Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Nepal experienced political change from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy in 1990 and finally to a republic in 2008. These changes in the political climate were followed by subsequent change in the educational policy as the incoming regimes tried to incorporate its ideology in the educational policy. This paper analyses the role of teachers’ unions in the educational reform in Nepal since the 1990s with special focus on private schooling context. This paper draws information collected through qualitative interviews with teachers, administrators and principals of two private schools in Kathmandu, the capital city of Nepal. It also uses documentary sources including newspaper articles and other documents related to private schooling in general and teachers’ unions in particular. This study found that teachers’ unions in the context of private schools in Nepal are still struggling for survival due to lack of support from the stakeholders of private schools.

Keywords

Nepal private schools teachers' union educational reform conflict

Introduction

Nepal is a landlocked country located in the Himalayan region, sandwiched between two Asian giants – India and China – with an area of 147,181 square kilometres (Bhattarai, 2001; Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education, 2004) and a population of over 26 million as of September 2011. Nepal has diverse topographical settings, ranging from lowland areas of 60 metres above sea level to the Himalayan Mountains (more than 8800 metres above sea level). Within this elevation lie three ecological regions: the mountains, the hills and the lowland areas, also called terrai (B. Bhattarai, 2003; D. Bhattarai, 2001). As in many countries, there is an increase in urban population (17%) in Nepal, compared with 14% 10 years ago. Kathmandu, the capital city, is the largest urban area, with a population of over 1 million.

The people of Nepal (Nepali people) belong to more than 100 castes/ethnic groups, having different languages, cultures and celebrating different festivals, and are scattered around the country (Parajulee, 2010). Most of the Nepali people are believed to have migrated to Nepal from different parts of the world around 2000–3000 years ago. Some examples of such assumptions include mass immigrants from Tibet as a result of suppression from the Chinese Communist authority in 1959; numerous settlers from India with the opening of Nepal terrai (plains); and Indian Brahmins frequently invited by the Hindu Kings of Nepal (Joshi and Rose, 1966). The constitution recognises Nepal as a multi-lingual and multi-ethnic state with a provision for people’s cultural rights. The state policy also encourages national unity, by promoting harmony and good social relations among different language and ethnic groups (Bhattarai, 2001).

Nepal has experienced a great deal of political change in its history. With changes in the political regime, changes in educational system have followed (Caddell, 2007). Thus, the political ideology of the ruling authority seems to heavily influence the educational policy of the country. For example, all schools were nationalised when the country was ruled by absolute monarchy. Because of such policy, there was no place for private sectors in education. However, a liberal education policy was adopted after the declaration of multi-party democracy with constitutional monarchy (Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education, 2009), thereby opening education to the private sectors. When the country’s political climate was finally changed from constitutional monarchy to a republic removing almost 240 years of monarchy, private education sectors become the target of Maoist affiliated students’ unions and teachers’ unions. Similarly, with the declaration of republic in the country, teachers and other non-owner staff working in Nepali private schools established a teachers’ union also known as Nepal Institutional Teachers (Nepal-ISTU). These teachers’ unions (Maoist affiliated and Nepal-ISTU) have been in constant disagreement with the neo-liberal educational reform introduced by the government.

In the next section, I present a brief political history of Nepal, followed by an international literature on the role of teachers’ unions in the educational reform, and in the final section, I discuss the role of the Maoist affiliated teachers’ union and Nepal-ISTU in the context of neo-liberal educational reform in Nepal.

Political context of Nepal

Nepal was a country of absolute monarchy for about 240 years. But it could not remain aloof from the global wave of democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This external global environment along with internal pressure finally led the existing Nepali monarch, King Birendra, to give up direct rule and introduce a multi-party system with a constitutional monarchy on 16 April 1990 (Hachhethu, 1990). However, even after the declaration of democracy in the country, common people experienced a centralised power structure in the country. The power struggle among and between the political parties and monarchy continue throughout the 1990s in an attempt to become a powerful political force (Baral, 1994; Brown, 1996). Consequently, one of the political parties, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), began armed conflict in the country from 1996. The main objective was removing the monarchy and declaring a republic (Hutt, 2004). During the 10 years (1996–2006) of this armed conflict, around 13,000 people, including schoolteachers, principals and children, died. Finally, a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed between the existing government of Nepal and the Maoists. This was followed by the election of the Constituent Assembly (CA) and declaration of a republic, removing 240 years of monarchy. The constituent assembly election turned Maoists into the dominant political force as they became the largest political party in the assembly (Srivastava and Sharma, 2010).

Although the Maoist party was the largest political party in the first constituent assembly, the election mandate of the first CA indicated that they (Maoists) were expected to work in collaboration with other political parties including the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) (UML). However, this did not happen and the CA was not successful in its mission of promulgating a new constitution. Instead of moving towards the main objective of the CA (framing a constitution within two years) the main political parties (Maoists, CPN (UML) and NC) gave priority to power politics and treated the CA as a platform for forming government (Dahal, 2013). This led to the extension of the CA for four terms. Finally, lack of consensus among the political parties led to the ultimate dissolution of the CA on 27 May 2012, after the Supreme Court refused to grant another extension (Brown and Felbab-Brown, 2012; Chapagain and Yardley, 2012). As a result of this, an interim government led by a former Chief Justice was formed for the purpose of conducting another CA election within a year (Bhattarai and Kharel, 2013). The election for the second CA was finally held on 19 November 2013 and the election results of the second CA (as the first one) came as a surprise. The Nepali Congress became the largest party in the second CA followed by CPN (UML) and the Maoists became only the third party (eKantipur Report, 2013).

This shows that even after the removal of monarchy in the country and subsequent declaration of a republic, there is ongoing tension between and within the political parties. The general public is left in confusion about which political party they should believe. Because of this situation, the political party dominating the political scenario of the country keeps on changing. This has an impact on the operation of private schools from within as well as from outside. Before discussing the impact of educational reform introduced by different political regimes after the 1990s in Nepal, I discuss some international literature on the role of teachers’ unions in educational reform. I discuss literature on educational reform and the role of teachers’ unions in a range of Western countries including the USA, the UK, and Canada.

Educational reform and teachers’ unions in the international context

Most scholars (Kirst and Wirt, 2009; Moe, 2005) agree that unionisation of teachers has transformed balance of power in schools. Teachers’ unions enable teachers to get better wages and assurance of fair treatment, thus reducing injustice for teachers (Johnson and Kardos, 2000; Toch, 2010). With the help of collective bargaining techniques, they (teachers’ unions) bring better contracts and benefits to individual teachers working in schools (Cooper and Sureau, 2008). However, Hess and West (2006: 2), commenting on the American public school contexts, criticise the collective bargaining techniques of teachers’ unions on the following three grounds:

They restrict efforts to use compensation as a tool to recruit, reward, and retain the most essential and effective teachers.

They impede attempts to assign or remove teachers on the basis of fitness or performance.

They over-regulate school life with work rules which stifles creative problem-solving without demonstrably improving teachers’ ability to serve students.

The above quote points towards the direction of the common argument that collective bargaining techniques of the teachers’ unions mirror industrial bargaining. The industrial model informed the shape of schooling long before the teachers’ unions existed. Highlighting the context of the US educational system, Johnson and Kardos (2000) and, subsequently, Moe (2005) argue that although collective bargaining helps teachers to gain control of their workplace, it fails to change schooling for students. These scholars put emphasis on the professional model of schools. Detailing the professional model of schools in the context of the US, Johnson and Kardos (2000: 9) write:

This approach recognises that schools must be responsive to their students and communities … Rather than functioning like factory labourers whose work can be pre-planned by managerial experts, teachers in schools that promote professional model are encouraged to regularly assess their teaching and make professional decisions based on the needs of their students or their schools.

Moe (2005) argues that the rise of the teachers’ unions has resulted in concentration of power in teachers. Teachers make use of their union to fulfil their vested interests, such as job security, higher wages and fringe benefits, combat costly pensions and mitigate restrictive job rules, which often conflict with the interest of children, school and general public. For example, on the basis of analysis of labour agreement collected from the 50 largest school districts in the US based on student population, Hess and Loup (2008) argue that public schools in the US operate on the factory model that values teachers less for specialised knowledge and skills but more for their faithfulness towards accepting a top-down hierarchical structure. This view is aligned with Cooper and Sureau’s (2008) notion of politics of fear in the union-management relations. In such relations, according to Cooper and Sureau, school management worries that teachers may organise themselves for collective voices through strikes that disrupt school activities while teachers fear that management might fire them.

Although teachers still believe that teachers’ unions enable them to get better wages, fair treatment and define the boundary of their school responsibility, they are recognising that realities of school life are quite different from those of the factory or industry (Johnson and Kardos, 2000). Highlighting the context of school-sector restructuring in England, Stevenson (2007) draws attention to teachers’ unions bargaining constructively for government policy change and teachers’ conditions of service. Similarly, Poole (2000) examines the role of teachers’ unions in education reform in Canada using a case study of teachers’ unions and found that teachers’ union leaders focus on the dual relationship between their members’ economic welfare and professional development that leads to educational quality. Bascia (2005) describes in detail the involvement of teachers’ organisations from Canada and the US in a variety of educational reforms related to improvement of teaching and learning activities. She further added that although teachers’ organisations are involved in educational reform, most of the research overshadows these issues with traditional notions of collective agreement and bargaining processes. This is because, according to Bascia, this research is undertaken by researchers with close association with policy makers and school administrators.

Most scholars (Ballou, 2001; Hess and West, 2006; Moe, 2001, 2005, 2006) criticise teachers’ unions for pursuing narrow self-interest such as generous salary and benefit, proper working conditions and job security. However, there are still other group of scholars (Bascia, 2005; Poole, 2000, 2007a; Rottmann, 2010, 2011) who present an alternative perspective on teacher unionism. These groups argue that teachers’ unions not only work towards protecting their members but also improving schools. Akin to this view of teachers’ unions, Peterson and Charney (1999: 5) suggested social justice unionism having the following components:

Teachers’ unions must continue to militantly defend … the rights of teachers as workers and demand improved conditions of teaching and learning.

Teachers’ unions must take responsibility for the quality of teacher corps.

Teachers’ unions must build a strategic alliance with parents and communities in which all are equal partners for fighting for what is best for children in schools and in society.

Social justice unionism emphasises that teachers’ unions need to broaden their work dimension instead of limiting it to the protection of their members. This includes enhancing educational reforms and collaborating with the community for social justice issues (Peterson, 1999). This means teachers’ unions need to pursue a range of issues from traditional issues (proper wage and salary including other incentives, proper working conditions and job security) to professional issues and also social justice issues through their unionism (Poole, 2007b). As current international literature reveals, teachers’ unions are moving towards reform orientation and social justice issues instead of limiting themselves to the factory model of collective bargaining. I explore to what extent, if any, such changes are reflected in the context of private schools in Nepal. In the following section, I discuss this issue (teachers’ unions and their role in education reform) using different documentary sources including newspaper articles. This has also been supplemented from primary sources that include semi-structured interviews with teachers, administrators¹ and principals of two private schools of Nepal.

Teachers’ unions and their role in educational reform in Nepal

The political change of 1990 (from absolute monarchy to multiparty democracy) facilitated the process of privatisation of education in Nepal. The incoming government adopted a liberal approach to private education (Khaniya, 2007). On one hand, the government seems to be re-articulating the relationship between the state and the people by reinforcing its vision of nation state encouraging increased participation of community and civil society (Caddell, 2005). On the other hand, the government policy appears to be highly influenced by the expectation of external development partners’ organisations. Many international donor agencies including the World Bank have been promoting private schools as a means of increasing enrolment in the context of limited budgetary resources justifying higher quality of private schools in terms of School Leaving Certificate (SLC)² pass out rate (Shields and Rappleye, 2008). This presents a good example of ‘the global dispersal of neoliberal policies’ (Hursh, 2007: 20). The new political regime seems to be showcasing outsiders in an attempt to distinguish itself from the previous government. Thus, the educational change of the 1990s was more related to the neoliberal ideals of the multiparty system (Caddell, 2007).

However, once the Maoists started the people war in 1996, the debate about privatisation of education became stronger. During 10 years of armed conflict (1996–2006), the Maoist affiliated students’ and teachers’ unions constantly pressurised private schools’ owners. For example, the Maoist affiliated students’ unions constantly demanded closing down of private schools accusing them of being commercial enterprises instead of providing service to the general public (Pherali, 2011). Similarly, once the Maoists came into the main stream politics of the country with the declaration of republic in 2008, they started openly debating the existence of private schools. For example, in 2010, Maoist affiliated students’ and teachers’ unions shut down private schools in Kathmandu and its neighbouring cities for about a month over the issue of fee hike (eKantipur Report, 2010). In addition to Maoist affiliated teachers’ unions, private school teachers’ unions have also been active since their establishment.

In the following section, I present some examples of a range of demands oriented strikes from both Maoist affiliated teachers’ unions and Nepal-ISTU in the light of the perceptions and experience of teachers, administrators and principals of the two private schools in my case study. I then discuss this in light of international literature on the role of teacher unionism.

Maoists teachers’ union and educational reform

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) which claims to adopt the ideological and political line based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (Bhattarai, 2011) has been arguing that commercialisation of education in Nepal as a result of private sector involvement needs to be stopped. It views private schools as the symbols of abuse of power and oppression by the state (Pherali, 2013). Reflecting on the ideology of the party they are affiliated to, the Maoist affiliated teachers’ unions are constantly seen to disrupt private schools’ operation. The following newspaper article excerpt suggests the role of the Maoist affiliated teachers’ union All Nepal Teachers’ Union (ANTU):

The Maoist affiliated All Nepal Teachers’ Union (ANTU) has announced to disrupt the establishment of new private schools … ANTU president charged that private sector has used education as a shortcut to prosperity business and commercialized the entire sector … [President] said that his organisation would create moral pressure on the leader of their mother organisation to withdraw their children from private schools if they have any. (eKantipur Report, 2010)

The above quote from a newspaper article suggests that the Maoist teachers’ unions are against the neoliberal conceptualisation of education as a commodity with teachers and schools as suppliers and parents and students as customers (Poole, 2007a; Rottmann, 2010). They appear to oppose neo-liberal government policy related to privatisation of education. Maoist affiliated teachers’ unions have been constantly resisting neo-liberal conceptualisation of education. Although the Maoist teachers’ unions are against educational reform, their argument appears to have been ideologically driven by their mother party. However, Nepal-ISTU, which claimed to be the teachers’ union representing teachers working in private schools of Nepal, has different perspectives on the issues of privatisation of education. In the following section, I discuss their role in educational reform.

Nepal-ISTU and educational reform

Nepal Institutional Teachers Union (Nepal-ISTU) has been organising strikes from time to time to give pressure to both government and school owners on different issues in the private schools context. Their demands appear to be related to the terms and conditions of teachers’ work and also concern about the outdated educational policy. For example, the newspaper excerpt below suggests their concern:

All private schools in the country remained closed today due to a strike called by Nepal-ISTU … President of Nepal-ISTU said the schools were shut to press the government and concerned authority including PABSON [Private and Boarding Schools Association of Nepal], to implement past agreements reached with the teachers’ body … they [Nepal-ISTU] have been demanding appointment letter for teachers and school employees, provision of salary and benefits on a par with the government scale and establishment of provident fund and insurance for private school teachers … They are also demanding that the provision of school registration under the Company Act be scrapped. They want the Education Act 1971 revamped, Education Regulation (Sixth Amendment) implemented and foreign textbooks that misrepresent the nation withdrawn. (The Himalayan News Service, 2011)

Although the demand put forward by the Nepal-ISTU mirrors the factory model of collective bargaining (Hess and Loup, 2008), it also appears to give emphasis to both teachers’ conditions of service and government policy change as suggested by Stevenson (2007). On one hand they are pressuring the concerned authority about teachers’ terms and conditions of work such as appointment letters for teachers and other school employees, salary and benefits similar to their public counterparts. On the other hand, they are also pressuring the government to change the existing educational policy. The Educational Act 1971 was introduced during the period of absolute monarchy and this is irrelevant in the present changed political context. This suggests that Nepal-ISTU is working towards educational reform in addition to the economic welfare of their members. Because of such orientation of Nepal-ISTU, teachers and other employees of my case study schools also support their activities even though there are a few who were against them. A male secondary level teacher of my first case study school,³ speaking about the changing working environment within the school with the establishment of Nepal-ISTU commented: ‘During the monarchy, private school teachers were not organised but now we have a teachers’ union and some of our rights are now secured. Now we can negotiate collectively with the school’s owners regarding incentives and other perks.’ This teacher argues that unionisation of private school teachers has transformed the balance of power within the school context (Kirst and Wirt, 2009; Moe, 2005). He also believed that teachers’ unions assure teachers of fair treatment and reduces injustice (Johnson and Kardos, 2000). Several other participants from both schools supported this argument. For example, a secondary female teacher from my second case study school said:

In the past nobody used to know what direction we will get from the top. Now activities within the school are becoming more transparent. The owners give justification even if they cannot provide perks and benefits as per our demand.

This teacher also highlighted the transformation of the balance of power within the school context with the activities of teachers’ unions citing the existence of transparency in schools. Similar views were expressed by teachers and other staff working in the primary level of both schools. Adding more to this line of thinking, a primary level female teacher at the second school stated, ‘these days teachers can work freely, have secured their rights to some extent and owners are careful while dealing with staff due to unionisation of teachers.’ Although this teacher agrees with the changing work environment within the school context with the unionisation of teachers, she emphasised the changing strategy of school owners involved in the management of their schools. Similar views were expressed by the administrators of both schools. For example, an administrator of the second school in this regard said: ‘In the past, school owners used to do whatever they liked. They used to fire teachers whenever they wanted but now such a situation is not there. This situation is good for the teachers and other staff.’ This administrator highlighted the changing management style of school owners. This indicated democratisation of school management. Similar ideas were expressed by the administrator of the first school who reported:

During the monarchy, the owner/principal⁴ used to be more autocratic but now they are more liberal; the working environment in the private school from the staff viewpoint is good now. In the past our voice was neglected but now school owners work for the collective benefits of staff.

From the point of view of this administrator, the school owner has become more liberal in his leadership style because the teachers are more unionised with the change in the wider political system. Although the administrator stated that the school owners now work for the collective benefits of the staff, it was not clear what ‘collective benefits of staff’ really means. Perhaps the administrator has a vested interest in believing the working environment is more liberal than before. In this aspect he further elaborated:

Before he [school’s owner] used to think that this is ‘my school and I can do whatever I like,’ but now the owner has changed. The owner now thinks that ‘teachers are the people who can uplift my school and I need to make them [teachers] happy.’ The owner has now learnt to respect teachers.

The views from staff participants indicated the changing nature of the balance of power within the school context because of the activities of teachers’ unions. Although, school owners agree with the idea of changing power relations within the school context with the unionisation of teachers, they have somewhat different ideas on the unionisation of private school staff. In this regard, the owner/principal of the first school commented:

These days, teachers working in the private schools have established a teachers’ union, Nepal Institutional Schools Teachers’ Union (Nepal-ISTU). During the Monarchy, private schools were run from the mutual understanding of owner/principal and staff but now we need to deal with the third party: that is, the teachers’ union.

The owner believed that it was easier to run schools during the monarchy, as they used to negotiate with the teachers and other staff individually, but now it is quite difficult to run the schools as they need to negotiate collectively with the teachers and also deal with the teachers’ union. This owner considers the teachers’ union as the third party and believes that it is creating challenges in the smooth operation of the school. When the school was run from what the owner called a ‘mutual understanding’ between himself and his staff, it served the interests of the owners quite clearly. Teachers felt obliged to obey the school’s powerful owners, but now this is not the situation. This suggests that there is a shift from individual negotiation of terms of employment towards collective bargaining. This school owner view reflected the neo-liberal notion of teachers’ unions as a third party separated from teachers (Poole, 2007a). The owner/principal of the second school also expressed similar opinion on teachers’ unions and their role:

Private schools are established as per the government regulations and private school teachers’ perks are based on agreement between the teachers and the owners. There is no point of the third party, such as teachers’ unions, making such a claim.

This owner/principal does not believe in the existence of the teachers’ union within the school and stated that the teachers’ union (as a third party) has no role and justification in making demands related to private school teachers. Neo-liberal conceptualisation of teachers’ unions in the context of my study has been justified by the non-involvement of teachers working in private schools in the teachers’ union. For example, highlighting this issue, a secondary female teacher of the second school provided the following justification of their non-involvement in teachers’ union activity: ‘We know Nepal-ISTU as an organisation affiliated to a particular political party [Maoists] and so it cannot be neutral.’ A male secondary teacher from the same second school expressed somewhat different ideas about the private schools teachers not joining the teachers’ union: ‘Private schools teachers are under the control of the school they are working in. They work as per the school schedule and have no time for joining the teachers’ union.’ This secondary teacher from the second school assumes that the teachers working in the private schools are too busy to be involved in the unionisation process. However, a male secondary teacher from the first school contradicted this idea and had provided somewhat different reasons for teachers not joining the teachers’ union: ‘Activities such as teachers uniting for their rights are negligible in our school. There are still many people who believe that they can get perks and incentives by pleasing the owners.’ This secondary teacher argued that most of the teachers did not join the teachers’ union, because they were frightened to go against the school’s owners. The quote from the secondary teacher suggests that joining the teachers’ union was considered as going against the school’s owners. So instead of joining the teachers’ union they (teachers not joining the teachers’ union) were still trying to get perks and incentives by pleasing the owner. The role of teachers’ unions in this aspect is believed to be focused on what Kerchner et al. (1998: 11) called ‘conventional job rights and protection issues’ involving job security and adequate wages, benefits and working conditions. Somewhat supporting views were expressed by a primary level female teacher of the first school about her non-involvement in teachers’ unions:

During the monarchy, private school owners used to be like a monarch and now also I have not experienced any change. We are working on our own; we are not involved in the teachers’ union; we feel the same as it used to be 10–20 years ago.

As indicated by the above quote from the primary level female teacher, the teachers and other staff working in Nepali private schools are still unsure about the role and responsibility of teachers’ unions. They simply consider the teachers’ unions to be politically motivated, which is their naivety.

Conclusion

The evidence from both the primary sources and secondary documentary sources indicates that teachers’ unions in the context of private schools of Nepal are still struggling hard to survive and obtain support from the teachers working in different private schools in the country. International literature on the role of teachers’ unions suggest that teachers’ unions in the 21st century are moving towards collaborating with other stakeholders to enhance the teaching and learning environment within the context of school. However, evidence from my study informs the existence of conflict between the teachers’ unions role and the policy makers. There is still a lack of understanding among the different stakeholders of private schools in Nepal about the role of teachers’ unions in the educational reform. These scenarios indicate less likelihood of collaboration of teachers’ unions with different stakeholders of private schools for the betterment of these schools. Still, teachers’ unions are conceptualised as a third party separate from teachers working in the school context. This assumption is further enhanced by the schoolteachers’ lack of commitment towards their unionism citing different reasons from lack of time to the political motive of teachers’ unions.

Under such pretext, I don’t see teachers’ unions in the context of Nepali private schools working towards any educational reform. Although some of the demands of teachers’ unions seem to be oriented towards policy change, this has been confined to strike and demand only without any action. This situation is expected to continue for some years until teachers and other staff working in private schools join hands to work together for both their betterment and also for the overall benefit of their students. When teachers’ unions in the international context such as Canada and the USA are now working towards social justice unionism, teachers’ unions in the context of Nepal are still seen to be busy in promoting their mother party ideology and pressuring concerned authorities and the government of Nepal for policy change and economic welfare of their members.

What next?

No one can argue otherwise that teachers’ unions needs lie in protecting their members. However, this does not mean in doing so they need to get into destructive conflict with other stakeholders of private schools. It is high time that teachers’ unions collaborate with other stakeholders of private schools including students, school owners, parents and policy makers and work towards improving teaching and learning activities within the school context. This requires teachers’ unions to get support from the teachers working in different private schools in Nepal. In addition to support from the teachers, teachers’ unions also need to get support from other stakeholders of private schools.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Ballou

(2001) Pay for performance in public and private schools. Economics of Education Review 20(1): 51–61.

Baral

(1994) The return of party politics in Nepal. Journal of Democracy 5(1): 121–133.

Bascia

(2005) Teacher unions and educational reform. In: Fullan

(ed.) Fundamental Change: International Handbook of Educational Change, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 225–245.

Bhattarai

(2003) The Nature of Underdevelopment and Regional Structure of Nepal: A Marxist Analysis, Delhi: Adroit Publishers.

Bhattarai B (2011) Unfinished business. The Kathmandu Post, 25 January. Available at: http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2011/01/25/oped/unfinished-business/217670.html.

Bhattarai

(2001) Nepal: Changing political economy. International Journal of Commerce and Management 11(2): 50–69.

Bhattarai KD and Kharel P (2013) CJ govt has a mountain to climb. The Kathmandu Post, 14 March. Available at: http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2013/03/13/top-story/cj-govt-has-a-mountain-to-climb/246343.html.

Brown

(1996) The Challenge to Democracy in Nepal: A Political History, London: Routledge.

Brown S and Felbab-Brown V (2012) Nepal, on the brink of collapse. The New York Times, 5 June. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/nepal-on-the-brink-of-collapse.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share.

10.

Caddell

(2005) ‘Discipline makes the nation great’: Visioning development and the Nepali nation-state through schools. In: Veronique

(ed.) Manufacturing Citizenship: Education and Nationalism in Europe, South Asia and China, Oxford: Routledge, pp. 76–103.

11.

Caddell

(2007) Education and change: A historical perspective on schooling, development and the Nepali nation-state. In: Kumar

Oesterheld

(eds) Education and Social Change in South Asia, New Delhi: Orient Longman, pp. 251–284.

12.

Chapagain K and Yardley J (2012) Legislature in Nepal disbands in failure. The New York Times, 27 May. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/world/asia/nepal-disbands-legislature-as-talks-on-constitution-fail.html?_r=1&ref=opinion.

13.

Cooper

Sureau

(2008) Teacher unions and the politics of fear in labor relations. Educational Policy 22(1): 86–105.

14.

Dahal P (2013) In the wake of failure. The Kantipur Publication, 31 May. Available at: http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2013/05/31/on-saturday/in-the-wake-of-failure/249413.html.

15.

eKantipur Report (2010) Private schools shut sine die starting. Kantipur Publication, 25 April. Available at: http://www.ekantipur.com/2010/04/25/national/private-schools-shut-sine-die-starting-sunday/313042.html.

16.

eKantipur Report (2013) NC becomes largest party as PR vote count concludes. The Kantipur Publication, 28 November. Available at: http://www.ekantipur.com/2013/11/28/top-story/nc-becomes-largest-party-as-pr-vote-count-concludes/381540.html.

17.

Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education (2004) School level education statistics (flash report I), Kathmandu, Nepal: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education.

18.

Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education (2009) Compendium on education policy in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education.

19.

Hachhethu

(1990) Mass movement 1990. Contributions to Nepalese Societies, CNAS/TU 17(2): 177–201.

20.

Hess FM and Loup C (2008) The leadership limbo: Teacher labor agreements in America’s fifty largest school districts. Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 14 February. Available at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-leadership-limbo.html.

21.

Hess FM and West MR (2006) A better bargain: Overhauling teacher collective bargaining for the 21st century. Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Government. Cambridge, MA. Available at: from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/BetterBargain.pdf.

22.

Himalayan News Service (2011) Teachers' strike hits private schools. The Himalayan Times, 9 March. Available at: http://thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Teachers%27+strike+hits+private+schools&NewsID=279418.

23.

Hursh

(2007) Marketing education: The rise of standardized testing, accountability, competition, and markets in public education. In: Gibson

Ross

(eds) Neoliberalism and Education Reform, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 15–34.

24.

Hutt

(2004) Himalayan People’s War: Nepal’s Maoist Rebellion, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

25.

Johnson

Kardos

(2000) Reform bargaining and its promise for school improvement. In: Loveless

(ed.) Conflicting Missions? Teachers Unions and Educational Reform, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press, pp. 7–46.

26.

Joshi

Rose

(1966) Democratic Innovations in Nepal: A Case of Political Acculturation, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

27.

Kerchner

Koppich

Weeres

(1998) Taking Charge of Quality: How Teachers and Unions can Revitalize Schools, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

28.

Khaniya

(2007) New Horizons in Education in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Kishor Khaniya.

29.

Kirst

Wirt

(2009) The Political Dynamics of American Education (4th ed.), Richmond, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

30.

Moe TM (2001) Education: Taking on the unions. Hoover Digest, 30 January. Available at: http://media.hoover-stage.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7018.

31.

Moe

(2005) Teacher unions and school board elections. In: Howell

(ed.) Besieged: School Boards and the Future of Education Politics, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press, pp. 254–287.

32.

Moe

(2006) Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 22(1): 1–29.

33.

Parajulee

(2010) An experiment with a hybrid regime in Nepal (1990–2006). Journal of Asian and African Studies 45(1): 87–112.

34.

Peterson

(1999) Survival and justice: Rethinking teacher union strategy. In: Peterson

Carney

(eds) Transforming Teacher Unions: Fighting for Better Schools and Social Justice, Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, pp. 11–19.

35.

Peterson

Charney

(1999) Introduction. In: Peterson

Carney

(eds) Transforming Teacher Unions: Fighting for Better Schools and Social Justice, Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, pp. 5–7.

36.

Pherali

(2011) Education and conflict in Nepal: Possibilities for reconstruction. Globalisation, Societies and Education 9(1): 135–154.

37.

Pherali

(2013) Schooling in violent situations: The politicization of education in Nepal, before and after the 2006 peace agreement. Prospects 43(1): 49–67.

38.

Poole

(2000) The construction of teachers’ paradoxical interests by teacher union leaders. American Educational Research Journal 37(1): 93–119.

39.

Poole WL (2007a) Neo-liberalism in British Columbia education and teachers’ union resistance. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning 11(24). Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ987320.pdf.

40.

Poole

(2007b) Organizational justice as a framework for understanding union-management relations in education. Canadian Journal of Education 30(3): 725–748.

41.

Rottmann

(2010) Social justice teacher unionism in a Canadian context: Linking local and global efforts. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor 17: 32–46.

42.

Rottmann C (2011) Organized leadership for equitable change: Union-active teachers dedicated to social justice. PhD thesis, Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Available at: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/29935/6/Rottmann_Cynthia_201106_PhD_thesis.pdf.

43.

Shields

Rappleye

(2008) Uneven terrain: Educational policy and equity in Nepal. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 28(3): 265–276.

44.

Srivastava

Sharma

(2010) Democratic experience in South Asia: Case study of Nepal. International Journal of South Asian Studies 3(3): 399–410.

45.

Stevenson

(2007) Restructuring teachers’ work and trade union responses in England: Bargaining for change? American Educational Research Journal 44(2): 224–251.

46.

Toch

(2010) Teacher unions are dead! Long live teacher unions!. Kappan Magazine 92(4): 72–73.

Neo-liberal educational reform and the role of teachers’ unions in the context of private schools in Nepal: Possibility or paralysis?