KP Sharma     

The government’s endorsement of the National Education Policy 2024, which had remained in draft form for several years, has not resolved concerns about the politicisation of the education sector.

Educationists believe that the policy alone cannot protect the sector from political influence, pushing for the need for an Act.

Initially, many thought the education policy would address the existing challenges and obstacles within the sector.

However, critics argue that the government’s control over the policy undermines its effectiveness, equating its impact to not having a policy at all.

The formulation of an education Act through multi-sectoral participation and consultation was a critical component of the Education Blueprint 2014–2024.

However, this initiative ended without achieving its target, leaving a gap in the framework needed for comprehensive educational reforms.

During the first session of the fourth Parliament, the National Assembly deferred discussions on the Education Bill due to differing opinions among Members of Parliament (MPs).

During the session, the MP for South Thimphu, Tshewang Rinzin moved the motion for the Education Bill, highlighting its importance in preventing the politicisation of education, stressing the necessity of education reforms, especially in light of ongoing changes in the sector.

He criticised past governments for using education as a political tool without achieving much progress.

Following intense debates in the National Assembly about the bill, Education and Skill Development Minister Yeezang De Thapa, during the session, said that the National Education Policy 2024 would address existing policy gaps.

The minister suggested that the policy could serve as an interim measure, with the possibility of introducing an act in the future if required.

Critics, however, say that the policy is too vulnerable to political influence. They argue that a policy approved by the cabinet can be altered to suit political agendas, unlike an act, which undergoes a more rigorous legislative process.

An educationist said that the policy is merely a collection of general guidelines and lacks the authority to prevent government decisions.

“If we have an act, the Cabinet cannot change the clauses or misinterpret them without going through Parliament,” the educationist said.

Some believe that the government, with its parliamentary majority, could still amend an act if submitted for review.

However, the current division among MPs indicates that this may not be straightforward. For instance, some present ruling MPs supported the idea of having an Education Act during the last session.

Another unfulfilled initiative of the Education Blueprint is the establishment of the National Teacher Council, which has been included in the National Education Policy 2024.

The council aims to standardise teacher registration, licensing, and professional conduct, ensuring educators meet professional standards.

Critics argue that the council’s effectiveness depends on its independence and authority. They warn that if the chair or members are elected representatives, decisions could be influenced by political agendas.

“If the chair or the members are from the elected representatives, it is likely that the decisions and policies would be influenced by their own political will,” an educationist said.

Another argued that since the council is tied to the policy, even having apolitical members would not make much difference.

“The council itself is formed based on the requirement of the policy, and the policy’s final clauses are approved by the cabinet.”

Some critics suggest granting full autonomy to the education sector to ensure continuity of plans and policies.

They propose abolishing the education ministry and creating an autonomous body free from political control.

“The other way to ensure sustainability is to make education an autonomous sector and separate teaching from civil service,” a critic said.

Advertisement