by Meera Pathmarajah; originally published February 5, 2004
Meera Pathmarajah is a graduate student at Harvard University Graduate School of Education, pursuing a Master of Education Degree in International Education Policy. This paper was written for her final project in a class titled ‘Education Policy Analysis and Research in Developing Countries’, taught by Professor Fernando Reimers. You may contact Meera at
Barriers to Equality of Educational Opportunity in Sri Lanka
Eachilampathu Schoolchildren. Photo: TamilNet, ‘NECORD funded school buildings opened in Eachilampathu,’ January 25, 2004
Sri Lanka is a nation that appears to have demonstrated spectacular success in upholding a solid education system despite an abundance of tumultuous events that characterized the nation’s history in the second half of the twentieth century. In 1998 primary and secondary net enrollment rates were the highest in South Asia, ninety-seven and over seventy percent respectively. In 2002, the adult literacy rate was high as usual, documented by the World Bank at ninety-two percent. What is astounding about these figures is not just their high regional significance, but also the context of civil war in which they occurred. [Note that these statistics are so high because they do not include the population of the NorthEast, which has been left out of national statistics for 20 years because their inclusion would drag down the total and highlight the effects of a genocidal war. – Ed.] The prominent emphasis given to education by traditional Sri Lankan culture is evidenced by the nation’s high performance on international measures of education systems. However, as Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Literacy in itself is no education”. Despite the country’s high statistical performance in educational indicators, the education system has had neutral effects on the country’s economic and social productivity.
Sri Lanka has been deprived of reaching its full potential due to bitter politics that evolved during centuries of colonial rule, and remain unresolved even today. Inequality of educational opportunities was the seed sown by European colonizers, and this same poison seems to linger on today, perpetuating social, political, and economic instability. While post-independent Sri Lanka has demonstrated progressive performance on international indicators, the relationship between social welfare achievement and such investments among marginalized sub-populations has been overlooked (Little, 1999, p. 17).
Decades of political turmoil in Sri Lanka has paralleled and indeed disrupted development of the education system, calling into question the quality, effectiveness and purpose of education. In the first section of this paper I will discuss the unwarranted influence of politics on Sri Lanka’s education system, and the resulting barriers to equality of educational opportunity. In particular, I will explore the dynamics of race, class, and politics in Sri Lanka, with respect to educational inequalities created by the following factors: 1) historical discrimination and issues of language, 2) financial constraints and poor planning in higher education, 4) poverty and region of residence, and 5) centralization. The second section of this paper will explore policy recommendations and relevant research that addresses these issues both generally and specifically.
Historical Discrimination and Issues of Language
Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation with a population of nineteen million people. The island is divided into nine provinces and its population is comprised of seventy-four percent Singhalese, mostly Buddhist, eighteen percent Tamils, mostly Hindu, and the remaining eight percent are Moors, Burghers, Malays, and Veddhas (LaPorte, 2003). Several indigenous and minority populations in Sri Lanka continue to encounter multiple barriers to educational opportunities, including the indigenous Veddha population and the plantation Indian Tamils. However, this paper will focus mainly on the Tamils, who have been historically concentrated in the North East Province of Sri Lanka, and the Singhalese population residing mainly in provinces outside the North East.
Beginning in 1505, Sri Lanka experienced a series of colonial occupations by the Portuguese, Dutch and the British, each of whom were influential in shaping the development of a formal education system in Sri Lanka. Both the Portuguese and the Dutch established schools in the coastal areas of Sri Lanka for the sole purpose of religious conversion. The Portuguese set up an extensive system of parish Catholic schools, until the Dutch displaced the Portuguese in 1658 and vigorously established Protestant learning centers for religious conversion. During this time the up-country Singhalese, who resided in the Buddhist stronghold known as the Kandyan Kingdom, succeeded in resisting European rule. On the contrary, Sri Lankans in the low-country plains, including the northern concentrated populations of Tamils and the low-country Singhalese Buddhists, Moors and Burghers in the south and west, were subject to colonial influence (Little, 1999, pp. 72-75).
The system of determining educational opportunity based on social status was initiated by the Dutch and intensified during British rule from 1796 to 1948. The main system of societal stratification occurred with the introduction of English language teaching, which was reserved for high-caste, male Singhalese, Tamils and Dutch Burghers (biracial individuals). In addition to developing a status and caste based system of government education, the British rehabilitated the Dutch developed parish school system, where Sinhala or Tamil was the medium of instruction (p. 78). Thus, two distinct layers of schools were formed – those taught in the English medium and those taught in the vernacular.
English-medium education was introduced by the British to reduce the high costs of employing administrative staff brought in from Britain (p. 78). Thus, the British taught English to a select group of Sri Lankans, who were then given access to the colonial civil service. However, it was only the higher classes who were given the opportunity to attend English medium schools, since they were considered the most ‘morally and intellectually competent to fill offices of trust’ (Little, Mendis 1956a:374). Not only did the British discriminate against the lower classes in offering English education, but they also isolated the up-country Kandyan Singhalese elite who had previously resisted the Portuguese, Dutch, and twenty years of British rule. This placed the Kandyan Singhalese at a social disadvantage for many years and set the social and ethnic groups in Sri Lanka against each other, as they all vied for the same limited number of high status civil service positions (p. 79).
By 1867, the influence of educational reform in Britain extended to Sri Lanka, and some indigenous religious schools were granted government aid. This encouraged the start of a major Buddhist nationalist movement, as well as a smaller scale Hindu revival movement supported by India. However, this also created another divide among the indigenous schools. Schools that received government aid began to teach in the English medium, thereby attracting the elite, while the non-elite continued to use the vernacular (p. 83).
The use of class as an indicator of educational capability was continuously promoted alongside development of the education system. Class determined accessibility to English medium schools, which determined accessibility to government jobs. During the 1860’s, additional advantages were offered for English educated students with the introduction of higher education. English medium public examinations were used to award scholarships as well as admission to universities (p. 83). The groups that most benefited from education under British rule were the Burghers, the low-country Singhalese and the Jaffna Tamils. By 1915, only seven percent of government schools were English-medium, while ninety-one percent were vernacular-medium schools (p. 89). As history has demonstrated, this inequality of educational opportunity combined with an upsurge of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism, turned into revengeful politics that eventually escalated into armed conflict between the majority Singhalese Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
The issue of language has played a central role in perpetuating inequity in Sri Lanka’s education system. English has historically been viewed as a prestigious language by Sri Lankan society, although the intensification of Singhalese nationalism, following independence from Britain in 1948, resulted in a period of Sinhala extremism lead by the majority Singhalese government. One of the most contentious political acts, the Sinhala Only Act of 1956, is believed by historian K.M. de Silva to have “set in motion a train of events that marked the first phase in Sri Lanka’s recent history of violent ethnic conflict” (Ethirveerasingam, 1998, p. 12). This unexpected and poorly implemented language policy eliminated Tamil as the nation’s second official language, and instituted Singhalese as the only official language. Though the Tamils contested this policy enough to maintain Tamil medium schools and to use Tamil for administrative affairs in the North and East, a large number of Tamils in civil service positions throughout the country were deprived of their jobs overnight (Ethirveerasingam, 1998). The political nature of this language policy, which was later rebuked, is evident by the unplanned, immediate method of implementation used by the government. As the next section on finance will reveal, poorly planned and politically motivated higher education reforms resulted in further decrease of equality of educational opportunities during the decades leading up to civil war in Sri Lanka.
Financial Constraints and Poor Planning in Higher Education
In 1945, the Minister of Education, W. W. Kannangara, fondly known as the ‘father of free education,’ sought to address the problem of access to English-medium schools by passing the Free Education Act (p. 91). In theory, this act made English-medium schools accessible to all students, regardless of class. It attempted to level the field for educational and employment opportunities. In practice, however, what this act essentially resulted in was “that the well-to-do continued to send their children to good government and government-aided schools without paying fees, while the masses ‘continued to receive free the poor quality education that had all along been free to them” (Little, p. 91, Jayasuriya, 1979:475).
In essence, the Free Education Act maintained the disparities that existed between the elite and the non-elite, although it did provide scholarships for some rural children to attend English medium ‘central schools’ (p. 92). It also increased incentives for parents to send their children to school, especially since national examinations were being offered in the vernacular mediums by that time. Indeed, the Free Education Act was well intended. However, the design and implementation of the policy was shortsighted and insufficient. A look at the system of admissions to higher education paints a picture of the shortsightedness of the newly empowered policy makers.
According to Indraratna (1992), the real beginning of modern university education in Sri Lanka started with the formation of the University of Ceylon in 1942. In its first year, the university had 904 students, 60 academic staff, and 18 departments (p. 10). Growth during the first three years was modest, with enrollments rising by about five percent. However, with the 1945 Free Education Act, enrollments in the university mounted by twenty-two percent in 1946. In addition, language of instruction in all government schools had been switched from English to the vernacular in 1947. Due to these two factors, which helped expand access to primary and secondary school, a significantly larger number of students were passing the university admission exams.
The unprecedented increase in demand for university seats lead the government to make ad hoc arrangements to increase supply, but these measures were biased towards the Singhalese. Moreover, financial expenditures did not keep pace with the rising numbers of students. By the end of the 1950’s, enrollment rates in universities had shot up to 4,723 students. In response, the government converted two ancient Buddhist centers of learning into universities. Admission to these two universities was limited to male students (p. 11). Between 1959 and 1966, student enrollment had increased by 278 percent, while total real expenditure on university education increased by only 27 percent. The restriction on expenditure was mainly due to the government’s commitment to free compulsory primary and secondary education (p. 13). As a result, quality of higher education suffered at the expense of access.
The constrained budget of university education caused an increasing number of qualified students to be denied admission. In 1969 the percentage of students admitted out of the total number of eligible students was 33 percent. There was also disproportionate overrepresentation of the Singhalese in arts courses, while Tamils were over-represented in the science courses. Public discontent with the higher education system as well as rising unemployment among arts graduates resulted in the government’s enactment of a series of inequitable reforms geared to institute restrictive admission policies.
The first reform was the Standardization Act of 1967, whereby “a lower qualifying mark was set for Singhalese medium candidates so that a ‘politically acceptable’ proportion of places in science-based university courses would be secured for them” (Little, p. 97, de Silva 1974:157). This policy blatantly attempted to limit opportunities for higher education for Tamil students. Tamil representation in the university fell to under 16 percent by 1969, while the proportion of Singhalese had risen to over 80 percent (p. 97).
Tamil protests ended the policy in 1971, but the act was replaced by an equally controversial system in which admissions were aligned with the proportion of Tamil and Sinhala students taking the admission entrance exam. District quotas later supplemented these restrictive policies as well (p. 97). The admission procedure in 1979 granted 30 percent of the students admission based on merit, 55 percent based on district population, and 15 percent was reserved for underprivileged students (Indraratna, p. 51).
Tamils youths became increasingly agitated by the discriminatory education policies, lack of employment opportunities, and extremist language policies that limited their social mobility (p. 98). By 1976 Tamil politicians began voicing calls for a separate Tamil state. Frustrated Tamil youths resorted to armed resistance, and by 1983 a full scale civil war erupted between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Government of Sri Lanka.
Nearly twenty years of civil war has caused a huge drain on Sri Lanka’s economic, political, and educational resources. Educational inequalities still pervade the system, and are even worse due to destruction and instability caused by the war. The policy of district quotas, which is still in existence today, fundamentally disputes the notion of equality of educational opportunity: “the likelihood that any person in a given country can enroll in an educational institution, be supported to learn at high levels, complete and proceed to the next existing level and type of education, independently of characteristics other than effort and ability, and in particular independently of their social class of origin, race, gender and location of residence.” Contrary to this definition, the situation in Sri Lanka is such that social class of origin, race, and location of residence are all strong predictors of a person’s mobility through the education system. Unequal opportunities have resulted in a system where, of those who start school in grade one, only two percent are admitted to the universities, although eleven percent qualify for university education (Ethirveerasingam, p. 25). Furthermore, of those two percent who are admitted to universities, sixteen percent are from agriculture and fisher families, whereas agriculture and fisher families represent seventy-three percent of the general population. At the same time, sixty-one percent are from professional families, while professional families only make up five percent of the general population (p. 26).
To a large extent, financial constraints have been the main factor in perpetuating inequalities of educational opportunity. Sri Lanka’s three percent average spending of GDP on government education is low compared to international standards of five percent (UNICEF, 2000). The average tertiary student expenditure in Sri Lanka is below the South Asia average as well as below average for low and middle-income countries. Moreover, allocation of funds is based on historical patterns, rather than on enrollment rates or a formal system of needs assessment (World Bank, 2003). Therefore, schools in rural areas or areas that have been hit by the war and need additional financial and overall assistance, continue to receive the same funding from the government as many of the urban schools, based on historical records of funding allocations. As a result, the disparity between quality education in disadvantaged, mostly rural and conflict-affected areas, versus urban areas has continued to grow. Economic constraints have prohibited the expansion of the education system, stagnating the prevalent problem of access to schools, where many children have to walk long distances to arrive at school. Thus, I will now turn to two prominent barriers to equality of educational opportunity.
Poverty and Location of Residence
The history of poor policy making in Sri Lanka has contributed to the creation of numerous inequitable characteristics of the education system. One of the main issues that pervades the nation’s education sector is inequality of opportunity to access quality education (Ethirveerasingam, 1998, p. 25). The urban elite are provided with the most opportunities for educational advancement, while the poor remain disadvantaged at many levels. Approximately twenty-two percent of Sri Lankans live below the poverty line. In rural areas, twenty-four percent live below the poverty line and in urban areas, eighteen percent live below the poverty line (PEPP of MEHE, 2000). The opportunity to receive a quality education or even an education past the fifth grade depends on one’s location of residence. The schools in Sri Lanka are classified into four types of schools (p. 6):
1. Type 1AB – Year 1 to 13 (Arts, commerce and science at GCE A/L)
2. Type C – Year 1 to 13 (Arts and commerce at GCE A/L)
3. Type 2 – Year 1 to 11 (Includes all subjects examined at GCE O/L)
4. Type 3 – Year 1 to 5, Primary (Some schools include Year 7 or 8)
About 58 percent of pupils attend type 1AB and type C schools, 42 percent are in types 2 and 3 schools. The number of school-aged children in any area determines the number and type of schools established in that area. Due to the sparse population in rural farming and fisher communities, only Type 3 schools are mainly found in these areas. After year five, six, seven or eight, children start working in the fields or at sea. Their primary schools are usually a single building 120 feet long and 15 or 20 feet wide, with walls 3 feet high. There is no partition between classrooms, and many Type 3 schools do not have usable toilets or safe drinking water (p. 6).
The ethnic conflict has compounded the barriers to educational opportunities in the North East Province of Sri Lanka, where war was a routine aspect of life from 1983 to 2001. According to a report by Save the Children (2001) poverty was the most frequently reported reason for children dropping out of school, while illness was the most frequently reported cause of irregular attendance in Vanni, one of the worst conflict-affected regions (pp. 3-4). Recurrent student illness combined with the severe lack of health facilities and services in the North East, has not only disrupted children’s education, but is also one of the major factors preventing recruitment and retention of qualified teachers in the North East (p. 4). According to a Tamil Eelam Education Province report (2003), there is a shortage of 4000 teachers in Tamil medium schools in the North East, while there is an excess supply of 14,000 teachers in the rest of the country. If not for the volunteer services of hundreds of trained and untrained teachers in the North East, many more schools would be shut down. Already, of the 2002 government schools in the North East, 144 schools have been displaced and are temporarily functioning elsewhere, while 156 schools have been closed down. In the Vanni, where transportation is generally by bicycle or on foot, students describe the distance traveled to reach school as one of their main problems of attending school. Primary schools are generally not too far, but secondary schools can be as far as 8-10 miles away (Save the Children, 2001, p. 6).
The armed conflict has resulted in destruction of schools and buildings, has sunk the affected populations into poverty, and has thereby perpetuated issues of access and poverty in the North East. The traumatizing impact of devastation, loss, and displacement on children affected by the war needs to be addressed by the education system. Such children are deprived of the emotional stability as well as the physical access to pursue a quality education. Thus, the impact of the ethnic conflict poses multiple barriers to equality of educational opportunity for victims of war in the North East. However, the centralized structure of Sri Lanka’s education system does not allow for such inequities to be addressed.
Centralization
Excessive bureaucracy, resulting in inefficiency and a generally lethargic approach towards improving the system, characterizes the current centralized structure of the education system. At present, authorities in the Central Ministry of Education possess decision-making powers for the North Eastern Province. The problem is that the Central Ministry is located in the cosmopolitan setting of Colombo, far from the dismal ground level realities of the war in the North East and the impoverished rural areas of Sri Lanka. Poor coordination, communication, and understanding between the Central Ministry and Provincial Ministries generate cycles of ineffectiveness leading to inequities. For instance, school textbooks consistently arrive 6 months into the school year in a majority of government schools throughout the island. Also, students are required to present their birth certificates in order to take national entrance exams for higher education and to participate in school sports competitions (Ethierveerasingam, p. 15). However, in two districts in the North East Province alone, approximately 30,000 students have lost their birth certificates due to war and displacement (p. 19). These students are not given any alternate options and are excluded from exams and sports competitions. Furthermore, the traumatic effects of war, displacement and poverty have caused psychological problems in most students and parents in the North East. Yet there are no counseling programs or remedial education programs in any schools in the North East for victims of the war, including traumatized, disabled, or displaced children, for orphans, or for child soldiers returning to schools (p. 14). Such children are subject to the same exam-based system of educational opportunities as the rest of the nation.
General Policy Recommendations for Improving Equity:
Ø Assign equity as a priority objective of the education system
One of the most noble and revolutionary international efforts, which has profoundly impacted generations of individuals, societies, and nations all over the world, took place soon after the atrocities of World War II. In 1948 leaders from all over the world came together to consolidate their vision of a universal environment of peace and understanding (Reimers, 2003). Responding to the atrocities of the Second World War, they formed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that declared basic education as a right of every child. Through education they believed nations would “promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups” (Reimers, 2003, Article 26 of UDHR). Leaders and scholars around the world have appreciated the novelty and nobility of this agreement. Yet the practical challenges of implementing such an immense task have prevented complete realization of this goal.
While such international gatherings have helped expand educational opportunities since the 1940’s and 50’s, the increased access to primary school education has triggered disparities within education systems (Cavichioni and Motivans, 2001, p. 220). Access to quality education that provides students with information and skills needed to survive in our rapidly changing global economy is largely dependent on socioeconomic status. Thus, there has been a shift in recent years towards realizing the importance of educational quality rather than simple access. As Cavicchioni and Motivans (2001) put it, the issue is not just about access to schools, but access to learning opportunities.
A study conducted in Northeast Brazil, one of the most disadvantaged regions in Brazil, demonstrates the reality that the poor are the last to benefit from the expansion of public services, such as primary education (p. 233, Vandemoortele, 2000, p.12) Between 1991 and 1996, the percentage of students completing five years of primary education increased from 35 to 48 percent. However, when these results are disaggregated across categories of poor, middle, or rich class, it is evident that children from the rich category benefited most. The percent of rich children who did not complete five years of primary school between 1991 and 1996 dropped from 17 to 3 percent, the percent of middle class children dropped from 34 to 16 percent, while the percent of poor children actually increased from 45 to 81 percent (p. 232). As this study demonstrates, it is the responsibility of governments to assign equal priority to achieving both an effective and equitable education system. The two goals complement each other and are in fact inseparable.
According to Demeuse, Crahay, and Monseur (2001), equity within education systems can be interpreted in at least four different ways. These include 1) equity of access or equality of opportunity, 2) equity in terms of learning environment or equality of treatment, 3) equity in production or equality of achievement or results, and 4) equity of realization or results once individuals have left the system (p. 70). Effectiveness also has various interpretations, which include the measured evaluation of whether the system is meeting its objectives either independently or comparatively, and whether the system is meeting its objectives efficiently, or with the minimum use of resources (pp. 66-69). During British rule in Sri Lanka, an equitable education system was not considered an option, since it was assumed that only upper class males should obtain an education. The British espoused the wrong notion that education for all would lead to lower educational performance and would disrupt the social order. Today, research has shown that education for all actually raises national average achievement scores and also increases the supply of qualified labor (Demeuse, Crahay, and Monseur, 2001).
Ø Train policy makers in making decisions based on research, information, and participatory dialogue
The trend of implementing poorly planned policies, without sufficient and informed dialogue amongst stakeholder groups, continues to be a barrier to equality of educational opportunity in modern day Sri Lanka. Prior to colonization, Sri Lanka was governed by three separate kingdoms, each of which operated independently of the other. It was only during British colonization, that the country was unified and ruled as one entity. Thus, it is not surprising that communication and negotiation among the various subgroups of Sri Lanka did not automatically materialize after independence; Sri Lanka has only functioned as an independent, unified nation for a little over half a century. Post-independent Sri Lanka has endured a process of trial and error, with politics weaving in and out of the development of the education system. However, if Sri Lanka is to gain stability in its economic and social productivity, a new culture of depoliticized, informed and participatory policy making must be the underlying principle to guide development and monitoring of the education system.
Globalization is emerging at a rapid pace in today’s national and international spheres, and dialogue and participatory policy-making has been invariably highlighted as a fundamental step in enacting successful reforms. It is no longer useful to make decisions based on historical events, records, or actions (Reimers and McGinn, 1997). The complex flow of information, communication, knowledge, and resources within and across nations requires policymakers and the education system to be flexible and responsive to changing patterns of global society. Due to the highly intensive and dynamic nature of the global economy, education policy must involve a variety of actors, working together and towards the same objectives. In order to establish shared objectives that have potential of being reached, the inclusion of all stakeholders is mandatory. Stakeholders in education include groups such as teachers, parents, textbook publishers, employers, and others. All have an interest in the process and outcome of the decision being made. By including stakeholders in the policy making process, policy makers increase the likelihood that the policy will be effectively implemented and sustainable (p. 57).
Eugene Bardach (2000) provides two reasons for her claim that policy analysis is a social and political activity. First, the content and effect of the policy concerns the lives and well-being of large numbers of our fellow citizens. Second, the process and results of policy analysis usually involve a diverse group of professionals and interested parties. She approaches policy making as an art rather than a science, and emphasizes defining the problem as a crucial first step to policy making. Following definition of the problem, she offers a comprehensive step-by-step process for policy analysis that involves gathering information, constructing strategies, projecting outcomes, and narrowing down the decision. Multiple problems regarding equality of educational opportunity in Sri Lanka have been identified and analyzed by local and foreign experts. It is up to policy makers to actively work towards solving these problems, using a systematic approach such as the one outlined by Eugene Bardach (2000) in her book “A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving”.
One of the most important aspects of policy making is to obtain research that has been done on the subject at hand, and utilize such research to make informed decisions. While this concept has been widely acknowledged as crucial to the formulation, planning, and implementation of policies, it has been demonstrated time and again that research is extremely underutilized in the policy making process. A variety of explanations have been offered for the discrepancy between research and policy. Caplan (1979) expounds the view that researchers and policy makers have two separate sets of values, incentives, and relevance when it comes to research. Researchers are concerned with selective “pure” science and esoteric issues, while policy makers are concerned with practical and immediate issues at hand (Neilson, 2001, p. 5, Caplan, 1979, p. 459). The gap between interests of policy makers and research is perhaps evident in the abundance of research irrelevant to pressing concerns faced by policy makers. However, critics of Caplan’s (1979) ‘two-communities’ theory contend the theory is too rigid in its assertion of “use” versus “non-use” of research (Neilson, 2001). More important than “use” of research, is the “influence” of research on policy discussions. Using research as the guiding factor of participatory dialogue can enrich the quality of both the policy process as well as the final outcome.
There is certainly a lag between availability of relevant research and the immediate problems prevalent in society. One of the challenging aspects of utilizing research effectively is discovering what type of research to use for policy, given the overwhelming amount of research completed around the world. Reimers and McGinn (1997) delineate four kinds of research approaches: academic, planning, instrumentation, and action (p. 22). Each different approach implies different sets of questions, producing different kinds of answers for different purposes. For improving inequity in Sri Lanka’s education system, planning and action research would most likely be the immediate source of relevant knowledge.
One of society’s age-old tactics for seeking solutions or gaining knowledge is through networks. In education, formal networks, such as Micro-ISIS, ERIC, and the SEABAS system of Southeast Asia, have only recently been established over the past fifty years or so (p. 87). A network called REDUC that started twenty-five years ago in Latin America is an example of a center that facilitates access to available research by producing software containing abstracts about unpublished research and education documents (p. 77). ERNESA is another example of a functioning educational research network based in Eastern and Southern Africa since 1985, although it has not been as successful as the efforts in Latin America. Even with REDUC, however, decision makers do not seem to seek or utilize information often. Cariola (1996) observes that they tend to rely on trusted advisors who are knowledgeable and speak the same language as the decision maker (Reimers & McGinn, 1997, p. 78). However, with the increased involvement of actors outside the education sector, such as economists and business managers, Cariola (1996) argues that a new perspective, which encompasses utilization of knowledge, is currently on the rise.
The influence of international non-governmental actors and transnational advocacy networks is also becoming an increasingly important catalyst for setting the agenda in governmental discourse (Mundy and Murphy, 2001, p. 7). The growth in number, size, complexity and professionalism of international linkages among NGO’s demonstrates the emergence of a global civil society, which has the power to check state power, as well as to help maintain order in democratic and pluralist societies (pp. 5, 8). Through the use of telecommunications and transportation technologies, transnational advocacy efforts are able to link domestic and international groups to generate public interest in targeted initiatives such as human rights, women’s empowerment, anti-landmine campaigns, and more.
One of the valuable tools that has emerged from international commitments and campaigns to improving education systems around the world is the standardized monitoring of national education systems through comparative international analyses. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conducts regular educational assessments of its member countries, which provides insightful observations about factors that contribute to variation in student learning. The recent OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study in 2000, for example, explores the quality and equity of student performance among 15-year olds, which can provide policy makers with insight about enhancing learning outcomes (OECD, 2002).
Ø Institute a culture of utilizing the Education Management Information System (EMIS) to inform policy decisions
Sri Lanka has recently developed an Education Management Information System, whereby data and educational statistics are collected over time and translated into information that can be used to identify and improve weaknesses in the education system. However, effective utilization of EMIS to inform policy making has not been developed in Sri Lanka. According to Cassidy (1996), sustainable information system development is an organizational, social, and political issue (Reimers and McGinn, p. 93). The tense political environment in Sri Lanka has prevented policy makers from effectively utilizing EMIS, as is evidenced by the lack of governmental intervention or repair of the shattered educational infrastructure in the North East. Thus, decision makers must be made aware of the negative impact of inequity on national development and the uses of equity indicators to inform political debate, policy design, scientific research and analysis (Cavicchioni and Motivans, 2001, p. 236). Through EMIS, the use of graphs, charts, and diagrams to effectively present data to decision makers can have a significant impact on the way they view issues of access, equity, efficiency, effectiveness, and quality (Reimers and McGinn, p. 93). Effective use of EMIS can help inform policies by providing factual evidence to ground the discussions and exploration of options. It facilitates the process of reaching agreement over preferred courses of action (p. 94).
Ø Decentralization
The centralized education system in Sri Lanka has resulted in an inefficient and thus inequitable provision of educational opportunities. Decentralization is recommended, so that decisions can be made closest to the location where the decision will have most impact. Such a system would help to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of the education system in Sri Lanka. Through decentralization, municipalities would benefit from increased flexibility and control in delivering resources. Increased accountability for prompt, effective, and equitable delivery of resources can help improve educational quality (Carnoy, 2000). Of course, execution of a plan for decentralization must be well prepared, timely executed, and comprehensive in its scope. Intensive training for decision makers, local administrators, clerical staff and all staff to meet their new responsibilities and challenges would be a crucial long term step in the process of decentralization.
Specific Policy Recommendations for Improving Equity:
Ø Promote Bilingual Education through effective expansion of the Amity School Project
The Amity School Project, which was initiated in January of 2001, is a pilot project that introduces English as a medium of instruction in three subjects for grade six students. The expansion of the project will be determined by the success of the pilot schools participating in the project. Based on the historical status of English as a prestige language, the Amity School Project carries immense potential for helping reduce inequity in Sri Lanka. It is also promising because it contains several features of two-way bilingual programs, which researchers have concluded to be the most effective means of developing academic and literacy skills in children. Furthermore, international research on bilingual education demonstrates that children who gain biliteracy skills demonstrate superior intellectual abilities compared to monolingual children. Empirical evidence shows that there is a close relationship between first and second language academic and literacy skills (Beykont, 1997). In bilingual programs where equal emphasis is placed on the development and maintenance of both first and second languages, students are able to transfer native language literacy skills to literacy skills in a second language (Beykont, p. 271). Thus, the Amity School Project should be carefully monitored and evaluated, so that the project can be gradually expanded. Also, particular attention must be given to teacher training, since a large number of current teachers lack proficiency in English.
Ø Reallocate funding from higher education to primary and secondary education
· Charge university fees
· Provide grants and loans for underprivileged students
Sri Lanka’s current spending on education is insufficient to begin working towards improving issues of access, equity, efficiency, effectiveness, and quality pervasive in the education system. Budget constraints are a major barrier to equality of educational opportunity. Inequity of the system is evident in the disproportionate numbers of undergraduate university students who represent the wealthiest class in Sri Lanka. Elite students are more likely to gain admission to universities due to the higher quality of primary and secondary education they receive. Therefore, privileged students should be charged university fees, thereby allowing university funding from the government to be reallocated towards improvement of primary and secondary schools. In time, this would increase the educational opportunities for students in rural and underprivileged areas, where access to quality education is currently severely limited.
International donors, such as the World Bank, are increasingly advocating the view that basic education provides a higher social rate of return than higher education. Basic education also benefits the poor more than the rich (Birdsall, 1996). Since higher education yields higher private rates of return for the individual student, the cost of education should rightly be incurred by the individual student, not by the society of a poor developing country. Thus, universities should charge fees for students who can afford to pay the tuition costs. In order to prevent discrimination of underprivileged students, scholarships and loan programs should be offered to qualified students who cannot afford to attend university. A formal system of assessing the socioeconomic background of entering students must be developed in order to differentiate between students who can and cannot afford the fees.
Ø Encourage privatization
The government should actively encourage privatization of education at all levels. Development of private sector education would reduce the number of students attending government schools, thereby freeing up resources that can be used to improve the education system in Sri Lanka. The introduction of private sector schools in Sri Lankan society, where education is highly valued, would contribute to increasing competition among schools, which would result in improving educational quality.
Ø Develop a system of funding government schools based on per-pupil expenditures and needs assessments
The current method used by the government to provide funding for schools is based on an informal system of historical allocations. Inequities throughout the system indicate that some schools require more or less resources, depending on the location and size of the school. Rural schools and schools affected by the ethnic conflict in particular, require additional resources. For example, underprivileged schools generally need to pay higher teacher salaries in order to employ qualified teachers. A formal system of providing government funding to schools, that is sensitive to the needs of the school, must be developed.
Conclusion
The rising threats of global instability call upon the need to develop more precise and systematic measures of ensuring that all children obtain the quality education that rightfully belongs to them. Sri Lanka must sincerely strive to uphold equity in its education system, so that social, moral, cultural, and economic productivity can be a favorable endowment for the global village and future generations to come. Lack of effective, progressive educational reforms can create students who cannot read with understanding and are worse yet, morally illiterate (Reimers, 2003). This must be prevented, and Sri Lanka must join the fight for educational equality by actively pursuing equality of educational opportunity in its journey towards national peace.
References
Bardach, Eugene. (2000). A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis. Berkeley. University of California.
Beykont, Z. (1997). “Refocusing School Language Policy Discussions.” In Cummings, W. and N. McGinn (Eds.) International Handbook of Education and Development. New York. Pergamon Press.
Birdsall, Nancy. (1996). “Public Spending on Higher Education in Developing Countries: Too Much or Too Little?” Economics of Education Review. Vol. 15 No. 4. Great Britain. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Carnoy, Martin. (2000). “Globalization and Educational Reform.” In Stromquist, Nelly and Karen Monkman (Eds.) Globalization Education. New York. Rowman and Littlefield.
Cavicchioni, V. and A. Motivans. (2001). “Monitoring Educational Disparities in Less Developed Countries.” In Hutmacher, W., D. Cochrane and N. Bottani (Eds.) In Pursuit of Equity in Education. Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Press.
Demeuse, M., M. Crahay and C. Monseur. (2001). “Efficiency and Equity.” In Hutmacher, W., D. Cochrane and N. Bottani (Eds.) In Pursuit of Equity in Education. Dordrecht. Kluer Academic Press.
Ethirveerasingam, Nagalingam. (1999). An Appraisal of Education and Sports in the NorthEast Province of Sri Lanka. Los Angeles.
Indraratna. (1992). Economics of Higher Education in Sri Lanka. New Delhi. Navrang.
Little, Angela W. (1999). Labouring to Learn. Towards a Political Economy of Plantations, People and Education in Sri Lanka. University of London.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of the NorthEast Province, Sri Lanka and Save the Children Fund, UK. (May 1998). An Appraisal of the Education system in the Vanni Areas of Sri Lanka.
Mundy, K. and L. Murphy. (2001). Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society? Emerging Evidence from the Field of Education. Comparative Education Review. February 2001.
Neilson, Stephanie. (2001). IDRC-Supported Research and its Influence on Public Policy. Knowledge Utilization and Public Policy Processes: A Literature Review. Ottawa-International Development Research Center.
OECD. (2002). Education Policy Analysis.
Primary Education Planning Project (PEPP) of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE). (2000). Five Year Plan for Primary Education. Sri Lanka. 2000-2004
Save The Children UK. (2001). Country Report: Sri Lanka.
TamilNet Correspondent. “LTTE Education Council spotlights NE shortcomings” TamilNet. (2003, December 12). Retrieved December 22, 2003, from
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid;=10667
Reimers, F. (2003). “War, Education and Peace.” Prospects. XXXIII. Pp. 3-6
Reimers, Fernando and Noel McGinn. (1997). Informed Dialogue. Using research to shape education policy around the world. London. Praeger.
LaPorte, Robert Jr. ” Sri Lanka ” World Book Online Reference Centre. Retrieved December 22, 2003, from http://www.aolsvc.worldbook.aol.com/ar?/na/ar/co/ar527710.htm
The World Bank. (May 2003). Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 29.6 Million to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for Improving Relevance and Quality of Undergraduate Education.
The World Bank. (August 1999). Sri Lanka. A Fresh Look at Unemployment.