THE draft Education Act 2026 is a timely and largely welcome attempt to bring together a range of fragmented education laws under a single, more coherent framework. It recognises, correctly, that primary, secondary, madrassah, technical and higher education cannot continue to function as separate islands if the country is serious about building a connected system of learning. Yet the draft reads less like a completed blueprint and more like a document still under construction — opening important doors, while leaving several rooms unfinished.
The overall language of the Act is encouraging. It speaks of free and compulsory education, inclusive classrooms and protection of students from corporal punishment, ragging and harassment. It also acknowledges the long-standing and distorting influence of coaching centres, guidebooks and private tuition. These are important signals of intent. The challenge now lies in translating these aspirations into clear, enforceable provisions that meaningfully shape daily life in schools, colleges and universities.
Rights vision not fully anchored
THE opening chapter sets out key definitions and outlines the responsibilities of the state. It presents education as a public good rather than a commodity, an important conceptual foundation. However, the draft stops short of turning this vision into a fully enforceable right. If a school is not established, if a teacher’s post remains vacant, or if free primary education is not delivered as promised, it remains unclear how a child or parent can seek remedy and from whom.
As a result, the ‘right to education’ risks remaining aspirational rather than actionable. For the law to carry real weight, it must clearly outline how this right can be claimed, monitored and protected: who may lodge a complaint, which authority is responsible, how long the process should take and what form of response is legally required.
The draft also relies on broad but significant concepts such as ‘quality’, ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion’. While these principles are essential, they are not consistently tied to concrete indicators, timelines or institutional responsibilities. Without such anchors, implementation risks becoming uneven, with institutions interpreting these terms according to convenience rather than obligation. Over time, linking these principles to specific standards and monitoring mechanisms would strengthen both clarity and accountability.
Recognition without direction
THE sections on pre-primary and primary education appropriately acknowledge the importance of early childhood for lifelong learning. The draft builds on existing systems — school infrastructure, teacher recruitment and stipend programmes — and reaffirms the commitment to free and compulsory primary education. This continuity is sensible, offering stability to schools and families rather than abrupt disruption.
Nevertheless, the draft could go further. Child-centred pedagogy, play-based learning and structured support for children with different learning needs receive only passing mention. Clearer standards for early childhood education, alongside explicit recognition of mental health and psychosocial support at school level, would provide teachers and administrators with a firmer sense of direction. Parents are referenced, but their responsibilities could be framed in a more supportive and realistic manner, rather than as vague expectations.
A particularly important gap lies in the distance between attendance and learning. The draft does not make learning outcomes legally binding, meaning schools may continue to function administratively while many children quietly fall behind. Carefully linking accountability to actual learning — without encouraging fear-driven practices — would help address this long-standing concern.
Neurodivergent learners
ONE notable silence in the draft concerns neurodivergent learners, including children with autism, ADHD and specific learning differences. While inclusive education is referenced in general terms, there is little guidance on what inclusion means for students whose cognitive and sensory experiences do not conform to the norm.
There is no clear requirement for reasonable accommodations, individual learning plans or systematic teacher training on neurodiversity. Without such provisions, many students may be physically present in classrooms while remaining effectively excluded from learning. This omission also represents a missed opportunity. Explicit recognition of neurodiversity could encourage a broader understanding of inclusion — one that values different ways of learning rather than forcing uniformity. Practical, compassionate provisions would help schools move from symbolic inclusion to meaningful participation.
Secondary education
SECONDARY education is often where students most sharply feel whether schooling is preparing them for life beyond the classroom. The draft acknowledges concerns about dropout rates and the weak link between education and employment, but it only partially confronts the deeply entrenched exam-centric culture that shapes secondary schooling.
Coaching centres, guidebooks and question leaks are addressed, which reflects an honest assessment of current realities. Yet these phenomena are treated largely as isolated problems, rather than as symptoms of a system overly dependent on high-stakes examinations. A gradual but deliberate shift towards diversified assessment — project work, portfolios, continuous and competency-based evaluation — would better align learning with real-world skills.
Teacher preparation is another area where the draft could be strengthened. While teachers’ importance is acknowledged, their professional development, mentoring and career progression are not clearly linked to student learning outcomes. Stronger legal backing for continuous training — particularly in life skills, career guidance and introductory technical-vocational education — would enable teachers to help students see the relevance of their education beyond examinations.
Madrassah education
THE draft adopts a cautious and balancing approach to madrassah education. For Aliya madrassahs, there is a clear effort to align them more closely with national standards while respecting their institutional identity. This is an important step, signalling that madrassah students are part of the national education landscape rather than outside it.
Qawmi madrassahs, however, remain less clearly addressed. References to quality improvement lack a detailed roadmap for curriculum alignment, qualification recognition or protection of student rights, particularly for girls and marginalised groups. Gradual clarification of these areas — through dialogue rather than imposition — could help build trust while creating pathways to further education and employment.
Higher education
IN HIGHER education, the draft recognises the role of the University Grants Commission and accreditation bodies in maintaining standards. It points towards the need for improved governance and transparency in both public and private universities, which is a constructive starting point.
However, the balance between institutional autonomy and state oversight remains unresolved. Political influence in appointments, campus governance tensions and uncertainty around long-term research funding receive limited attention. Clearer safeguards for academic freedom, transparent governance frameworks and predictable, merit-based research support would help universities develop into intellectually vibrant and socially responsive institutions.
Teachers, data, accountability
THE sections on teachers, data and accountability contain some of the draft’s most practical proposals. They recognise the centrality of teacher recruitment, training and support, as well as the need for improved information systems.
Yet teacher welfare, mental health and professional dignity could be more strongly emphasised. Private-sector teachers, in particular, require clearer assurances regarding job security and fair treatment. Accountability mechanisms are necessary, but when framed primarily through inspection and penalties, they risk undermining trust. Complementing enforcement with restorative approaches and safe grievance mechanisms — such as an independent education ombudsman — would encourage problems to be raised early rather than concealed.
Greater transparency in data could also empower communities. Public, accessible information on school performance would allow parents and local stakeholders to engage more meaningfully in improvement efforts.
Exams, curriculum, learning
THE draft acknowledges the dominance of examinations in shaping classroom practice, an important admission. However, it does not yet offer a clear pathway towards reducing reliance on rote memorisation in favour of critical thinking, creativity and collaboration.
There is also limited attention to lifelong learning, adult education and reskilling, despite growing economic demand. References to digital learning, AI and EdTech are present but underdeveloped. Thoughtful provisions — such as affordable rural connectivity, teacher training for blended learning and recognition of micro-credentials — would help ensure that technology narrows rather than widens existing inequalities.
Looking ahead
TAKEN as a whole, the draft Education Act 2026 represents a significant and positive step. It brings coherence to a fragmented legal landscape and signals a commitment to inclusion and accountability. At the same time, it leaves critical questions open—particularly around enforceable rights, assessment reform, neurodiversity, higher education governance and lifelong learning.
Rather than a flaw, this openness may be an invitation. For teachers, students, parents and civil society, the draft offers space for meaningful engagement: how to make the right to education tangible in every community; how to support teachers while holding institutions accountable; and how to move students from passive recipients to active participants in their own learning.
The final strength of the Act will depend not only on its wording, but on how carefully it listens to these voices — and how firmly it translates good intentions into everyday realities across classrooms, colleges and campuses throughout Bangladesh.
Sabbir Ahmed Chowdhury is an assistant professor at the Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka.
