The 2015 Constitution of Nepal was promulgated to address the country’s existing structural problems. Article 31 specifically entitles school education as a fundamental right of every citizen. However, despite the constitutional shift to federalism, school education is predominantly governed by the Education Act of 1971, designed to provide a legal basis under the unitary system. This legal mismatch between the new constitutional framework and the outdated education law has created tension, giving rise to teachers’ protests.

In order to address the demands and grievances of the teaching community, it is important to address such legal incoherence. Many attribute Nepal’s failed development to a unitary governance system that relies on over-centralisation of resources and authority. The post-1990s democratic reforms could not decentralise the governance system effectively. Just like any other sector, the education governance in the unitary system was entirely at the disposal of the central government, which made decisions on every aspect, from curriculum development to teacher appointments. The 2015 constitution sought to change this by distributing educational responsibilities among federal, provincial and local levels.

Under the constitutional arrangement, school education is recognised as a shared responsibility among the federal units (federal, provincial and local). While the federal level is assigned authority over federal universities, the provincial level is entrusted with the management of provincial universities and higher education, and the local level is given responsibility for basic and school education. Despite clearly defining roles and responsibilities of all these government levels, education is also included in the concurrent list.

Two frameworks are at the core of federalised governance: Exclusive powers take precedence over concurrent powers, and the unbundling exercise delineates and clarifies the functional responsibilities of all three tiers of government. Even though the exclusive power entitles local governments to operate school education, the unbundling exercise unnecessarily undermines their authority.

The School Education Bill (2023) has been introduced in the federal parliament, seeking to replace the outdated Education Act and create legal foundations for the governance of the education sector under the federalised frameworks. The Bill gives power to local units to effectively manage and operate school education as well as other affairs in the school governance. Likewise, local units are responsible for generating resources to operate these schools. This aimed to address the gaps between the constitutional approach to federalise education.

However, the proposal to revive the district-level education offices further complicated the pursuit of federalisation. Moreover, giving the sole authority to local government on the management of teachers that included recruitment, promotion and disciplinary actions made the teachers worry about favouritism and other discriminatory practices.

It is essential to understand the reasons behind teachers’ agitation: job security, dignity and professional autonomy and the delegation of significant authority to school management committees for teacher appointments and management. Teachers feared this could encourage arbitrary decisions, favouritism and political interference. These are some understandable and legitimate concerns raised by the teaching community. This becomes even more pressing as the Bill fails to provide strong legal guarantees for permanent status, fair promotion opportunities, salary rights and professional development.

Discriminatory treatment among different categories of teachers—such as permanent, contract-based, relief teachers and those appointed through private sources—risks fragmenting the teaching community and, ultimately, degrading the education quality. Further, teachers’ demands are shaped by the 1966 joint recommendation of UNESCO and the International Labour Organisation which emphasised that teachers must be guaranteed professional independence, job security and dignity if education reforms are to succeed. Without addressing teachers’ concerns, any legislative attempt at reforming school education is likely to fail in practice, as teachers are the frontline implementers of any educational policy.

Ensuring merit-based, transparent processes for appointments, transfers and promotions and providing teachers a meaningful role in school management and decision-making are therefore non-negotiable elements of a truly reformist School Education Bill. Teachers’ demands for transparency and fairness in appointments and transfers are valid.

However, undermining the constitutional framework of federalism and distrusting elected local representatives is fundamentally problematic. Any demand for reform has to be enshrined in the constitutional frameworks, which in this case very strongly advocate for the supremacy of elected governments, including local ones.

Several studies identify three major challenges obstructing the effective federalisation of education in Nepal. First is the ambiguity and duplication of authority. Second is the chronic lack of resources and capacity at the local level. Third is the weakness of coordination mechanisms lacking strong intergovernmental structures for educational planning, curriculum alignment and resource sharing.

Unlike successful federal systems like Switzerland, Germany, Australia and Canada, Nepal struggles with policy consistency across different tiers. To address this, I have been advocating for the activation of sectoral committees—chaired by the respective sectoral ministers and including provincial ministers and local representatives. The importance of strengthening and making the sectoral committees functional, which are essential for the effective operation of sectors, including education, cannot be overstated.

The ongoing discussions on the School Education Bill in the Education, Health and Information Technology Committee of the House of Representatives present an opportunity to restructure the education system. It is a moment to restructure school education in line with federalism, inclusive education and children’s rights, fulfilling constitutional vision and its commitment to Sustainable Development Goal 4—ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all by 2030.

The School Education Bill must fully embody the principles of federalism as outlined in the constitution. First, a clear division of responsibilities among federal units must be codified to avoid overlaps and conflicts. Second, the adequate and equitable distribution of financial and human resources must be ensured, aligning with UNESCO’s recommendation that education should receive at least 15–20 percent of the national budget. Third, the Education Sectoral Committee should be activated to guide policy harmonisation, resolve conflicts and promote joint programme development. Finally, a robust system of accountability and transparency must be instituted, including mandatory public reporting and independent audits of educational outcomes and policy implementation across all levels of government.

Moreover, it must effectively prioritise inclusive education, ensuring that children with disabilities and children from other disadvantaged groups have access not only to physically accessible schools but also to appropriate learning materials, trained teachers, assistive technologies and socially supportive environments.

The dignity, security and professional independence of teachers must be legally protected and promoted, recognising them as key agents of educational transformation. Education reform is not merely about drafting new laws; it is about empowering all stakeholders—children, teachers, communities and governments at all levels—to realise the fundamental right to education. If Nepal misses this opportunity, federalism in education will remain a hollow promise and inclusive education will be an unfulfilled dream.