At a time when the global demand for qualified, trained, and competent teachers is growing, Nepal’s lawmakers are paradoxically considering waiving the mandatory teacher education requirement. The Parliamentary Committee on Education, Health, and Information Technology has agreed to allow graduates from any field to take the teacher licensing exam—a pathway historically reserved for education graduates. If enacted by Parliament, this provision will challenge the gatekeeping role of education colleges and open teaching to many non-education graduates. Unlike professions such as law, medicine, or engineering, teaching is often subject to administrative or political decisions. This is not the first time that the teaching profession in Nepal has faced such a predicament. This article explores the factors that make the teaching profession vulnerable to forces that undermine its identity and autonomy and makes a case for reconsidering the proposed policy.
Forces Undermining Professions
Professions worldwide are increasingly challenged by neoliberalism and technological advancements. The authority and boundaries of professions remain in flux. For instance, market-driven ideas promoted by neoliberalism are detrimental to the autonomy and trust professions historically enjoyed. At the same time, technology is redefining the core of professional tasks. Professions are now evaluated from different perspectives, often in terms of tangible outcomes and economic benefits rather than moral standards and professional wisdom. Teaching is undergoing a similar trajectory.
The rise and fall of professions can be explained through the concept of jurisdictional conflicts (Andrew Abbott, 1988). Each profession occupies a defined territory and operates within its jurisdictional authority. For instance, education graduates claim authority over teaching, as do professionals in fields such as medicine, engineering, or law. Jurisdictional disputes arise when external agents challenge this authority by allowing individuals without expertise to perform professional tasks. Not only market forces and technologies but also internal politics play a significant role in determining who controls professions.
Teacher Licensing Reform: Abandonment of Teacher Education
These theoretical discussions have important implications for Nepal’s teacher education, which is on the verge of a policy shift. The parliamentary committee’s recommendation exemplifies how bureaucratic and political actors, influenced by market forces and technological advances, are rewriting the fate of teacher education and teaching in Nepal. Allowing individuals without formal education degrees to obtain a teaching license represents a paradigm shift. This change dismisses the professional certification requirement for membership in a professional community. Lawmakers argue that the open-door policy would attract talented graduates from non-education fields, adding subject expertise to classrooms in high-demand subjects.
While this idea may sound pragmatic as a stopgap measure, it is uncertain whether it will attract talented individuals unless the profession itself is made attractive compared with others. The shortage of talent in STEM-like fields is a global issue. Teaching competes with other professions for talent, as individuals weigh purpose, prestige, and professional growth. Elevating the social and professional image of teaching is crucial. An open-door policy, without addressing the broader conditions of career choice, risks creating a revolving door—where people join teaching with no long-term commitment. The waiver could make teaching a temporary refuge for short-term job seekers.
Police shifting focus of training to lower ranks
Waiving certification undermines teaching as a profession. Shortages in certain fields do not justify lowering standards. Such a policy weakens the foundation of education as a field of study and professional practice. Decisions made without research-based evidence raise serious questions: What should teachers know? How is effective teaching measured? Who is fit to be a teacher? Which institutions are responsible for educating teachers? Subjecting a professional field like teaching to bureaucratic or political interference invites deprofessionalization. The knowledge and expertise belonging to a profession should remain the prerogative of professionals in that field. This is how professions gain and maintain their reputation and trust.
Ironically, teaching has historically struggled to assert its jurisdictional authority. Unlike comparable professions, teaching is often seen as a task anyone can perform. The belief that subject knowledge alone makes a good teacher is seductive but ignores the philosophical, pedagogical, and transformative dimensions of teaching. Undervaluing the importance of pedagogical skill diminishes the value of specialized knowledge and threatens teacher education. The proposed policy shift reflects a wider neoliberal trend of devaluing teaching as a profession.
Making teacher education optional opens the door to alternative pathways into the profession. Many education systems facing teacher shortages have introduced such schemes, often driven by market trends, political agendas, or administrative convenience. Studies show that while individuals entering through alternative pathways may bring energy and expertise, they cannot replace a sustainable, robust teacher preparation system.
Policymakers should note that professional certification provides a safeguard. Completing a certification demonstrates that the holder meets minimum standards in pedagogy, subject knowledge, and professional ethics. Since public education is a social contract, public schools must remain accountable to the state and the public. Certification ensures that teachers can fulfill this contract and maintain public trust and professional standards.
Teacher Certification versus Teacher Licensing
Licensing is not a substitute for teacher certification. Nepalese lawmakers appear to favor licensing over certification. Licensing ensures that those entering the profession meet minimum legal, regulatory, and professional standards, serving public accountability and safeguarding. It is akin to a driver’s license: without it, one cannot legally practice.
Professional certification, on the other hand, is granted by academic institutions upon completion of a recognized degree, demonstrating advanced knowledge, pedagogical skill, and commitment to ongoing professional development. Certification proves professional preparation, whereas licensing grants legal access to teaching. Both are critical, but not interchangeable. In federal systems like the United States, Canada, or Australia, licensing occurs at the state or provincial level. Licenses are typically not transferable without reciprocity agreements. Nepal has a centralized licensing system portable across provinces, though provinces may impose additional requirements based on linguistic, cultural, or regional factors.
Lessons from High-Performing Systems
Becoming a teacher in most education systems is highly demanding, particularly in high-performing systems such as Finland, Singapore, and South Korea. These countries set high entry standards for teacher education, including competitive selection, rigorous training, research, subject specialization, and practicum. Teachers enjoy continuous professional development, mentoring, and peer support. In Finland, teachers receive the same respect as doctors or lawyers—similar to other high-performing systems.
These countries recognize that intelligence or natural talent alone is insufficient. Teachers must have subject mastery, rigorous professional development, and the ability to apply knowledge in classrooms. Only professionally prepared, motivated, and well-supported teachers can meet these standards. High-performing systems require both certification and licensing; while they serve different purposes, they reinforce each other.
Teacher Education in Nepal: In Need of Serious Reform
Unfortunately, Nepal’s existing teacher preparation programs are inadequate. The Faculty of Education under Tribhuvan University is a major provider, with 594 campuses nationwide, many privately run without quality assurance. Central authorities operate partially blindfolded, lacking data on the effectiveness of these campuses and their graduates. Entry standards are low, and there are no incentives for talented individuals to join. Teacher preparation lacks rigorous, clinical experience to equip teachers for today’s diverse classrooms. It is unsurprising that licensing examination pass rates are low. Weak pre-service education burdens the system with retraining.
The Faculty of Education reflects the broader limitations of Tribhuvan University. Curricula are outdated, misaligned with school requirements, and unresponsive to changing classroom realities. Teacher education is delivered in poorly regulated institutions, under-resourced environments, by inadequately qualified educators. Students often join not out of professional commitment but as a fallback option. Professional rigor is lacking, absenteeism is high, practicum requirements are ineffective, and theory-practice gaps persist.
Conclusion
The solution is not to abandon teacher education, as the parliamentary committee proposes. Instead, teacher preparation programs must be overhauled. The bar should be raised to ensure excellent programs and practices nationwide. The focus should shift from quick fixes, like waiving requirements, to comprehensive reform. Teaching is a skill to be learned, and this can only be achieved by strengthening teacher education institutions.
Waiving mandatory teacher education is easy, but it will not improve schools. Lowering standards is not an option. Improving the teacher pipeline will significantly enhance the quality of education for future generations. Education schools should be valued as highly as medical schools are to doctors.
The author is a former professor of education at Tribhuvan University and an education expert with UNESCO.
