Introduction

The advent of federalism in Nepal marked a significant shift in governance, promising decentralized authority and localized solutions across various sectors, including education. However, the transition has presented both opportunities and challenges, particularly in crucial areas like educational supervision. This article examines the current state of educational supervision in Nepal's federal context, highlighting the apparent decline in its effectiveness, the evolving roles of key stakeholders like principals and local governments, and proposes potential pathways for revitalization and strengthening this vital aspect of ensuring quality education.

What is Educational Supervision?

Educational supervision is a skilled technical service crucial for fostering qualitative improvement in teaching-learning processes and school management. It involves a meticulous observation of the entire educational ecosystem, a thorough evaluation of program implementation efficacy, and a precise identification of on-the-ground challenges. Effective educational supervision provides invaluable support for improvement initiatives from both administrative and pedagogical standpoints, offering essential, reliable data, information, and constructive feedback to all stakeholders involved in the educational endeavor.

Beyond traditional school inspectors, supervision can also be conducted by resource persons, school principals, education specialists, and directors. Regardless of who undertakes the supervisory role, the functions of a supervisor are multifaceted. An adept supervisor effectively operates as an observer, a coordinator, a resource provider, a researcher, an evaluator, and a supportive professional colleague throughout the supervisory engagement.

The Ebbing Tide of Supervision in Federal Nepal

Despite the passage of considerable time since Nepal embraced a federal structure, a discernible lack of focused attention from the state towards educational supervision is evident. A significant number of principals find themselves unable to adequately perform their supervisory responsibilities. Furthermore, the erstwhile cadre of dedicated school inspectors, now often reassigned as education officers, are stretched thin with broader administrative duties. Consequently, the intended mechanisms for systematic monitoring and supervision, spanning from the central to the local levels, have become increasingly elusive and difficult to locate. This weakening of the supervisory framework poses a considerable risk to the quality and accountability of the education system.

Policy Framework and its Implementation Gap

The National Education Policy 2076 acknowledges the critical role of school leadership and emphasizes the need to enhance the capabilities of principals through improved facilities based on their qualifications, competence, and performance. The policy also advocates for a merit-based and transparent selection process for these pivotal positions. Regrettably, the translation of these policy directives into tangible action at both the central and local government levels appears to be lagging. The envisioned strengthening of school leadership, a cornerstone of effective internal supervision, remains largely unrealized on the ground.

The Principal as a Key Educational Supervisor: Untapped Potential?

The Education Regulations (2059) clearly designate the principal as the academic and administrative head of each school (Rule 93(1)). A review of the responsibilities outlined in these regulations reveals a broad spectrum of roles entrusted to the principal, including school manager, planner, educational leader, administrator, supervisor, classroom observer, and coordinator. Moreover, as the member secretary of the School Management Committee, the principal plays a crucial role in mobilizing the committee for school development.

While managerial and administrative acumen are essential, a truly effective principal must also possess strong interpersonal skills and function as a capable administrator, leader, coordinator, mediator, creative thinker, and researcher. The principal's dual role as the academic and administrative anchor of the school is therefore paramount, with the overall trajectory and quality of the institution heavily reliant on their leadership efficacy.

However, a significant concern is the apparent inability of many individuals holding the principal's position to effectively fulfill these multifaceted responsibilities. This is partly attributable to the fact that a considerable number of public schools in Nepal lack principals appointed in strict adherence to legal provisions. Political affiliations have, in many instances, superseded prescribed qualifications in the appointment process. Furthermore, some schools grapple with a lack of teaching positions at the relevant levels, forcing basic-level principals to manage higher-grade schools. Consequently, principals lacking the necessary appointment level, qualifications, and expertise are inherently challenged in their supervisory capacity. Under current regulations, principals appointed at lower levels often lack the authority to conduct meaningful performance evaluations, and their focus tends to be more on administrative tasks than academic oversight.

The Pivotal Role of Local Governments in Educational Oversight

Following the constitutional mandate outlined in Schedule 8, which vests the rights of basic and secondary education in local governments, the Local Government Operation Act 2074 further delineates 23 education-related rights for these sub-national entities (Section 11 (2) (j)). With the dissolution of resource centers, which previously provided crucial technical assistance to schools, local governments now bear a heightened responsibility in establishing planned and systematic school supervision mechanisms, fostering teachers' professional growth, and building the capacity of local educational stakeholders. The professional development of educators and the enhancement of student learning outcomes are explicitly stated responsibilities of the local level.

The responsibilities entrusted to local governments in the realm of learning achievement are substantial. These include analyzing school-wise results of grades 1 to 10 from the previous academic year within the first month of the new academic session, conducting and presenting comparative analyses of annual learning achievement, facilitating discussions on improvement strategies during principal meetings following comprehensive data analysis, and collaboratively planning activities aimed at boosting learning outcomes. Local governments are also tasked with directing schools to formulate plans for enhancing school-wide learning achievement, receiving these plans, monitoring their implementation, and providing constructive feedback.

Furthermore, local governments are expected to play a significant role in classroom observation. This involves regular inspection of schools and classroom teaching, conducting model lessons in inspected schools with interactive feedback sessions for teachers, monitoring the implementation of prior directives and feedback during subsequent observations, engaging in discussions with teachers and principals, and maintaining records of instructions and feedback provided to schools and educators.

Monitoring the performance of schools, School Management Committees, principals, and the implementation of assigned tasks, and subsequently submitting reports, also falls within the purview of local governments. Additionally, they are mandated to manage and conduct training programs, including identifying teachers' training needs, integrating capacity development plans into local education plans, organizing demand-driven programs for teachers and administrators, and facilitating teacher participation in training programs offered by education training centers.

The Capacity Conundrum at the Local Level

Despite being entrusted with comprehensive authority over school education and numerous supervisory responsibilities, the education branches of many local governments suffer from severe staff shortages. Existing personnel are often overwhelmed with administrative duties, leaving little capacity for effective supervision. The earlier concept of dedicated resource persons no longer exists. In many instances, the involvement of local government representatives is limited to occasional visits to schools for specific purposes, often involving a cursory look at infrastructure in the name of monitoring, with little substantive engagement in actual educational supervision. Without the deployment of qualified experts dedicated to school supervision, local governments may conduct basic monitoring but lack the capacity for meaningful and impactful supervision.

The Way Forward: Reinvigorating Educational Oversight

Having completed one electoral cycle, local governments must now prioritize the systematic and planned revitalization of educational supervision, an area that has thus far received insufficient attention. Critical questions need to be addressed: How effective is teaching and learning in our public schools? What underlying challenges exist within these institutions? Why are principals often unable to conduct effective supervision within their own schools? What specific professional support do teachers require? Addressing these questions demands urgent attention and proactive measures.

To ensure quality school education, local governments must establish robust mechanisms for regular monitoring, inspection, and supervision. Leveraging the power of information and communication technology in today's context offers opportunities for both on-site and electronic supervision, optimizing available resources. With increasing internet connectivity in schools and the growth of school network groups, technology can be harnessed to monitor managerial, administrative, and academic aspects remotely through CCTV systems and dedicated mobile applications. Simultaneously, virtual platforms facilitated by experts can create environments for providing necessary professional support to teachers. To achieve this, local governments can develop their own comprehensive systems for monitoring and evaluating the overall health of schools and the effectiveness of supervisory interventions.

The successful execution of these crucial tasks necessitates the appointment of qualified experts. At a minimum, these individuals should possess a mphil or phd degree in a relevant field, strong knowledge and skills in information and communication technology, and specialized training and expertise in education administration and supervision. Furthermore, to embed supervision within the school ecosystem, practices such as peer supervision involving school principals, experienced teachers or mentors, and fellow teachers should be actively promoted. By embracing a multi-pronged approach that combines expert external oversight with robust internal mechanisms, Nepal can effectively strengthen its educational supervision system and ensure a brighter future for its students.

Conclusion

The transition to federalism in Nepal has undeniably complicated the landscape of educational supervision. While decentralization holds the promise of tailored educational solutions, the weakening of established supervisory mechanisms and the capacity limitations at the local level present significant challenges. The untapped potential of school principals as internal supervisors, hampered by appointment irregularities and overwhelming administrative burdens, further exacerbates the issue.

However, within these challenges lie opportunities for innovation and reform. Local governments, now bearing significant responsibility for basic and secondary education, are uniquely positioned to revitalize educational oversight. By prioritizing the development of robust supervisory frameworks, investing in qualified personnel with expertise in both education and technology, and leveraging digital tools for efficient monitoring and support, local authorities can pave the way for a more accountable and quality-driven education system.

Crucially, fostering a culture of shared responsibility for supervision is paramount. Empowering principals to effectively lead internal oversight, promoting peer supervision models within schools, and establishing clear lines of communication and accountability between schools and local governments are essential steps. Ultimately, a multi-pronged approach that combines expert external guidance with strong internal mechanisms, driven by a clear vision and adequate resources, is the key to reimagining and strengthening educational supervision in Nepal's federal context, thereby ensuring a brighter and more equitable future for all learners.

[Sharma, M.Phil.  Scholar at Nepal Open University, is a secondary school teacher.]