Archives

(Continued from Dec. 15)

by Prof. Wisva Warnapala

Universities have to adapt themselves the needs and demands of the world of work. Two alternatives were available to the decision-maker who was keen to formulate policy in respect of this matter;

firstly, expansion by means of a radically - modified University system but such a course of action would lead to problems as the rationalisation scheme of the seventies undertaken after Osmund Jayaratne Committee reforms, and secondly, expansion through a specially created non-University sector.

A foundation was laid under this scheme, and the aim was to develop a robust non-University sector which could offer opportunities to the young men and women who cannot stay years in the long waiting list for employment; the expansion of the Open University was included in the programme and the policy makers recognised its potentiality with regard to this matter.

It was always thought that such changes revolved around the position and attitude of the Universities. It was discovered from the critics that there was a large body of opposition to any expansion which involved worsening of standards, for example lower staff-student ratio, less research time and the quality of the product.

The academic establishment would always say that attempts at reform would result in lowering of standards. There was similar opposition to the attack on University autonomy which would necessarily accompany substantive changes in policy.

In the sixties and seventies, though the system expanded, the coterie of decision-makers failed to create two parallel structures in higher education. The pioneering role played by the Colombo Technical College for a long period of time remained neglected and no attempt was made to upgrade it.

Critics began saying that the expanded University system was a mistake, and the same opinion is expressed today stating that the strategy was totally political.

There are others who think that the decision was premature. It is accepted that still the non-University sector - consisting purely of the institutions of the technocratic model - now IT institutions included - is not of equal importance. What we planned in 1994-2000 period was to make it an equally powerful parallel system of higher education.

The philosophy was to make the system relevant to development effort of the country.

Since the expansion of higher education was seen almost solely in the context of the Universities, this needs an explanation.

The expansion of a non-University sector - which included Teacher Training Colleges network as well-did not mean or imply a rejection of Universities as such.

Therefore, what was planned to achieve was a binary system embracing both Universities and non-University sector institutions with each sector performing a distinct role. In this context, the non-University institutions were seen as providing a more vocationally-oriented higher education whilst the Universities were to be responsible for training of a socio-intellectual elite.

The reorganisation of the University sector became part and parcel of this new scheme of change based on the policy perspective mentioned above, and the final aim was to make Universities relevant in the context of the development effort.

There was an immediate need to re-assess the major objectives of the University largely to make it more relevant to the needs of a changing society.

The need was to change the role of the University, including its autonomy, and the proposals made during the period were of relative significance being largely aimed at making the Universities cheaper, more efficient and less autonomous.

This, however, did not mean that there was a concerted effort to destroy the foundations of autonomy; there was no plan to restrict academic freedom as well. Instead the plan was to make the Universities more accountable through the arm of the University Grants Commission, for which an expanded role was envisaged within an acceptable parameters.

The practice today is to combine academic freedom with financial dependence by setting up a buffer in the form of the UGC which does not check that authorised commitments are not exceeded, that payments in respect of each project are within the grant limits, that grants are applied to their proper purposes, and that the pattern of expenditure does not differ widely from that shown in the estimates.

In 1998, there appeared in the Budget speech a proposal to build an expensive auditorium for the University of Peradeniya and this has been included in the main body of the Budget speech without the approval of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education and the UGC, and it was treated as an attempt to by-pass the Minster and Deputy Minister in the area of formulation of policy.

One arrogant man can overturn conventions relating to formulation of public policy. One must see what controls are used by the UGC to control capital expenditure; how do they check upon the efficiency of the Universities in estimating, contracting and purchasing capital requirements.

Academics and academic administrators are hostile to too many inquiries into the expenditure, and they treat this too as an encroachment on their academic freedom. No proposal to control expenditure should undermine the authority of the UGC, and it should not interfere with matters of academic freedom and policy.

Sabaragamuwa incidents, involving a massive fraud, amply demonstrate that proper controls were necessary, and the imposition of such controls cannot be interpreted as interference with academic freedom.

The role of the UGC should change; it acts as a planing and advisory body and it is through the UGC that the views of the Ministry or the Government are transmitted to the Universities; there is suspicion that the Universities may be using their autonomy to conceal all kinds of inefficiencies and it is this trend which needs to be arrested.

The independent reports on their systems of financial control could help them to utilise their resources more economically and productively.

In our scheme of restructuring of the Universities, which we undertook in the period 1994-2000, two objectives were to be realised -

(1) the reorganisation of the existing structure and (2) establishment of a strong non-University sector.

In that given context, the established traditional Universities would remain relatively privileged than others, and the students perceived this as discrimination and wanted all the facilities provided by the established Universities in the new ones as well.

This led to a number of problems, and the State found it impossible to satisfy their demands. It was felt that the unit cost of education could be reduced by making the Universities more accountable to the State. More State intervention means more power to the top University bureaucrats and others at the expense of academic self-government.

Any attempt at reorganisation, therefore, was seen as an attack on the concept of liberal University.

Academic community - 2734 according to the Universities Year Book and this is a small elite - could be considered as a social group, and the function of academics must be seen in the context of the institution in which they work, namely the University.

There are over 30,000 academics in Britain. Within the University, the role of the academic is basically two-fold, namely the research function and the teaching function. It could be categorised as creation of knowledge and transmission of knowledge.

As far as their basic function is concerned, namely research and teaching, a large number of academics identify themselves with the existing social order, and this brings us again to the role of the liberal University which is engaged in the creation of a socio-intellectual elite. It is here that the social character of the University and its composition becomes important.

The liberal tradition recognised the University as an entirely selective and elitist institution, and the question is whether this image is acceptable and tenable in the present day context.

Historically, what has been the relationship between the liberal University and academics? While the State, in various ways, lays down the parameters within which the University has to function, the liberal University has been allowed an important degree of autonomy.

There is a strong tendency towards authoritarianism within the University; some manifestations of it appeared at the Jayawardenepura University with an intransigent academic leadership. The liberal University rests in large measure on the consent and active cooperation of the academics, and no University can function effectively without this basic foundation.

It is generally acknowledged that academic freedom applies to the individual member of the academic community and University autonomy to the University as an institution. These concepts can be addressed only on the basis of University's role in society, which their sole justification.

Both academic freedom an University autonomy can only be justified if they are useful, and enable University to play the role that society assigns to them and which they perform through teaching, research and other services rendered to society.

State must guarantee the members of the academic community the freedom needed for research and teaching. Yet another matter is that the concept of autonomy varied according to different periods and places.

In any case, the modern University cannot be totally independent of the State and society for financial reasons. Senator William Fulbright wrote that 'highest function of higher education is what might be called the teaching of things in perspective, towards the purpose of enriching the life of the individual, cultivating the true and inquiring mind, and advancing the effort to bring reason, justice and humanity into the relations of men and nations.

University is a place where ideas are valued above their practical applications, and it is also a place in which scholars analyse existing public policies with a view to determining whether they advance or retard the realisation of basic human objectives and whether and how they should be changed.

Sri Lankan Universities, if they are keen to contribute to the development process in the country, need to realise they have been called upon to play this role.

The Glion Declaration of 1998 titled 'University at the Millennium' called on the academic community to recognise their unique responsibilities and opportunities to their countries, regions and larger global society by their affirmation that teaching is a moral vocation; it also included the cultivation of a student centred and student-friendly atmosphere and the goal of producing not only highly skilled, but also broadly educated, self-motivated graduate with a thirst for life-long learning, aware of their heritage, conscious of their civic obligations and ethically responsible in their professional careers.

Our model of the University, from the very inception, was based on teaching and it is now being by a model which places greater emphasis on learning, and the following are the the main characteristics of the change:

(1) the student has an active role in the appropriation of knowledge;

(2) Professor's role is no longer that of transmitting knowledge but of guiding in the possibilities of access to it;

(3) access to knowledge will not be limited to formal networks for its distribution.

The concept of relevance is related to the social function of the University the production of knowledge and training of professionals to all the social sectors.

The graduates will practice their professions in a world of work where the professions basically serve the social classes which can pay for their services, that is to say, the market or the State.

Therefore the University has an important responsibility as its regards its function as a trainer of trainers.

Therefore the need today is to create a more pertinent system of higher education. The main task for policy makers and administrators has been to provide resources, physical facilities, staff and equipment to address the growing demand, and the failure to supply these needs result in student indiscipline.

Students often voice the concern that the existing facilities are insufficient. Therefore the growth in numbers has imposed enormous strains on Universities; many institutions are overcrowded, adding more problems to the resource base, resulting in education of questionable value and quality.

Diversification of the system, including educational programmes is one possible remedy not only for problems of overcrowded Universities but also as a means of economising. Inadequate resources for teaching and research affect quality, relevance and efficiency, and these defects can be tackled by a strong academic leadership committed to a policy of change. Under-funding of Universities is growing world-wide crisis.

All these issues, including regulation, autonomy, student participation and the relevance of autonomy to management could be tackled by re-examining the place of the University in the given context in Sri Lanka. Drastic innovations are necessary in both teaching and learning.

A diversity of institutions could also assist in resolving student problems of the Universities in particular and the imbalances in the institutions which now have to cater to the different needs and aspirations of the student community.

It would be useful to consider these comments in the context of the Glion Declaration which said that 'wise political leadership will be required to sustain long term investment in learning, without which social advancement is an empty dream'.

www.ceylincoproperties.com

STONE 'N' STRING

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.com

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

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager