The BNP government has recently announced a series of education reforms. A third language will become compulsory alongside Bangla and English. Vocational education will expand. New arts and culture content will be introduced. Schools will place greater emphasis on sports, technology, entrepreneurship, leadership, creativity, culture, and what policymakers describe as “learning with happiness.”
Most of these ideas are attractive, therefore politically popular. Few people would object to creativity, culture, foreign languages, entrepreneurship, or vocational skills. The difficulty lies elsewhere. Each proposal is presented as an addition. Schools will teach more languages, competencies, life skills, and subjects. Education policies increasingly resemble a shopping list. Whenever society identifies something valuable, the instinct is to ask schools to teach it.
However, missing from much of this discussion is a basic economic reality that our resources are finite. Bangladesh’s education system operates under multiple constraints. Instructional time, teacher expertise, school leadership capacity, classroom space, public finance, administrative attention, and implementation capacity—everything is limited. Every new initiative draws upon the same pool of resources.
Economists call this opportunity cost. Choosing one thing means giving up another. Yet education debates are often conducted as though worthwhile objectives could be achieved without trade-offs. Take the proposal for compulsory third-language learning, which may create valuable opportunities for students. There is nothing inherently wrong with that ambition. However, teachers must be recruited and trained, curriculum developed, textbooks produced, assessments designed, classroom time allocated, and administrative attention directed. Those resources cannot be spent twice. The same applies to vocational education, arts and culture, and every major initiative announced in recent weeks.
New policies look great on paper, but the effects are rarely visible in policy announcements. Time is stretched more thinly, teachers are asked to do more, and the system quietly accepts lower quality across a larger number of objectives. Whether a proposal sounds desirable is only part of the policy calculation. Policymakers must also decide whether scarce resources could generate greater benefits elsewhere.
That consideration becomes particularly important in a country still grappling with a foundational learning crisis. According to the 2022 National Student Assessment, only around half of Grade 5 students achieved grade-level competency in Bangla. In mathematics, the figure was closer to 30 percent. These figures should shape how priorities are set.
For many Bangladeshis, particularly those educated in high-performing urban schools, the scale of this problem is difficult to grasp. Regardless, a mathematics competency rate of 30 percent means that the majority of children are not reaching expected levels. In most policy domains, figures of this magnitude would trigger an emergency response. Yet education debates often proceed as though the system’s central challenge is identifying new things to teach rather than ensuring children learn what is already being taught.
Millions of children are still struggling to read fluently, write confidently, and perform basic mathematics. Every additional investment, therefore, raises a practical question: would those resources produce greater benefits if directed towards strengthening foundational learning?
This is not an argument against innovation. Home-reader programmes that strengthen literacy should be expanded. Teacher coaching that improves mathematics outcomes should be prioritised. Technology that helps students learn more effectively should be adopted. New classrooms that reduce double shifting and increase instructional time may be among the best investments available.
Educational reforms should be judged against a simple standard: do they improve learning outcomes, increase instructional time, or help children learn more from the time already available? If they do, they deserve support. If they do not, policymakers should think carefully before committing scarce resources.
Bangladesh does not suffer from a shortage of worthwhile ideas. The harder task is prioritisation. Not every desirable objective can be pursued at once. Not every good idea belongs in the curriculum. Not every reform deserves the same claim on limited resources.
Ananta Neelim is senior lecturer at University of Tasmania and a behavioural economist and author on public policy design.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
