Supervision and Monitoring Mechanism in the Education System of Nepal

Yogendra Chapagain

Abstract:

Effective supervision and monitoring are vital tools for ensuring organizational compliance, institutional development, good governance, and the enhancement of teaching and learning practices in the field of education. Supervision entails providing technical support to teachers to enhance students' learning outcomes through professional development, while monitoring involves administrative oversight in accordance with laws, regulations, and policies. However, the education sector in Nepal currently faces challenges related to weak and unsystematic supervision and monitoring mechanisms. To address these issues, there is a need to establish a specific modality and a dedicated supervision and monitoring section within the Center for Educational Human Resource Development (CEHRD). This article explores the concepts of supervision and monitoring, current practices, associated challenges, and proposes a way forward to strengthen these crucial aspects.

Keywords:

Supervision, Monitoring, Education System, Quality Education

Introduction:

Monitoring and supervision play indispensable roles in ensuring the quality and effectiveness of the education system. While some scholars and practitioners use these terms interchangeably, others differentiate between them within the educational context.

Monitoring involves assessing and evaluating the status, context, and effectiveness of work. It is a managerial and controlling process that assesses input and output to identify strengths, areas for improvement, and strategies to enhance and sustain results (UNESCO, 2011). Monitoring, in its narrow sense, pertains to assessing and evaluating teaching and learning activities in accordance with legal provisions and guidelines. It focuses on whether these activities align with legal requirements. In its broader context, monitoring also involves providing suggestions and guidance to improve teaching and learning practices (Aryal et al., 2010). This narrower view of monitoring emphasizes administrative tasks and traditional monitoring mechanisms, while the broader perspective emphasizes technical, clinical, and educational support to bring about positive changes in the education sector, aligning with modern monitoring concepts (Koirala et al., 2008).

On the other hand, supervision is primarily concerned with improving instructional methods (Admas and Dickey, 1975). It involves evaluating teachers' work after visiting schools and providing guidance and feedback to help teachers enhance their teaching and learning practices (MoE, 1971). According to NESP (1971), supervision is a technical service that supports the development of better teaching and learning environments. Supervision encompasses various roles, including correction, prevention, creativity, inspiration, authority, and clinical guidance in the field of education. It aims to enhance teaching and learning activities by offering technical support to teachers.

Although the terms "supervision" and "monitoring" have distinct meanings, they are often used interchangeably in the context of Nepal. Based on the discussion above, it is asserted that they both involve educational and technical activities related to coordinating, controlling, supporting, supervising, and assessing educational activities. These activities are essential for achieving effective, efficient, and productive pedagogical processes to attain educational goals and objectives.

The Practice of Supervision and Monitoring Mechanisms:

Educational supervision in Nepal began informally in Darbar School in 1854 and was formalized with the establishment of the Chief Inspector of School Office in 1942 (NCED, 2070). Initially, the focus was on controlling teachers and students' behavior toward the government. In 2018 BS, 14 Zone Education Officers and 75 District Education Inspectors were appointed for school education monitoring and supervision. The approach was primarily administrative, focusing on compliance with legal provisions. This approach persisted until the National Education System Plan (NESP) 2028, which shifted the focus toward technical support for educational improvement.

Under the NESP, the roles of primary level inspectors, lower secondary level inspectors, and secondary level inspectors were introduced for both administrative and technical monitoring in the education system. However, administrative monitoring and accountability remained prominent through inspections conducted according to educational and administrative norms, biannual school visits, and the provision of funds to schools based on inspection reports (MoEST, 2019).

In 2037/38, the concept of one district, one monitoring area was implemented for school supervision and monitoring, and in 2038/39, monitoring through school clusters was introduced (Sharma, 1999).

The Primary Education Project (PEP) in 2042 introduced school monitoring and supervision through the School Resource Person (RP) and Resource Person (RP) provisions. The subsequent introduction of the Local Government Operation Act 2074 granted local governments 23 rights, including control over school education, including educational supervision and monitoring (The Law Commission, 2017). This change significantly impacted the education system, leading to the establishment of 753 Local Education Units and 753 Local Level Education Committees for school supervision and monitoring at the local government level. The concept of Resource Persons was discontinued by the federal government in 2075/11/03 BS (CEHRD, 2019).

At the district level, Education Development and Coordination Units, and at the provincial level, 7 Ministries of Social Development and 7 Education Development Directorates were established for supervision and monitoring. The central government, through the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology and its organizations, and the Educational Review Office, was directly or indirectly involved in supervision and monitoring (MoEST, 2017).

Before 2007 BS	Controlling educational services cum inspecting administrative aspect of educational by Director General of Public Instruction
2007-2028 BS	Inspecting educational practices by ZOE & DEI
2028-2049 BS	Inspecting and administrative supervision by Education Office
2049-2074 BS	Technical and Administrative supervision by RPs, SS and Education Office
After 2074	Administrative supervision by LEU and no dedicated persons for technical support

 

Current Issues, Challenges, and Problems:

1. Educational stakeholders in Nepal have expressed dissatisfaction with the state of supervision and monitoring in the education sector for an extended period (MoEST, 2019). Several issues, challenges, and problems have been identified, including:
2. Use of Multiple Supervision and Monitoring Models: The same individuals are expected to perform administrative, cluster-based, local, and resource center-based supervision and clinical/educational supervision. This multiplicity of roles is challenging.
3. Lack of Clear Legal Provisions: Since the implementation of the Local Government Operation Act, there is a lack of specific provisions for supervision and monitoring by dedicated individuals. A clear modality for supervision, classroom observation, and feedback, as well as teacher support, is absent.
4. Inadequate Involvement of Head Teachers and School Management Committees: Head teachers and School Management Committees (SMCs) are not systematically involved in supervision and monitoring.
5. Emphasis on Administrative Inspection: Many supervisors prioritize administrative supervision over clinical supervision. They may not observe classroom teaching and learning or provide model classes for teachers' professional development (NCED 2013).
6. Resource Constraints: Effective supervision and monitoring require resources such as field allowances and transportation allowances. The budget for these activities is often insufficient or non-existent.
7. Large Number of Schools, Students, and Teachers: Local governments are responsible for overseeing a significant number of schools, teachers, and students, but educational personnel available for supervision are limited.
8. Insufficient Supervisor Capacity: Effective supervision requires supervisors with strong theoretical and practical knowledge and skills in education. Some supervisors may lack the necessary qualifications (NCED, 2013).
9. Lack of Result-Oriented Approach: Monitoring and supervision should be results-oriented, with specific tools and follow-up support. In many cases, monitoring is conducted in name only, without a clear focus on outcomes.
10. Lack of Systematic Monitoring: Various organizations, such as MOEST, CEHRD, ERO, EDD, LEU, and EDCU, conduct monitoring in their own way and time, leading to duplication and increased expenses. Data collected during monitoring are often not analyzed and synthesized effectively, and there is no systematic documentation of monitoring reports and data.

The Way Forward:

1. To improve the education system in Nepal, the following recommendations are proposed to address the issues, problems, and challenges related to supervision and monitoring:
2. Technical and Educational Supervisor Deployment: Local governments at all 753 levels should appoint and mobilize technical and educational supervisors based on the number of schools. These supervisors should focus more on providing technical support to schools and less on administrative supervision.
3. Systematic, Online-Based Supervision and Monitoring: Develop comprehensive tools for supervision and monitoring and integrate them into tablet and mobile applications. Supervisors should visit schools and submit their reports electronically, with data automatically compiled at the central, provincial, and local levels.
4. Capacity Building for SMCs, PTAs, Head Teachers, and Supervisors: Strengthen the capacity of School Management Committees (SMCs), Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs), Head Teachers, and supervisors for effective monitoring and supervision.
5. Resource Allocation: Ensure supervisors and monitors have access to adequate resources, including budget provisions for creative activities related to supervision and monitoring.
6. Establishment of a Supervision and Monitoring Section at CEHRD: Create a dedicated section for supervision and monitoring within the Center for Educational Human Resource Development (CEHRD) and develop clear modalities for these activities.

Conclusion:

Supervision and monitoring are pivotal components of the education system. While supervision focuses on providing technical support to improve teaching and learning, monitoring concentrates on inspecting administrative and management aspects of education. Over the years, Nepal has transitioned from an administrative monitoring approach to one that emphasizes technical support. In the current federal structure, local governments play a central role in educational supervision and monitoring. To enhance the education system's quality and effectiveness, it is essential for local governments to develop specific supervision and monitoring mechanisms in coordination with provincial and central authorities. Strengthening these mechanisms is critical for achieving equitable access to quality education and advancing the educational system in Nepal.

Reference

• Acharya, P. R. (2017). Educational Supervision: Practice and Future. KarmachariKalam: Annual Publication 2074.
• Adam H.P. & Dickey, F. G. (1966). Basic Principles of Supervision. Durasia Publication House,      New Delhi
• Ayral, B., Niroula, Y., &Koirla, S. (2010). Different Aspects of Educational Development. SopanMasik, Kathmandu Nepal
• CEHRD. (2019). Letter on Management of Resource Person and Resource Centre. Retrieved            www.doe.gov.np
• Koirala, B.N., Gautam, P. &Luitel, R. (2008). Educational Administration and Supervision. Quest Publication, Kathmandu
• Law Commission. (2015). Constitution of Nepal-2015. Retrieved from          www.lawcommission.gov.np
• Law Commission. (2017). Local Government Operating Act 2017. Retrieved from    www.lawcommission.gov.np
• MoEST. (2017). Educational Information: Annual      Publication. Retrieved from     https://moe.gov.np/article/
• MoEST. (2019). Higher Level Education Commission            Report 2075. Singhdurbar, Kathmandu
• MoE.(1971). National Education Plan 2018-32. Retrieved from         https://moe.gov.np/category/national-education-plan.html
• MoE. (1992). National Education Report 2049. Retrieved from             https://moe.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/2049_Nepali.pdf
• NCED ( 2012). High-Level Seminar on Contemporary  Educational Issues: Paper Compilation-           2069. Sanothimi Kathmandu
• NCED. ( 2013). High-Level Seminar on Contemporary Educational Issues: Paper Compilation-           2070. Sanothimi Kathmandu
• Sharma, G. (1999). History of Education: Part 1&2. Makalu Publication Kathmandu, Nepal
• UNCESCO. (2011). Supervision: a key component of a quality monitoring system. Retrieved f            romhttp://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/supervision-key-component-quality-monitoring-   system-module-1-9618