OPINION
Professor Nawang Phuntsog* laments what he sees as the Central Tibetan Administration’s (CTA) seemingly lukewarm commitment to Tibetan schooling in exile and proposes a model of teacher capacity-building to transform education from within. He underscores the need to elevate Tibetan schooling as a vital partner in the broader Tibetan struggle which is being carried on not only in parliaments, street protests, and diplomacy but also in school corridors, teacher meetings, and lesson plans.
I began writing this with an uneasiness in my heart—an uneasiness that has grown stronger over the years, with each passing day, month, and year. I am an educator at my core, and that reality inevitably impacts what I say here. Still, my purpose is not to accuse or insult anyone. I write out of concern, and out of love for our children and our community.
My sadness, disappointment, and anger come from one persistent observation: the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) has often seemed to offer only a lukewarm commitment to the schooling of Tibetan children in exile. Yet education is among the most critical pillars of our community—one that deserves elevated attention precisely because it is central to reclaiming our nation and sustaining our identity. Over time, the CTA has developed a habit of repeating that “our children are the future seeds,” almost as a ritual performed at every official function. But a mantra is not a strategy, nor is it evidence of strong commitment.
In my regular discussions with other Tibetans, especially educators, I have often returned to three connected areas. I have written them down here for wider circulation, in the hope of generating further debate.
1. Choosing Educational Leaders: Children Must Come Before Politics
It goes without saying that careful attention must be paid to the selection of leaders in every sector of public life. Because children’s education is so consequential, political exigencies must not dictate the selection of educational leaders—whether at the system level or within individual schools. It may be difficult, and perhaps unnecessary, to define an exhaustive list of ideal attributes for educational leadership. I am not arguing for a perfect checklist of qualities. But at the very least, educational leaders should have a solid academic background in education and real experience working in educational settings. Without that foundation, leaders are forced to “learn on the job,” and children pay the price.
At the school level, leadership shapes everything: the atmosphere teachers work in, the values a school lives by, and students’ daily experience. A strong leader builds trust, motivates teachers, and creates a culture in which children feel safe, inspired, and proud of their school. A weak or poorly matched leader can quietly damage morale and weaken learning—not through one dramatic failure, but through years of small, accumulating losses. In other words, leadership and students’ love for learning are not separate matters; they are interdependent.
Leadership appointments also send a message. They reveal how much we truly value an institution. If we believe Tibetan schools are essential to our survival as a people, then we must treat leadership selection with the seriousness it deserves. A mismatch between the role and the person is not just a mistake—it can look like indifference toward the school and toward the children it serves. Appointments are not merely administrative decisions; they are educational decisions with consequential implications.
2. Strengthening Teachers: The Heart of Real School Improvement
In more than twenty years in U.S. academia, I have seen educational “reforms” come and go like fashion trends. Schools often rush to adopt the newest program to appear modern and progressive, only to abandon it when the next trend arrives. These initiatives enter through the front door, stay briefly, and leave through the back door—without leaving lasting improvement behind.
Yet across the world, schools share four enduring commonplaces: teachers, students, curriculum, and classrooms. Among these, the teacher remains the most decisive factor in student learning. Teachers are the ones who bring curriculum to life—or reduce it to routine. They create classroom environments that either empower all children or quietly exclude some. For that reason, teacher capacity-building is not one priority among many; it is the fulcrum of the entire schooling process.
This is why occasional workshops, scattered trainings, and guest lectures—valuable though they may be—often function like performative rituals. They address symptoms rather than underlying conditions. What we need instead is a sustained, integrated, and systematic approach: a teacher academy designed to develop subject specialists who are strong in pedagogy, curriculum alignment, and the integration of Social, Emotional, and Ethical (SEE) Learning.
A Proposed Model: A Sustained Teacher Academy
One practical approach would be to invite one subject teacher from each purposefully selected school—including TCV—from Grades 1 to 6 to attend a month-long summer teacher academy. The academy would focus on:
- intensive pedagogy and instructional design
- curriculum alignment within and across grades
- SEE Learning integration into daily teaching practice
This framework could then be replicated for Grades 6–8 and again for Grades 9–12.
Within each academy session, subject specialists from the same grade band would meet to analyze and strengthen horizontal curriculum alignment—how learning progresses across subjects within a grade level. Under the guidance of expert mentors, teachers would engage in rigorous discussion, lesson design, and practice-based reflection. After this subject-focused work, teachers would identify intersections across disciplines—where language, social studies, science, mathematics, arts, and values-based learning naturally reinforce one another. Dedicated time would then be set aside for implementation: practicing pedagogical techniques, developing classroom-ready materials, and embedding SEE Learning meaningfully rather than superficially.
Finally, teachers across grade-level bands would meet to examine vertical alignment—how learning builds from one grade to the next—so that students experience continuity rather than fragmentation.
Bringing learning back to schools
Teachers trained through the academy would return to their school sites not as isolated “trained individuals,” but as catalysts for collaborative improvement. They would share strategies, model lessons, and help colleagues troubleshoot challenges. Schools should schedule regular, protected time for teacher collaboration so that problems are surfaced early, and solutions are developed collectively rather than privately endured.
This is a bold step, but it is necessary if we want our schools to transform, strengthen, self-correct, and continuously improve. Within the framework of the Indian school system, we have significant freedom to refine, renew, and revamp our curriculum. We should use that freedom to ensure our schools are not merely functional, but exemplary.
Excellence as a form of resistance
We also have an important advantage: within the Indian school system framework, Tibetan schools have room to refine and strengthen curriculum and teaching approaches. We should use that freedom boldly. If our schools become known for academic excellence, strong language achievement, and healthy social development, they will become a model for other diaspora communities—and a powerful contrast to what is happening in Tibet today, where language and culture are increasingly suppressed through schooling.
Of course, resources matter. But resources alone do not create excellence. Teacher capacity does. If we invest deeply in teachers, we invest directly in children.
A strong Tibetan school should produce students who can succeed anywhere—while remaining rooted in who they are. That requires academic excellence and cultural depth. It requires modern skills and moral clarity. It requires language strength and global competence. And it requires adults—leaders and teachers—who are trained, supported, and held to high standards.
3. Making Education Part of the Tibetan Struggle—On the Global Stage
In 2000, I organized a seminar titled East-West Educational Dialogue in conjunction with His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s visit to California State University, Fullerton. I invited the Education Kalon and the Secretary of the CTA, and the conference was remarkably successful. American educators and professors of education were introduced to the history, struggle, and achievements of Tibetan schools in exile. To my knowledge, it may have been the first time that the Education Kalon and the Secretary participated in an academic setting within a U.S. institution of higher education.
What troubles me is that similar efforts did not continue afterward. I find it difficult to understand why education—one of the most powerful global platforms—has not been used more intentionally as part of our struggle.
The realities we face today are not only political; they are profoundly educational. Forced boarding schools, language displacement, cultural suppression, and the erasure of identity through schooling and law are precisely the kinds of issues that belong in global educational forums. Conferences and scholarly publications are the lifeblood of professional communities. There are established venues devoted to bilingual education, Indigenous education, minority education, language-in-education policy, and human rights in schooling. These are not peripheral spaces; they are influential spaces where narratives are shaped, evidence is shared, and international attention is mobilized.
If we want the world to understand what is happening to Tibetan children—both in Tibet and in exile—then we must speak in the language of global education: research, documentation, partnerships, presentations, and publications. We must place Tibetan schooling and Tibetan educational rights where they belong—at the center of international educational discourse.
We should encourage Tibetan educators to document, publish, and present their experiences at regional, national, and international levels. In short, we should support research on Tibetan schooling in exile—its successes, its challenges, and its unique role in cultural survival.
Closing Thought
We must treat schools as powerful partners in our freedom struggle. They are more than places for learning. Schools are sites where a lost nation is lived, created, and reclaimed through curricular and extracurricular activities. Future leaders are born and cultivated in these temples of learning. Schools are powerhouses for creativity, innovation, and social activism. The time has come for us to look at schools from a different angle and discover their hidden possibilities and potential in all their glory. A nation’s freedom is lost or won in the classrooms where its destiny is shaped.
If we are honest, we must admit that the future of Tibet is being negotiated every day in classrooms—through what children learn, what language they speak, what stories they inherit, and what values they practice. The struggle is not only fought in parliaments, protests, and diplomacy. It is also fought in school corridors, teacher meetings, and lesson plans. If our schools are strong, we remain strong. If our schools weaken, our community weakens in ways that may not be immediately visible but will become painfully clear over time.
—
* Dr Nawang Phuntsog is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Elementary & Bilingual Education at California State University, Fullerton, USA, and a founding member of www.tibetaneducationadvancement.org. He is also the author of “A Tibetan-American Educator’s Odyssey: Learning at the Feet of Adversity,” published by LTWA in 2024. He is currently working on his next book, exploring the intersectionality of Tibetan Nationalism and the Middle Way Approach.