Urban Schools, Standards, and the Question of Results
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to sit with the chairperson of Ward No. 18 in Lalitpur District for a meaningful conversation. During our discussion, he raised a serious concern about today's private schools and colleges. His concern was that many educational institutions collect fees under different headings, but the facilities, materials, and environment do not always match what they charge. Many schools and colleges do not seem to meet the government's standards for land, playgrounds, open space, and infrastructure.
He gave an example of a well-known Grade 11–12 college in Kathmandu. The college has a large number of students. Its buildings are growing upward, but the available space is very limited. His question was simple and fair: how can such institutions be considered acceptable if they do not meet the standards written in the education regulations?
His concern was valid. But I invited him to look at the matter from another angle. I said, "Chairperson sir, we should not look at this only negatively. We should also see it as a creative solution within the limitations of urban reality."
The Problem with One-Size-Fits-All Standards
Our education regulations say that a school should have a certain amount of land, playground space, open area, and physical infrastructure. These standards are important. But many of these standards appear to have been designed with rural or spacious settings in mind. In villages, hills, and mountain areas, students may still have enough open space to run, play, and gather. But the reality of Kathmandu, Lalitpur, and Bhaktapur is very different. Land is extremely expensive. Space is limited. Running an educational institution in the city is itself a major challenge.
So the real question is this: if an institution can attract thousands of students even within limited space, if it can win the trust of parents, and if students still want to study there, should we only say, "This school has failed to meet the standard"? Or should we also say, "This institution has found a way to solve problems within limited resources"?
This is where the weakness of our educational thinking becomes clear. Sometimes we are measuring education with the wrong ruler. We measure the size of the building, but we do not measure the impact of learning. We measure the length of the playground, but we do not measure the enthusiasm of students. We read the regulations on paper, but we forget to observe parental trust and student choice.
Why Government Schools Are Empty
If meeting physical standards alone were the proof of quality education, many government schools in Nepal would be the best schools in the country today. Many government schools have large plots of land. They have playgrounds. They have open spaces. Some even have good buildings. Yet many of them do not have enough students. Parents do not want to send their children there. Why?
Because education is not created by land, buildings, and playgrounds alone. Education is created by committed teachers, capable management, a healthy learning environment, parental trust, student experience, and a living institutional culture.
What Parents Are Actually Looking For
On the other hand, some urban private institutions with very limited space are full of students. Parents line up for admission. Students want to go there. This reality itself sends a message. The message is this: people are not looking only for buildings; they are looking for results. They are looking for learning. They are looking for discipline, environment, opportunity, language, technology, competition, and hope for the future.
However, this does not mean that schools should ignore safety, hygiene, ventilation, drinking water, toilets, fire exits, and child-friendly facilities. These are non-negotiable. There can be no compromise on the safety and health of children. Dangerous buildings, unhealthy environments, overcrowding, and irresponsible management should never be defended.
But education policy must distinguish between dangerous negligence and creative adaptation. A school that puts children at risk must be corrected. But a school that works honestly within urban limitations and still provides meaningful learning should not be judged only by the size of its land.
Beyond the Playground: New Ways to Measure Education
The problem is not only with standards. The problem is also with the way we use standards. Rules should support life, not block it. Policy should become a tool for improvement, not a weapon to punish creativity.
Today's education is not limited to a large playground. Digital labs, libraries, online resources, project-based learning, educational visits, sports partnerships, public playgrounds, and community resources all provide new possibilities. Urban schools may not always have large private playgrounds, but they can still create rich learning experiences by using nearby sports facilities, community halls, digital platforms, and thoughtful scheduling.
A New Ruler for Education
Therefore, Nepal's education policy must move beyond the old idea that one standard should apply equally everywhere. Villages, cities, mountains, plains, municipalities, and metropolitan areas all have different realities. Urban schools need urban-sensitive standards. Rural schools need rural-sensitive standards. But most importantly, standards must also include results.
We need a new ruler to measure education. That ruler should not measure land alone; it should measure life. It should not measure buildings alone; it should measure learning. It should not measure rules alone; it should measure outcomes. It should not measure infrastructure alone; it should measure the future of students.
One reason Nepal's education system is struggling is that we have often made secondary things primary and primary things secondary. We have called institutions with space but no students "standard-compliant," while calling institutions with limited space but active learning "non-compliant." Such upside-down measurement will not improve education.
The time has come to look at education not only through the eyes of paper standards, but also through the eyes of living results. Where there is weakness, let us improve it. Where there is negligence, let us correct it. But where there is creativity, let us honor it. Where students are learning, let us see hope.
Education should not be measured only by the size of the playground, but by the size of the hope it creates in students.