Continue with Google
A surprising upsurge
The announcement of this year’s Secondary Education Examination (SEE) results has stirred a wave of reactions across Nepal, marking what many see as a rare moment of optimism in the country’s recent education history. With the pass rate rising sharply from 47.87% last year to 61.81% this year, stakeholders—from the Prime Minister to the National Examination Board, education experts, media outlets, and the public—have rushed to interpret the results through their own lenses. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli credited government-supported online learning initiatives and the mobilization of youth as key factors behind the improvement, while the National Examination Board (NEB) highlighted coordinated efforts by teachers, local governments, and parents. At the same time, scholars and analysts have expressed skepticism, warning that the sudden increase in pass rates may indicate systemic leniency—or be shaped by other unknown factors—rather than reflecting genuine academic progress. As competing claims unfold, the SEE results have become more than just a set of numbers—they are now a contested narrative about accountability, equity, and the future of Nepal’s school education system.
The role of political will
The purpose of this article is not to determine who is right or wrong in the ongoing debate over Nepal’s SEE results. Rather, it aims to understand these examination outcomes through the lens of international research findings, education trends, and comparative experiences that may help interpret—though not definitively explain—what happened in Nepal.
Before delving into the substance, two observations are worth noting. First, the Prime Minister has continuously challenged student performance in SEE for quite some time, even questioning teachers' professional integrity in light of persistently high failure rates in the country. In response, he has aspired to raise the pass rate to a minimum of 70%. Ironically, the politicization of systemic failure may serve as a catalyst for progress—provided Nepal’s polarized political climate can converge on shared commitments to educational reform. In Nepal, educational challenges often remain unaddressed until they capture political attention. Now that the SEE has drawn the Prime Minister’s focus, there is cautious hope that education will remain a national priority—one that future leaders, too, must uphold. Yet, if this moment is not sustained or institutionalized, it risks not only fading from the political agenda but also further undermining the very institutions—federal and local—formally tasked with leading systemic reform.
Secondly, for reasons not officially stated, the Prime Minister took the initiative into his own hands—despite the presence of Nepal’s education governance architecture, including the Ministry of Education (MoE), the National Examination Board (NEB), the Centre for Education and Human Resource Development (CEHRD), and other statutory bodies. He mobilized his office—enlisting hundreds of youth and a private company—to deliver online classes, an effort he claims benefited 150,000 students. While he expressed gratitude to teachers and students for their dedication, he primarily attributed the success to the online education initiative he directly oversaw.
Convinced of online learning’s potential to improve student outcomes, the Prime Minister has called for the continued acceleration of digital education efforts—setting an ambitious target of achieving a 70% pass rate in the coming year. In a press briefing, the Chair of the National Examination Board (NEB) cited the CEHRD-led online platform, among other factors, as contributing to the improved performance—giving the impression that a parallel system existed in leading the online education initiative. In any case, the online support provided to students has been widely acknowledged as a critical driver of this apparent progress.
What international evidence tells us
SEE results vibe!
We can understand Nepal’s SEE test scores from the following international evidence on student performance. In fact, this year’s sharp increase in scores runs counter to trends observed in most other countries. If international experience is any guide, significant improvements in student performance over a short period are rare—if not impossible—without major, long-term reforms and widespread systemic changes.
Learning outcomes rarely happen overnight
First and foremost, international evidence shows that improvements in student performance and learning outcomes rarely occur suddenly or overnight. Rather, sustained progress is typically the result of long-term, coordinated efforts—encompassing curriculum reform, enhanced teacher training, increased resource allocation, the adoption of proven pedagogical methods and tools, and supportive policy environments. Countries that have successfully raised national test scores often do so through comprehensive strategies implemented consistently over several years. By contrast, rapid or dramatic jumps in test results may signal shifts in testing conditions or the effects of short-term interventions; however, such gains are seldom durable or indicative of genuine learning improvements. This understanding underscores the need for patience, systemic reform, and ongoing investment to achieve meaningful and lasting educational progress.
A complex interplay of factors influences test scores
Second, over five decades of research on student performance across the globe—beginning with James Coleman’s landmark 1966 study, Equality of Educational Opportunity—has consistently highlighted the significant impact of family background and socioeconomic factors on student academic achievement. Coleman’s findings emphasized that differences in student performance were strongly linked to the social and economic characteristics of families and communities rather than just school resources or policies. Student performance in standardized test scores is shaped by a complex interplay of factors at multiple levels—including the student, family, school, and broader education system—as demonstrated by large-scale national and international studies such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Annual Status of Education Report (ASER), including Nepal’s own National Assessment of Student Achievement (NASA), conducted by the Education Review Office (ERO).
Among the most consistent predictors are socioeconomic status, parental education, and access to home learning resources, all of which strongly influence a child’s academic readiness and achievement. At the individual level, factors like prior knowledge, motivation, regular attendance, and language proficiency—particularly in multilingual contexts such as Nepal—are crucial. School-related influences include teacher quality, principal leadership, classroom practices, availability of learning materials, and the overall school climate. At the system level, student outcomes are profoundly influenced by structural and policy conditions—such as curriculum alignment, equitable and needs-based funding, governance capacity and leadership, access to quality early childhood education, teacher recruitment and retention strategies, inclusive education frameworks, robust data and monitoring systems, and coherent assessment and accountability policies. Across countries, including Nepal, these studies consistently show that gaps in test scores often mirror broader inequalities in opportunity and access, highlighting the importance of targeted interventions that extend beyond classrooms to address structural disparities within education systems.
A national study conducted in Nepal under the leadership of Mr. Kedar Bhakta Mathema—supported by a team of educationists and social scientists—also pointed to these same underlying factors as key reasons for the continued underperformance of students in the School Leaving Certificate (SLC) examinations. Any improvement in test scores without corresponding progress in these systemic factors is likely to be temporary or superficial, lacking the foundation needed for sustained and meaningful educational gains.
The online education narrative
While educational technology is often heralded for its potential to transform learning, international evidence urges more cautious interpretation. Politicians around the world are increasingly drawn to the strategic allure of digital power—leveraging technology not just for education, but also for governance, communication, and public influence. In the wake of this year’s improved test scores, both Nepal’s Prime Minister and the National Examination Board have publicly attributed the rise in student performance to the online education provided during the academic year. However, studies from developing contexts consistently show that online education alone rarely produces significant gains in standardized test outcomes—particularly in the absence of enabling conditions such as equitable access to digital devices, reliable internet, adequately trained teachers, and supportive home environments.
Evaluations by organizations such as the World Bank and J-PAL indicate that educational technology can generate positive outcomes when integrated into a well-resourced, blended, and guided instructional framework. Yet even in these cases, benefits are typically uneven and often concentrated among urban or socioeconomically advantaged learners. As such, attributing a substantial national performance gain solely to a few hours of online instruction may overlook the deeper structural drivers that shape student achievement.
The effectiveness of online teaching in developing countries faces even greater structural hurdles. A persistent digital divide—marked by inadequate access to reliable internet, digital devices, and even electricity—has severely constrained participation, leading to low engagement, high dropout rates, and growing learning losses. These challenges have contributed to a worsening of what the World Bank terms “Learning Poverty.” Teachers in many of these contexts are often underprepared for digital instruction, lacking both training and pedagogical support. Consequently, online teaching frequently relies on basic, one-directional methods that offer limited interactivity or differentiation. Moreover, the absence of contextualized content and proper curriculum integration further undermines impact. While online education holds considerable promise for expanding access, its practical effectiveness remains circumscribed by infrastructural deficits, digital inequality, and weak instructional ecosystems—factors that tend to amplify pre-existing educational disparities rather than bridge them.
The global learning loss context
The COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) unequivocally resulted in widespread learning loss among schoolchildren across the globe—a phenomenon thoroughly documented by international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS, national tests like NAEP, and studies by organizations including the World Bank. These sources consistently report substantial declines in mathematics, reading, and science scores—often equivalent to several months or even a full year of lost learning—with disproportionately severe consequences for already vulnerable student populations. The pandemic not only exacerbated existing achievement gaps but also deepened the global crisis in educational equity.
Recent data underscores the magnitude of this setback. PISA 2022 showed that average mathematics scores across OECD countries fell by nearly 15 points compared to 2018—roughly equivalent to three-quarters of a year’s learning—marking the most significant drop in the program’s history. Reading scores declined by approximately 10 points on average. In countries such as Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Poland, mathematics scores dropped by over 25 points. TIMSS 2023 corroborates these patterns: in the U.S., 4th- and 8th-grade students scored 18 and 27 points lower in mathematics, respectively, than in 2019. Globally, average achievement fell by 0.11 standard deviations, with the steepest declines concentrated among lower-performing students—further widening learning inequalities.
Although some recovery is underway, progress has been uneven, slow, and incomplete. In most education systems, students continue to perform below pre-pandemic levels in core subjects, and annual learning gains remain below historical norms. While a minority of scholars contest the full scale of learning loss, the preponderance of evidence reveals widespread difficulty in returning to pre-crisis benchmarks. Against this global backdrop, Nepal’s sharp rise in SEE scores stands out as a notable anomaly—one that merits deeper examination.
The hidden influence of examination governance
Finally, the “black box” of examination governance—including processes such as test planning, item design, standardization, moderation, administration, exam security, invigilation, and marking—is itself a powerful determinant of student outcomes. These behind-the-scenes mechanisms shape not only the technical quality of assessments but also their perceived fairness and credibility.
For instance, the clarity and difficulty level of test items, their alignment with curricular standards, the consistency of moderation practices, and the rigor of invigilation can all influence student performance. In some systems, lax supervision or compromised exam security can inflate results, while poorly managed testing environments may depress them. Similarly, the marking of answer scripts—particularly whether standardized rubrics and robust oversight are applied—can significantly affect final scores. Because many of these processes occur outside public scrutiny and often lack rigorous quality assurance, examination governance remains a “black box,” capable of elevating or deflating results regardless of students’ actual learning.
Conclusion: Toward evidence and transparency
While multiple explanations have been proposed for the unexpected rise in SEE scores, it remains unclear whether the results genuinely reflect improved student learning or are driven by other factors—ranging from examination governance practices to uneven participation in online education. It is possible that the scores represent real academic gains; however, international evidence cautions against accepting such outcomes at face value. The claim that over 150,000 students succeeded primarily due to a few hours of online instruction stretches plausibility—particularly in light of persistent infrastructure limitations and unequal access across much of the country. Ultimately, only a credible, independent, and systematic inquiry can reveal the underlying drivers of this year’s performance surge and offer a sound basis for interpreting the results and shaping future education policy.
The author is a former professor of education at Tribhuvan University and a former education specialist with UNESCO, who served in various countries across the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.
