Archives

by Eric J. de Silva

The Presidential Commission on Youth appointed in October 1989 to examine the causes of youth discontent, disquiet and unrest, underlined the need to have national policies in areas that transcend party politics. It emphasised that the national policy in respect of each area should be "applicable for a reasonable period of time - with a degree of certainty and continuity, so as to ensure that plans and programmes of action will not be affected by political changes in government".

We set out to formulate a national policy on education in 1991 to meet a long felt need in this country. The purpose of this article is to examine whether we have been successful in formulating such a policy, and if not, to find out where we are at present.

The Presidential Commission on Youth appointed in October 1989 to examine the causes of youth discontent, disquiet and unrest, underlined the need to have national policies in areas that transcend party politics.

It emphasised that the national policy in respect of each area should be "applicable for a reasonable period of time - with a degree of certainty and continuity, so as to ensure that plans and programmes of action will not be affected by political changes in government" (Report of the Presidential Commission on Youth, March 1990).

The Youth Commission identified education as one of the areas where there had been no continuity in government policy. Hence, it recommended the establishment of a National Commission on Education Policy with a view to achieving a consensus in regard to education policy. The Government of the day accepted this recommendation.

This led to the enactment of the National Education Commission Act No. 19 of 1991 and the establishment of the National Education Commission in the same year. The Opposition gave its fullest support to the passage of the NEC Act in Parliament, and the Government obtained the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition to the persons to be appointed as chairman and members of the Commission. This was, indeed, a happy augury for achieving a broad consensus on education policy.

The NEC Act stipulated that the national education policy be formulated on a consideration of the recommendations and advice made to the President by the National Education Commission. The Act also listed the matters to be included in the national education policy to ensure that all the important aspects are addressed. The objective clearly was to prevent ad hoc changes being made without the full implications being examined.

The question before us is whether we have a national education policy ten years after the machinery for formulating one was set in place.

The First Report of NEC

In May 1992, the National Education Commission (NEC) submitted an 'initial report' to the President. This was published as The First Report of the National Education Commission (Sessional Paper No. V - 1992). It dealt with the goals of education, described the state of education in the country, highlighted some priorities for action and identified certain issues and problems for further study and debate. It failed to generate much public interest probably because it was an interim report and did not deal with some of the major areas of policy concern.

There was no further output from the NEC in the years that followed. Both the government and the NEC appeared to have lost interest in the formulation of a national education policy. Frequent changes in the education portfolio during this period militated against any sort of continuity being maintained in education policy.

Interest in the need for a national education policy revived with the change of government in 1994. President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge made it a major plank in her policy agenda, and the Minister of Education and Higher Education expressed his resolve to give it the highest priority. The new government made no change in the composition of the NEC, on assumption of office, in order to maintain continuity and facilitate the process.

An action oriented strategy?

In September 1995, NEC submitted to the President a document under the somewhat bewildering title 'An Action Oriented Strategy Towards A National Education Policy'. It, in fact, contained two separate documents entitled 'Towards A National Education Policy' and 'An Action Oriented Strategy' bound together and given a combined title.

NEC presented these documents to the President "so that action could be initiated (mark the word) towards setting up a clear policy pertaining to the general education sector and implementing it effectively". Thus at the end of four years of deliberations, the NEC had failed to present a clear and comprehensive set of proposals that could form the basis of a national education policy, and on which the government could seek a consensus.

The task force

Another year elapsed without a national education policy seeing the light of day, (although in its annual report for 1996, the Central Bank claimed that "a national education policy was formulated by the National Education Commission in 1996"!). On 6th December 1996, the President appointed a Task Force on General Education and directed it to submit to her proposals for reforming and restructuring general education. It was clear that the Government was eager to catch up on lost time and make some start in reforming the country's education system, which it felt needed a major overhaul.

The President recalled her decision to appoint the Task Force during an interview she gave to Rupavahini in September 1997. She explained that she was compelled to appoint the Task Force as the NEC had failed to submit proposals for a national education policy although more than one year had elapsed since her government took office.

Clearly, a golden opportunity to give the country a national policy on education with an assurance of continuity had been lost. From then onwards any reference to a national education policy was more cosmetic than real!

With the appointment of the Task Force, the emphasis shifted from the need to formulate a national education policy to putting together a set of proposals that the government could immediately start implementing. The Task Force was caught up in a race against time. It appointed 13 Technical Committees to cover 13 different areas.

Neither the Task Force nor most of the Technical Committees were able to meet more than a couple of times. Only the Technical Committee on Primary Education was able to submit a comprehensive report as it consisted of a team that had been working in this field for a long time. Based on the reports received from the Technical Committees, a list of

"proposed actions" was submitted to the President in what was called an Executive Summary. The executive Summary was not accompanied by a detailed report as executive summaries usually do! It consisted of 10 typed pages that could well be described as a list of things to do with some indication of time frames and the agencies for implementation.

The President approved the 'proposed actions' contained in the Executive Summary and directed that implementation should commence forthwith. In her Rupavahini interview of September, 1997, referred to above, the President expressed her satisfaction that the Task Force had submitted its proposals within a matter of three months. The comparison, obviously, was with the NEC!

The public were made aware of the new reforms through an official statement of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education which appeared in some of the Sunday newspapers of 17th August, 1997 under the caption "Refer, Proposals for an Education System Suitable to the 21st Century: National education Commission". This statement, however was not entirely in conformity with the Executive Summary of the Presidential Task Force!

Later in the year, NEC brought out a more detailed document entitled Reforms in General Education (1997). This was an attempt to put the pieces together and give some flesh and blood to the proposals contained in the different documents. This document had a limited circulation. It was later superseded by a document entitled General Education Reforms 1997 released by the Presidential Task Force towards the latter part of 1998. This remains, to all intents and purposes, the official document on the new education reforms.

A comprehensive set?

'General Eduction Reforms 1997' appeared more than one year after implementation activities commenced. This document too had a limited circulation and did not reach the hands of the public. Neither was there any discussion on it in Parliament, although the United National Party had asked for a two-day debate on the reforms (Lankadeepa - 26.8.1997).

In fact, earlier in February 1997, the Minister of Education and Higher Education had said in Parliament, in reply to an adjournment question, that the reforms will first be discussed at the Parliamentary Consultative Committee and then placed before the Cabinet after which they will come before Parliament. He had added that no reforms would be introduced to the eduction system through the back door.

Minister Richard Pathirana, in his message to 'General Education Reforms 1997', claimed that these reforms formed a comprehensive set. This, however, is not borne out by facts, as there were many voids in the reforms. This has left it open for ad hoc decisions to be taken on important matters without proper study or consultation, leave aside consensus.

A case in point is the question of the medium of instruction. There is no reference to it in General eduction Reforms 1997 or in any of the documents that preceded it, although the NEC Act specifically mentions the medium of instruction among a matters to be included in the national education policy.

During the run-up to the General Elections of 2000, the Daily News (30.9.2000) sprang a surprise when it reported that "the Government has already accepted as a national policy, the introduction of English as a stream of instruction". The report said that the President had informed a delegation of Muslim women's organisations that all subjects for GCE A/L will be taught in the English medium from 2001, and that it will be introduced up to Grade 6 later and cover classes from Grade 1 by year 2003.

This decision apparently had been taken on the advice of a few officials, not the best way to make eduction policy!

Where are we?

There have been many attempts on the part of spokesperson and agencies of government to describe the 1997 reforms as constituting the national eduction policy of the country. Here are two illustrations:

"The People's Alliance manifesto carried a pledge to formulate a national education policy. After the government assumed office, Minister of Education and Higher, education, Mr. Richard Pathirana, guided the Commission in this task. He underlined the need to formulate a national education policy that would not change with every change of government or minister.

The commission was able to bring out the national education policy expeditiously due to the advice and guidance received from the President and the Minister." (Prof. Lakshman Jayatilleke, Chairman, National Education Commission - Dinamina, 15th August, 1997).

"...... it was not possible for Dr. Kannangara to implement his proposals intended for quality development in education appropriate for a free nation. The inability to realise the full benefits of the efforts made thereafter on the basis of his ideas to produce a generation capable of contributing to the national development, is a misfortune of the country.

The main reason attributed for this state of affairs is the fact that eduction had been implemented not on a National Policy but on the whims and fancies of political parties.

As such the consensus reached at least int he last decade of the Twentieth Century for a formulation of a National Education Policy outside narrow and short-sighted politics has to be commended.

The responsibility for implementing the National Education policy so formulated by the National Education Commission is vested with the present government." (new Vistas in Education, Ministry of Education, 2001).

However, in their messages to 'General Education Reforms 1997', neither President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga nor Minister Richard Pathirana claimed that these reforms constituted Sri Lanka's national education policy. The President only described the reforms as her government's response to revamping the existing eduction system.

Any claims that these reforms constitute the national education policy of this country have to be treated as being purely propagandist.

Very little thinking had gone into some of the 1997 proposals. They were not the result of broad-based consultations or careful deliberation. The proposal to restructure schools on a two-tier basis as junior schools (grades 1-9) and senior schools (grade 10-11) was one such proposal.

In an article that appeared in the Island of 20/9/1998 and the Daily News of 29/9/98, I pointed out that proceeding with the proposed restructuring would be "a veritable exercise infutility" which would result in a colossal waste of funds. Mr. A.H.M. Azwer MP (presently a minister) picked up this article and raised the matter in Parliament on 22/9/1998, while tabling the article in the House.

The Education Research and Study Group (a group of independent persons that promotes policy analysis in education) held a policy dialogue to discuss this subject in January 1999.

The discussions at this meeting showed in no uncertain terms that the arguments adduced in support of the proposal did not hold much water. Copies of the proceedings were widely circulated among policy makers including the President and members of the Cabinet, and the government was compelled to shelve the proposal.

This is not to say that the ongoing reforms are bad in toto. On the contrary, in my opinion, they contain some excellent proposals. But it is not the opinion of individuals that matters as opinions often differ diametrically. That precisely is why the Youth Commission emphasised the need for a national policy based on the widest possible consensus.

Consensus, the Youth commission stressed, was to ensure continuity so that "plans and programs of action will not be affected by political changes in government". Even as late as 1997, NEC itself echoed the need for continuity when it said: "One of the shortcomings in previous attempts at educational reforms has been the introduction of ad hoc changes from time to time without a proper study of the situation to bring about planned change.

Changes have been introduced at the change of a government or even the change of a minister in charge of education. As a result there is no continuity in implementation and generations of students have suffered." (Reforms in General Education, 1997).

We have just witnessed a major political change in this country. A new government, which was not privy to the reforms while in the ranks of the Opposition, has been installed in office. What will the new government do? Will it throw the People's Alliance Government's education reforms overboard, and replace them with its own?

This is where we find ourselves today due to the failure of the institutional arrangements made in 1991 (for formulating a national education policy) to deliver the goods.

The new government, which has committed itself to seek a broad consensus on national issues should immediately set about the task of reviewing the reforms which are presently at different stages of implementation, obtain the views of the different stakeholders, accept whatever is good in these reforms in the interest of continuity, and recommence the task of building a national consensus on what the country's education policy should be for the next decade or two.(The views expressed in this article are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of ERSG).

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager