The Bill, 2080, made to amend and unify the laws related to school education, has been viewed with great interest in the educational circle. After the implementation of the republican system and federalism in the country, many new laws were made. After five decades, the Education Act was put on hold.

However, in the meantime, due to the demand, initiative and pressure of the education stakeholders, drafts of education bills have been prepared several times. But could not reach the parliament. It is almost certain that it will pass this time . A tug-of-war is going on over its draft in the parliamentary committee . The politics of addition and subtraction continues. According to the agreement with the Nepal Teachers Federation, it is said that the bill will be passed by the House of Representatives within June 15. If passed, it will be considered a great achievement in the field of education .

This bill, which has been talked about as the school education bill, has created a new wave due to the point that the initial child development will be two years old . It mentions the provision of two years of early child development experience before admission to class 1 . Two years of early childhood development experience before entering grade 1 is not enough for children, not enough . The arrangement that is being tried will prove to be completely wrong .

The government had introduced a one-year early child development policy before admission to class 1 . Later it was made two years . While the institutions run by the private level have been practicing for three or four years before starting from the government level . Even now the same practice is being done . After three or four years of practice, it has no effect on the children . Government research has not even confirmed it . Therefore, the new policy based on Hachuwaka has been included in the bill.  

Abroad, the practice of enrolling children in three or four years of pre-primary level before enrolling in class 1 is not new. This is being practiced in many countries of the world. Similar practice is being done in developed countries. The children there have experienced three or four years of pre-primary level before entering class 1, so they have not fallen behind in all-round development . Their thinking and approach is much more advanced than ours . It is important to understand that they have not reached this position today with only two years of pre-primary education experience before joining Class 1.  

Forbel founded a pre-primary school in 1837. Pre-school started to be called 'kindergarten' or 'garden of children'. The children's garden was called this in German. In 1907 Dr. Maria Monteswari started Monteswari Pre-School . Monteshwari is a pre-school method. Pre-primary or Monteshwari's thinking is that social, intellectual and mental development in children should be from below.

Along with industrialization, the concept of women's employment also came forward. Women started to be employed in a big way . After women became employed, they started enrolling in pre-primary schools for child care and various development. Pre-primary school began to advance as a service .

As women are also employed, the need for pre-primary services began to increase . This service started to expand . This service also entered Nepal. Monteshwari method was introduced in Nepal in 2005. The then Rana ruler himself introduced this method. This confirms that the Rana ruler also accepted that pre-primary (pre-school) is necessary.

Through the Education Bill, it is sought to adopt a policy of providing primary education to children in 4 and 5 years and then enrolling them in class 1 . It seems that the policy of applying the same concept to the early childhood development conducted by the government as well as to the institutions run by the private level has also been taken .

It is clear that the government is trying to reduce it in two years because of budget and other reasons. But if the state cannot do this, it is wrong to restrict the private sector. It is known that arguments like children were overburdened, their mentality was affected, and textbooks were forced upon them. These arguments are completely wrong. It is not appropriate to look at everyone with the same eyes based on the wrong practice and use of some. 

The society or social structure of today and 50 years ago has changed . Thinking is different . The style is different . At that time there was a joint family. Children were looked after by parents, uncles, grandparents or members of the same household. Joint families are rarely seen now. Due to employment and other reasons, the family is becoming single . The person who looks after, cares for, or takes care of the baby is no longer at home . On top of that, there is no possibility of having a trained person at home who will facilitate the various development of the child when they reach pre-primary age .

Untrained people teaching children of that age casually may not develop as children should. Providing pre-primary education at the age of four, as proposed in the bill, is considered to discourage any woman from seeking employment.

It has become difficult to earn a living now that both husband and wife are not employed . If the woman has to go to work, who will take care of the child until it is four years old ? Who cares? It means that working women should not return to work until their child is four years old. Can women get that long leave with maternity leave? Of course they can't. Whether the job should be quit or the caregiver should be kept at home . This unreasonable part is not seen . It seems that someone is trying to bring this policy to Lahad .

Children's linguistic, intellectual, social, mental, emotional, etc. development starts from infancy. By the time a child reaches five years of age, these developments are almost complete. Therefore, when children reach the age of four or five years, it is too late to enroll in pre-primary level . We have seen it during the covid-19 . We have experienced . Now we call the child who stayed at home at that time the Covid batch . He did not have the opportunity to attend pre-school or kindergarten.

The child at that time is now in class 1, 2 or 3 . He has a hard time learning. They neither had friends nor had the opportunity to learn at that time . Because of that they are studying with great difficulty . This is a proven fact. Due to lack of pre-school experience, children are unable to cope with the current curriculum of class 1 . If pre-school is to be made only for two years, the curriculum will have to be cut from class 1 onwards. That is, it should be made a little easier. Are you going to enroll in class 1 without learning 'Khag' or 'ABCD' well? This is a serious question .   The

is at least three years in the beginning . This time is important for children. School is not just a place to learn 'Khag' or 'ABCD' . Formal reading should include learning pre-writing skills, developing language, developing interaction, learning to express feelings, being able to use tables, learning to say no and learning to listen. That means two years is not enough. The child should be ready to learn these. Will it be ready in two years? As they are not trained at home, they cannot teach these things systematically. What should be learned in four years, learning in two years is a burden .

should be taught that if there is a load, don't load it. Just because someone taught a two-year-old child and did wrong exercises, did not deprive the child of the right to learn . Such organizations should be allowed to operate, trained personnel should be employed there. It should be monitored . Those who have done wrong should be punished or taught the right way . It is only trying to create a negative comment that the lesson load is too much, teaching is done. 

The policy of keeping children at home until they are four years old and making them addicted to mobile phones will be the most dangerous . There is no way to handle children who are badly addicted to the screen . You have to think about it seriously. It is better to leave children in the care of a trained person than to make them addicted to mobile phones at home .