Education reform: Too little, too late under the interim regime
The tenure of the interim government (IG) since August 2024 has not been particularly comforting for the country's education community. It is a sad irony that a student-led uprising sparked by discontent about discriminatory educational outcomes brought about a regime change, but led to no significant education reform initiative. At least 11 high-level reform commissions were established in the political, economic, and social spheres, but there was no commission on education.
As it turned out, the long-accumulated Augean stable of problems and grievances in education spilt onto the streets. Students, teachers and parents joined marches and hunger strikes, with numerous complaints and demands. We witnessed the unsightly spectacle of police using water cannons and batons to suppress protesting teachers and students. The government took various decisions on an ad hoc basis, in fire-fighting mode, under pressure, without due and adequate consideration of broader consequences and implications. Such steps were partial solutions or no solution at all, and would potentially create even more serious problems down the line.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. Responding to pressure from the education community, the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME) formed a "consultation committee" in November 2024 for recommendations on student learning, teachers' performance and inequality in education. The nine-member committee, with this writer as the convener, was given a three-month deadline. The committee, consulting major stakeholder groups and visiting schools in 11 districts, presented its report, which the chief adviser received in person on February 10, 2025.
The report consisted of over a hundred recommendations for actions in eight categories. Key points included shifting focus to mastery of foundational skills of reading with comprehension and basic arithmetic at the primary stage; adjusting pedagogy and student assessment to this focus; and each school and its teachers, led by the headteacher, ensuring that all children learn. Short, medium and long-term measures were indicated to carry out the reforms. Specific proposals regarding teachers' and headteachers' incentives, status and career path were made to be implemented in phases, recognising that teachers are the pivot of change. Moving towards a decentralised and responsive governance of schools by piloting an upazila-based planning and management mechanism was suggested as a major strategy.
Disappointingly, the reform recommendations have not yet received a serious and systematic consideration by the government. In fact, there appears to be no mechanism for deliberating on and initiating a comprehensive reform effort. Some of the reforms proposed for primary education—teachers' and headteachers' status and career path, or decentralised upazila-level planning and management trial—require policy decisions by the government, not just by MoPME. Apparently, at the high political and administrative level, there has been no champion for the transformative change in primary education. MoPME leadership also did not or could not make a strong enough plea in favour of the reforms to persuade the cabinet of advisers, the highest decision-making body that could direct various agencies to take the necessary steps to implement the reforms.
Meanwhile, in October 2025, the Ministry of Education (MoE) appointed a consultative committee on secondary education. The ten-member committee, again headed by this writer, was allowed a three-month timeframe. MoE also set up another interdisciplinary committee led by Dr Abed Chowdhury, a reputed gene scientist with a deep interest in education, to produce a "vision document" for qualitative change in education. These actions convey the intention of the MoE adviser to engage in a serious dialogue about education reform.
A legitimate question, however, is whether this is not too late and too little, as the tenure of the IG will end soon, and the committees' work cannot be considered a comprehensive education sector reform initiative. The response of the education authorities, as conveyed to the committees, is that while various exigencies have prevented a broader education reform effort, preparing the ground for reform at least in school education—the foundation of the education system—would contribute to the work that has to be undertaken by the post-election government.
Severe and long-standing problems beset other sub-sectors of education. Education in some 2,500 colleges under the National University is a disaster zone in respect of the quality of instruction and the employability of graduates. With three-quarters of higher education students enrolled in these colleges, they supply the bulk of mid- and high-level skilled workers for government and businesses, including most schoolteachers. The widespread increase in the number of universities, both public and private, with scant attention to ensuring standards, has created an untenable situation. Quality assurance, market relevance, proportions of enrolment, gender disparity, and policy coordination are persistent problems in vocational and technical education. Similar concerns prevail in professional education.
Does the history of political leadership and decision-making in education over more than five decades of independent Bangladesh give us ground for optimism about the next government's stance on education? The political statements of the likely contenders for power are broad promises that do not specifically indicate what changes, if any, can be anticipated. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) in its 31-point outline of state reform, promises ''need-based education at the lower and mid-levels and knowledge-based education at the tertiary level." However, what is meant here is not clear, because all stages of education should be both need-based and knowledge-based. BNP also pledges five percent of the GDP as government allocation for education. Jamaat-e-Islami, yet to publish its manifesto, speaks about a religion-based redesigning of education and six percent of the GDP for public education. However, neither can keep these allocation promises unless the GDP ratio of public revenue is at least doubled from the present level of under eight percent. More important is to figure out how the public resources can be better used by reprioritising objectives and strategies and ensuring much stronger accountability for results in the education sector. Change and reform in the complex and multifaceted education sector call for a holistic approach to defining problems and designing change without ignoring the distinctive features of the sub-sectors.
An early task of the post-election government may be to develop an education sector plan, taking from the work on the two stages of school education. Sub-sector analysis of general higher education, technical and professional higher education, mid-level vocational and technical education and training, madrasa education and lifelong learning will be essential parts of the total sector planning—bringing them within a common framework of inclusive, equitable and quality-driven human development.
The experience with the primary education reform recommendations and the ongoing work of the other committees suggests that deciding how the plan would be implemented is as important as identifying and planning the objectives, strategies, and targets. Firm political commitment to reform and high-level champions in political and administrative decision-making forums are necessary to ensure that reform steps are taken and results materialise.
Dr Manzoor Ahmed is professor emeritus at BRAC University, chair of Bangladesh ECD Network (BEN), and adviser to the Campaign for Popular Education (CAMPE).
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
Comments