KP Sharma

As the current government reinstates the central school initiative with a budget allocation of Nu 14 billion in the 13th Plan, questions about the programme’s sustainability and continuity have resurfaced.

This debate stems from the past experience of how a major policy shift with the change of government resulted in the discontinuation of central schools, raising concerns that this could happen again in the future.

The Druk Nyamrup Tshogpa (DNT) government abandoned the central school initiative despite substantial investments made by the preceding government. Now, the current government is breathing new life into this initiative by strengthening the existing central schools in the 13th plan.

Critics argue that substantial investments in central schools are impractical if subsequent governments do not sustain these projects. They warn that political polarisation and shifting policies could lead to wasted resources, which will be costly for a small, resource-constrained country like Bhutan.

Initially, the Indian government supported the establishment of 37 central schools with Nu 3.4 billion through its Project Tied Assistance programme and additional 12 schools with Nu 536.4 million through its Small Development Grant.

The second government had aimed to establish 63 central schools by the end of 2017. Although the actual plan was to establish 120 central schools in the 11th Plan, the target was not achieved. The plan to establish the remaining 57 schools spilled over into the 12th plan.

Free uniforms, meals, boarding facilities, and stationery were key aspects of central schools.

The DNT cabinet directed the erstwhile Gross National Happiness Commission to review the central school programme in December 2018. Then, in June 2019, it issued a new directive introducing significant changes, including provision of bedding set for all boarding school students and stationery for all except those in urban secondary schools. Uniforms were also provided only to disadvantaged students based on strict criteria. As a result, 24 schools were segregated in 2019 and two more in 2020.

The present government has however indicated that it will not offer freebies like in the past and has committed to more mindful utilisation of the funds to build infrastructure and facilities.

However, given the past experience, political parties feel that clear guidelines are required to ensure the continuity of central schools and to prevent central schools from becoming political footballs.

The former opposition leader and current president of Druk Phuensum Tshogpa (DPT), Dorji Wangdi, said that although he supports some aspects of central schools, the earlier implementation had paralysing effects on the overall education system, leaving many schools in poor condition. “While 50 odd schools got special attention, over 500 schools were left in total misery,” he said.

The DPT president said that there is a need for innovative and progressive policies for nation-building that go beyond politics. “Going back to the old, flawed system is bad governance and not a step forward for the country,” he said.

The opposition party, Bhutan Tendrel Party (BTP), has expressed its reservations on the establishment of central schools, citing potential inequalities among schools, students, teachers, and parents, and the risk of discriminatory or unfair policies.

However, the opposition party believes that the current concept of central schools differs from the previous one. “The budget for the central schools aims to develop comprehensive infrastructure and procure necessary equipment to modernise the education system,” said the opposition party.

The BTP said that the party supports the initiative if it genuinely enhances the quality of education in the country. However, the party said that the central school policy must align with the draft education policy of 2024 and be backed by appropriate policies.

The BTP also highlighted the risk of politicisation and called for investments in infrastructure and equipment rather than recurrent expenses like providing freebies.

“If the government intends to throw away scarce resources by providing freebies, we will vehemently object and will do whatever is required to stop the government from doing that,” the opposition said.

The opposition party proposed alternative investments, such as enhancing tertiary education capacity, to absorb more students. “Currently, only 20 percent of Class XII students are absorbed into these institutions, which is a big concern for the public.”

The opposition party said that it will monitor how funds are utitlised to prevent waste, ensure infrastructure projects are not extravagant, and maintain high-quality and durable equipment to avoid high maintenance costs.

Advertisement