By Dr. Sarath Amunugama
A signature initiative of the Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga (CBK) administration from 1994 to 2005 was the attempt to reform the education system of the country. The free education system – the introduction of which is popularly attributed to C.W.W. Kannangara who was the Minister of Education in the State Council – was in crisis largely because the demographics of population growth had put a strain on the resources which could be made available to this sector.
However, because it was a ‘sacred cow’ in our political animal farm, politicians were loath to make the necessary changes demanded by our growing economy and the transformation of concepts of education which were the hallmarks of modern society and culture.
‘Free education’ was a part of the raft of social welfare measures undertaken following the introduction of universal adult franchise to the then colony called Ceylon, only a few years after it became a reality in the UK.
The comparatively small population (of about seven million) at the time of independence and the favourable economic climate based on well-managed commercial agricultural enterprises, which were later cannibalised by Sirimavo Bandaranaike and her LSSP ministers, enabled the progressively ‘Ceylonised’ representatives in the State Council to invest in social welfare in the fields of health, education, poor relief, rural infrastructure, irrigation, and land settlement.
These initiatives drew the admiration of economic and social theorists like Amartya Sen who held Sri Lanka to be a model of inclusive growth. But these remarkable initiatives themselves created a spurt of population growth which led to a record increase in successive youth cohorts which had to be accommodated in educational and other welfare programmes, leading to major difficulties in resource allocation.
This was the dilemma that successive administrations faced and our selfish politicians, whose primary concern was to return to Parliament and enjoy its multitude of benefits, could not muster the courage to reform the education sector. Such a reorientation would not be popular among interest groups who had established their own ‘comfort zones’ and were against the change. It was not as though the political authorities were not made aware of the thin ice on which they were skating.
In 1972, introducing the five-year plan (1972-1977), Sirimavo Bandaranaike said: “The continued growth of population at the present high rate will pose problems which will defy every attempt at a solution. In the short term, any further increase in the number of births from the present level of about 370,000 per year will put inordinate strains on the school system, on hospitals, and on the supply of other goods and services and in such a situation, it is only by a shift of investment from productive activities that it would be possible to maintain these services even at the present level.”
From the start of the CBK administration in 1994, the President took the bold step of paying special attention to the subject of education. The President appointed Richard Pathirana – a senior SLFP politician and educationist – to the post of Minister and reconstituted the National Education Commission under the Chairmanship of Prof. Lakshman Jayatilleke.
A Presidential Task Force for Education was established. Tara de Mel was appointed the Secretary of the Ministry of Education and their reform-oriented agenda became a centrepiece of the Government which gained the support of the education community – especially the new and enhanced pay scales of teachers – and the hostility of the Opposition, both of the UNP and the JVP.
The book reviewed here is Tara de Mel’s encapsulation of those reform initiatives and is, therefore, an indispensable ‘voice’ in any study of the current dilemmas facing education and its future in our country. Tara de Mel became the ‘human face’ of these reforms, for good or ill.
What were the areas that were identified by the Presidential Task Force for special attention? They were educational quality improvement, teaching of English, forms of assessment, teacher education, compulsory education, primary education, reorganisation of school management, counselling and career guidance, media and education technology, university admissions, and education legislation.
Let us now look at some of the issues that were highlighted by the Task Force. In this review, due to lack of space, we will select only a few of the initiatives that followed its recommendations.
Compulsory education
It was estimated that during the 1996-1997 period, 14% of the children in the 5-14 year category did not attend school. The reasons identified were poverty, the need to help their parents in their livelihoods, caring for siblings, household work (especially for girls), and the lack of documentation like birth certificates which were needed for school admission.
As a result of these findings, a new compulsory education act was passed by Parliament. The introduction of the free midday meal and provision of stationery also helped in increasing enrollment. Principals were instructed to accept affidavits and certifications by Local Government Authorities where birth certificates were not available.
Primary education
This was a flagship programme of the educational reforms. The objectives of the reforms were defined in the following way.
“Education will be child-centred and not teacher-centred. Emphasis will be on developing the child’s mind, skills, attitudes, and abilities through an activities-based programme. Curiosity, imagination, and creativity through an active learning process was to be promoted, rather than learning through didactic teaching” [pg. 26].
It was also recommended that an integrated curriculum which incorporates mother tongue, religion, mathematics, and environmental activities be formulated. Accordingly, the syllabus, textbooks, workbooks, and supplementary reading material were revised. It is my view that new research should be undertaken to evaluate how these laudable objectives have been achieved at the school level.
Examinations
This is an area in which the recommendations of the specialists have not been carried out, showing the resistance of interest groups in this field. It is worthwhile looking at this problem in some detail. Here is Tara de Mel’s ‘take’ on what went on behind the scenes.
“The Grade Five scholarship examination was a hotly debated topic during meetings. Almost all of us were acutely aware of the burden this examination placed on 10-year-old children. Preparation for sitting the two papers in the exam began as early as when the child was in Grade Three since parents were keen for children to enter good schools in urban settings. Although the competition was not as severe as now, and although the tuition industry and tuition lobby was not as strong as today, yet tuition teachers held sway in the run-up to the exam” [pg. 29].
The tragedy is that the CBK reforms could not make a dent in the tuition system which is growing day by day and like a giant creeper crowding out the formal education system upon which the Government is spending a significant part of the national budget. Tara has had to admit defeat: “However nothing substantial has happened to the scholarship exam, and it remains as it is today, continuing to heap burdens on a 10-year-old child and his parents” [pg. 29].
Tuition masters continue to bully politicians. Indeed, some of them have leveraged their position to enter politics and their numbers in Parliament increase with every election – some even coming forward as Viyathmaga professionals.
The apotheosis of tutiondom came when Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed a tuition master as the Minister of Education. Free education has been reduced to a joke today because even the poorest parent has to beg, borrow, or steal to pay the tuition master whose tuition classes are far superior to his efforts in the classroom for which he draws a salary from the State.
‘Z scores’ for university admissions
This was another hot topic. Let us listen to Tara’s background briefing.
“The Z score discussion originated when the disadvantages that existed in taking the raw marks of different subjects to select students to universities … The distribution of marks are different for different subjects due to a variety of causes including the variations from one examiner to another. Taking the total aggregate of these marks would have been like adding apples and oranges and obtaining the total number of fruits for comparison. The experts advised us that this was unacceptable scientifically” [pg. 47].
A group of academics drew up a more equitable marking system which was accepted by the Cabinet in 2002 and implemented that year. Though this scheme became highly controversial partly because the statistical analysis was not easy to understand, it has stood the test of time. Today, it has become the mode of university admissions and has to be recognised as an achievement of the CBK Government.
English education
The administration at the time deserves credit for boldly confronting this subject even though the full benefits of a transformation were not obtained due to political objections. The approach of the administration was described in the following manner.
“We were all aware that most students, teachers, and principals of Government schools couldn’t read, write, or speak English fluently. When leaving school and seeking employment, students from Government schools were seriously handicapped when compared to peers from private and international schools. The average student could not make maximum use of the vast pool of information and resources available from global sources” [pg. 49].
A series of policy decisions including teaching English from Grade Three and making English a core subject for GCE O/Ls were recommended. This was a subject which could be emotionally charged as both the Opposition and President CBK well knew. This dilemma is well described by the author.
“After lengthy [Cabinet] discussion only a few Cabinet ministers endorsed the proposal. They included Ministers Lakshman Kadirgamar, Mangala Samaraweera, Sarath Amunugama, and about two others whose names I cannot remember. Included among the opponents was the Minister himself [Susil Premajayantha]. Ironically but not surprisingly, many ministers who opposed the proposal had children attending private or international schools where English medium instruction was the norm” [pg. 54]. Finally, the President decided to postpone the implementation of the project.
What I have described above are only a few of the initiatives that were undertaken by Tara de Mel and the education authorities during the period of 1996 to 2005. Both specialists and general readers will find that this book is a comprehensive, if brief, description of one of the most significant attempts at reforming our educational system, which has reached its acme of dysfunctionalism.
Teachers, university students, schoolchildren, and especially their parents have taken to the streets. The houses of education ministers have been set on fire by protesters. The Government cannot find the funds to finance the demand for greater allocations for education, which is becoming more dysfunctional by the day. I suggest that the authorities go back to the proposals described here to begin rethinking our policies on education.
