Critique of Nepal's Community Schools: Prioritizing Superficial Discipline Over Student Well-being and Equity

Our country has two types of school education systems: community and private. The Constitution of Nepal guarantees the right to free and compulsory education up to the basic level and free education up to the secondary level. While the feasibility of completely free school education might be debatable, children from communities with limited resources enroll in community schools because the fees are lower compared to private schools.

The family, social, and economic status of students attending community schools, who come from working-class and middle-class families, can be easily inferred. Their mere presence at school is a positive aspect for societal development. It is the state's responsibility to actively seek them out and bring them to school, and another significant responsibility is to keep them engaged in their education. However, in practice, we punish students publicly for not wearing the correct uniform, without noticing a torn inner shirt, or considering that a child who is scolded during morning prayers for not having their hair cut might not even have the money to get a haircut. Our tendency to indulge in superficial discipline, forgetting the essence of learning, raises questions about school procedures. A school cannot be considered functional merely by closing the gates at ten o'clock, checking uniforms, and ringing the bell every forty-five minutes. 

The philosopher and educator Paulo Freire, in his book 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed,' described education as a process of dialogue, consciousness, and liberation. Education can be an instrument of oppression or a means of liberation. When teachers or institutions consider themselves "all-knowing" and treat students as silent, obedient, and controllable objects, that education becomes like the "banking system." Our excessive emphasis on uniforms, shoes, hair, and formality in our schools, while ignoring the real psychology and existence of the students, is a form of this oppressive practice. Imposing external discipline without listening to or understanding the socio-economic reality of the students turns education into a means of control, not liberation. According to him, true education begins with dialogue, where the student's experience, pain, and life realities are respected. Only education that encourages questioning, understanding, and consciousness development can give a voice to the oppressed; otherwise, education itself becomes a structure of oppression. 

Communities that are politically, economically, and socially marginalized naturally lag educationally. Various studies conducted on school education in Nepal also show that family and economic background have a profound impact on student learning. Children from marginalized communities do not receive adequate educational support from their parents. They gradually fall behind when compared to students from affluent families. The learning they should be receiving is missed in every grade, leading to a situation where they become weak in many subjects and fail upon reaching higher grades. Many of the teachers who teach them also belong to affluent or privileged classes, prioritizing school 'data' and examination results over social reality. The pressure to achieve results overshadows the students' actual condition and struggles. 

When the debate on school improvement begins, we start looking for solutions like extended classes from morning till evening, hostels, and tuition, which place an additional financial burden on students and parents. How realistic is the argument that a few sessions of expensive tuition can cover what wasn't learned in ten years of schooling? Or can we not look back to see where we went wrong before adding extra time just to collect more money? How and to what extent are the curricula designed centrally implemented at the school level? How free are teachers to work, and what is the school leadership and environment like? What is the support and pressure from local stakeholders? How deep are the discussions among school teachers about these issues? How is the assurance of learning outcomes required for students in each class being ensured? To what extent has the school culture developed to support new and struggling teachers? 

The nature of a school is inherently formal. According to traditional thinking, most people consider a strict teacher to be a good one. For this reason, knowingly or unknowingly, many teachers still take pride in being able to control students through strict instructions and fear. The tendency of formal education to monitor students' external appearance—such as clothes, shoes, ribbons, and hair—more than their learning, and such practices and rules, not only make it harder to promote the learning of students from marginalized groups but also make it challenging to retain them in school. 

During assembly, one student was made to remove his outer sweater in front of everyone for having a mismatched uniform. It was later discovered that his inner shirt was torn, and he had worn the outer garment to school to hide it. In our superficial competition with a few polished schools existing in the country, community schools have become so irresponsible that we are forgetting the essence of schooling, the objective of public education, and the real meaning of learning. Although our socio-economic development is lagging, we demand superficial glamour. For that student, reaching the school gate, even with mismatched clothes for a moment, was a big deal. It was entirely possible to protect him and involve him in learning. Doing so would have fulfilled the responsibility and duty to protect families and communities left behind by education and opportunity. But sadly, we are failing to fulfill our social responsibility in education in an irresponsible manner. 

Today, people are becoming somewhat aware. They are beginning to understand that discrimination based on caste results in punishment. They have also learned to speak carefully and try to appear non-discriminatory when observed by others. However, there is still a lack of responsible human resources who can internalize the caste system of society, its history, and the struggles and realities of communities suppressed by discrimination. We seem to desire students in the classroom who are descendants of the castes and classes currently leading society—those who grasp lessons quickly, receive easy support from parents for homework, allowing us to teach the next lesson easily, and enabling us to take pride in the results of formal examination systems like Grades 10 and 12. While the capacity to learn might not distinguish between caste and class, the factors influencing the rate of learning are certainly linked to these aspects based on our society and opportunities. 

In a patriarchal society where, even in cases of rape against minors, the society sides with the adult male, effectively strangling the victim; where women are made the stepping stones for male progress everywhere but are kept in a secondary position; where civilization is acted out in public, but the mindset of an abuser, predator, and exploitative feudal lord is carried in the mind—these practices are visible in the exercises within the school system. Whether it is in sports selection, matters of hairstyle and uniform, or socio-cultural responsibilities and displays. Our students learn such discriminatory behaviors in society and school. When a boy misbehaves with a girl, we tend to think, "It's because the girl was also like that," and when a female student laughs openly, shows exuberance, or is linked with someone, we moralize, saying, "That is not right." These things are so subtle that understanding them requires consciousness, not just a university degree. The school mechanism still seems to desire the development and preservation of a docile, disciplined female character who accepts veils, says 'Yes, Sir!', does not question, carries traditional modesty, accepts gender discrimination in the name of culture, and considers herself helpless before violent patriarchy. 

Public education carries many complex societal responsibilities. School education is the foundation of the future of society and the nation. Not every teacher understands these aspects with the same depth. But the answer to why teachers must be continuously studious lies in this very reality. The practice of explaining what they don't understand to each other, collaborating, and holding collective discussions before facing students has not developed much in community schools. Due to extreme politicization, teachers, school management committees, stakeholders, and the community are divided, making the environment for cooperation fragile. The culture of collectively discussing shared ideas, knowledge, and skills is affected. In this process, leadership in community schools often runs on favoritism due to a lack of leadership skills, professional competence, and understanding of social responsibilities related to education. 

In most classes, a few students are considered "knowledgeable" according to our evaluation system. Students themselves say that the class moves forward because of them. It is considered that learning is complete when these limited students understand, and a new topic begins the next day. A culture is established in the classroom where the voices of lagging students are suppressed. It's not that teachers don't try, but the gap caused by a lack of prior knowledge is so large that neither the school nor the family has the time or resources to fill it. But how much do we investigate these lagging students? How sensitive are we to why they are falling behind in learning and what role their social, linguistic, or economic background plays? These questions remain unanswered. 

Despite all these problems, underestimating the capacity of existing teachers is never correct. We must assume that teachers capable of taking responsibility for these broad sensitive aspects are present within the schools, and they should be provided with sufficient freedom and opportunities to perform excellently in their continuous professional roles. The state must continuously strive to bring competent human resources into school education and retain them. But what are the community schools, burdened with such profound responsibilities, preoccupied with? The tendency for stakeholders in the community, who are entrusted with school responsibilities, to place their own people in leadership roles, manage transfers based on favoritism, and for the principal to distribute work, facilities, and responsibilities favoring their own people, still persists. In such an unjust and disorganized system, how a way out for community schools is possible remains uncertain. 

Formal rules in schools are not always detrimental; they also help teach discipline, punctuality, and a sense of responsibility. But sensitivity is mandatory in the process of implementing rules. Rules must value both learning and life realities. They should make students feel safe and confident, not ashamed, fearful, or uncomfortable. Schools should truly be like a shared garden where diversity is accepted, every child is protected, and learning can flourish with dignity. 

Elections are approaching. All political parties, new and old, should commit to shifting the school mechanism from a political mode to a professional one. First and foremost, a system, culture, and structure must be established that allows teachers to work independently.