• Education is being seen as an investment, not as a right
• Education should not devalue educating the disadvantaged
• School feeding prog. being dismantled when most needed
• Latest crisis in education is the Govt.’s proposed reforms
• The National Education Policy Framework is frightening
• Education is not merely access, but equal opportunity

“Under the neoliberal scheme of things, free education is being dismantled systematically, surreptitiously at first, and now a little more openly. This is because education is seen as an investment, not as a right,” charged University of Peradeniya Professor of English Arjuna Parakrama in an interview with The Sunday Morning.

“It follows that education for some people – the marginalised, the vulnerable, the disabled, and so on – then becomes something that you don’t get much of a return on, so you dispense with or at least devalue educating the disadvantaged, which is what education should not do,” he added.

Terming the National Education Policy Framework (NEPF) as “frightening” and “a potential crime against the country,” he revealed that there had been no open public consultation in this regard and that the framework was now at the parliamentary Sectoral Oversight Committee stage.

“This is a potential crime against the entire country. This is a Cabinet committee so the Cabinet should be held accountable. It has been suggested that this is the President’s brainchild. It is clearly something that he believes in. Furthermore, this framework appears to violate the Constitution,” he asserted.

In the course of the interview, Prof. Parakrama spoke on the pressing issues facing Sri Lanka’s education sector, education reforms, and the importance of fighting to save free education.

Following are excerpts of the interview:

What are the pressing issues facing Sri Lanka’s education sector at present?

The education sector itself is a depressing issue, partly because it used to be our pride and joy. Despite the war, we were able to maintain high values in indices like the Physical Quality of Life Index because of free health and free education.

The problem is that, under the neoliberal scheme of things, free education is being dismantled systematically, surreptitiously at first, and now a little more openly. This is because education is seen as an investment, not as a right. To suggest that education is an investment shifts from an obligation to the stance of ‘what is my return on it?’ It follows that education for some people – the marginalised, the vulnerable, the disabled, and so on – then becomes something that you don’t get much of a return on, so you dispense with or at least devalue educating the disadvantaged, which is what education should not do.

We are signatory to a number of conventions, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other basic conventions where, across the board, education – in the primary and secondary levels, at least up to 14 years – is a right. In fact, we have gone beyond that to guarantee general education for all until 16 years. The State is the duty bearer and the students are the rights holders. Now there’s nothing that can gainsay that. 

The moment the discussion of education as an investment comes in, there is an issue about serving all equally – and that is what neoliberalism does. For example, health is a right. If you think health is an investment, nobody is going to invest in my health because I have all kinds of illnesses, making it difficult to expect a sufficient economic return! Yet, because it’s a right I should have access to the same facilities as everyone else.

If you invest in a poor street child or a person who is marginalised, what happens? The assumption is ‘that student is not going to go to secondary school or do something else, therefore let’s cut those, let’s remove the smaller schools’ – that becomes the temptation that motivates the policy, which is an abuse of the concept of ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness’.

It’s important to understand the statistics. In Sri Lanka, we have four types of schools. Type 1AB is where the Advanced Levels (A/Ls) are held in all the subject streams – Science, Arts, Management, and Technology. According to the current Government figure, that is only 9.8% of all the schools in the country. When we say we want STEM and STEAM and so on, it’s only that 10% that has access.

Then there’s 1C, where you can only do Arts and Commerce for A/Ls. That’s only 19%. So if you take the total, it’s only 30% – less than one-third who can even learn for A/L subjects of any kind. It’s very easy to ask why students go into Arts, but if you’re in rural areas, if you can’t afford to relocate or spend a lot of money on travel, food, and accommodation, you don’t have any other choice.

The third group, Type 2, has classes from Grade 1-11, comprising 31.7%. It is sad and unfair that Type 3, which offers classes from Grade 1-8, makes up 39.4%, so nearly 40% – two-fifths of our schools – don’t go beyond the primary level. This already points to structural problems which steadily reducing resources further exacerbates annually.

We have around 10,155 schools and only 373 national schools – about 3.7%. But what is frightening is that those 3.7% of schools get funding that is roughly equivalent to the other 97%. This is despite the fact that many of the national schools generate their own funds through old boy/girl networks and parent donations. We have a system that fosters inequality and the free education system then becomes a sham because it privileges and reinforces the status quo. 

It’s a question of quality and resourcing. Each passing day the Government keeps reducing resources. The State allocation for education is among the lowest in the region at around 1.5% of GDP. We are competing strongly with Afghanistan, which believes that half its population should not be educated, so you can imagine what a crisis we are in!

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen said something to the effect that ‘if you don’t do anything else, do school feeding and then education will take care of itself’. This is because poor parents will send their children to school because of the meal. We are now in a situation where even middle class families are suffering untold hardships and yet the school feeding programme is being dismantled when it is most needed. Let’s get our priorities straight.

Look at the so-called international schools. Of the 395 registered international schools, seven come under the Board of Investment, the others are registered as companies. In terms of what they teach and how, they are accountable to no one. This is mind-boggling and yet even the proposed National Education Policy Framework 2023-2033 remains silent about this bizarre and unacceptable state of affairs. Why? There are good international schools, but they are for the elite, in urban areas, for children whose parents can afford them. This rising disparity is part of the crisis.

This is one of the few countries in the world where, even as an exception, the son or daughter of a tenant farmer, a rubber tapper, or other daily wage earner can graduate as a professional without becoming mired in huge loans. The beauty of this system, warts and all, is that you have many people who have come up through free education. Yet, why are even they not fighting to preserve this unique system?

Where do things stand in terms of education reforms and how do you view the National Education Policy Framework (2023-2033)?

The latest crisis in education, if I were to put it in one sentence, is the new proposed reforms by the Government.

The National Education Policy Framework is frightening. There has been no open public consultation and now it’s at the parliamentary Sectoral Oversight Committee stage. The document has been presented by a special Cabinet sub-committee, which appears to have Cabinet endorsement. Yet, if you look at its members and process, it is neither representative nor transparent. The document itself makes recommendations but there is not a shred of evidence-based justification.

This 35-page document which is supposed to be binding – it says all future reforms should be guided by this – was drafted by a Cabinet sub-committee, of which at least six members are from the private tech sector, with woefully inadequate representation from key stakeholders like teachers, students, parents, and ministry officials. The method of selection is unclear, and, in fact, the list of members is not accessible. There is no public accountability. This concerns the future of education in this country. It appears that even before the document has been approved by Parliament, steps are being taken to structure its implementation!

Let me give an example. Recommendation 2 says ‘the choice of education in English medium in any school’. We have only 20,000 English teachers; many are not adequately qualified or trained. Of the 245,000 teachers, how many can teach in English? The few privileged schools and their students will opt for the English medium, but for the others this will only be a slogan. Resources will flow into these privileged schools, creating further disadvantages.

Another recommendation, 25, states ‘all schools shall be provincial schools; national schools will cease to exist’. When ministry officials were asked, they agreed that ‘there are about 50 national schools which can’t be touched because they are more powerful than us’. As it is, the national schools are a law unto themselves.

There are 41 recommendations, some of which are not implementable at all, while some are there just for token value. What they will do is cherry-pick and implement what they want and the net result will be that privileged students will have more options and underprivileged students will have less.

Crucially, there isn’t a single mention in the National Education Policy Framework about resourcing. The mantra is ‘Public-Private Partnerships,’ but it isn’t explained, nor does it commit additional State funds. They say they will ‘realign’. What is there to realign? There is no money even for current programmes. In ‘Public-Private Partnerships,’ the private aspect will be profit-based, requiring returns on investments. They won’t want to spend money educating street children.

Access does not ensure equality of opportunity. We must avoid the trap of providing more opportunities to some, while denying even the basics to others, which reproduces socioeconomic hierarchies.

So is it all just words, pie in the sky?

It’s words to cover the real agenda, which is neoliberal: the State facilitating education as a financial investment. ‘Let’s invest more in those who are more likely to give us a return’ – in other words, the old school ties, family, and friends.

This policy also includes unrealistic and overambitious deadlines with vague and unclear recommendations. For example, the radical school and university restructuring: they are trying to rush something through without thinking of the consequences. This will destroy this country – there is no question about it – and there will be unrest and perhaps worse to come, which we must fight to prevent even at this late stage. 

This policy clearly says, ‘...a period of three years from the transition of line item-based funding to enrolment-based funding in tertiary education; financing tertiary education will be on the basis of student contribution, Government funding, and other funds generated’. So rather than increase funding, which is happening everywhere in the world, they are defunding State higher education.

Schools and students are still playing catch-up following the Covid closures. What are the steps listed to address the learning loss?

The learning loss of two years of schooling has not been addressed in even a single sentence in this National Education Policy Framework. 

If you look at the performance of students in the competitive exams, the standard has dropped. In the latest impartial study that we have seen, only 8% of students in Year 3 met the minimum numeracy and literacy levels. Redressing this is what a national education policy should look at. To close the gap, we have to think of education as a right.

The NEPF mentions ‘financing Government schools through funding based on enrolment, existing facilities, and performance’. As my students devastatingly asked the members of this committee: ‘Surely it is the school that is not performing well that requires more funding?’

Some schools are small for a reason: the nearest school is far away, or they are caste-based, they are schools for marginalised groups, or they are near places where families earn a livelihood, since the children also participate in this work. In this proposed efficiency model, all these will disappear together with their pupils.

The question of education as a right is not merely access; it is equal opportunity. That does not only mean that my son or daughter has a school; that school must provide the same opportunities as Royal College or Visakha.

They want the universities to compete. How is this feasible? Can the Vavuniya University, which opened recently, compete with Peradeniya? There is no level playing field in school or university education to promote such unhealthy and unequal competition. 

They want the University Grants Commission (UGC) to be reincarnated to oversee both private and public higher education. There are 17 public and 21 private universities today. The UGC, which has lost 100 staff, is going to get 21 more universities and a name change. Not practical, and, I suspect, designed to be precisely that!

Are there any positive proposals in the framework?

Yes, there are some very good recommendations. For example, the one that says religion and values should be taught to students as a subject so that they know about each other’s worldviews. But what about implementation? There are no teachers, and there is little capacity and no training. The materials will have to be very carefully designed so that they don’t reproduce hierarchies.

The recommendation to make all students proficient in the two national languages is good. However, teachers are not qualified or trained to do this: that’s one reason why it failed earlier. 

So the bulk of the proposals are delusional, but the plan is going through?

Delusional or strategic. But yes, it’s going through. Within this parliamentary session, they will probably approve this. Once approved, we don’t have post-enactment judicial review. They say discussions are being held, but I think it’s a fait accompli now.

They want the provinces to take over: ‘The Ministry of Education will be freed from administration to focus on policy direction.’ Good, but there are rich provinces and poor provinces: it will become a free-for-all, but of course not equally free for all!

Free education – Kannangara’s legacy, our heritage – is worth fighting to save. Rich or poor, we are all products of this education system. You can’t blame the education system for not providing employment. Employment is a function of the economy. What we can do is create employable graduates, employable students, not guarantee employment.

Quality education for all must be ensured; that is our commitment. It’s not a choice of this government or that. Sri Lanka has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates the quality of education. All of that has been completely obliterated in the NEPF.

Of the 41 proposals, 15 or 20 are very good ones, but there are some that are political dynamite, which will disrupt everything, particularly in the realm of higher education.

How has this framework been received by educators and academics?

People don’t know about this framework. It should have been the end process of years of discussions, but it’s been a relatively closed-door exercise. This dissemination and public awareness-raising is our first responsibility.

The framework is far-reaching; it means changing the State’s responsibility for funding schools through some funny formula, which obviously won’t work. We should be supporting the schools which are underperforming. When stratified like this, there will be murderous competition to get into the well-funded schools.

Isn’t this a crime against the students of this country? Who should be held answerable?

This is a potential crime against the entire country. This is a Cabinet committee so the Cabinet should be held accountable. It has been suggested that this is the President’s brainchild. It is clearly something that he believes in.

Furthermore, this framework appears to violate the Constitution. Free education is not a fundamental right here, so you can’t go to courts. However, 27(2) of the Directive Principles emphasise the complete eradication of illiteracy and the assurance to all persons of the right to universal and equal access to education at all levels, while 47(1) of the Education Ordinance of 1939 says no fee shall be charged in respect of admission to or the education provided in a Government school or an assisted school. That’s being systematically dismantled now.

Given the situation of abject poverty, the economic catastrophe, which has left the population reeling, and overall political crisis of legitimacy that we are in, why would you want to rush this through now?