though her parents are supportive of her education; 
• many households rely on farming to earn a living. The reality is that most families cannot afford to employ farm workers. As such, most parents believe that it makes better financial sense to use their children for labor instead of sending them to school.

As stated by Dr. Nabin Aryal in his blog post titled, “The High Costs of Free Education in Government Schools of Nepal”, education is free, but not quite. Hidden fees, cultural practices, gender bias, and the quality of education in most public schools, are some of the main issues Dr. Aryal says affect “free” education. To better understand the issues surrounding access to education, here are examples of what life is like for many girls in Pharping, Nepal:

“Sarita’s” daily schedule includes waking up early to fetch water from a location that is at least five miles from her home, and attending to other household duties before reporting to school. She also has to spend an hour and a half walking to and from school each day, using pathways through isolated farmland and forests. Sarita is 10 and has two brothers aged 8 and 12. One day, her parents inform her and her brothers that they can no longer afford to educate all three children, they are only able to educate two. Given their traditional belief that boys are more valuable and likely to get good jobs, her parents automatically tell her that she is more useful at home since girls and women are responsible for managing household duties. Sarita’s only choice is to stay and work at home. She also has to face the dark reality that her parents might decide to marry her off since they will benefit financially from her marriage.  

In a different scenario, “Malina” is saved from dropping out of school, because the government passed a law that requires all public schools to offer free education. In addition, the government states that aside from tuition waivers, “free education” means receiving books and some stationary. Now that education is free, Malina is overjoyed to learn that she can also move to a different school that offers a better quality of education than the school she was previously attending. But she soon discovers there is a catch. Students at her new school are expected to purchase their own uniforms and are not exempt from paying additional fees such as student activity fees, which are mandated by each school. So whether she stays in the school she was attending, which does not offer a good quality education or moves to one that does, she still has to pay some fees for her “free” education.

Most poor households can barely afford three meals each day. Those who own produce or animal farms spend most of their money on farm equipment or on the care of animals. So when parents are told education is free, they are not expecting to pay any monies associated with educating their children. While not having to pay tuition fees takes a huge burden off of parents, asking these families to still spend money on other fees that could go towards their home costs is not feasible.

Another problem with free education is how it affects the quality of instructors and learning. Providing free education now means that many public schools have an influx of students, which affects the teacher/student ratio. Before, a teacher had a class of between 25 and 30 students, but with free education, they now have to manage more than twice that number, with limited teaching resources.

Students are at different stages of learning and applying the material. Most times, teachers are unable to pay particular attention to struggling students or offer tutoring. They are overworked and underpaid and do not always receive good training programs to remain abreast of current teaching requirements. So those students who continue to struggle and fail will eventually not see the benefit of remaining in school. Over-burdening teachers will often lead to burnout and a high teacher turnover, and affect the quality of education that students are receiving. So in this scenario, when Malina’s parents realize that they are still expected to pay some fees for poor quality “free” education, there is no motivation to keep her in school.  She will serve a better purpose by working at home. 

In a third scenario, “Rikshya” does not have to worry about paying any hidden fees. She has been awarded a scholarship that allows her to attend a private school of her choice, which has a high-quality education. She lives on campus since the school she selected is in an urban area far away from her rural home.

The curriculum is challenging, but she enjoys every minute of it, and the classes are small enough for teachers to engage in one-on-one time with students who are struggling. She also has access to extra-curricular activities like sports. There are even some weekend programs for boarding students who are unable to go home over the weekend.

Despite all this, there are some critical support systems that are lacking for students like her.  She does not have mentors who can help her deal with homesickness, as well as the culture shock of being in a new environment that is quite different from the rural environment she came from. Most of the students, including boarding students, do not come from similar backgrounds, so they cannot relate to her experience of growing up poor. These feelings of isolation, loneliness, and not fitting in are overwhelming. However, Rikshya does not confide in anyone because she does not want to disappoint her parents and others who expect her to do really well and make them proud. So she continues to persevere. This pressure eventually leads to extreme stress, sadness, and even depression. For many students who have gone through similar experiences, without the proper support, they typically end up in one of two situations: dropping out and going back to an uncertain future, or worse still, committing suicide.

Scholarships and free education programs will not always work if schools are unable to provide the additional resources necessary to address the “hidden” issues as described in the above scenarios. 

Rukmini Foundation was founded to address education and basic healthcare access issues that affect hard-to-reach, underserved girls living in the most rural and impoverished parts of Pharping.  The Foundation uses different approaches to making an education possible for all, particularly for girls who come from the poorest areas.  Our programs are designed to ensure the holistic growth and development of students from induction to matriculation and include mentorship/support programs that provide safe spaces for students to address personal issues outside of academics.

The Foundation is taking action by working with parents, community leaders, partner organizations, and local citizens to demand significant improvements in the educational system in Nepal, particularly within public schools. In order for public schools to provide a quality education, teacher training and curriculum development is critical to ensure that students, particularly in rural areas, are performing at the same level as their counterparts in private schools. We are also pushing for additional programs and services that ensure the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of students, through mentorship, physical education, and extra-curricular programs.

Photos by Rukmini Foundation