Bridges and Barriers: School-Community Partnerships in Nepal

• In Event: Scale, status, and expansion: Cultural-historical studies of education and democracy in South Asia

Proposal

Introduction and Literature Review

The critical role of community engagement in fostering inclusive, effective, and culturally rich learning environments is increasingly recognized globally (Hands, 2023). Such partnerships enhance the democratic and supportive nature of education, promoting belonging among diverse students (Bush & Sargsyan, 2020; Hands, 2023; Valli et al., 2018). In Nepal, School Management Committees (SMCs) are pivotal for enacting this engagement within the public education system, presenting unique challenges and opportunities (Pradhan et al., 2019). However, significant questions remain about how SMC members across diverse contexts, specifically urban and rural settings, perceive, understand, and implement the school-community partnership model, especially following Nepal's transformative 2015 constitutional reforms to decentralize education (MoE, 2016; Khanal, 2016). This study directly addresses this critical gap.

SMCs, mandated under the seventh amendment of Nepal's Education Act (MoE, 2016), are designed as democratic bodies comprising parents, teachers, principals, and local officials to steer school governance and align educational agendas with community needs (Khanal, 2016; Pradhan et al., 2019). Their effectiveness in leveraging combined resources, expertise, and social networks is central to achieving partnership benefits like enhanced academic achievement, student engagement, and social outcomes (Epstein, 2009; Taylor, 2017). Yet how SMCs interpret and enact this role, particularly across Nepal's diverse urban and rural landscapes, remains critically underexplored, especially within the evolving federal context (Khanal & Ghimire, 2022; McNeil, 2023).

This study addresses critical gaps identified in Nepal's evolving educational landscape by employing a comparative case study design to examine how SMC members across contrasting urban and rural contexts in Bagmati Province perceive, understand, and implement the school-community partnership model. This research will answer the following questions: How do members of the SMC in an urban school and a rural school perceive, understand, and describe the nature, workings, and value of the school–community partnership model?

Community partnerships are vital frameworks for aligning school agendas with community needs, fostering collaborative decision-making and inclusive engagement essential for responsive and holistic learning environments (Bryan & Henry, 2012; Cunningham & Smith, 2020; Sanders, 2003; Taylor, 2017). By leveraging shared resources and capacities, well-designed partnerships address complex educational challenges, foster mutual accountability, and demonstrably improve student engagement, achievement, and social outcomes (Hands, 2023; Malone, 2020; Stefanski et al., 2016). However, the operationalization of these partnerships varies significantly across contexts. While U.S. models often emphasize academic achievement and student well-being (Hands, 2023), and European approaches prioritize social cohesion (Grissom et al., 2021), the focus in South Asia, particularly Nepal, centers on utilizing partnerships to bridge cultural and socioeconomic divides and adapt to local realities (Govinda, 2016; Khanal, 2016; Khanal & Ghimire, 2022; McNeil, 2023). This local adaptation mandate in Nepal is institutionally embedded within the SMC structure.

Data and Methods

This study employs the horizontal dimension of comparative case study methodology (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017) to examine SMC operational dynamics shaping school-community partnerships in four public secondary schools (two urban municipalities, two rural municipalities) in Bagmati Province, Nepal, reflecting distinct contextual differences. Purposive sampling selected information-rich cases (Patton, 2002).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 SMC members (~5-6 per school, >50% of typical committees), including chairs, principals, teachers, parents, and marginalized group representatives (e.g., Dalit, Janajati). Interviews were conducted in Nepali (Creswell, 2014), recorded, transcribed, and translated via a rigorous two-stage process (verbatim then contextual adaptation).

Horizontal comparison was operationalized by tracing partnership processes, power dynamics, and challenges across similar roles (e.g., chairs, parent reps, marginalized members) between urban/rural sites (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017).

Data analysis used NVivo software for inductive thematic coding (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2012), focusing specifically on perceptions of partnership value, barriers/facilitators (elite capture, tokenism, resources), and contextual differences. IRB approval was obtained; informed consent and pseudonyms ensured confidentiality.

Findings
Analysis revealed three central themes:
1. Elite Capture Compromises Shared Governance: While partnerships were widely valued, elite capture frequently undermined their effectiveness. SMCs were often dominated by individuals wielding political or social influence who leveraged their roles for personal gain, undermining inclusive participation, shared governance, and the equitable distribution of partnership benefits.
2. Context Shapes Partnership Dynamics: Rural schools exhibited deeper community bonds, functioning as central hubs that fostered strong informal networks. In contrast, urban schools benefited from more informed and confident participation by SMC members. While urban settings lacked the same communal depth, members' higher education and civic exposure facilitated stronger strategic input on resource acquisition and policy alignment, though navigating complex urban politics presented distinct challenges.
3. Tokenism from Role Ambiguity Undermines Inclusion: A pervasive lack of role clarity and formal training resulted in the symbolic inclusion of many SMC members, especially women, Dalit, Janajati, and other marginalized group representatives. One respondent said, "They tell us we are members, but they never explain what we are supposed to do. We just listen and agree". Despite mandated presence, these individuals were often reduced to tokenism, exerting minimal influence as decision-making authority remained concentrated among principals and chairs. This systemic tokenism fundamentally undermined the democratic intent of the SMC model.

Implications and Conclusion

This study exposes a critical implementation gap in Nepal's SMC model post-2015 federalization, where elite capture, contextual disparities (urban/rural), and tokenism of marginalized groups (women, Dalit, Janajati) hinder effective partnerships. Key implications demand:
1. Safeguards against elite capture: Implement transparent decision logs, conflict-of-interest policies, term limits for chairs, and formal oversight to ensure equitable resource distribution.
2. Context-specific strategies: Support rural SMCs in leveraging community hubs for resource mobilization while mitigating elite influence. Equip urban SMCs to build genuine community trust and navigate complex politics. Training must be differentiated.
3. Empowerment beyond mandates: Replace tokenism with mandatory, practical training for all members (plus specialized modules for marginalized groups) and institutionalize inclusive practices (rotating facilitation, predefined speaking times, sub-committees chaired by marginalized members) to enable shared governance.

By dismantling elite capture, addressing urban-rural disparities, and empowering marginalized voices in Nepal’s SMCs, this study calls for inclusive, democratic school governance as a pathway to re-examining education’s role in fostering equity and peace in divided societies.

Author

• Bhushan Dahal, Florida State University