EDUCATION

Girls’ and Women’s Education in Nepal 1Education in Nepal has had, and continues to have,
dedicated, talented educators. Yet, reminiscent of a
jigsaw puzzle, most but not quite all of the essential
pieces of a dynamic education service, are in place.
Empowering women and girls through education
takes more than the pieces, it requires their sensitive,
correct interlocking. It must be holistic.There have been decades of enlightened policies,
and an amazing list of incentives, designed to
increase girls’ enrolment and achievement. Yet the
impact has been marginal. Either holism was never
achieved or it has been shattered.The Cheli-beti Programme is reflective of many of
the strengths and strategic weaknesses of education
programming. The Cheli-beti Programme for out-
of-school girls, launched in 1981, is considered by
many as one of Asia’s leading success stories in girls’
empowerment. Cheli-beti was shaped by the
participating girls’ needs, songs, and vocabulary. It
triggered the girls’ self-discovery of how to improve
life in their remote rural villages. The end-of-project
evaluation focused on outputs. Since then, Cheli-
beti has inspired, and been modified into, Nepal’s
national girls’ out-of-school literacy programme.
However, in the seven years since project completion
there has been no impact evaluation. An assessment
of what is and is not sustainable is essential in
guiding Cheli-beti’s off-shoot programs.The following case study is designed to prompt
discussion on the holism needed in girls’ and
women’s basic education. Within this framework,
the focus is national policies and implementation
mechanisms.I. The Challenge and The GoalsNepal’s literacy rate has climbed slowly and steadily
from the extremely low rate of 5% in the early 1950s
to approximately 48%1 today. Less than half as manywomen are literate, as men. The breakdown is 30%
of women and 66% of men. Human and national
development remain impaired by the high level of
illiteracy.The illiteracy rate is nearly twice as high in rural
Nepal as in urban areas. It is sharply lower in the
mountains and the Terai than in the hills, higher in
the far and mid western regions than other
developmental regions, and higher in lowest-caste
compared to high-caste groups. Within each tier of
these profiles, women’s literacy rate lags behind that
of men.By the end of this Five-Year Plan (1998-2002), the
aim is to increase women’s literacy rate to 60% and
men’s to 80%. This would achieve a 70% literacy
rate in 14-45 year-olds.The need for more extensive and more effective
interventions targeting women was reinforced when
MoE identified that the gender differential in adult
literacy rose from 24% to 27% between 1985 and
1995.To narrow the gap, HMG is marshalling resources
to enrol (1998-2002):2.9 million women and 1.1 million men in literacyclasses0.78 million children in out-of-schoolprogrammes2.2 million in post-literacy trainingA related goal is to reduce dropout to below 25%.
The dropout rate for the last five years averaged
29.6%. All initiatives are driven by preference to girls
and women, although specific breakout targets are
not defined for all components.Between 1992/93 and 1996/97 1.4 million of the 1.8
million enrolled in non-formal education
programmes graduated and were deemed literate. An
estimated 70% were women.1 Unless otherwise indicated, the source of statistics is theStatistics and Computer Section, Planning Division,
Ministry of Education, His Majesty’s Government of
Nepal, MoE documents or interviews with MoE senior
managers.

GIRLS’ AND WOMEN’S EDUCATION

in NepalGirls’ and Women’s Education in NepalApproximately two-thirds of the 928,000 children
not enrolled in primary schools in 1996 were girls.
The stark reality is that 40% of primary school aged
girls do not attend school in Nepal.The 1996 gross enrolment rate for girls was 99%
(GER boys-135%), signifying large numbers of under
and overage children. The net enrolment rate (NER)
for girls was 59%, compared to 79% for boys. The
drop-off in girls’ enrolment accelerates in the higher
grades as does the gender differential. The proportion
of girls to boys in lower secondary (Grades 6-8) drops
to 38%, down to 36% in upper secondary (Grades 9-
10), and plummets to 24% in higher education.Alarming dropout and repetition levels exist in Grade
1 for both girls and boys. In 1996, nearly one in four
Grade 1 girls dropped out and nearly 40% repeated.
Only 37% of girls, and 38% of boys, who start Grade
1 are expected to complete the five primary grades.
Approximately 10% of children enrolled in Grade 1
complete primary school without repeating at least
one grade. Multiple repetition is common.MoE goals aimed strategically at increasing girls’
participation include: increasing the NER of primary
school-age girls from 58% to 85% by year 2002;
opening 10,000 Early Childhood Development
Centres by year 2002; promoting the recruitment of
at least one female teacher in each primary school;
and ensuring there is a primary school within walking
distance of each village.Each presents a formidable challenge. There are still
no women teachers in about 40% of the Nepal’s
primary schools (Basnyat-interview) and strong social
and political barriers obstruct female recruitment.
Despite intensive school construction by govern-
ment and communities in recent years, the closest
primary school is still too far away for thousands of
girls to attend. The number of primary schools
increased from 321 in 1951 to over 22,000 in 1998.II. The Community Context –Barriers to ParticipationThe barriers to girls and women participating in
education are a maze of socio-cultural, economic and
political realities that vary by community and even
by family. The following is a synthesis of the project
literature review and series of interviews. It aims
only to be an indicative introduction to some of the
key barriers at the community level.When families choose which children will or will
not be educated, or which will have better educational
opportunity, sons are preferred. Educating a son is
investing in his ability to look after his ageing parents
while educating a daughter is considered a no-return
investment. When she marries, she becomes another
family’s asset.Both the opportunity and cash costs of education
lock girls out of schools. The majority of girls in
Nepal are daughters of subsistence farmers living
near or below the poverty line. Eldest daughters often
provide most of the sibling care. Farm and domestic
work also pull girls out of school. Although tuition
and books are free in public schools, other forms of
student fees may be prohibitive.Demographic surveys show that 40% of girls get
married before they reach 15 years of age. (MoE
Country Report 1998) Marriages of 10 or 12-year-
olds are not uncommon. With few exceptions,
marriage ends their schooling. This adds to the cycle
of maternal illiteracy that diminishes the chance of
their daughters being schooled. Studies show that
maternal illiteracy is a significant factor, far more
than paternal illiteracy, in depriving daughters of
schooling. (UNICEF 1996) Negative attitudes held
by both sexes toward girls’ education, especially
among illiterate parents, have been well documented.Some groups fear that an educated girl will have a
harder time finding a husband. Others believe that
co-ed classes or walking more than short distances
to school compromise their daughters’ reputations
and marriage prospects. In urban areas, teasing and
risk of abuse or kidnapping are disincentives to girls
schooling. The rampant absenteeism of teachers,
often leaving classes unsupervised, increases parental
anxiety.Schools are seldom girl-friendly. Many have no female
teachers to act as role models. Few male teachers
have had gender sensitisation training to equip them
to nurture the participation of girls or to validate
girls’ life experience within the classroom. The
majority of primary schools have no toilets or
running water.Class times often conflict with household or sibling
care duties. Few schools have ECD programmes to
free older sisters of their child care obligations. Hours
of daily sibling care, domestic and farm work reduce
girls’ attendance and leave girls less time than boys
to study, contributing to underachievement and
dropout.Girls’ and Women’s Education in Nepalsecretariat. The previous splintering was highly
detrimental to women’s literacy initiatives, the
keystone of MoE non-formal programming.The Ministry of Women and Social Welfare
(MoWSW) was founded in Sept. 1995 after the global
women’s conference in Beijing. MoWSW is
responsible for facilitating a partnership between line
ministries that will result in cohesive, high-impact
delivery of a national action plan for girls’ and
women’s empowerment. A Central Coordination
Committee of the secretaries of 14 ministries,
chaired by the Minister of WSW, is to ensure gender
mainstreaming and implementation of a collective
gender-aware vision.III.i. Policy and PlanningI s s u e sHolistic policy and planning for girls’/women’s
education requires genuine cooperation between
ministries, within MoE, between formal and NFE,
and between government and non-government
stakeholders. The infrastructure exists but is
marginally functional. The MoWSW Central
Coordination Committee (CCC), a forum of all
ministry secretaries, has untapped potential. If used
strategically, the CCC could launch integrated and
multi-sectoral programs with civil society and the
private sector.Indicative of the barriers to inter-ministry co-
operation is MoE’s framework of operations with
UNESCO. At a point when the three UNESCO
mandate areas of education, science and culture were
housed in one ministry, UNESCO formed a
counterpart relationship with the ministry. Since
then, science and culture have been separated from
the education ministry. The counterpart relationship
still exists in the form of the National Commission
for UNESCO, housed within MoE. MoE insists on
processing all UNESCO contracting for science and
culture for an administrative fee that is considered
of no value to the line ministries involved.Co-ordination within MoE is needed. The Ministry’s
restructuring will not, in itself, end the parochialism
separating formal and non-formal education
specialists, or contract and ministry specialists. Pro-
active leadership, inclusive internal communication
processes, and performance-linked recognition will
be needed.District Education Offices (DEOs) are responsible
for implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
MoE programming across Nepal. Their front-line
knowledge is excluded from informing and enriching
the policy and planning process.The centralised and government-centric policy and
planning process has effectively excluded both the
private sector, which delivers education to eight per
cent of Nepal’s primary student population, and the
NGO-INGO education community which is the key
innovator and delivery agent of literacy programming.
Equally problematic is the absence of parental,
School Management Committee (SMC) and Village
Development Committee (VDC) input into local
school planning and management. Studies show
school management committees are dysfunctional
in most schools and community participation is
almost nil. (CERID-1997a: 20) BPEP Phase II (1998-
2003) faces a formidable, belated task in launching
community-based school planning.The National Non-Formal Education Council
(NNFEC), launched in 1992, is widely seen as
dysfunctional. After restructuring, the Council will
need to work tirelessly to earn the credibility it has
lost in its formative years. Without stronger NGO
relationships, essential input into policy and
planning will not exist.In its early days, the Council erred by taking on a
rescue and support role in MoE’s problematic literacy
implementation. Mired in implementation, which
is outside its mandate, the council had insufficient
resources for the coordination, awareness-raising and
monitoring it was mandated to do. Being an
implementer also undermined its credibility in
monitoring and evaluation. Stepping into MoE
implementation turf closed doors to intra-ministry
collaboration. Reflective of stressed relationships,
the NNFEC did not succeed in involving the NFE
units of BPEP and MoE in a collective, cost-effective
order for literacy materials.The Council’s credibility with NGOs was under-
mined after its task force, composed of government
and NGO literacy specialists, developed a respected
literacy development plan that was rejected in favour
of a rushed, poorly conceived literacy blitz at the
request of an incoming minister. (S.B. Shrestha-
interview)The NNFEC, which has a small number of non-
government and private sector members in addition
to government members, has the potential to be anGirls’ and Women’s Education in Nepal • 5inclusive, synergetic policy vehicle. Unfortunately,
revolving governments have reduced the council to
a token, one-meeting-per-minister forum. Limited
funding has also been a constraint. Literacy and
non-formal education are allotted about 3% of the
national education budget.An inclusive planning model that deserves repli-
cation is the process headed by the Minister of
Women & Social Welfare in developing a post-Beijing
national Plan of Action. NGOs, INGOs, UN
agencies, donors and several line ministries worked
in 12 subcommittees to develop a comprehensive
Plan of Action for HMG’s empowerment of women
and girls. (MoWSW/CCC 1997)IV.Strategy – Increasing
Girls’ and Women’s
ParticipationFour elements of MoE’s strategy for increasing access
to basic and primary education have major impact
on girls and women. They are: launching an Early
Childhood Development programme; increasing
private sector and community cost-sharing in
education; and introducing compulsory education
and decentralising.IV. i. Launching an EarlyChildhood Development
P r o g r a m m eWith Grade 1 dropout and repetition rates soaring,
Nepal is embarking on its first nation-wide initiative
in early childhood development (ECD). It seeks
partners to open 10,000 ECD centres within the next
five years. The government will pay for facilitator
training, curriculum development, some materials
and 50% of the facilitator’s salary.Local and international non-government organ-
isations have been the catalysts for the government
entry into ECD, citing the high primary school
achievement of children who have attended ECD
programmes. UNICEF surveys show the cost per
child per primary year averages R2,000. Factoring the
cost of Grade 1 dropout and repetition, free books
and teacher salaries, UNICEF documented an annual
loss of R1.2 billion (US$18,045,113)2. The INGO/NGO communities made the case for ECD being a
far greater investment.Expanding the small existing ECD network, a mix
of non-profit and commercial operators, is intended
to reduce the estimated 15% underage population in
Grade 1; improve the teaching/learning environment,
student achievement and retention; and increase the
return on all stakeholders’ investments in education.
ECD classes will make it easier for older sisters, the
primary caregivers of younger siblings, to attend
school.Popular private schools are testing children for entry
into Grade 1. As sons are given preferred access to
private school, except in families where overseas
education is an option, it would appear that sons
are also being favoured with private pre-schooling.
Widening the affordable ECD opportunities for boys
and girls will stem what could have been a factor
widening the gender gap.In tandem with the ECD initiative, MoE plans to
start an automatic promotion plan for Grades 1-3 to
end the self-esteem battering that the dysfunctional
public school system gives children in early grades.
One in three girls now drops out in the first three
years. The majority of those reaching Grade 3 would
have repeated at least one year. Figures for boys are
equally bad.IV.ii. D e c e n t r a l i s a t i o nUntil 1971, communities opened, managed and
funded most of Nepal’s schools. Then, government
took responsibility for schooling under the National
Education System Plan (NESP) 1971-76. Neither
District Education Offices nor community school
committees have yet been involved in policy, planning
or curriculum development in the highly-centralised
system that resulted. What local decision-making
was allowed was largely transferred from the
community to the District Education Office. Public
participation was reduced down to little more than
financial and in-kind contributions. During the late
1970’s and 1980’s the eroding quality of education
further distanced people from their schools.Although the Decentralisation Act 1982 gave more
decision-making authority to the District Education
Committees (DECs) and School Management
Committees (SMCs), this remained rhetoric, not