Editorial

The Government’s proposed ‘education reforms’ have led to a healthy discussion, unfortunately resulting in some having to comment without the benefit of studying the entirety of the proposals and relying only on bits and pieces of information made public from time to time. Like with the many MoUs it has signed with India, the Government seems to take a perverse delight in keeping things close to its chest.

The debate in Parliament on these reforms partly revolved around the definition of a ‘White Paper’ when the Government opted to introduce a PowerPoint presentation and the Opposition asked for the traditional formal printed document instead. It was the Government’s way of showing how modern and progressive they are, but the absence of a printed document meant a much wider circle—especially of stakeholders—from educationists and teachers unions to the business chambers, had to rely on social media platforms to study the proposals.

From the State Council Resolution (1943) that introduced free education; the schools takeover in the early 1960s; the White Paper for a National System of Education; Issues in Ceylon Education (1964); and the Interim and Final Reports of the National Education Commission (1965) in the early post-Independence years, which detailed studies of reforms gone into at the time, there have been numerous attempts at reform.

Then came language streams—making English a second language, where the Burgher community’s representative on the 1965 Commission, Dr. A.W.R. Joachim’s objections were ignored, leading to the mass exodus of the community in the 1970s. Education Minister Dr. Badi-ud-din Mahmud’s standardisation scheme aimed at giving a helping hand to disadvantaged rural children country-wide was exploited by politicians of the Tamil minority to falsely say it was discriminating against their community. That triggered another exodus of youth, some even misled to take up arms under that false pretext.

The nonsensical stopping of the GCE Ordinary and Advanced levels and their replacement with an NCGE and HNGCE (late 1970s) that had to be scrapped 2-3 years after experimenting with subjects like New Maths, ‘pre-vocation,’ and needlework—the same idea of employment-oriented technical training but so badly implemented—was another misstep.

Education Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s White Paper (1981) and reforms suggested in more recent times by successive governments all point to the weight given to education, showcasing the critical importance of attempts at moulding future generations—and the resultant social fallouts in some of them of bad policy decisions that were adopted.

Taken as a whole, however, Sri Lanka’s education system has performed admirably given the early recognition of its value. It was during the centuries of colonial rule that organised secondary schools imparting a general education came in. Christian missionaries are credited with this early exercise, but there was a religious bent to it, with studies starting with morning prayer. A natural reaction came in the late 19th century with the Theosophical Society and Maha Bodhi Society starting more than 100 schools, some of them now developed into large national schools. Secular schools were few and far between. The school takeover tried to redress this anomaly, and now, all students are channelled through a common examination process, with rural schools showing great prowess.

However, more and more young people, disenchanted with the lack of higher education facilities and perpetual university strikes resulting in delays in seeking job opportunities, are pursuing avenues abroad. As we pointed out recently, 54,000 Sri Lankan youth applied for higher studies in the UK in 2023 alone—the second highest number in the world from a country to do so, many with the hope of remaining abroad.

All agree that education reforms are of paramount importance. It has been suggested that they must be reviewed at least every four years considering the rapid pace of the tech revolution. What Dr. Joachim said on behalf of the Burgher community then is being revisited today—after the damage has been done—with the importance of English as both a ‘national language’ and an ‘international language.’

State schools cannot provide for a full education, however much politicians may wish it so. It has not been for want of trying. Two positive aspects of the universal adult franchise in 1931 were free health and free education, but such well-meaning welfare measures, while they had impressive social indicators, placed too great a strain on the national budget. Today, both exist, but not without patients having to obtain drugs from the private sector and private tuition to supplement school curriculums. As much as a family will cough up whatever finances are needed to treat their loved one, they will find the money to educate their children.

Any plans to ban private tuition on the basis of it being disadvantageous to the poorest of the poor, in the belief that ‘all are equal,’ are impractical and will only lower the bar—not raise it. State scholarships for the best and the brightest are one way of redressing the imbalance to some extent.

It is the State’s responsibility to raise the financial standards of the poor in tandem with the quality of state education. It takes time, but during the past 75 years, primary, secondary and higher education accessibility, with all the drawbacks and difficulties, has produced a mixed bag of students, from the dropouts to the average and even the exceptional—and indeed a crop of leaders now administering the country.

The Prime Minister is eminently qualified to steer these reforms through. Notwithstanding her political inexperience, her doctorate was in social anthropology, after all. She has a broad view of education needs given her experience both at home and abroad. But whether she should rush into these reforms in six months as promised is questionable. Her call for a “national conversation” is commendable. Her aim of producing an “academically advanced, cultured society and an economy competing on the world stage” is an objective in the right direction; children must be taught how to cross the road and be polite as much as to acquire skills for jobs. She has correctly rejected accepting exclusive copyright for these reforms, some of which have been discussed over many years. They must be devoid of political ideology, which often was the bane of past reforms.

As the debate unfolds whether history should be a compulsory subject throughout a school career or not, learning from the history of education reforms itself, the successes and failures of the past, will be compulsory studies for the PM as Education Minister as she ventures forth on this crucial assignment.