English Language Education & Assessment Policy In Nepal

English Language Education in Nepal: A Historical Perspective

The establishment of English language education in Nepal, despite lacking a visible colonial legacy, holds a significant historical backdrop intertwined with the nation’s evolution. Mulmi (2017) highlights the subtle colonial influence, noting that even without formal colonization, Nepal experienced a colonial legacy. English entered Nepal in the seventeenth century as a lingua franca during the European missionaries’ settlement, gaining prominence in trade and diplomatic exchanges with Tibet and North India (Poudel, 2016; Shrestha, 2014). The English language became a focal point under the leadership of Junga Bahadur Rana, who mandated English language training and established Darbar School in 1853 after being influenced by English education during his visit to Britain.

Tri Chandra School, founded in 1918, became Nepal’s first tertiary educational institution with English as the language of instruction. However, it primarily served the elite and sought to prevent students from seeking education abroad. The 1950 educational policy, influenced by the Nepal National Educational Planning Commission (NNEPC), advocated for Nepali as the medium of instruction, with English as a mandatory subject in seminaries.

The current English language landscape in Nepal reflects its perceived importance as a means of social mobility and professional development (Kachru et al., 2006). English is considered essential for overcoming life’s challenges, leading to the proliferation of private institutions integrating English into the Nepalese educational system. Despite the policies emphasizing the use of Nepali, English has become deeply ingrained in Nepalese life, with learners often focusing on English for international communication and career opportunities (Kachru, 2005; Shrestha, 2014). This historical exploration delves into the multifaceted evolution of English language education in Nepal, shedding light on its roots, key milestones, and the complex interplay between historical, socio-economic, and educational factors that have shaped its trajectory.

English Language Policies and Assessment Challenges in Nepalese Education

Under the new National Education Act (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2019), Nepal’s secondary English curriculum has embraced learner-centred approaches to enhance students’ communicative competence (Curriculum Development Center, 2020). The curriculum focuses on developing proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, with English being a compulsory subject at both school and university levels (Curriculum Development Centre, p. 36).

The educational landscape in Nepal has shifted from traditional grammar-based instruction to a skill-based approach, aligning with the nation’s aspirations for economic development through English language education (Seargeant and Elizabeth, 2011). The adoption of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and CLT-based textbooks for primary and secondary education reflects this shift. Despite these positive changes, concerns arise regarding the assessment system’s alignment with language policies and its impact on teaching and learning outcomes (Ali & Walker, 2014; Hamid & Baldauf, 2008). This necessitates a critical examination of the assessment processes, including test design, administration, and evaluation at the higher secondary level.

Assessment at this level includes continuous assessment through class tests and homework, internal examinations by institutions to monitor progress, and public examinations following NEB guidelines. The selection process for test writers and moderators, as highlighted by Kabir (2008), raises questions about fairness and potential biases favoring teachers with close ties to education board officials. The public examination, administered nationwide by seven education boards, determines students’ subject grades and plays a pivotal role in shaping their academic trajectories.

However, the dichotomy between the intended contributions of both internal and external assessments and the exclusive reliance on SEE external examination grades for GPAs raises important questions about the overall assessment structure.
This article delves into the intricacies of Nepal’s English language policies, and the shift in instructional methodologies, and critically evaluates the assessment processes, shedding light on the challenges and potential areas for improvement in achieving the desired teaching and learning outcomes.

Foundation of Assessment Design

Language assessment is a concrete process with specific goals and contextual relevance. Its primary purpose is to extract information about individuals’ communicative language abilities, enabling accurate and valid interpretations based on scores for various objectives (Bachman, 1990). The emphasis on high-quality assessments underscores the importance of sound design principles (Alderson, Clapham, & Wall, 1995; Fulcher, 2010). According to Hughes (2003), the initial step in language test design involves defining the problem (purpose) based on comprehensive information about the test’s nature, objectives, constructs (abilities) to be assessed, impact, ethical considerations, and test limitations. The subsequent stage focuses on creating specifications (‘specs’), and establishing standards for test content, structure, length, media, and procedures to elicit test-takers’ performance. These specifications include criteria for performance levels and scoring processes to assess language use.

The third stage encompasses writing and reviewing test items aligned with the specified criteria to accurately represent the identified problem. Moderated questions undergo trials, and results are analyzed in subsequent steps to ensure reliability, task complexity, and representativeness, and to address unforeseen difficulties. Calibration of rating scales, providing samples and reference points for scorers, is the next stage, ultimately leading to the confirmation of the final test version.

Despite the extensive theoretical discussions on test design, reviews, and validation in the testing literature, there is a notable gap in understanding how high-stakes language exams are constructed, especially in developing cultures. Tests employed in external examinations at various educational levels in these societies hold particular significance. Despite the longstanding use of public examinations in English and other subjects in Nepal, there has been limited research on the creation process, the targeted learning or success aspects for evaluation, and the wider repercussions these tests may have on students, their families, the education system, and society as a whole.

Power Play of High-Stakes Tests in Global Education

Cheng and Curtis (2004) underscore the influential role of test design in shaping educational goals worldwide. Tests are no longer mere servants but leaders, directing pedagogy and influencing curricula and policies. Policymakers strategically leverage exams to regulate local educational systems, shape curricula, and introduce new teaching methods. The assessment process aims to inform policy decisions based on test findings (Cheng & Curtis, 2004). In the twenty-first century, a notable trend in education is the use of test data to influence policy choices. This shift is associated with a governance model where educational standards and outcomes are compared globally. Test results become a measure of the quality of both instructors’ and students’ work within this new institutional framework. Concepts like audit culture, reference societies, and comparisons between school systems, all rooted in test results, significantly influence educational discourses (Hamilton, Maddox, & Addey, 2015; Hardy, 2015; Kamens, 2013).

The global ‘horse race’ among nations to showcase educational quality is facilitated by international players like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) through examinations such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA statistics are utilized to evaluate educational quality and the level of ‘human capital’ in participating nations (Meyer and Benavot, 2013; OECD, 2016).

Large-scale international assessments, such as PISA, put pressure on national governments to align their education systems with international standards (Bloem, 2015). While developed nations like the United States and Australia employ high-stakes testing, low-income and emerging economies, such as Nepal, utilize national standardized tests with similar high-stakes implications. These examinations heavily influence students’ future opportunities and the accountability of schools (Davies, 2016; Jilani, 2009).

Despite their widespread use, high-stakes exams are often criticized for constraining pedagogy and focusing education solely on test preparation. This critique is evident in various jurisdictions worldwide, highlighting the tension between test scores as quality indicators and the potential negative impact on teaching practices (Au, 2009; Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith, 2012; Gu, 2014; Das et al., 2014; Kwon, Lee, and Shin, 2017; Allen, 2016; Balwanz, 2016).

Given the societal implications of high-stakes tests, critical language testing researchers emphasize the need for scrutiny to understand the uses and consequences of these tests in education and society (Shohamy, 2016). Understanding how tests are constructed is crucial, as policy decisions based on poorly designed tests may be misleading (Hughes, 2003). Unfortunately, there is a significant knowledge gap regarding the development of high-stakes examinations across different cultures, exemplified by the case of Nepal.

Testing in Nepalese Schools

In Nepal, the educational system is structured into three main stages: primary, secondary, and university. The secondary education phase comprises lower secondary (Grades 7–8), secondary (Grades 9–10), and upper secondary (Grades 11–12) levels. At the culmination of each level, students are required to undergo a nationwide public examination (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2019). Of particular significance are the last two examinations, namely the School Education Examination [SEE] and the School Leaving Certificate Examination [SLCE].

The SEE holds paramount importance as it determines whether students can progress to upper secondary school. Notably, the SEE examination plays a crucial role in shaping students’ academic paths, as their subject scores and GPAs influence their college admission prospects. The examination assesses students in all disciplines, including English (Curriculum Development Center, 2020). This research delves into the intricacies of the design of the English test within the SEE, shedding light on its structure and implications for students.

The Education System in Nepal

The political transition of 1960 ushered in a brand new urgency to the need for an appropriate education system in Nepal. The fulfilment of the system is notably based on the ability to generate considerable prospects for this. This briefly explains the records of the prevailing plan of the National Education System that regards education as a sustainable investment in human resources for the improvement of the country.

The contemporary Nepali education system advanced after introducing an egalitarian education system under the National Education System Plan in 1971. The education sector commenced flourishing after the establishment of the National Education Plan, the education sector commenced flourishing. Despite severe political setbacks over the decades, access to education has increased significantly. National Education System Plan (NESP, 1971) may be taken into consideration as a chief reform withinside the records of education in Nepal. The system has delivered structural reform in terms of the institutions, regulation framework and assessment.

According to the policy, internal assessments and periodic examinations will be held in close coordination. Passing terminal examinations will be held at the end of each level, and admission to the next higher level will be contingent upon passing them. After the School Leaving Certificate examination, higher education entrance tests will be held, and opportunities for higher education will be given strictly based on merit as shown in the tests.

However, the advent of the federal government system within the country in 2015 set back the educational administration. Not all local governments are purposeful and Nepal’s education system is still administered under the preceding system wherein the Ministry of Education (MoE) adjudicates five Regional Educational Directorates. These five regional educational directories include district education offices and resource centres to enforce policies at the local level. The Federal Ministry of Education (MoE) is liable for developing standard instructional guidelines and directives for the country. But, it’s unclear how precisely the position of the MoE will evolve within the federal system. The MoE is likewise responsible for curriculum and textbook improvement, instructor education and recruitment, and conceptualizing and administering the nationwide school education exam through the National Examination Board (NEB).

Nevertheless, the brand new education system of Nepal, introduced in 2016, brings three stages of schooling: compulsory basic education, secondary education, and tertiary education. Basic education consists of grades one to eight. The secondary schooling system is split into levels: lower secondary schooling, which incorporates grades nine and ten. And higher secondary schooling includes grades eleven and twelve. Under the contemporary system, those degrees had been unified right into a 4-year secondary schooling cycle. Both stages finish with a local exam and a country-wide exam. Formative and summative assessments will be used to assess students’ learning.

The antique nationwide School Leaving Certificate (SLC) Examination held at the end of grade 10 will be held on the local degree and has been renamed into Secondary Education Examination (SEE). The SEE board organizes, manages, and oversees the final board test, including the announcement of the results (Curriculum Development Centre, 2016). Nationally, there will be one very last nationwide school-leaving examination at the end of grade 12. In other words, the students take the Basic Level Examination (BLE) at the end of grade eight and then, the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) at the end of grade ten. After completing the twelve standards, the school students obtain the school-leaving certificate administered by the National Examination Board (NEB). Tertiary schooling is commonly undertaken at a university, a technical or a non-public institution.

The National Examinations Board Nepal, additionally called NEB, is the board liable for engaging in examinations of grades XI and XII, in addition to grade 10, in Nepal. Previously, the examinations of grades XI and XII had been carried out through the Higher Secondary Education Board (HSEB) and the exam of grade 10 through the School Leaving Certificate (SLC) board, but as in keeping with the 8th amendment of the Education Act 2016, achieved
recently, the obligation was assigned to NEB. Due to the amendment, every other alternative that took place changed to classifying our instructional levels into two categories, i.e., basic (Grade 1 to 8) and secondary (Grade nine to 12), as opposed to four.

Previously, SLC was a success, the crowning glory of Grade 10 and regarded as a national exam. The Examination Controller’s Office managed the exam. However, the Grade 10 exam has now been converted to be managed through local offices. It might be on the provincial or local level. HSEB converted into NEB in keeping with the 8th amendment to the Education Act, 1971. Biratnagar, Janakpur, Kathmandu, Pokhara, Butwal, Surkhet, Dhangadi, and five sectoral offices (Lahan, Hetauda, Dang, Kohalpur, and Dadeldhura) (NEB, 2016) administer these high-stakes examinations.

There are alternative boards: the Council for Technical Education and Vocational Education (CTEVT) and the Madrasa Board Nepal. CTEVT is a self-reliant framework under the MoE. It oversees and quality controls technical and vocational schools and colleges. It sets curricula, checking out the necessities and capabilities required in specific occupations. The most popular packages are short-term certificate programs, formal secondary level programs, and diploma and technician certificate programs. On the other hand, the Madrasa Education Board in Nepal develops a curriculum on cultural education and additionally integrates obligatory guides of general education: science, mathematics, English, and Nepali. However, more than half of the 2000 madrasa establishments in Nepal have not been registered yet (Aljazeera, 2018).

Education Policy in Nepal

The country’s nationwide reconstruction in 1971 introduced an egalitarian education system to counteract an elite based education system to serve the needs and goals of Nepal. The fundamental purpose of education has become to satisfy the manpower needs for improvement through the spread of knowledge-based and technical education. And thus, the National Education Plan 1971-76 was formulated. Little development has been made till now. The youths of Nepal have some educational possibilities and process markets in contrast to the former generation.

Even though Nepal transitioned to a partyless panchayat system in 1960, releasing itself from the previous democratic system. The education sector operated through local directorates till 2016 whilst the presently purposeful National Education Policy was amended. This policy is overarching in terms of goals and objectives and conceives education as a lively force to generate human assets for nation-building. Moreover, the Education Policy of Nepal’s amended constitution in 2016 emphasizes that access to education is a primary human right. So, the government revised the education system plan within the Amendment Bill to promote a free education policy (The Himalayan Times, 2016). But it is relevant to public schools only. According to this coverage, a pupil can get free education until a secondary degree. Similarly, any instructional initiatives have to be aligned with the wider instructional goals and slender interests of the country.

The policy additionally consists of the integration of all ranges of schooling (primary, secondary, vocational and technical and tertiary), curriculum update, use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in all instructional projects, enhancements of teacher education and teacher education programs, and concord amongst all stakeholders.
The cornerstone of the policy is to promote education at all local levels.

Most importantly, the Education Policy 2016 has placed a specific emphasis on instructional assessment. It explicitly states that the system of exams will be changed to ensure the quality enhancement of education at all levels—it is essential to put into effect suitable and powerful exam structures or strategies, and it additionally mentions that successful assessment processes have to be embedded within the educational system.

Assessment influences the students’ learning the most. It plays a vital role in the learning and teaching process in any realm of education. The endorsement and execution of suitable evaluation strategies and their impactful implementation can perpetuate the improvement of English language proficiency. The language curriculum goals and objectives manual for the assessment system. Hence, the assessment process should align with the curriculum goals and objectives. In addition, an education system should have the requisite mechanisms to construct the intended English language assessment system to achieve the goals and objectives endorsed in the English language curriculum of Nepal.
In several cases, assessment is used interchangeably with tests.

Brown and Lee (2015) state “test” as a deliberately tailored tool comprising rating scales to systematically grade an individual’s expertise in a particular learning area indicated through standardized performance. However, assessment isn’t always constrained to tests. It focuses on the expertise, skills, attitudes, and ideals of individual learners. In other words, it is an eclectic procedure that contains numerous devices to differentiate the students’ learning development.

Assessment amplifies students’ learning through feedback, and permits powerful interactions among the academics and the students; such interactions inform students approximately their strengths, and weaknesses and, additionally, help them use appropriate learning approaches. Despite the tremendous gravity of assessment in deciding on the English language learning of students, only a trivial extent of exploration has been conducted on English language assessment in Nepal.

In any case, this observation has examined a modest bunch of given papers from the databases of Google Scholar, Springer, Academia, and ResearchGate. Articles have been investigated, coming into watchwords and afterwards, having been selected through checking and perusing the abstract, the advent, and the discussion. Incorporation and avoidance measures have been carried out to select the most suitable and urgent articles. The Web crawler Google turned into a frequent browser to look for articles diagnosed in the references of the assessed articles for additional investigation.
According to this point of view and specifics amassed from the formerly cited approaches, the concentration first provides a concise definition of the education system of Nepal as endured through the communique of the most recent education plan for Nepal.

Third, The unresolved circumstance of English in Nepal has been tested sequentially. Fourth, look into various factors of English language assessment in Nepal. For example, the difficulty of association among instructional application goals and assessment methodology, modifications of assessment methods, modern assessment rehearses, washback impacts, assessment proficiency, and validity and reliability features in the assessment regarding the applicable variables that affect the practice and picks of evaluation. Finally, the review winds up with numerous placements, primarily based on the ramifications of language assessment and education in Nepal.

Assessment principles in Nepalese Curricula: the Foundations of Meaningful Assessment

A curriculum is a set of guidelines that focus and steer classroom instruction and evaluation. For example, instructors must teach a travel unit if it is mandated by an English curriculum. Following the instruction, students should devote time to improving their travelog skills. If travelogue is highlighted in the curriculum, it should also be evaluated in the classroom. The amount of knowledge and competence necessary to satisfy the unit’s criteria is determined via assessments. Curriculum, curriculum-embedded assessment, and instruction are all aligned in this method.

English is the second language of Nepal, and it is taught in all schools (CDC, 2006). Similarly, the National Education Commission papers, as well as several regional and national seminars and workshops, have placed a greater focus on making English a compulsory subject in all Nepalese schools. They go on to say that it should be taught from the very beginning of a child’s education. As a result, this curriculum has been created for elementary level (Grades 1-5) education in Nepal to meet the immediate requirements of Nepalese children and lay the groundwork for their future studies in and via English. Also, it tries to help students develop a broad range of communicative abilities. Listening, reading, speaking, and writing is the main focus of this curriculum.

A brief part on assessment was included in the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC), a unit of Nepal’s Ministry of Education (MOE) responsible for establishing the curriculum, printing and distributing textbooks, teachers’ guides, and other related resources (CDC, 2006, p. 57). Continuous evaluation of each child’s achievement of curriculum items in all four skills is most suitable in the lower grades. Formal tests for Grade 5 (and possibly Grade 4) can include (a) simple, familiar conversation (b) response to aural stimulus (listening activity) and an engaging reading/writing test with new material but familiar methods, vocabulary, and language that assesses the students’ ability to read and understand simple sentences and write neatly and correctly.

In Nepal, the practice of public examinations formally began with the establishment of the SLC Board in 1934. NESP (MOE, 1971) introduced classroom-based assessment, known as internal assessment. However, the assessment system was discontinued after the implementation of the revised curriculum at the school level in the early 1980s, as it dropped the system of internal assessment from school education. The government of Nepal reintroduced CAS (Continuous Assessment System) in the primary grades of school education as a classroom-based assessment system in the late 1980s. Classroom-Based Assessment (CBA) conducted by classroom teachers is an integral part of teaching-learning and assesses each student. It facilitates student learning through regular feedback, and, therefore, it is formative. On the other hand, public examinations are generally detached from the classroom, and they are summative.

Public examinations are conducted at various levels, including national, regional, district, resource centre, and/or school levels to assess each student, mostly by external agencies such as government or independent/ autonomous agencies. Public examinations serve the purpose of selection and promotion of students for the next grade or level of education and certification of learning, which generally does not provide feedback to classroom teaching-learning or the education system. The tests are based on a traditional testing theory with inadequate standardization of items and a testing process.

However, most of these assessments identified teacher, school, and student-related factors influencing student learning. Although the curriculum stressed the importance of all four language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, the Primary English Curriculum did not include assessment policies. Without a defined assessment, Teachers at this level would naturally choose whichever evaluation processes suit them best, for the benefit of students’ effective learning, which is aided by assessment (Shepard, 2000). The typical test items consist of matching, true/false, short answer questions, filling in the blanks with the given clues, letter writing or essay writing, and rearranging words to make sentences. These test items categorically indicate the traditional approach to assessment focusing on discrete test items.

However, the basic level English curriculum (grades 6–8) incorporates both formative and summative assessment methods (Curriculum Development Centre, 2012). The curriculum refers to formative assessment as continuous assessment system (CAS) and claims that CAS has a lot of potential to help students achieve a lot of features. CAS, for example, assists students in identifying their strengths and limitations. Furthermore, CAS enables educators to evaluate pupils in a cost-effective and time-efficient manner. Most significantly, CAS aids instructors in identifying the psychosocial effects of assessments on students, allowing them to create measures to assist pupils to overcome the negative side effects of examination.

The summative assessment at this level involves a final examination where the students at the end of grade 8 sit for the public examination called the Basic Education Examination (BEE). The written test, which encompasses reading and writing abilities, serves as the basis for the final examination. Grammar is incorporated in the writing section. Although the curriculum integrates all four skills, the English test in the BEE excludes listening and speaking tests; the test includes only reading and writing proficiency along with test items on grammar and vocabulary.

The students of grades 9 and 10 are given the next level of the National English Curriculum, which culminates in the most popular public examination known as the Secondary Education Examination (SEE). This curriculum is implemented through a set of contents such as learning outcomes, functions, and language points that are delivered to the students through a textbook known as Our English, which is developed based on various themes, such as universal etiquette, festivals, pastimes and hobbies, adolescence, travel, and tourism (Curriculum Development Center, 2020).

The assessment methods stated in the curriculum include class participation, formative assessment, summative assessment, and public examination. The distribution of marks is also stated in the curriculum, indicating an uneven priority. The marks allocated for listening and speaking are 16 (8 marks for each skill), whereas 75 marks (40 marks for reading, 24 marks for writing and 11 marks for grammar) have been allocated for reading and writing skills. Listening and speaking skills, however, have been scrapped from the SEE. Most importantly, listening and speaking marks can be given internally.

The higher secondary English curriculum focuses on teaching and learning English as a skill-based subject so that the learners develop competence in the language to successfully communicate in real-life situations (Curriculum Development Center, 2020). Consequently, learner-centered approaches to develop students’ communicative competence were prioritized in the higher secondary English curriculum, and initiatives were taken to integrate all four English language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, as well as the other components of language: grammar and vocabulary (Curriculum Development Center, 2020). This curriculum is delivered to the students through content and language integrated teaching (Curriculum Development Center, 2020).

The contents of the curriculum has been developed as a textbook known as ‘English’. Language development and literature are the two aspects of the book. The language development area contains a variety of current issue-based local and global topic texts aimed at improving intensive reading abilities and fostering proficiency in grammar, vocabulary, speaking, and writing in various forms.

The literature department contains genre-based literary works for both intensive and extensive reading, allowing students to distinguish distinct features of the texts and practice creative writing. The book is based on a range of themes, such as education and humanity, communication, media and society, life and love, and health and exercise. The English assessment scheme at the higher secondary level includes continuous assessment in the classroom, internal examinations, and the public examinations known as the School Leaving Certificate Examination (SLCE).

Overall, assessment is an integral aspect of English language instruction at the post-secondary level in Nepal. Assessment in tertiary public sector English foundation courses has likewise been enslaved by a rigid system. There is also a rigid system of assessing English learners’ proficiency, similar to pre-university practices. Private universities, on the other hand, have a slightly different procedure. Teachers in private colleges employ several formative classroom assessment tools. However, feedback is less emphasized.

Reforms in English Language Assessment

Since its founding in Nepal in 1934 (1991 BS), the SEE board, formerly known as the School Leaving Certificate (SLC) board, has modified the evaluation systems of English language courses multiple times, notably the letter grading in 2014. In 2000 (2057 BS), the SLC examination board introduced English listening and speaking abilities into the test system, and the testing centers used secondary English instructors to administer the test (Santwona Memorial Academy, 2013). To treat assessment as an integral part of learning, the continuous assessment system (CAS) was introduced as a concrete initiative of School-Based Assessment (SBA), which has been widely practiced in the basic school system of Nepal (National Curriculum Framework, 2007).

The assessment methods integrated into the SBA policy include class tests, classwork, homework, class assignments, achievement tests, and summative tests. However, the NCF (2009) reported that SBA was not successfully implemented. It has been continuously recorded that very few schools implemented SBA due to extra load teachers, a shortage of trained teachers, a complex type of recording system for SBA results, and a lack of close monitoring and mentoring system (Chongbang, 2021).

When the National Curriculum Framework was revised in 2009, continuous assessment system (CAS), which was re-emphasized in the basic education curriculum, was introduced in the secondary education of Nepal. Class tests, portfolios, classwork, observation, practical work, and homework as assessment methods were recommended in the curriculum. However, CAS implementation has raised questions too because it is being implemented without effective teacher training and a lack of an adequate teacher’s manual.

The report entitled “Reflecting Stakeholders’ Experiences with Classroom Assessment Practice in the Complex Contexts of the School System in Nepal” presents mixed outcomes of CAS policy (Nepalese Journal of Educational Assessment, 2021). The study collected data from students, teachers, headteachers, and parents. Of headteachers, they are not familiar with CAS let alone their effort to encourage other teachers to implement it although they are the school level leaders, supervisors, and mentors (Nepalese Journal of Educational Assessment, 2021).

The study reported that the headteachers and teachers perceived a lack of training as a barrier to carrying out CAS in practice. Similarly, the research participants, headteachers, and teachers, shared the experience of having received no monitoring from concerned authorities regarding the implementation of CAS. Likewise, the case study recorded that teachers had not heard about CAS, which signifies very rare or no talk about CAS and its practice in schools while students are engaged more for the exam than for the study and learning from the lessons.

In addition, the research findings of Wagle, Luitel, and Krogh (2019) suggest that policy guidelines are not being followed by schools. However, the interesting fact is that, according to the anecdote, the internal test is conducted every Friday and the teacher registers the students’ marks. The study also demonstrates that students like CAS practices. The main reasons why students favor CAS, as reported by the teachers, include the effectiveness of CAS in improving students’ learning.

Moreover, the teachers also took the socio-economic dimensions of the students into cognizance while conducting the CAS. The challenges the headteachers and the other teachers shared concerning the implementation of CAS include absenteeism; the passivity of students; inadequate training and support; fragmented collaboration among stakeholders; shortage of classroom teachers in the schools; high teaching load of the teachers; large class size; financial constraints; lack of time to check homework and tests; lack of a CAS manual; and lack of monitoring.

At present, in basic and secondary education, formative and summative assessments, as well as internal and external assessments, are used to measure students’ learning achievement as required by this curriculum (National Curriculum Framework, 2019). Based on the subject, both theoretical and practical evaluations are carried out. Students’ learning outcomes are tested, evaluated, and certified through regular and ongoing assessments, school-level assessments, and public examinations. From grades 1-7, school-based assessment is widely used, while in grades 8, 10, and 12, students are required to appear in high-stakes tests or public examinations.

With the exclusion of listening and speaking skills tests from public examination, partial assessment reform from grammar-translation oriented tests to skill-focused assessment has occurred in English language assessment in Nepal ever since the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach was introduced in 2000 (Rana and Rana, 2019; National Curriculum, 2007, National Curriculum, 2019).

Despite several notable gains in Nepal’s education sector, such as increased school enrollment and better gender parity, necessary attention to evaluation techniques is still lacking. In reality, in this low-income nation, allocating enough funds for education and investing in educational research is secondary, since poverty alleviation and safeguarding health and security have been prioritized in the government’s development strategy. Assessment reform, however, is a complicated process that is often difficult to undertake, according to research (Cheng & Curtis, 2010). Although some Asian nations have conducted studies on various aspects of examination systems (Kwon et al., 2017; Qi, 2007; Qian and Cumming, 2017), Nepal has a dearth of research.

Policies vs. Reality: Navigating the Maze of Current Assessment Practices

National assessments, public examinations, and school-based assessments are the three types of assessments used in Nepal (ADB, 2017; Poudel, 2016). The National Assessment of Student Achievement (NASA) is a national assessment program used to provide policy input in Nepal. Public examinations are student certification programs that are conducted externally after Grades 8, 10, and 12 by examination offices located at various levels. The school-based assessment (SBA), which is used at the micro-level, is considered crucial.

In addition, the policy has reemphasized the importance of implementing CAS more effectively in educational settings. In the assessment policy, it was envisaged that student assessment would be changed into CAS and that feedback from CAS would be used to create and implement educational programs and that learners would be competent enough to fit into society (CDC, 2007). During its pilot phase, the Basic and Primary Education Project II (BPEP II) used the Continuous Assessment System (CAS), which included teacher training and the development of various assessment methodologies.

Despite these efforts, neither the general assessment of students nor the evaluation of the educational system based on students’ assessments was determined to be beneficial. As a result, CAS was shown to be ineffective (CDC, 2007, p. 26). The student evaluation system has not been designed as an essential component of teaching-learning activities, nor has it been linked to the intellectual level, interest, pace, or requirements of the students. For the general growth of education, systematic programs for assessing students, teachers, schools, and curricula have yet to be implemented (CDC, 2007, pp. 27-28). The procedure of evaluating teachers, schools, and the entire educational system based on students’ learning success has not been proven.

The need for a comprehensive and fair test system for assessing pupils has been emphasized by educators and assessment professionals. The examination should be focused on meeting curricular objectives, enhancing teaching/learning activities, and giving feedback for national assessment policy development. It has been consistently said that Nepal’s current assessment system is ineffective and undervalued as a critical component of teaching and learning. The majority of schools do not employ a formative assessment strategy. The assessment system relies solely on examinations, which has resulted in a slew of errors. Learning is not aided by classroom activities, homework, project work, or extracurricular activities.

From the primary level to the university, Nepal has demonstrated the utilization of a typical high-stakes summative evaluation system (MOE, 2016). A high-stakes testing system exists in every grade level from elementary through the end of the school year in all schools (i.e., public, technical, Sanskrit, and private educational systems), where students must pass every grade level exam to advance to the next level. This means that in Nepal, practically every grade level exam is a necessity for advancement to the next grade. Because these exams are high-stakes, pupils begin to feel exam-related pressure as early as preschool. Beginning in the 2016 academic year, however, efforts were made to soften the high-stakes evaluation system in Grade 10.

The present evaluation system is ineffective, and learning facilitation has not been realized intrinsically. Similarly, formative assessment has not been widely used and established as a learning assessment (National Curriculum Framework, 2007). An assessment approach has been established based on the examination point of view. The assessment does not take into consideration homework, class assignments, extracurricular activities, social activities, or other things. The assessment could not be tailored to the intellectual level, pace, interest, or needs of the pupils (National Curriculum Framework, 2007).

Concerning classroom-based assessment, there is a policy provision to implement a Continuous Assessment System (CAS) in the primary grades of Nepalese schools, which has now been extended to grade seven. However, in practice, some schools have been using CAS as a non-testing device while others have been using a combination of non-testing CAS, trimester and final examination, and some schools have only been using various types of tests for deciding students’ grades and promotion.

One of the weaknesses found in the practices of CAS in Nepalese schools is the detachment of assessment from classroom teaching-learning; as a result, the use of assessment for formative purposes is minimal. In this regard, “assessment results have hardly been used in the teaching-learning process; rather it has been a ritual of filling out the forms in many schools” (Poudel, et al., 2015). In Nepal, public examinations have been conducted at the national level for grades 10, 11, and 12—which mostly assess the lower order skills using test items that are mostly not standardized. The recent practice of grade 8 district level examinations is just a ritual in most cases.

The overall measurement approach in Nepal is test-oriented since examinations are ritualistically implemented here (National Curriculum Framework, 2007). The new formative assessment practice, with its true purpose of facilitating learning by influencing pedagogical methodology, and materials used in teaching and learning, is hard to implement in Nepal for various reasons, which are discussed and explained below. Ineffective assessment methods focusing mainly on rote learning and grammar-focused are prevailing in the testing and assessment culture in Nepal’s English language teaching and learning (National Education Policy, 2016). Therefore, they risk the validity of the assessment, an essential quality criterion of assessment.

There is a gap between what is “intended to be taught and what is measured.” Therefore, the assessment practices are unable to examine if the learners are genuinely acquiring communicative competence, a goal of learning English set in the curricula, to function effectively in real-life contexts. Nepal adopted communicative language teaching (CLT) as a language teaching methodology at the basic and secondary levels in 2007 (National Curriculum, 2019). It is expected that the assessment methods embedded in the CLT approach will be used by individuals and institutions.

However, measurement specialists have identified several weaknesses of the single high-stakes test. One single high-stakes test is unable to help students, educators, or schools in making important educational decisions (Ritt, 2016). Students are being treated with a one-size-fits-all education approach, which is causing unreliable test scores (Popham, 2015). Assessment experts oppose high-stakes testing because using a single indicator of competence to make important decisions about individuals or schools violates the professional standards of the measurement community (AERA, 2000).

Other critics are concerned that the unintended effects of high-stakes testing lead to “perverse” (Ryan, 2004) and “corrupt” educational practices (Jones, & Hargrove, 2003; Nichols & Berlinger, 2005), while Pedulla et al. (2003) argue that the pressure of doing well on a test seriously compromises instructional practice. Where the high-stakes test is in practice, the teachers put considerable importance on the contents that are tested, and the student’s achievement in the maximum test score because the test results are associated with the national test results (Harlen, 2007). As a result, most of the teaching time is devoted to preparing the students for the test or doing the testing. The quality of teaching decreases if the teacher spends a lot of school time preparing students for tests.

Alarming is the fact that these widely used English high-stakes tests exclude two essential language skills from the tests: listening and speaking. At present, continuous assessment, internal examinations, and public examinations are used to assess students in Nepal at the basic and secondary levels. Continuous assessment using tests and homework is held in the classroom during the lessons while the individual institutions conduct the internal examinations and the public examinations are administered by the educational boards mentioned above.

Although the literature on assessment in the English foundation courses is not available, I, as the teacher of this level, report that assessment methods at this level include both summative and formative procedures, which are blended with the eventual summative purpose, which is grading. Common assessment procedures include quizzes, tests, presentations, assignments, and interviews.

Because of the test-oriented culture, feedback, mostly associated with formative assessment, has hardly received adequate attention from researchers in Nepal. Feedback refers to the information regarding the gap between students’ performance in the assessment task and the intended learning outcomes (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Need-based detailed feedback helps learners minimize their lack of content understanding and also boosts their motivation in learning (Islam & Bt Stapa, 2019). Hyland (2006) maintains that teachers may enjoy the rare opportunity of exercising significant tasks in the classroom by providing the students with feedback.

Overview of Nepalese Practices on Students’ Assessment

Assessment is a critical tool for determining whether or not an education system is providing the desired outcomes for students, the economy, and society. The information obtained about students’ achievements gives a chance to improve student learning. Furthermore, the input from the evaluation findings motivates all key stakeholders to define and modify their responsibilities in order to improve student learning. As a result, one of the primary functions of assessment is to hold the educational system accountable for the learning of children.

Three forms of evaluation are used in diverse educational systems, each with a different purpose. Classroom-Based Assessment (CBA) by classroom teachers is an important aspect of teaching and learning since it evaluates each student. It is formative in nature since it supports student learning through constant feedback. Public examinations may be held at various levels, including national, regional, district, resource centre, and/or school levels, to assess each student, and are usually administered by an external agency, such as the government or an independent/autonomous agency. Public examinations are often held outside of the classroom and are summative.

On the other hand, the primary goal of large-scale national assessments is to provide policymakers, program planners, and implementers with system-level information. However, the ultimate goal of system reform is to increase student learning. Since the formation of the Education Review Office (ERO) in 2010, Nepal has launched a systematic practice of national assessment and has completed two rounds of student assessment using large samples of schools and students.

With the inception of the SLC Board in 1934, public examination procedures in Nepal effectively began. Classroom-based assessment, also known as an internal assessment, was introduced in the National Education System Plan (NESP) (MOE, 1971). However, the evaluation system that discontinued the installation of a revamped school curriculum in the early 1980s removed the system of internal assessment from school teaching. In the late 1980s, the Nepalese government reinstated CEM (Continuous Evaluation Method) as a classroom-based assessment system in the elementary grades of school instruction. In addition, Nepal initiated large-scale national examinations of student success in various grades in the mid-1990s, although not regularly. Since 1995, the Nepalese government’s Ministry of Education (BPEP/DOE) has commissioned a variety of student accomplishment evaluations.

From 1995 through 2011, the Nepalese government’s Ministry of Education/BPEP/DOE commissioned a variety of examinations of students’ learning at various grade levels. BPEP (1995, 1997), EDSC (1997), BPEP (1998), EDSC (1999), CERID (1999), EDSC (2001, 2003), CERSOD (2001), EDSC (2008), Fulbright (2008), and EDSC (2011) administered student assessments from 1995 through 2011. (see: Ministry of Education & UNESCO Office in Kathmandu, 2015; EDSC, 2011). There was a lack of institutional setup and a regular system of national evaluation because these assessments were commissioned by the MOE/BPEP/DOE and carried out mostly by external entities. The tests were based on classic testing theory, with insufficient item and testing procedure uniformity in relatively small sample numbers. However, the majority of these evaluations highlighted teacher, school, and student-related variables that influence student learning.

The Education Review Office (ERO) was established in 2010 as part of the School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP, 2009-2016) (MOE, 2009). ERO’s primary duty is to undertake large-scale system-level assessments regularly. ERO has been administering the National Assessment of Student Achievement (NASA) for various grades since its inception (Office, n.d.). It undertook two nationwide evaluations of student achievement for grade eight in 2011 and 2013 (Office, n.d.), as well as one national assessment of each in grades five and three in 2012 and 2013. (Office, n.d.).

The second round of National assessments for students in grades three and five is also going to be completed, with data processing ongoing. Each of the previous assessments was based on a broad sample of schools and students from Nepal’s diverse ecological zones and development areas. As stated in the preceding section, the primary goal of Classroom-Based Assessment (CBA) is to increase student learning or performance by enhancing the teaching-learning process. Whereas public tests are used to select and promote pupils to the next grade or level of the They are used to certify learning and not give feedback on classroom instruction, learning, or the education system.

Similarly, the primary goal of periodic evaluation of student achievements is to give policy input to the education system as well as to create evidence-based data for tracking progress over time. In terms of classroom-based assessment, there is a policy provision in Nepalese schools to use the Continuous Assessment System (CAS), which has now been extended to grade seven. In practice, however, some schools have used CAS as a non-testing method, while others have used a combination of non-testing CAS, trimester and final examinations, and still, others have simply used various forms of tests to determine students’ grades and advancement.

One of the flaws of CAS methods in Nepalese schools is the separation of assessment from classroom teaching and learning; as a result, the use of assessment for formative purposes is negligible. In this sense, “evaluation findings have seldom been utilised in the teaching-learning process; rather, in many schools, it has become a ritual of filling out forms” (Poudel, et al., 2015). In Nepal, public examinations have been held at the national level for grades 10, 11, and 12—which mostly examine lower-order abilities using non-standardized test problems. In most situations, the current practice of grade 8 district-level tests is only ceremonial. Since the establishment of ERO in 2010, some type of systematic and regular practice in large-scale national evaluation has begun.

Reference

1. Alderson, J.C., Clapham, C. and Wall, D. (1995). Language Test Construction and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Ali, M., & Walker, A. L. (2014). ‘Bogged down’ ELT in Bangladesh: Problems and policy. English Today, 30(2), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266078414000108
3. Allen, D. (2016). Japanese Cram Schools and Entrance Exam Washback. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1): 54–67. https://www3.caes.hku.hk/ajal/index.php/ajal/article/view/338/412
4. Au, W. (2009). Unequal by Design: High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Inequality. New York, NY and London: Routledge.
5. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Balwanz, D. (2016). The Discursive Hold of the Matric: Is There Space for New Vision for Secondary Education in South Africa? In W. C. Smith (Ed.), The Global Testing Culture: Shaping Education Policy, Perceptions, and Practice, 261–278. Oxford: Symposium Books.
8. Bloem, S. (2015). PISA for low- and middle-income countries. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(3), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2015.1027513
9. BPEP (1997) The effect of new curriculum on the achievement of grade 4 student. Kathmandu: HMG/Ministry of Education, BPEP.
10. BPEP (1998) The effect of new curriculum on the achievement of grade 5 student. Kathmandu: HMG/Ministry of Education/ BPEP.
11. Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2008). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Links to outcomes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &Amp; Practice, 15(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701876003
12. Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy, (4th ed., ). New York: Pearson.
13. Cheng, L. (2008). The Key to Success: English Language Testing in China. Language Testing 25(1), 15–37. doi:10.1177/2F0265532207083743
14. Cheng, L., & Curtis. A. (2004). “Washback or Backwash: A Review of the Impact of Testing on Teaching and Learning.” In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, and A. Curtis (Ed.), Washback in Language Testing: Research Context and Methods (pp. 3–18). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Continuous Assessment System. (2003). A study report.
16. Curriculum Development Centre (2068). Nirantar bidhyar mulyankam karyanmatyan Pustika, Bhaktapur.
17. Curriculum Development Centre (2005). National curriculum framework for school education. Sanithimi, Bhaktapur: Nepal. JSS Printing Press.
18. Curriculum Development Center (2007). Nirantar bidhyarthi mulyakan karyanwayan pustika. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur.
19. Curriculum Development Center. (2009). Primary education grade 4-5. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur: Curriculum Development Centre, Nepal. Retrieved from http://nepaknol.org.np/cdc/elibrary/pages/view.php?ref=64&k=#
20. Curriculum Development Center. (2012). Basic curriculum Class 6-8. Sanothimi Bhaktapur: Curriculum Development Centre, Nepal. Retrieved from http://nepaknol.org.np/cdc/elibrary/pages/view.php?ref=382&k=#
21. Curriculum Development Center (2007). Secondary education curriculum (9 -10). Bhaktapur, Nepal: Author.
22. Curriculum Development Center. (2020). Secondary education curriculum class 9-10 part one. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur: Curriculum Development centre, Nepal. Retrieved from http://nepaknol.org.np/cdc/elibrary/pages/view.php?ref=567&k=#
23. Curriculum Development Center. (2019). Basic level (Grade 1-3)curriculum. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur Curriculum Development Centre, Nepal. Retrieved from http://nepaknol.org.np/cdc/elibrary/pages/view.php?ref=2457&k=#
24. Curriculum Development Center, (2020). National curriculum framework of school education-2076. Sanothimi Bhaktapur Curriculum Development centre, Nepal. Retrieved from http://nepaknol.org.np/cdc/elibrary/pages/view.php?ref=2451&k=#
25. Davies, D. (2016). The ‘Iron-Gate’: High-Stakes Assessment at the Age 16 in Nepal and England. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education in Nepal: An Anti-Colonial Critique on Problems and Prospects, 13, 31-39.
26. EDSC, ( 2011). National Assessment of Grade 10 Students. Kathmandu: Educational and Developmental Service Centre.
27. Fulcher, G. (1999). Ethics in language testing. TAE SIG Newsletter, 1(1), 1-4.
28. Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical Language Testing. London: Hodder Education.
29. Ghimire, B. (2016, May 26). House panel endorses bill on education act amendment. Kathmandu Post.Com. [https://kathmandupost.com/national/2016/05/26/house-panel-endorses-bill-on-educa tion-act-amendment](https://kathmandupost.com/national/2016/05/26/house-panel-endorses-bill-on-educa tion-act-amendment)
30. Giri, R. A. (2011). Languages and language politics: How invisible language politics produces visible results in Nepal. Language Problems & Language Planning, 35(3), 197-221.
31. Gu, P. Y. (2013). The unbearable lightness of the curriculum: what drives the assessment practices of a teacher of English as a Foreign Language in a Chinese secondary school? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &Amp; Practice, 21(3), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2013.836076
32. Hamid, M. O. (2010). Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity: language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011.532621
33. Hamid, M. O., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Will CLT bail out the bogged down ELT in Bangladesh? English Today, 24(3), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266078408000254
34. Hamid, M. O., Sussex, R., & Khan, A. (2009). Private Tutoring in English for Secondary School Students in Bangladesh. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 281–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00168.x
35. Hamilton, M., Maddox, B. & Addy, C. (2015). Introduction. In M. Hamilton, B. Maddox, and C. Addey (Ed.), Literacy as Numbers: Researching the Politics and Practices of International
36. Hardy, I. (2013). Education as a ‘risky business’: Theorising student and teacher learning in complex times. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(3), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.829746
37. Harlen, W. (2009). Improving assessment of learning and for learning. Education 3-13, 37(3), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270802442334
38. Harris, L. R., & Brown. T. L. (2016). The Human and Social Experience of Assessment: Valuing the Person and Context. In G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (Ed.), Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment (pp. 1–17). London and New York, NY: Routledge.
39. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Hughes, A. (2010). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes. An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
42. Islam, J. Majid, I. A. N. Shahidullah, M. & Shams, N. (2001). Teacher’s Guide for English for Today: For Classes XI-XII. Dhaka: NCTB and British Council.
43. Jilani, R. (2009). Problematizing High School Certificate Exam in Pakistan: A Washback Perspective. The Reading Matrix 9 (2): 175–183.
44. Jones, B. D. (2007). The Unintended Outcomes of High-Stakes Testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23(2), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1300/j370v23n02_05
45. Jones, M. G., Jones, B., & Hargrove, T. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
46. Kabir, M. H. (2008). How Validity Is Ensured in Our Language Test: A Case Study. IIUC Studies 5: 37–52.
47. Kachru, B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C.L. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of World Englishes. Malden, MA, and Oxford, England: Blackwell.
48. Kamens, D. H. (2013). Globalization and the Emergence of an Audit Culture: PISA and the Search for ‘Best Practices’ and Magic Bullets. In H. Mayer & A. Benavot (Ed.), PISA, Power and Policy: The Emergence of Global Educational Governance, 117–140. Oxford: Symposium Books.
49. Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: the Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &Amp; Practice, 19(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2011.592972
50. Kwon, S. K., Lee, M., & Shin, D. (2015). Educational assessment in the Republic of Korea: lights and shadows of high-stake exam-based education system. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &Amp; Practice, 24(1), 60–77. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2015.1074540](https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2015.107454
51. McNamara, T. (2000). Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Menken, K. (2008).
53. Ministry of Education. (2019). National Education Policy. Kathmandu: Ministry of Education, Government of Nepal.
54. Ministry of Education & UNESCO Office in Kathmandu. (2015). Education for all national review report (Nepal). In Education for All 2015 national review: Nepal (Vol. 114p). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232769
55. Ministry of Education. (2016). Flash report. Ministry of Education: Kathmandu Ministry of Education (2059). CAS manual. Kesharmaha: Kathmandu. National Education Planning Commission (2011).
56. Ministry Of Education. (2016). School sector development plan 2016-2023. Kathmandu Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://doe.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/3bee63bb9c50761bb8c97e2cc75b85b2.pdf
57. Ministry Of Education Science and Technology. (2019). National education policy-2076. Kathmandu Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://moe.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/Education_Policy.pdf
58. Ministry of Education, (2007). School sector reform core document: Policy and strategies. Kathmandu: Author.
59. Ministry of Education, (2009). School sector reform plan 2009 – 2015. Kathmandu: Author.
60. Ministry of Education, (1971). National education system plan 1971-76. Ministry of Education
61. Mulmi, A. R. (2017, October 1). Why did the British not colonize Nepal? – The Record. Recordnepal.Com
62. National Curriculum. (2019). English: Classes 9 & 10. Kathmandu: Curriculum Development Center (CDC).
63. NEPC, (1992). National Education Commission Report- 1992 (In Nepali). National Education Commission, Kesharmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
64. NNEPC, (1956). Education of Nepal. Bureau of Publications, College of Education, Kathmandu, Nepal.
65. Neupane, D. (2019, May 2). Continuous assessment system: From paper to pedagogy. Thehimalayantimes.Com
66. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
67. Office, E. N. R. (n.d.). Education Review Office, Nepal. https://www.ero.gov.np/post/6_5f16e3298b914
68. Organization of Economic Cooperation Development, (2016). PISA for Development Brief 1. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/PISA-FOR-DEV-EN-1.pdf
69. Poudel, P. P., & Choi, T. H. (2021). Discourses shaping the language-in-education policy and foreign language education in Nepal: an intersectional perspective. Current Issues in Language Planning, 23(5), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2021.2013063
70. Poudel, Lekh Nath. (2016). Reviewing the practice of national assessment of student achievement in Nepal. Nepalese Journal of Educational Assessment, 1(1), 1-16.
71. Position Statement on High-Stakes Testing. (2000). https://www.aera.net/About-AERA/AERA-Rules-Policies/Association-Policies/Position-Statement-on-High-Stakes-Testing
72. Roach, E. (2022, March 30). Education in Nepal. WENR
73. Shin, S. Y., & Lidster, R. (2016). Evaluating different standard-setting methods in an ESL placement testing context. Language Testing, 34(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216646605
74. Seargeant, P., and Erling, E. J. (2011). The Discourse of “English as a Language for International Development: Policy Assumptions and Practical Challenges.” In H. Coleman (Ed.), Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language (pp. 248–267). London: British Council.
75. Shepard, L. A. & Dougherty, K. C. (1991, April). Effect of high-stakes testing on instruction. Unpublished paper presented at the American Education Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
76. Shohamy, E. (2007). Language tests as language policy tools. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(1), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272948
77. Shohamy, E. (2016). Critical Language Testing. In L. Shohamy & S. May (Ed.), Language Testing and Assessment: Encyclopedia of Language and Education, (pp. 1–15). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02326-7_26-1.
78. Shrestha (2014). Perception of Teachers towards Continuous Assessments System. M.Ed thesis Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur Ktm Siksha Magzine (2007). https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/editorial-grading-see-students
79. Vladi, A. C. (2015). Developments in language testing with the focus on ethics. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(32) 2015, 9-13.