When exams talk like politicians and adults hijack the curriculum

My daughter recently appeared in the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) 2081 — Nepal’s national-level Grade 10 examination that carries enormous weight, including psychologically, and supposedly in shaping students’ academic futures. 

Like many parents, I took a close look at the question papers. What I found was not just disappointing — but alarming.

In the exam of ‘Social Studies’, a compulsory subject, two questions in particular caught my attention:

1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the actions of ‘Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority’ — the body working in the area of controlling corruption in Nepal (4 marks) 

(नेपालमा भ्रष्टाचार नियन्त्रण गर्ने क्रममा क्रियाशील संवैधानिक अङ्ग अख्तियार दुरुपयोग अनुसन्धान आयोगले गरेको कार्य के कति प्रभावकारी भएको लाग्छ? मूल्याङ्कन गर्नुहोस्।)

2. Prepare a sample article on the topic ‘Role of an individual and Government in a secured and dignified foreign employment’ (7 marks) 

(‘सुरक्षित र मर्यादित वैदेशिक रोजगारमा व्यक्ति र सरकारको भूमिका’ शिर्षकमा एक लेखको नमुना तयार गर्नुहोस्।)

Why? Why these questions?

These are not isolated anomalies — they are symptomatic of a larger issue within our curriculum, examination design, and educational philosophy.

[For reference, find the question paper here. For comparison, you can also check the CBSE question paper for the subject Social Science here]

I am compelled to raise the following critical questions to the National Examination Board (NEB), Curriculum Development Center, question setters, and all relevant authorities in the education ecosystem:

• What is the relevance of these topics to 15–16-year-old students? Are these aligned with their developmental stage and capacity for critical thinking?
• What does our National Education Policy state about the knowledge, learning objectives, and expected learning outcomes for students at the secondary level?
• What kind of language is being used in these questions? Are we expecting students to respond like politicians or civil servants?
• Do students at this level need to learn about the effectiveness of constitutional bodies or write policy-oriented essays on foreign employment?
• Do you believe even the most articulate student answered these questions based on critical understanding, or was it an exercise in memorising classroom monologues?
• Are we planting unwanted ideas into young minds — such as portraying foreign employment as an inevitable future? Is this fair to their aspirations and potential?

Why? Why these questions?

Imagine a teacher preparing students for that second question. Would that classroom resemble a career orientation for foreign employment rather than an academic learning space?

And the word “evaluate” in the first question — on what basis is a teenager expected to evaluate the performance of a government commission? Are you providing them access to institutional reports and performance data? Or, is there a pre-defined answer you expect them to regurgitate? 

Last year, 47.86% of the total 464,785 students who appeared for the SEE secured different grades and qualified for higher education. The remaining 52.14% didn’t secure any grades, categorised as non-graded, out of which over 73,000 students obtained non-grades in social science.

Finally — what exactly are you trying to do with this kind of questioning?

I recall many of the questions my daughter practiced for the same subject. Here are a few examples from her preparation materials:

• What do you mean by ultra-nationalism? (उग्रराष्ट्रवाद भनेको के हो?)
• What is the difference between colonialism and expansionism? (उपनिवेशवाद र विस्तारवादमा के फरक छ?)
• What is the relevance of the International Court of Justice? (अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय न्यायालयको औचित्यको मूल्यांकन गर्नुहोस्।)
• Analyse the functions, duties and authorities of the Judiciary (न्यायपालिकाको काम, कर्तव्य र अधिकारको समिक्षा गर्नुहोस्।)

These are complex political science concepts, typically introduced in undergraduate education in many countries. Yet, in our system, they are being tested through subjective, abstract questions at the Grade 10 level.

Let us also be reminded that the Social Studies curriculum comprises 80 chapters spanning a range of disciplines — Social Studies, Development Studies, Moral Education, Citizenship and Civic Studies, Geography, Environment and Climate Studies, History, Economics, International Relations, and Population Studies.

That’s a staggering load of content for a 15-16 year-old student.

So, again, I ask: What exactly are we trying to do? 

Do we even understand who we are teaching and why?

This is not education that nurtures curiosity or inspires inquiry. This is academic overfeeding, saturated with jargon, superficial complexity, and misplaced priorities. And it is deeply unfair — not just academically, but emotionally and developmentally.

Recommended

Our education system needs a ‘Special Consideration Policy’

I strongly urge the policy makers, curriculum designers, examination board, and all regulatory stakeholders to open their eyes to the reality on the ground. This is not an effective system. This is not helping children grow into capable, ethical, and critical thinkers. If anything, we are burdening them with a performance-driven system rooted in confusion and contradiction.

A sincere appeal to policymakers and education leaders
The issues raised here are not isolated — they reflect deeper misalignments between policy intent, curriculum design, classroom practice, and assessment systems. If we are truly committed to improving the quality of secondary education in Nepal, the following actions demand urgent and thoughtful attention:

Review and redesign curriculum with developmental relevance 

The content currently embedded in Grade 10 Social Studies — and its evaluation — must be reassessed through the lens of age-appropriateness, cognitive readiness, and psychosocial development. What students are asked to learn and demonstrate should align with what they are developmentally ready to process, question, and internalise.

Ensure coherence between learning objectives and assessment 

Assessment must be a logical extension of instructional goals. If students are expected to ‘evaluate’ or ‘analyse’ complex socio-political phenomena, then the curriculum must include well-designed, scaffolded learning experiences that build such capacities. Without this alignment, questions become either performative or unintentionally discriminatory.

Reduce content load, Increase conceptual depth 

With 80 chapters spanning over 10 disciplines, the curriculum suffers from excessive breadth and insufficient depth. This discourages inquiry, overwhelms students, and fosters rote learning. A more focused curriculum would empower teachers to teach deeply and students to think critically.

De-politicise and de-bureaucratise classroom discourse 

Exam content should reflect the spirit of civic education — not mimic bureaucratic or political jargon. The role of education is to raise conscious, curious, and ethically grounded individuals, not to train them in policy commentary at age 15-16. The language and context of questions must reflect this understanding.

Build capacity of question designers and subject experts 

Those involved in exam design must be trained not only in subject content but also in assessment literacy, pedagogy, cognitive development, and language clarity. Exams are not just evaluative tools — they are public texts that influence how subjects are taught and internalised.

Clarify the purpose of Social Studies education at school level 

A nationwide dialogue is needed to revisit the why of Social Studies. Is it to create informed citizens, or to rehearse abstract policy knowledge? Is it about building awareness of one’s rights and responsibilities, or mastering political vocabulary? 

Institutionalise feedback loops from the ground 

Create mechanisms for parents, teachers, and students to provide structured feedback on exam content and relevance. These voices must not only be heard — they must influence future cycles of curriculum review and question paper design.

The SEE is not just an exam — it is a powerful cultural and educational signal. And right now, the signal it is sending to our children, teachers, and society is misaligned and misplaced.

This is a call for urgent correction — not for cosmetic reform, but for a principled redesign of how we understand education at the secondary level.

We owe it to our students to give them an education that respects their stage of growth, challenges them appropriately, and prepares them meaningfully for the world they will shape. When we treat 15-16 year-olds as miniature policy analysts, we do not elevate them — we burden them with the weight of our own confusion.

In the end, it is not the children who will fail us — it is we who fail them.

This article has been republished from the author's LinkedIn Post and shortened here for clarity.