Delay, duplication and punditry

I was thinking 'education' a short while ago. I gave myself an exercise. I tried to come up with the most insufferable classroom scenario. I mean, I know that many schools lack basic facilities, lack teachers, laboratories, libraries, etc. That's not something that a student would be unfamiliar with or be shocked by. Acceptance of any kind doesn't sit well with 'insufferable'. I thought and thought and came up with the following (the subjects and numbers given are variables of course).

It's an A/L class. Let's say 35 students. The subjects: Economics, Political Science and Sinhala. In this school, it so happens, there are three Economics teachers, two Political Science teachers and two Sinhala teachers.

Since there is only one A/L class, and all teachers must have timetables with a minimum number of teaching hours, they share the work load. Now one of the Econ teachers is clueless about the subject. Another is totally focused on getting a transfer to a more prestigious school closer to his hometown. The third knows his stuff but knows nothing of teaching. One of the Political Science teachers tends to treat political science and politics as one and the same thing while the other believes that Political Science is history.

The Sinhala teachers make quite a pair; one of them is close to retirement, well-read, strict and demanding while the other is young and focused only on teaching short-cuts so students score well at exams. They were all pompous in varying degrees and often made their students feel smaller than their real size. The students naturally don't learn much economics. The syllabus is hardly touched. From 'Political Science' they obtain a fair grasp of who did what, when and why but end up with next to nothing in terms of the basic concepts. Between them the two teachers manage to get through about 40 percent of the syllabus. They end up hating the senior Sinhala teacher, adoring the younger one and with half-baked ideas about literature and language.

What is really happening here? What one achieves, the other dismantles. That which is clear today is made obscure tomorrow. Half-truths are taken as fact. Resources are wasted. Time is squandered. Children go to exams, crash and are left wondering what the hell happened to them. The teachers move on, some into retirement, some to greener pastures and others to other students to mis-teach and confuse.

Thankfully, for all the ills of our education system, this kind of worst-case-scenario is quite the exception. Sadly though this is what has happened to 'government' courtesy JRJ's Constitution of 1978. JRJ ensured that Parliament is turned into a market, post-election, and politicians into slaves/prostitutes (pick one).

The exigencies of political stability force leaders to offer ministerial portfolios and other goodies to purchase loyalty. It is very much like getting people to dig holes and others to fill them to deal with unemployment. Nothing to show at the end of the day; but salaries are paid and everyone is happy. Except the students. And of course the people of the country who have to foot the bill.

Nahil Wijesuriya put the matter of inefficiency thus generated well: 'One minister is in charge of the Southern Express Highway from Colombo to Matara, and another on the return journey!'

He elaborated: 'Look, the number of ministries, ministers and secretaries - and of course a larger number of official vehicles- not a problem. What really bugs us is the inefficiency this creates. It takes a hell of a long time to get anything done.'

He is spot on. There are so many ministries for one subject that no one knows where to go to. Worse still, the relevant officials don't know where their territory ends and someone else's begins. There is a lot of duplication. A lot of pillar-to-post. A lot of nothing-getting-done. Nahil didn't mention the pomposity, but that's a big factor, isn't it? They all know stuff. They all know everything. They know their subject and feel they are competent to lecture others on other subjects as well. They are good at dodge-ball, wiping their hands off, apportioning blame and, in the rare event that something does get done, to claim paternity to success.

Solution? I don't know. But if politicians just want the perks, then Nahil's proposition would be a default option: give them the perks, get them out of our hair. And if they really want to talk, they can talk to each other.

Their punditry is quite insufferable. The public service has a thing called 'The Pool' into which people whose faces are not liked get thrown now and then, along with those who are in-between jobs or 'cannot be placed'. How about an equivalent pool for politicians who are nothing but '(necessary) baggage'?

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be contacted at [email protected]