Politics continues to fail our education

Soon after the birth of Bangladesh, the Kudrat-e-Khuda education commission outlined in 1974 the goals for the newly independent country's education system – from universal literacy and compulsory education at the primary stage to quality education in universities. The commission report was thrown away in 1975 when a military government usurped state power.  

In the next 35 years, under martial rule until 1990 and then elected governments from 1991 to 2009, at least seven education commissions and committees were formed. They made various recommendations regarding improving quality, creating greater opportunities, and strengthening management; none that could be really considered as a radical transformation of education. Yet, none were seriously followed up with a systemic effort to institute the reforms proposed. 

On the other hand, under the military rulers, a major expansion of madrasa education of different types – the primary level ebtedayee madrasas and higher level alia madrasas –  grew rapidly with government patronage. The quomi madrasas, with a medieval religious curriculum and no government oversight, also multiplied and were funded by religious charities and Saudi and Gulf countries’ donations. By 1990, a third of children in any form of education was in madrasas, whereas in pre-independent Bangladesh, only a few quomi or alia madrasas existed. 

Another contribution of the military rulers was the proliferation of private English medium schools, which prepared students for British or American high school qualifications. These high-cost schools served the children of the elite – business people, politicians and civil and military bureaucracy. School education thus was divided into three distinct streams: the mainstream Bengali-medium serving low and lower middle-income families, madrasas catering mostly to the very poor, and the private English-medium patronised by the ruling elite.  

Since the restoration of elected government in 1991, the ruling parties essentially allowed the three-way parallel systems in education that had emerged under martial rule to continue and grow. The commissions and committees on education set up during the two decades noted the existence of the divisions and proposed reforms within the existing structure. However, as noted, even these reforms were not implemented. 

After being elected to power in 2009, the Awami League promptly appointed another education commission. Again, no effort was made to implement the 2010 national education policy recommendations. Such an effort would have required assigning tasks and responsibilities for the preparation of an action plan, setting priorities and targets among and within subsectors of education, mobilising and allocating resources and monitoring progress. The 2010 policy itself had recommended the formation of a permanent and statutory education commission to guide and oversee the implementation process. The political decision-makers chose not to pursue this course. They had no stake in public education since their children went to the private elite schools.

The nation’s schools thus reproduced and reinforced the prevailing class division in society. The unfairness of it is aggravated by the fact that the mainstream Bengali schools and the madrasas – whose footprint the Awami League increased by legitimising them under the national board, to curry favour with Islamists – serving the large majority are of very poor quality and the government’s education plans and investments remain utterly inadequate to bring about the necessary changes.

The student-led uprising that ousted the autocratic kleptocracy in August 2024 was initially sparked by the inequalities and limited opportunities arising from the education system. It then turned into a cry for regime change and “state repair”. The interim government has appointed some 15 commissions, and associated taskforces and committees. Many have submitted their reports, and consultation on building a consensus on a reform agenda has begun. Ironically, however, there has been no overall education reform initiative. 

In the education sphere, the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME) did appoint a nine-member “consultation committee” last October. After four months of intensive work that included consultation with stakeholder groups and extensive field travel, the committee, headed by me, submitted its report. It was received formally by the chief adviser on February 10th. 

The primary and non-formal education sub-sector reform initiative is a partial move that unaddressed major education sector concerns. The committee report itself has pointed to the need for a comprehensive approach and holistic thinking about the education system, especially school education from the pre-primary to the pre-tertiary level. This calls for political choices by the state on education reform beyond the remit of MoPME alone. 

Given its uncertain tenure and the political context in which it operates, the interim government is unlikely to break away fully from the pattern of an unequal and non-inclusive education system that has emerged over the decades. A radical change is unlikely in the present context in the policy and decision-making mechanisms and the mindset of the key actors, which have led to poor learning outcomes and unequal life chances for the majority of children.   

The experience with the consultation committee on primary and non-formal education indicates the value of a deliberative and dialogue process and mechanism in which stakeholders have faith and trust. What the newly appointed education adviser and the interim government may now aim for is to move away from the fragmented and ad hoc decision-making approach, responding to street protests and mob pressure – often not addressing the roots of the problem, but pushing a solution into the long grass, or even creating greater problems in the future. A deliberative body comprising the right people who can examine the critical issues, listen to stakeholders, consider the pros and cons of an issue taking a holistic view, can help the government avert the pitfalls of the ad-hoc and reactive decision-making.  

The sector of education contains major sub-sectors which have distinct objectives, pedagogic approaches, beneficiaries, organisational arrangements, and the nature of obligations of the state regarding the sub-sector. The policy responses and the scope of implementable measures by the state have to be informed by insight and understanding of the distinct features of the sub-sectors as well as their interconnectedness. A consultative council for the education sector, therefore, should provide, within it, for subsector committees so that a holistic view is maintained. 

The education consultative council should have an open-ended tenure and can eventually be replaced by a permanent national education commission by the elected government. It can additionally be used by the government as a sounding board by seeking its advice for decision-making about critical issues. The consultative council, among other things, can guide the preparation of a medium-term (5-year) education sector plan and a longer term (10-year) perspective plan.

A beginning must be made now about a rethink on our education – not deferring this to the post-election ruling party or parties. The past record of political parties of all stripes in respect of education has not exactly been gratifying.  Work done now in an apolitical environment on setting the agenda, priorities and strategies may help nudge the political parties in the right direction. Moreover, the chemistry of a freshly launched party of the young on the political scene may create greater receptivity to well-argued new ideas.●  

Manzoor Ahmed is professor emeritus at BRAC University, chair of Bangladesh Early Childhood Development Network (BEN), and adviser to Campaign for Popular Education (CAMPE).