Improving learning in Nepali schools

In an ideal state, quality and compulsory education would be appropriate and, indeed, necessary. But Nepal’s media is filled with stories about how poorly Nepali schools continue to perform year after year. 

There is the usual list of culprits, a traditional, test-driven system, inadequate teacher training, and political interference among others. But this catalogue fails to reflect the complexity of schools and the changes needed to bring new and genuinely sustainable approaches to improve learning in the classroom.

Schools all over the world are inherently conservative, culture-preserving institutions - highly resistant to change. Beliefs such as 'success on exams led to my success', 'choral answering shows students are engaged', pervade school norms and drive teacher behavior. School ‘culture’ is a complex interconnection of people, expectations, traditions, and resources. 

Read Also: Teaching Nepali teachers to teach better, Tom Robertson

To bring about change in a traditional educational system such as Nepal’s, one needs to look at the locus of change - the teacher in his/her classroom. One must understand the influences, expectations, and structures that limit efforts to bring change at the classroom level. Curriculum revisions, new textbooks, and new visions for teaching and learning may be promulgated, but little thought is given to how these are translated into action at the classroom level. 

As Academic Director at Kathmandu University High School, I was committed to implementing new instructional strategies that promoted students’ critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and in-depth understanding. 

Here are some of the questions I asked myself to bring sustainable innovation in the school:

· Do teachers understand how children learn? 

Teachers’ own experiences suggest that they believe their students learn through repetition as the teachers themselves did. This misconception is deeply embedded and hard to dismiss. As a result, classroom practices such as choral reading and copying from the textbook remain the norm, despite countless trainings that question such traditional practices. Teachers need to understand why new strategies such as active learning and periodic practice, for example, are more effective than the traditional methods.  

· Have teachers had supported practice in the specific strategies they are expected to implement in the classroom? 

New ideas presented in training must be, but rarely are, followed up with continual coaching support for teachers in their own classrooms.

· Are the new expected new strategies within the scope of a teacher’s ability? 

For children to learn effectively, teachers must recognise where children are in the learning sequence and provide manageable increments to their knowledge. Educators call this the ‘zone of proximal learning’. 

A teacher who has always lectured at students for 90% class time cannot reasonably be expected to quickly switch to engaging students in learning activities for even 40% of the time.  Teachers should be introduced to new strategies in incremental steps. 

For example, a teacher who mostly lectures needs to be taught techniques like mind-mapping to lend a visual component to his/her oral presentation.  A teacher who asks only choral response questions needs to be taught how to have students raise hands, give individual responses, and listen to each other. A teacher whose only resource is the textbook, needs to be taught creative ways of using it. 

Read Also: Ministry of Education gets an F

· Do teachers have the time to plan lessons and gather materials that actively engage students in learning? 

Teachers have only one or two free periods a day and these are often spent “checking copies”. This practice may assure parents that teachers are looking at their children’s work, but it does next to nothing to improve student learning. Lesson planning takes time and practice; gathering materials takes even more time.  Periods need to be built into the schedule to allow for collaborative planning, researching the extensive online lesson resources, and the preparation of materials.

· Do teachers have the space and resources to implement strategies that promote active student engagement? 

We know that flexible classroom furniture can support variety in classroom activities and that important learning happens when students work together in groups. Unfortunately, classrooms in private schools are often small and cramped, with no room to configure the classroom to promote such group learning.  Government schools, on the other hand, may have more space, but limited furniture. Access to storage for instructional materials also needs to be close at hand.

· Are students ready to change from rote memorizing and shouting choral responses to being more actively engaged in their learning?

By the upper grades, many students have been programmed to memorise information that they dutifully reproduce on tests. Their education has turned them from actively curious young children into passive learners who expect their teachers to tell them ‘the answer’ or exactly what to do.  Active engagement in learning demands more effort from students, for which they need preparation and encouragement.

· Are parents supportive of changing the traditional methods of teaching? 

Most parents – if they are engaged at all in their child’s learning – use the textbook to gauge whether their child is making adequate progress. When methods change, parents educated in the old ways are often left behind. Parents themselves need to be re-educated.   Social media can be an effective tool as pictures and information from the classroom teacher may ease parents’ concerns and explain new instructional approaches.

· Does the school offer incentives that encourage teachers to change their approaches to teaching?  It is much easier to keep doing “the same old thing.”   

 When teachers actively engage students in their learning, the rewards are visible. Students who were not previously engaged become excited, those with limited reading and writing skills participate and behavior problems decrease. However, these rewards alone do not compensate for the time, energy, and risk-taking required to sustain change. Other incentives such as recognition, professional development opportunities, or reduction of non-teaching responsibilities are essential.  

Too often the answer to most of these questions is simply “no.” This means that the complex conditions for implementing and sustaining change are not present. We can change more of these answers to “yes” by identifying the constraints and developing plans to overcome them.  

School leaders need to initiate a planning process with their staff that recognises and analyses the complexity of the change process and lays out a comprehensive set of steps to implement the desired changes. The process of change is inevitably slow, the commitment is to years of sustained effort, not weeks or months. Patience is key and resources to support school leaders and teachers are essential. But with sustained effort and focus, Nepal’s schools can and will improve.  

Barbara Butterworth is a life-long educator who has worked with different education organisations including Ullens School, Karkhana, and most recently as academic director at Kathmandu University High School in Dhulikhel. She has also served as Director of Lincoln School in Kathmandu as well as principal at two US-based schools. She has a PhD from Stanford University in Educational Administration.