Future of free education in Sri Lanka:

Politicizing education, FUTA’s trade union action

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP

Uniquely as far as the developing world goes, and pretty much as far as the whole world too, Sri Lanka does not in theory permit private education. There are a few official exceptions that we all know about, namely a few private schools that are immensely popular. Then there are official exceptions in the form of paid postgraduate and diploma programmes which the universities run, and which continue to function with input from separately paid FUTA members even while the strike for undergraduate courses continues.

Then we have unofficial paid education, in the form firstly of what are termed International Schools, some preparing students for international examinations, others for Sri Lankan exams in English medium. The whole country is dotted with such schools, and they have in fact a very efficient organization that prepares good textbooks, or procures them from international, mainly Indian, publishers. Secondly there are branches of a number of foreign universities, usually ones not well known in their countries of origin, though there are some exceptions. These prepare students for foreign degrees, and most can now cover the full course here, though in some cases students go abroad for one or more years.

Finally, most lucrative of all, we have tuition, which many students now consider essential to get through public examinations. In many cases, tuition is given in large tutories, in several of which serving teachers are stakeholders, and where they often teach. Sometimes tuition is arranged privately, often for teachers who explain to their students that such supplementation is necessary.

Checking with my students at university, I would find that, with one or two exceptions, all had gone for tuition. The idea that education was free was not something that they took seriously in their struggle to get into university. This is perhaps understandable, since when supply does not equal demand, then inevitably there will be alternative sources of supply. Ironically, those who argue vociferously that, to preserve free education, formal institutions supplying education at a price should be banned, pay no attention to the tuition industry which not only makes enormous amounts of money nationwide but is also deeply parasitic upon the free state system, in that those supposed to benefit from that system are providers as well as recipients.

Academic autonomy

I do not think that hypocrisy is necessarily involved in the programmes of protest that we see. Rather, this selectivity is a necessary feature of what is a politicized process, so that those opposed to government must take what advantages they can, when they know that government personnel also take advantage of the system. Though in theory state institutions are independent, we know that many decisions, from the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to selection of students to prestigious schools, are made by politicians. It is inevitable therefore that, when they see a chance to make political capital, both politicians and intellectuals opposed to government will take their chance.

Sadly, their answer to current problems is simply more statism. They believe that, somewhere in an idyllic future, there exists the possibility of academic autonomy within a totally statist system. The fact that over fifty years the politicization of education has got worse must surely indicate to anyone with a scientific turn of mind, and a regard for inductive reasoning, that the answer should be a reduction of the role of the state. But so entrenched are prejudices, along with the recognition of advantages that can be obtained, that radical change seems anathema to all.

International Schools

I mentioned a period of 50 years because it was then that the rot really began, with the takeover of schools nationwide. I suppose that was understandable in a context in which the Catholic Church seemed involved in anti-governmental activity, but the remedy proved disastrous - and it is no secret that all major political figures since then have sent their children to the few private schools that remained, or to the international schools that sprang up in the eighties.

The universities followed suit under Minister Iriyagolle in the next government, and this was followed by the aggressively centralizing approach of the United Front government of 1970, which created a single university. Though the Jayewardene government that succeeded claimed to restore autonomy, it continued to control, a factor that was masked by the capabilities of a couple of Vice-Chancellors of the time, notably those in Colombo and Moratuwa. Trusted as they were, they were permitted a free rein. But there was no effort to introduce the reforms needed if the new universities that were established were to produce graduates suited to the new economic opportunities that were emerging.

The Premadasa regime, and its dynamic UGC chairman, did try to change things, through the Affiliated University Colleges, and promotion of modernizing units such as the Sri Jayewardeneputa Management Faculty, but President Wijetunge soon put paid to that, sacking the Chairman over a personal matter. Unfortunately the Kumaratunga government did not stop to think, and converted the AUCs into traditional universities, where they have suffered since then as pale shadows of institutions they cannot emulate. Meanwhile, as was most obvious in Peradeniya, the type of witchhunt the Jayewardene regime had engaged in, was imitated, though less thoroughly, given the less ruthless - or perhaps less competent - approach of its perpetrators.

School education system

So, despite some excellent ideas that emerged from the Task Force President Kumaratunga set up, little was done to reform the system. Good ideas were grafted onto a moribund system. By the time government realized that it needed radical change, it was too late. Tara de Mel was Secretary to the Ministry all too briefly on two occasions, and the second time her hands were tied by the President foolishly taking her away on tsunami work.

Typically, following the change of government in 2005, it was assumed that whatever Tara had done should be undone, and we therefore had five years of reversion to type. However, with a revitalized government in 2010, the need for reform was obvious, and the Ministry of Higher Education did try to introduce some changes. I should note here my continuing regard for the Minister and the Secretary who have had the courage to point out the need for reform. Though action could have been swifter, and more consultation should have taken place, they did try, and it would be a tragedy if this opportunity for reform passed the country by. Conversely, though there were efforts to reform the school education system, continuing lethargy at the Ministry seems to have overcome the intention of the Minister, way back in 2010, to introduce a new Act. This was intended to make clear the need for greater responsibility in the system, and greater accountability based on individual schools, but naturally those who now wield immense power in the ministry seem to have sidetracked the effort.

More excuses

So things have now come to a head, with opponents of the government scenting blood and determined to push protest to its limits. Aided by a series of blunders, not so much with regard to decisions as to failure to explain matters rationally and precisely, FUTA has now announced a strike that is clearly political in intention.

Though there are claims for enhanced salaries, this has paled before the assertion that government must commit 6 percent of GDP to education before work is resumed. So undergraduates continue to suffer - something they are used to, given the range of mechanisms used to stop work, student strikes, academic strikes, non-academic strikes, working to rule and of course ragging - and courses that are in any case longer than they should be, four years for what should be done in three, given the intensity of our Advanced Level syllabuses, now drag on for longer.

To be continued