www.divaina.com, 03/08/2012
- විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සමිති සම්මේලනයේ සභාපති
අධ්‍යාපනයට වෙන් කරන මුදල 1970 සිට ක්‍රම ක්‍රමයෙන් අඩුකළා
- ලංකා ගුරු සංගමයේ ලේකම් ජෝශප් ස්‌ටාලින්
සිරිමන්ත රත්නසේකර
මෙරට අධ්‍යාපන ක්‍ෂේත්‍රය මුහුණදී ඇති දැවැන්ත අර්බුදයෙන් යම්තම් හෝ ගොඩඒමට නම් අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා වැය කරන ආයෝජන මීට වඩා ඉහළ දැමිය යුතු බවත් එසේ නොවුනහොත් අධ්‍යාපන ක්‍ෂේත්‍රය අවුලෙන් අවුලට යැම කිසිවකුට වැළැක්‌විය නොහැකිවනු ඇති බවත් විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සමිති සම්මේලනයේ සභාපති ආචාර්ය නිර්මාල් රංජිත් දේවසිරි මහතා පැවැසීය.
දළ දේශීය නිෂ්පාදනයෙන් සියයට හයක්‌ අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා වෙන් කිරීමට රජය කටයුතු කළ යුතු බවත් අනෙක්‌ රටවල්වලට සාපේක්‍ෂව අප රට අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා වෙන් කර ඇත්තේ සොච්චම් මුදලක්‌ බවත් හෙතෙම පැවැසීය.
විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සමිති සම්මේලනයේ සභාපතිවරයා එම අදහස්‌ පළ කළේ ඊයේ (2 දා) කොළඹ පිහිටි මහජන පුස්‌තකාල හා ප්‍රලේඛන සේවා මණ්‌ඩල ශ්‍රවනාගාරයේ පැවැති ඒකාබද්ධ වෘත්තීය සමිති සංවිධාන සභා හමුවකදී අදහස්‌ දක්‌වමිනි.
දළ දේශීය නිෂ්පාදනයෙන් සියයට හයක්‌ අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා වෙන් කරන්නැයි රජයට බලකිරීම සහ අදාළ යෝජනාව සමාජගත කිරීම සඳහා මෙම වෘත්තීය සමිති සංවිධානය පිහිටුවාගෙන තිබිණි.
මෙහිදී වැඩිදුරටත් අදහස්‌ දැක්‌වූ ආචාර්ය නිර්මාල් රංජිත් දේවසිරි මහතා මෙසේ ද කීවේය.
අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා වෙන් කරන ආයෝජනවල අඩු කිරීමේ නියම ප්‍රතිඵල අපට දැකිය හැකි වන්නේ තව වසර කිහිපයකදීයි. ඒ නිසා මෙම තත්ත්වය වහා නතර කළ යුතුයි. ඒ සඳහා පුළුල් හඬක්‌ නැගිය යුතුයි. පුළුල් වේදිකාවක්‌ තැනිය යුතුයි.
විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සමිති සම්මේලනය ගෙන යන වැඩ වර්ජනය කෙටිකාලීන ව්‍යාපාරයක්‌ පමණයි. අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා වැඩි මුදලක්‌ වෙන්කර ගැනීමට පුළුල් කතිකාවක්‌ ඇති කළ යුතු වෙනවා. අපි උත්සාහ ගන්නේ ආණ්‌ඩුව පෙරලීමට හෝ ආණ්‌ඩුව අපහසුතාවට පත් කිරීමට නොවෙයි. අපට සැබෑ ලෙසම අවශ්‍ය අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා ඉහළ ආයෝජනයක්‌ රජය මගින් ලබා ගැනීමයි.
දළ දේශීය නිෂ්පාදනයේ සියයට හයක්‌ අධ්‍යාපනය වෙනුවෙන් වෙන් කිරීමේ යෝජනාව ඇතැම් පුද්ගලයන් උපහාසයට ලක්‌කරනවා. අපි බලධාරීන්ගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටින්නේ අප දෙන පණිවිඩය නිසි ලෙස භාරගන්න කියලයි.
මෙහිදී අදහස්‌ දැක්‌වූ ලංකා ගුරු සංගමයේ ලේකම් ජෝශප් ස්‌ටාලින් මහතා - 1970 වසරේ සිට අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා කරන වියදම් ක්‍රම ක්‍රමයෙන් කපාහැර තිබෙනවා. අධ්‍යාපනය කඩාවැටී ඇත්තේ ඒ නිසයි. අධ්‍යාපනයට ලබාදෙන මුදල් කපාහැර ඇති නිසා අධ්‍යාපන ක්‍ෂේත්‍රයේ දූෂණය රජවී තිබෙනවා. මෙම තත්ත්වය වෙනස්‌ කළ යුතුයි. විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සමිති සම්මේලනය මේ කරගෙන යන වැඩපිළිවෙළ ඉතා විශිෂ්ටයි. මෙහි ඇති බැරෑරුම්කම අප කඩිනමින් සමාජගත කළ යුතුයි.
නිදහස් අධ්‍යාපනය රකින්න නම් අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා ලබාදෙන මුදල් ඉහළ දැමිය යුතුයි. එසේ නොමැතිව නිදහස් අධ්‍යාපනය රැකගැනීමට හැකි වන්නේ නැහැ. නිදහස් අධ්‍යාපනයෙන් ඉහළට ආ උදවිය මෙය තේරුම් ගත යුතුයි.
මෙම ඒකාබද්ධ වෘත්තීය සමිති සංවිධානය සඳහා ලංකා ගුරු සංගමය, ස්‌වාධීන, ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සංගමය, ජාතික විදුහල්පතිවරුන්ගේ සංගමය, ශ්‍රේණිධාරී විදුහල්පතිවරුන්ගේ සංගමය, ශ්‍රී ලංකා එක්‌සත් ගුරු සංගමය, වෘත්තීය අධ්‍යාපනඥයන්ගේ සංගමය, සියනෑ අධ්‍යාපන සංගමය, විශ්වවිද්‍යාල වෘත්තීය සමිති ඒකාබද්ධතා සංගමය, විශ්වවිද්‍යාල විධායක නිලධාරීන්ගේ සංගමය, පොදු ගුරු වෘත්තීය සංගමය, ලංකා දෙමළ ගුරු සංගමය, සමස්‌ත ලංකා උපාධිධාරී සංගමය, ලංකා දන්ත වෛද්‍යවරුන්ගේ සංගමය ඇතුළු වෘත්තීය සමිති කිහිපයක නියෝජිතයෝ එක්‌වූහ.
Friday, August 3, 2012
University teachers for excellence in education
By Dileni Gunewardena
There is trouble in the universities and trouble in the schools. While frustrated students and academics have taken to the streets, there has been much posturing among those responsible for the state of education and higher education in this country. This article attempts to counter prevalent misconceptions about the nature, motivation and demands of the Federation of University Teachers' Associations (FUTA) and the academics they represent.
FUTA comprises over 40 member unions of university teachers of the Universities of Colombo, Peradeniya, Moratuwa, Kelaniya, Sri Jayawardenapura, Ruhuna, Jaffna, Visual and Performing Arts, as well as of Wayamba, Rajarata, Eastern, South Eastern, and Open Universities with a total strength of approximately four thousand members. FUTA has been in existence since 1983. Among its current opponents are former leaders of FUTA. However, I believe that there is a significant difference between the current FUTA leadership and its forebears that explains why the current TU action has garnered widespread support among academics, students, intellectuals and leading lights in the country, as well as the general public.
Clever, young and committed
The most striking feature of today's university trade union leadership is that it comprises academics with outstanding scholarly credentials. A search in scholarly research databases for their names reveals them to be authors of international repute, award-winners for Ph.D. and postdoctoral research, with impeccable track records of international research publications. They represent the best in Sri Lanka's University system today. Among the few I know (of) are an internationally published historian, a distinguished young evolutionary biologist, an outstanding macroeconomist with a Ph.D. from East Asia's best university, a brilliant mechanical engineer, Sri Lanka's first Ph.D. in counseling psychology, and two award-wining authors and poets, all of them trained in some of the best universities and post-doctoral research labs in the world. In fact, in terms of research and publications, these scholar-trade unionists have better academic credentials than several present-day Vice-Chancellors.
Many in the FUTA leadership and others who give dynamism to the movement are in their late thirties or early forties. They are recent Ph.D.'s, having completed their doctorates in the last five to ten years. Most of them funded their own postgraduate studies through teaching assistantships and research fellowships, because state-funded scholarships for postgraduate studies have simply not been available to university academics, at least in the last twenty five years. These academics were brilliant enough to obtain admission and funding on their own merit to some of the best universities in the world, and often turned down good job opportunities in developed countries to return to Sri Lanka, to the ill-paid positions in the universities that nurtured them.
These leaders have a vision for university education in this country, precisely because of the excellent overseas training they themselves received. Dynamic teachers and solid researchers, they have in the past few years, engaged in curriculum revision exercises, brought in external funding to their universities to improve teaching, learning and research infrastructure through competitive research and development grants, disseminated knowledge through workshops and seminars, launched new undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes and inspired recent cohorts of students to pursue academic careers and obtain training in good universities abroad. A critical mass of such academics is what helps universities to thrive and become engines of change and promote Sri Lanka as a knowledge hub.
But these same academics have watched with regret as their colleagues have left the universities for academic positions in universities abroad. They know that if this trend continues-as it will, if salaries are not raised and the present political interference and micro-management of universities continues-the universities that they serve with dedication and commitment will no longer be spaces for intellectual growth and independent thinking.
FUTA demands
FUTA's current demands fall into two categories: (A) outstanding salary-related demands and (B) demands relating to the state education. The first set of demands relates to the remuneration scheme required to retain and recruit highly qualified academics. Principally, FUTA demands the complete implementation of the Prof. M.T.M. Jiffry and Prof. Malik Ranasinghe proposals made in 2008 in consultation with the University Grants Commission (UGC), Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), and FUTA. The second set of demands specifically asks that the Government (1) delineates a course of action to increase government spending on education that will reach 6% of GDP within the next 2 years, (2) clearly states government policy on state funded education, (3)suspends all existing higher education reform processes until a proper consultative process involving all stakeholders and the public takes place, (4) agrees to refrain from the politicization and?micromanagement of the Universities so that these institutions can thrive as autonomous institutions that would act as catalysts in the development of Sri Lanka. [A detailed summary of FUTA demands can be found at http://futa-sl.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/FUTA_Demands_Comprehensive_19_06_2012.pdf ]
What motivates this set of demands? University academics realize that they do not work in a vacuum. They are constantly accused of producing "unemployable" graduates. However, they can only do their best with the raw material -students-they are given. Recent analyses of education standards conducted by government entities themselves have shown that there are many quality issues in both primary and secondary education in Sri Lanka (World Bank, Treasures of the Education System in Sri Lanka, 2005, Transforming School Education in Sri Lanka: from Cut Stones to Polished Jewels, 2011). To be able to achieve the kind of transformation required in both school and university education, quality inputs-training, learning and teaching infrastructure, research facilities and better remuneration-will be needed. The type of inputs and facilities required for education and higher education are spelt out in the Mahinda Chinthana Vision 2010 document. In recognition that the measures that need to be taken to ensure quality education for all (EFA) involve substantial budgetary allocations to education, ministers and high level government officials of eight South Asian countries including Sri Lanka, at the second ministerial meeting of the South Asia EFA Forum in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in December 2009, committed to a public expenditure allocation for education that is equivalent to 6% of the country's GDP (UNESCO, Reaching the Unreached in Education in Asia-Pacific to meet the EFA goals by 2015: A Commitment to Action, 2010, p.6). While none of these countries had spent anywhere close to this target in 2010, data from Sri Lanka's Central Bank report and World Development Indicators of the World Bank show that Sri Lanka lags far below her SAARC neighbours, as the graph taken from World Bank (2011, p.30) shows. FUTA's demand is simply that the government takes steps to meet its own commitment.
Nowhere in the list of FUTA demands is there opposition to the private provision of education. Rather, what FUTA requests is a broad-based consultative process on education reform, and clarity regarding the government's commitment to the continued provision of state education.
Who will suffer if FUTA loses?
FUTA president Dr. Nirmal Ranjith has stated that if FUTA loses its demands, it will not be FUTA that loses, but the general public of Sri Lanka. It has been very clear that (especially younger, qualified) university academics are waiting on the outcome of these negotiations in order to make career decisions. If FUTA loses, over the next few years, the best and the brightest will leave the universities for jobs abroad or in the private sector of Sri Lanka. After all, university lecturers are not just teachers, they are skilled professionals: engineers, doctors, scientists, lawyers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, linguists, etc. who are not restricted to teaching jobs in universities. Eventually, even those with a commitment to stay will leave-not because of the lack of pecuniary benefits, but because of the absence of other colleagues with whom they have a shared vision. Meanwhile, private universities which are not hamstrung by salary structures and patronage will be able to attract some of these academics. Eventually, the only academics who will be left in the universities are those who have few options elsewhere, who possibly were hired to the universities because of their political affiliations.
With the exodus of high-quality academics from the state university system, there will emerge a dual system of higher education in Sri Lanka, a low-quality state system and a higher quality fee-levying system. Who then will suffer? A depleted and poor quality state higher education system is obviously a poor return to taxpayers. Countries with a strong higher education system also had strong state education systems, which provided the backbone of the higher education system, especially in terms of research. But the greatest losers will be the students of state universities-the sons and daughters of the average Sri Lankan. In the future, such students may continue to enter the university, but will receive a poor quality education, while their counterparts in the private sector will have the benefit of better academic staff and better infrastructure. As the gap between these two sectors widens, the social fabric of the country is likely to be threatened. It is interesting to note that in Sri Lanka's history, the highest state expenditure on education (5.2 % of GDP) was allocated in 1972, one year after the 1971 youth insurrection.
Sri Lanka has been called the land of missed opportunities. If higher education officials are unable to grasp the opportunity in this "academic spring", perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury, himself trained in one of the best economics departments in the world, can. Otherwise, sadly, the "knowledge hub" will remain in the sphere of the rhetoric, and the reality that is the education system in Sri Lanka will continue its sad decline from mediocrity to poverty.
Dileni Gunewardena is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics and Statistics of the University of Peradeniya.
FUTA adopts new strategy to secure pay hike
By Shamindra Ferdinando
The Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA) yesterday separated its ongoing strike to win a pay hike from the overall push for an agreement with the government on the allocation of 6 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for education.
FUTA Chief Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri asserted that even if an agreement could be reached on salary and related issues, their battle for enhanced allocation for the education sector would continue. The head of the Department of History of the Faculty of the Colombo University reiterated FUTA’s commitment in the wake of the government and the FUTA initiating a fresh dialogue to settle the ongoing strike.
Dr. Devsiri was addressing the media at the National Library Services Board yesterday morning having met presidential secretary Lalith Weeratunga and Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa the previous night. The government kept Higher Education Minister S. B. Dissanayake and University Grants Commission (UGC) Chairman Prof. Gamini Samaranayake out of Wednesday’s meeting.
A large group of trade unions, including the main union affiliated to the JVP, too, joined the media briefing. Addressing the gathering on behalf of the JVP, Mahinda Jayasinghe alleged that the government was trying to further limit its role in the education sector. Comparing the State sector spending for education in the SAARC region, Jayasinghe said that GoSL’s contribution to the vital sector was now negligible. Unfortunately those who had immensely benefited from free education remained silent when the government was destroying everything. Both free education and free health services were on the verge of collapse due to rapid decrease in State support, he said, adding that the parents were finding it difficult to provide education.
The FUTA chief said that deliberations were held at the Economic Affairs Ministry in a cordial atmosphere, though an agreement couldn’t be reached. "We discuss various aspects, though it is too early to speculate on the outcome," he said.
The soft-spoken academician said that both parties felt that an early settlement was necessary. The FUTA asserted that successful conclusion of the ongoing deliberations would entirely depend on a serious intervention on the part of the government. "Next few days will be crucial," Dr. Devasiri said, while stressing on the importance of taking decisive action to settle the crisis.
The FUTA launched a strike on July 4 to win their demands, mainly allocation of 6 per cent of the GDP for education and a pay hike.
Asked by the local BBC correspondent whether the government was serious in the latest initiative or trying to wear out the FUTA, a smiling Dr. Devasiri said that he didn’t like to comment on the government strategy. Expressing confidence that the government wouldn’t adopt such a counterproductive strategy, the FUTA chief warned such a move would invariably fail.
Devasiri pointed out that the direct involvement of Messrs Weeratunga and Basil Rajapaksa meant that the government was keen to settle the crisis. But the possibility of the ultimate failure of the ongoing talks, too, couldn’t be ruled out. He regretted the failure on the part of Minister Dissanayake and Prof. Samaranayake to help resolve the crisis.
When The Island pointed out that Minister Dissanayake had alleged that the FUTA made a series of demands, including government allocation of funds to teach two children of each FUTA member and the association was, too, greedy, Devasiri that Prof. Navaratne Bandara made a suggestion to that effect sometime ago, though the FUTA wasn’t pushing for that particular demand at the moment. Prof. Devasiri revealed that JVP parliamentary group leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake got in touch with him soon after Minister Dissanayake first made the allegation in parliament. Devasiri insisted that Prof. Navaratne’s proposal was not on the agenda, while likening offer of scholarships to the children of FUTA members to various perks and privileges offered to the public sector.
However, Ven. Dambara Amila thero accused Minister Dissanayake of making an attempt to give a different interpretation to what he called scholarship issue. The Ven. thero said that that FUTA made that particular proposal after Minister Dissanayake offered scholarships to foreign students. "We felt our children should be given scholarships first before foreigners were accommodated," the Ven. thero said.
The Island also raised the issue of the government trebling the university intake without having the necessary infrastructure facilities and giving preferential treatment to FUTA and over two dozen of State sector enterprises, whereas the vast majority of government servants and private sector workers were struggling to make ends meet, the FUTA asserted that that wasn’t the forum to discuss such issues.
Asked whether education and health sector trade unions had at least bothered to inquire into complaints that those who shirk their duties do a much better job for a fee, the FUTA said that there were problems, which couldn’t be tackled by them alone.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
A Joint Press Conference was held on the 2nd of August, 2012 by Trade Unions in the education and medical sectors of Sri Lanka at the National Library Services Auditorium, Colombo. At this press conference, the Trade Unions announced a joint campaign to lobby the government for the allocation of 6% GDP for education.
The following Trade Unions participated in the press conference:
All Ceylon Graduate Teachers’ Union
All Ceylon Independent United Teachers’ Union
Ceylon Independent Teachers’ Union
Ceylon Tamil Teachers’ Union
Ceylon Teachers’ Services Union
Ceylon Teachers’ Union
Education Professionals’ Union
Federation of University Teachers’ Association
General Teachers’ Professional Union
Government Dentists’ Association
Joint Teacher Services Union
Principals’ Union
University Trade Union Joint Committee
‘Dont let Privatization of Education Destroy the Free Education System’
dbsjeyaraj.com, 1 August 2012, 11:27 pm
Vivimarie VanderPoorten
by Roel Raymond
Vivimarie VanderPoorten is an award winning Sri Lankan poet. Her first book Nothing Prepares You won the Gratiaen Prize for the best piece of English literary work in Sri Lanka, in 2007.
In 2009 she was recipient of a higher honour; the SAARC Poetry Award, which was followed by the publication of her second book Stitch Your Eyelids Shut, in 2010.
Vivimarie is also a senior lecturer in English language, literature and linguistics at the Open University of Sri Lanka, which puts her firmly at the fore of the on-going strike by academics, spearheaded by the Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA). Ceylon Today spoke with Vivimarie to understand her reasons for supporting the strike, factors that led to trade union action by the academics and the nature of their demands.
Vivimarie is also a senior lecturer in English language, literature and linguistics at the Open University of Sri Lanka, which puts her firmly at the fore of the on-going strike by academics, spearheaded by the Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA). Ceylon Today spoke with Vivimarie to understand her reasons for supporting the strike, factors that led to trade union action by the academics and the nature of their demands.
Q:How is it that you are involved in this massive, on-going strike by academics?
A: I am currently the Assistant Secretary of OUTA – that is, the Open University Teachers’ Association. OUTA is a part of the Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA), hence my support and involvement.
Q: What demands are your collective unions making?
A: Our unions are faced with a number of unaddressed issues. However, for the sake of convenience, they can be broken down into two major demands. We ask that the government 1) Enhance recruitment and retention of the highest qualified academics and that it 2) Safeguards and uplifts the State education sector.
Q: What does FUTA mean by ‘Enhance recruitment and retention of the highest qualified academics’?
A: Basically, to make sure the Sri Lankan university system ‘gets the best’. That is, to ensure we recruit those graduates that top the batch; the ones that obtain First Class and Second Uppers, as probationary lecturers (the first rung on the academic ladder). At the moment the university system is unable to attract these graduates as lecturers because the salaries on offer are abysmally low. Even if universities do manage to recruit these top students to their teaching staff, they are unable to retain them as many leave the island to study for their Masters or Ph.Ds and opt to stay abroad, preferring to take up better paying teaching appointments there. This is the ‘brain-drain’ we speak of; our country is being drained of the best of its brains because it has not yet been able to create a university system that will use and look after its best.
Q: You are currently a senior lecturer at the Open University of Sri Lanka, were you ever offered a post abroad?
A: Yes, I was, after obtaining my Ph.D at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland I was asked if I would be interested in teaching on the Masters programme.
Q: You obviously chose not to. What would you have been paid if you had?
A: I would have been paid about 45,000 GBP per annum as a starting fee.
Q: Why choose the Open University instead?
A: There were, obviously, many reasons for choosing to do so. I had always wanted to teach – I knew that. I had also worked briefly – as a new graduate in English and Economics – for the Social Scientists Association in Sri Lanka. It was there that I began to be socially and politically aware, and form opinions for myself. By the time I had completed my Ph.D, I knew I wanted to give back to the State education system from which so many had benefited, myself included.
Q: How long have you been at the Open University?
A: 15 years now, at the Department of Language Studies.
Q: The second demand the unions are making is to ‘safeguards and uplift the State education sector’ – what does this entail?
A: We have made a number of detailed request to this end, key among them are a call for 1) six per cent of the GDP to be allocated to Education, 2) that politicization within universities is ended and 3) the university community be involved in all higher education reforms.
Q: Six per cent of the GDP is a serious commitment. Do you feel that request is justifiable?
A: Totally. The current budgetary allocation towards education is a meagre 1.9% of the GDP. This is one of the lowest in the world – countries like Kenya (7.1%), Bangladesh (2.1%), India (3.7%), Nepal (3.4%) and Namibia (7.2%) allocate more than that towards education! The budgetary allocation towards education has decreased since this government came into power in 2005; back then 2.5% of the GDP was the commitment towards education, now it is 1.9%.
Q: What do your unions mean when it asks for ‘de-politicization’ of the university system?
A: It means that all government meddling with the administration of universities must come to a complete end. The Minister of Higher Education currently meddles with even the micro-management of the universities and this cannot be continued. We are governed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) – a body that at one time was staffed with impartial academics that recognized their role in safeguarding the interests of the entire university system – teachers, students all. The UGC is now more interested in agreeing to act as a mouthpiece on behalf of the government rather than university representatives.
Q: You say the minister meddles in even the micro-management of universities; can you give me an example of one such incident?
A: Yes, the University of the Visual and Performing Arts that is situated near the NelumPokuna insists that qualifying students sit an aptitude test before being allowed to enter their programme. Recently, some students with ‘connections’ that had not passed the test had complained to the Minister who in turn called the Vice Chancellor at the University and asked that the aptitude test be removed; which he did.
Q: Vice Chancellors; what exactly is their function and are they not independent?
A: Vice Chancellors are the Administrative Heads of universities – like the ‘Principal’ in a school; he or she has the highest authority. A Vice Chancellor is expected to be independent and run the universities autonomously but that no longer happens as all Vice Chancellors are appointed by the President and hence, chosen more for their political affiliations than impartial authority.
Q: The question of privatizing universities has been subject to much debate – what is your unions’ stance on this?
A: We are not against privatization – by all means do set up private universities in this country, but don’t do it at the expense of the State education system – in other words, don’t kill the free education system to embrace the private one. Instead, simultaneously develop both systems – that way both the affluent student and the one that is not have access to education.
There is another way tackling this issue ; the government could invest more in the existing universities – enlarge them, bring them up to international standards and then charge a fee to students that didn’t qualify for free entrance and education. Further still, if the government invested more in the existing universities they could actually increase local intake – ending the cut-throat competition to get into local universities because there are only limited spots open.
Q: Tell me more about the strike action launched by the university trade unions..
A: As of the 4 July 2012 all teaching activities have been stopped and all examinations have been stopped. In addition to not reporting to work we are also conducting a very organized campaign – a one million signature campaign that is going very well. Academics took to the streets and handed out leaflets explain the reasons for our strike action – just imagine that, Professors standing out at street corners explaining to the average man that his actions are aimed at saving free education for our children, for the future. We have currently close to 100,000 signatures and this number is growing by the hour! In addition to that we run an active online campaign on blogs and Facebook – membership currently at 10,000+ and we use that tool to network and raise awareness on the reasons for our collective strike action, and what our demands are in all three languages.
Q: Doesn’t this trade union action affect university teachers themselves?
A: Yes, it does. This trade union action affects our teaching, it affects our day to day lives, it affects our pay; but we mean to continue to the dogged end. It is important to note that we don’t enjoy what we are doing. As academics we are used to looking at things critically, consider all aspects, all sides, looking for the shades of grey and not just the polarized hues of black and white, and yet, with this trade union action we are being forced to look at things in terms of black and white and take a stand accordingly. This doesn’t make us very comfortable, and yet we must, because we have been pushed to do so. It is heartening that many of our students are supporting us and with us because they know this is a struggle for long term benefits and for the common good, not just for lecturers to get a salary hike.
Q: And for how long will your unions’ be on strike?
A: For as long as it takes. We will continue this trade union action until the government gives in to our demands, or at the very least until a compromise, FUTA and its affiliated trade unions can be happy with, is reached. There must be serious and genuine commitment from the government for us to move forward.courtesy: Ceylon Today
Women have benefited immensely through education reforms in post independence
dbsjeyaraj.com, 1 August 2012, 11:42 pm
by Carmen Wickramagamage
It is no exaggeration to say that one of the social groups that has most benefited from the revolutionary education reforms implemented starting 1947 [which most of us know as either Free Education or Kannangara Reforms] is Women.
students at University-pic courtesy: YATV
In 1946, when the overall literacy rate for the country was 57.8%, only 43.8% of the female population was literate as opposed to 70.1% of the male population (Panditaratne and Selvanayagam, 1973).
By 2001, however, the percentage of literate women had gone up to 90% of the female population in comparison with 93% for the male population. Among Lankan youth between the ages of 15-24, it is even higher at 97% literate females to 99% literate males, according to UNICEF Sri Lanka statistics for the 2005-10 period.
This poses an interesting question: How did the gap between the percentages of literate men and women come to be narrowed so rapidly and significantly during the intervening 60-odd year period? What was the equivalent of the “open sesame” that opened the closed doors of formal school-based education for Lankan women in the post-independence period? The simple answer: “Free Education.”
By 2001, however, the percentage of literate women had gone up to 90% of the female population in comparison with 93% for the male population. Among Lankan youth between the ages of 15-24, it is even higher at 97% literate females to 99% literate males, according to UNICEF Sri Lanka statistics for the 2005-10 period.
This poses an interesting question: How did the gap between the percentages of literate men and women come to be narrowed so rapidly and significantly during the intervening 60-odd year period? What was the equivalent of the “open sesame” that opened the closed doors of formal school-based education for Lankan women in the post-independence period? The simple answer: “Free Education.”
While the Kannangara reforms did not introduce “free education” to Ceylon/Sri Lanka, they
(i) abolished the earlier two-tiered education system very much pegged to class where fee-levying “English Medium” schools catered to the local elite and a system of “free” Vernacular Schools catered to the masses;
(ii) introduced Swabhasha [or First Language] Education into the school system starting 1947, where it was made compulsory for students to be educated in their “mother tongue.”
It was these two reforms that have enabled Education to function as an instrument of social justice in Sri Lanka, freeing individuals from the debilitating impacts of ascribed social status such as caste, class and gender and instituting a meritocracy of sorts in Sri Lanka, however imperfect it might be, where the deserving individual can move up the social and economic ladder on the basis of merit irrespective of his/her “origins.”
The education policy, however, was not alone in elevating women’s life-chances in Sri Lanka. The enlightened policy of “free health,” another revolutionary welfare policy measure, went hand in hand with “free education” in bringing about a remarkable improvement in Lankan women’s physical quality of life, as manifested in such indicators as maternal mortality and life-expectancy rates, making Sri Lanka at one time the ‘poster child’ in UN development circles for its counter-intuitive achievements in the Human Development Index despite its classification as a ‘low-income’ nation.
As Dileni Gunewardena points out in a newspaper article (Daily News, July 12, 2012) citing a recent study by Seema Jayachandran and Adriana Lleras-Muney, women’s health indicators and women’s educational indicators are linked. As women live longer, parents appear more willing to invest in their education. Equally importantly, as researchers have pointed out, education for women carries other kinds of social dividends, among them, a deceleration in population growth due to shrinking family size.
There is one simple reason: staying in school longer delays the age at first marriage and, combined with career requirements and increased receptivity to public service messages, such women have fewer children. Literate/educated women are also a good conduit for public health messages. The significantly lower under-5 child morbidity and mortality rates in the case of Sri Lanka in comparison with the rest of South Asia have been attributed to the higher education rates of women. Educated women are more receptive to information on children’s nutrition, family hygiene, etc.
Though we have not sustained and consolidated these gains in the recent past due to many reasons such as the recently concluded Civil War, it is necessary to highlight the sea-change in Lankan women’s lives brought about by these achievements at this critical juncture when cuts in state expenditure on health and education threaten to arrest if not roll back the remarkable achievements that made Sri Lanka the ‘Miracle of Asia’ long before that slogan came to be adopted by the present government.
But how did ‘free education’ benefit women in particular? As long as education was not free, cultural reasons, or gender norms regarding the place of men and women in society, combined with economic reasons, in the case of women, to keep women at home and away from formal, school-based education. Let me explain: as long as education is not free, parents with limited resources must make a choice regarding whom to educate and how much.
Considering that in the Sri Lankan context, deep-rooted gender norms assign men the role of ‘bread’ winner and wage-earner, and women the home-based roles of housewife, wife and mother, it would seem logical for parents to expend their limited resources on the education of sons. Therefore, what the state expenditure on universal free education in the mother-tongue did was to take away the economic rationale to parental discrimination with regard to access to education for their sons and daughters.
One could then argue that it was not all Lankan women but women of the socially and culturally marginalised groups who were the real beneficiaries of the Kannangara Reforms; that certain women, who faced a double or triple jeopardy in access to education because gender combined with class, caste and other ‘disabilities’ to keep them out of school, were the ones who truly benefited.
But was it only the economic rationale that prohibited women entry within the gateways of educational institutions? What about the cultural rationale that for long years saw “education” as spoiling women for marriage and making them less desirable in the marriage market so that parents with sufficient economic means would prefer to save for a dowry rather than invest in the education of their daughters?
Among other reasons that, in the early years of female education in colonial Ceylon, kept even women of the local Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim elite out of formal school-based education were the fear of contamination due to inter-class and inter-caste mixing at school and the fear of conversion at Christian missionary schools.
For these same reasons, as Malathi de Alwis has shown in her discussion of the Udduvil Girls’ School in Jaffna, sometimes it was women of the lower castes that first benefited from formal, school-based education while women of the upper-castes and classes were kept away. For women then to access educational opportunities, educated local men had to regard educated wives as an asset and upper-class parents had to see educated daughters as more a means for status-consolidation than a status-loss!
So how did the Reforms of 1945 help? It created the “visibility effect.” The inevitable increase in the school-going population of girls with universal free education ‘normalized’ or ‘naturalized’ the notion of the educated woman. The educated woman was no longer an anomaly. No family wanted to be denied its social and cultural dividends all else being equal.
Today, with some variation in gains attributable to ethnic, religious and class differences [the most deprived group being Indian Tamil women of the plantation sector], Lankan women as a whole have used education not only to break free of gender norms but to challenge gender-based stereotypes regarding women’s brain power, most famously articulated in the Sinhala saying, “gaenunge nuwana haendi mitei digai” [=women’s intelligence is only good enough to taste the quality of the curries they cook!].
Thus, according to the World Development Report 2009, the ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary schools was 102 to 100 in the year 2006. The percentage of girls to boys in senior secondary school enrollment in fact has now come to be skewed in favour of girls. So, while the percentage of girls to boys in Grades 10-11 is 51%, the percentage of girls in Grades 12-13 increases to 58%!
The percentage of women to men at the public universities repeats these numbers where female students comprise 58% of the overall intake to public universities according to UGC statistics for the year 2010. And if we were to break this percentage down along subject streams and in terms of the intake to different faculties, an interesting picture emerges that can only be attributed to the socially transformative potential of Free Education:
These numbers foreground the slow but sure feminization of higher education—a feminization that has gone unremarked but is the indubitable result of the silent revolution brought about by the gender-neutral policy of universal and compulsory free education.
It is also a reality that should make policy makers and concerned citizens pause: Why are male students turning away from education, particularly higher education? How would certain spheres of study be affected by this feminization, for instance, the study of the social sciences and the humanities or law and medicine?
Since this piece is not an attempt to unequivocally celebrate women’s gains in education but to raise a red flag regarding certain half-concealed dimensions to where women are in education and higher education, let me now engage in a further disaggregation of the available statistics on women in education.
Although more women than men are to be found in senior secondary education or A/Ls, the distribution of men and women across subject-streams at AL should give us pause. Of the 58% percent of women in senior secondary education or A/L classes, the majority are offering Arts subjects. Hence, of the number enrolled for A/L Arts subjects, 67% are female [which, in absolute numbers, is 152, 158 female students] while only 43% of the total or 76,339 are male.
In contrast, the number of female students as a percentage of the total enrolled for Science subjects is 48% and for Commerce subjects 47%. Now, if we combine these figures with the following facts—that there are not only more jobs for science-qualified students but that these jobs on average carry higher wages [based on research conducted by Swarna Jayaweera and others] and that the female unemployment rate, Age 15 & above, is twice that of men (SL Labour Force Survey, 2009)—we have to worry about where the women are in education.
A similar scenario repeats itself at university as Table II shows. University enrollment is most skewed in favour of women in the Arts Faculties at 78-80% of enrollments. Hence, if there is a higher percentage of unemployed or under-employed Arts graduates compared to, say, Commerce or Science graduates [though this claim is open to debate], then it stands to reason that a higher percentage of that number would be female.
The question is why are more women than men gravitating towards Arts subjects at A/Ls? Is it Biology or Socialization or Unequal Access to Senior Secondary Science Education that is determining this choice? In the case of Sri Lanka, a major reason for the higher enrollment of students in the Arts Stream at A/Ls is the relative inequity in the distribution of Type 1AB Schools: that is, schools offering senior secondary science education, which are mostly located in urban and semi-urban areas.
Take just two districts: in Colombo, the number of Type 1AB schools is 68 to 83 Type 1 C schools [that is, schools offering AL classes without the Science Stream]; in Kandy, Type 1AB schools are only 50 compared to 175 of Type 1C schools! Combine this fact with the other known fact that more male students enroll for A/L science subjects and we have to ask if gender plays a role in who gains access to Science A/L education.
Are parents with limited means more reluctant to enroll their daughters in senior secondary science education because of the higher costs involved or due to the longer distances they may have to travel in order to get to such schools?
Today, private tuition is sometimes the only gateway to universities in the science stream with students sometimes attending two classes per subject! Are girls then opting for Arts because of easier access and lower costs?
The inequities in access to education, and I should say access to good-quality education, that I have outlined above makes it clear that despite 60-odd years of ‘free’ universal education, we are yet to arrive at a completely level playing field. However, the solution to these documented inequities does not lie in a withdrawal of the state from investment in education and further privatization of education.
There is a very real danger, from the point of view of women, that parents if called upon to bear the cost of their off-spring’s education, may opt to invest more in the education of their sons at the expense of that of their daughters given the endemic son preference and entrenched gender norms of this country.
While it is possible that both reduced family size, and the visibility effect that has ‘normalized’ the phenomenon of female education in the intervening years, may offset gender-based discrimination in access to education, we cannot leave it to chance.
As Dileni Gunewardena has pointed out (Daily News, June 30, 2011) citing what happened in China where earlier gains in female life-expectancy were reversed when reforms came to be introduced in 1979, we cannot sit on our laurels banking on the goodwill of parents to decide on ‘merit’ rather than gender with regard to whom to educate in cases of limited resources—which is the case for a majority of parents in this country.
It is therefore time for those of us, women and men, who take a justifiable pride in the near-miraculous gains in social indicators of well-being in this country to speak up in the face of the obvious withdrawal in commitment on the part of the present government to education as evidenced by the allocation of just 1.8% of the GDP in the 2012 Budget for both general and higher education. Education is a right, not a privilege. Now is the time for us to get together to save it for all citizens of this country!
(Carmen Wickragamage teaches English at the University of Peradeniya)
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
FUTA meeting with Minister Basil Rajapakse (Aug 01, 2012)
Both parties agreed that the issues related to the demands must be resolved as soon as possible. The steps that need to be taken to swiftly resolve the matter will be discussed at a meeting to be arranged very soon.
Sincerely,
Joint Conveners, FUTA-AC
Sincerely,
Joint Conveners, FUTA-AC
කථිකාචාර්ය අනුරුද්ධ ප්‍රදීප්ට මහාචාර්ය නලින් ද සිල්වා අභිමුඛ වීම
Ramachandrage adaviya, 27/07/2012
විශ්ව විද්‍යාලයිය ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ වැඩවර්ජනය හේතුවෙන් මේ වන විට දිවයිනේ අති බහුතරයක් විශ්ව විද්‍යාල වල කටයුතු නතර වී තිබේ.මෙය මෙරට විශ්ව විද්‍යාල "මුදා නොගත් කලාප" බවට පත්ව ඇතැයි විශ්ව විද්‍යාල ප්‍රතිපාදන කොමිසමේ සභාපතිවරයා නිතර පුනරුච්චාරනය කරන ප්‍රකාශය සනාථ කරන නිදර්ශනයක් ලෙස දැක්විය හැක.මෙරට විශ්ව විද්‍යාල එක්තරා ආකාරයකින් ආන්ඩුවේ අන්තනෝමතිකභාවයට එරෙහි විරෝධය පෑමේ කලාපයක් ( zone of resistance) බවට මේ වනවිට පත්ව තිබේ.මිලිටරි පන්න‍යේ නායකත්ව පුහුනු,බිය වැද්දීම්,සිසුන් අත්අඩංගුට ගැනීම් යනාදී ක්‍රමෝපායන් සියල්ල අවසානයේත් ආන්ඩුවට මෙරට සරසවි ශිෂ්‍ය ක්‍රියාකාරිත්වය හීලෑ කරගත නොහැකි වී තිබේ.
එබදුම තවත් කුලකයක් ලෙස සරසවි ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ ක්‍රියාකාරීත්වය මේ වනවිට වර්ධනය වෙමින් තිබේ යැයි යෝජනා කල හැක.
ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ වැඩවර්ජනයේදී මතු කෙරී තිබෙන ඉල්ලීම් වල ස්වභාවය විසින් එය සාමාන්‍ය වෘත්තිය සමිති සටනකට එහා ගිය වඩා බැරෑරුම් සටනක් බවට පත් කෙරී තිබේ.පොදු අධ්‍යාපනය සදහා කෙරෙන රාජ්‍ය ආයෝජනය ඉදිරි වසර කිහිපය තුල නැංවිය යුතුය යන්න ඔවුන්ගේ මූලික සටන්පාඨයකි.
පොදු අධ්‍යාපනය පිලිබද සටන්පාඨය පවතින අධිපති නව ලිබරල් ආර්ථික සැකැස්මේ සුජාතභාවය ප්‍රශ්න කිරීමේ විභවය සහිත ඉල්ලිමකි.මෙවැනි ඉල්ලීමක් අනුව කටයුතු කිරීමට නම් රජයට සිය ආර්ථික උපාය මාර්ගය සම්පූර්නයෙන්ම කන පිට හැරවීමට සිදුවනු ඇත. පසුගිය දිනෙක ජාත්‍යන්තර මූල්‍ය අරමුදල ලංකාව වෙනුවෙන් තවත් නය වාරිකයක් අනුමත කල අතර රජයේ ආර්ථික වැඩපිලිවෙල ගෝලීය ධනවාදය සමග පවත්වා ගන්නා මෙම සන්ධානය මත රැදී පවතී.අධ්‍යාපනය සදහා කරන වැය ඇතුලු රාජ්‍ය සුබසාධන වියදම් අනවශ්‍ය බරක් ලෙස දකින ජාත්‍යන්තර මූල්‍ය අරමුදල බදු ආයතන ඒවා කප්පාදු කිරීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවය දැඩිව අවධාරනය කරයි.ඔවුන් නය අනුමත කරන්නේ එම නිර්දේශ බලාත්මක කරන රාජ්‍යයන්ටය.රජය අනුගමනය කරන ආර්ථික චින්තනයේ තාර්කික ආනුශංගයන් වනුයේ පොදු අධ්‍යාපනයට කෙරෙන වැය කපා දමමින් අධ්‍යාපන පෞද්ගලිකකරනය සදහා වැඩි බරක් තැබීමයි.
අධ්‍යාපන පුද්ගලිකකරනය පිලිබද විවාදයේ දී පුද්ගලිකකරනයට එරෙහි පාර්ශවය නියෝජනය කිරීමට වසර කිහිපයකට පෙර සිටියේ ස්වල්ප බලවේග ප්‍රමානයකි.උදාහරනයක් ලෙස මේ දිනවල නිතර උපුටා දැක්වෙන අධ්‍යාපනය සදහා දල දේශීය නිෂ්පාදිතයෙන් 6% වෙන් කල යුතු බවට වූ සටන්පාඨය වසර කිහිපයකට පෙර දක්නට ලැබුනේ ශිෂ්‍ය සංවිධාන විසින් කෙරෙන ප්‍රකාශනයන් තුල පමනි.එහෙත් දැන් ක්‍රමයෙන් එම සටන්පාඨය සදහා වන පිලිගැනීම වර්ධනය වෙමින් තිබේ.මෙය ඉදිරියටත් වර්ධනය වුවහොත් එබදු සටන්පාඨයක් හුදෙක් කැම්පස් කොල්ලන්ගේ සිතලුවක් ලෙස සමාජය ඉදිරියේ අර්ථනිරූපනය කොට ලිස්සා යාමට රජයට තිබෙන හැකියාව බරපතල ලෙස සීමා වනු ඇත.
පොදු අධ්‍යාපනය වෙනුවෙන් කෙරෙන ඕනෑම උද්‍ඝෝෂනයක්,අරගලයක් සමාජ ආර්ථික පදනමක් මත සිදුකෙරෙන අරගලයකි.යුද්ධය පැවති යුගයේ දීත් පසුගිය දිනෙක දඹුල්ලේදීත් අප දුටු ලෙස මහජන පරිකල්පනයන් සහ පෙලගැසීම් මූලික වශයෙන් භ්‍රමනය වනු දක්නට ලැබුනේ වාර්ගික අක්ෂයක් වටාය.සමාජ ආර්ථික පසමිතුරුතා වෙනුවට වාර්ගික පසමිතුරුතා අධිනිශ්චය වීම පාලක ප්‍රභූවේ පැත්තෙන් ගත් කල වාසිදායක තත්වයකි.වාර්ගික අක්ෂය වෙනුවට දේශපාලන කතිකාවත සමාජ ආර්ථික අක්ෂයක් මත වූ බෙදීමකට ලක්කිරීමේ හැකියාව ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ අරගලය විසින් පෙන්නුම් කරයි.
මේ සම්බන්ධ සිත්ගන්නා සුලු නිදසුනක් පසුගිය දිනෙක රූපවාහිනි විවාදයක දී දැකගන්නට ලැබුනි.එම විවාදයට සහභාගී වූ මහාචාර්ය නලින් ද සිල්වා සෘජුව ප්‍රකාශ කරනු ලැබූයේ මෙවැනි වැඩවර්ජන මගින් පවතින ආන්ඩුව අපහසුතාවයට පත්වන බවත් මේ මොහොතේ ජාතියේ ප්‍රමුඛතාවය ලැබිය යුත්තා රනවිරුවා මිස අධ්‍යාපනය නොවන බවත්ය.නලින් ද සිල්වාට විපක්ෂව එදින හෙල උරුමයේ සාමාජිකයෙක් වන අනුරුද්ධ ප්‍රදීප් වාඩි වී සිටි අතර එහිදී ජාතිකවාදී ප්‍රදීප් ජාතිකවාදී සිල්වාගේ කටුක වාග් ප්‍රහාරයකට ගොදුරු වූයේය.
ඇත්තෙන්ම නලින් ද සිල්වා එහිදී නිවැරදිය.මෙබදු සමාජ ආර්ථික සටනක් පාලක ප්‍රභූවේ පැවැත්ම ආරක්ෂා කර දෙන රනවිරු දෘෂ්ටිවාදය සමග පැහැදිලිවම විසංවාදී වේ.වාර්ගික ජාතිකවාදය නඩත්තු කිරීම සදහා මිලියන ගනනින් යුද වියදම් සම්මත කිරීමට සිදුව තිබෙන සන්දර්භයක් තුල අධ්‍යාපනය සදහා වියදම් වැඩි කරන්නේ කෙසේද?මෙහිදී අනුරුද්ධ ප්‍රදීප්ලාට එක්කෝ රනවිරුවා ( අධිපති සිංහල ජාතිකවාදය) නැතිනම් අධ්‍යාපනය යන දෙකෙන් එකක් තෝරාගැනීමට සිදුවනු ඇත.මලී ටෙලිනාට්‍යයේ නිර්මාල් මහතාට මෙන් ගැමි මලීටත් නාගරික මධුරංගීටත් දෙදෙනාටම පෙම් කිරීම ප්‍රදීප්ලාට දිගටම සිදුකල නොහැක.
දැන් අවශ්‍යව තිබෙනුයේ අධ්‍යාපන අයිතිය පිලිබද අරගලය ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සටන නැමැති සීමාවෙන් ඔබ්බට ගිය සමාජ සටනක් බවට පරිවර්තනය කර ගැනීමය.මෙබදු අරගල වටා මහජන පරිකල්පනය පෙලගැසෙන තරමට අවුල් වන්නේ ආන්ඩුව අනුදත් නව ලිබරල් ආර්ථික උපාය මාර්ගයයි.එහිදී ආන්ඩුව අර්බුදයට යන්නේ මෙය කිසිවෙකුගේ දුෂ්ට කුමන්ත්‍රනයක් නිසා නොව ආන්ඩුව යනු එම නව ලිබරල් ආර්ථික උපාය මාර්ගයේ පරම ආරක්ෂකයා වන නිසාය.
In defense of university autonomy and academic freedom
By Prof. Wiswa Warnapala
At the beginning, university education in Sri Lanka began as a middle class preserve, as it, in the very initial period, catered to the demand of the students from a select number of public schools in the country. university education, in the early period, was built on a theory of elites, which, in turn, represented certain aspects of the then existing class structure. The objectives of both secondary and higher education were colonial, and this structure underwent a change during the first phase of the post-colonial state. university education, which began in 1921, and later evolved into a full-fledged unitary university, made a major impact upon the social and economic life of the country, and nothing could illustrate this better than to compare it with the production of an elite, which went to the university and formed into a clan of intellectuals and professionals destined to influence the society in Sri Lanka in a variety of ways. University, therefore, from its very inception, was regarded as a special institution which conferred a high social status to the university educated, and this, as anticipated, had a social significance in a society which, traditionally, was used to status and influence. Those distinguished members of the Ceylon University Movement, who advocated the establishment of an independent unitary university, were a set of visionaries who envisioned that the production of knowledge gave a nation a special kind of power.
Aftermath of independence
In the aftermath of independence, the aspirations of the State came to be heightened, and it came to be acknowledged that the universities or the demand for university education would grow in the future; the introduction of the free education scheme and the recognition of Sinhala and Tamil as languages of instruction naturally increased the demand for university education, for which the country was not ready. Hence, there were a number of ad hoc adjustments and changes, without a proper plan for the increase of higher educational opportunities in the country. Several commissions examined the issue but their main emphasis was on the change within the existing structure. There was not attempt to estimate the country’s needs in the sphere of higher education.
There were many influences at work which led to important changes in the sixties; the sociologists and educationists who ably exposed the inadequacies of the existing system, for which there was not enough support from the politicians, and nationalists and language enthusiasts who wanted university education to be expanded more in the form of a part of an emerging nationalist enterprise. It was thought that there was considerable waste of talent after the completion of the secondary school career, and it was this waste which needed to be arrested by opening the doors of the university. By the early sixties, the ideological battle for the expansion of higher educational opportunities had been won, which incidently coincided with the Robbins Report in the United Kingdom, which, as in Sri Lanka, advocated a considerable expansion of higher educational opportunities. Sri Lanka, at this stage of her development, wanted to turn its back on elitism, which the University of Ceylon nurtured, and, the narrow intellectualism in higher education.
In the context of this change, and amidst considerable expansion which the system experienced in the two decades that followed the sixties, the universities remained an autonomous sphere of education sacrosanct from undue governmental interference. In other words, both academic freedom and university autonomy were made inviolable. The experience indicated that the expansion of higher education was guided primarily by the need to provide places for those secondary school leavers, and hardly anyone had given thought to this expansion based entirely on a kind of social need; this, of course, was a complicated issue; both reformers and decision-makers fixed their minds on the question of the expansion of access for higher education without a comprehensive reform of the curricula, which, in fact, was the guide for the immediate future. The decision-makers of this period were obsessed with the need to expand access, which, in the past, was restricted, and it needed to be expanded on the basis of a comprehensive reform, for which some ground work was done with the assistance of the World Bank. The need was to work out a new pattern, knowing well that the number of students aspiring to enter higher education was continually increasing, as the higher education sector, as in other countries, has not been sufficiently diversified to attract a good number of students who, otherwise, would prefer to go inside a university. An attempt has been made in the last few years to construct a development-oriented higher education policy, the main thrust of which was to recognize the impact of the global changes in the sphere of higher education, and this has now been converted into a centralized interventionist policy, where the priorities are more administrative-oriented than innovative policy-based. However, its main casualties have been the concepts of academic freedom and university autonomy.
Crisis in Higher education
Today the system of higher education is in a major crisis, the magnitude of it as bad as that of the late eighties where the universities remained closed for years and the impact of this major crisis persists in certain areas of the life of universities in Sri Lanka. Again, the crisis in the late eighties was largely due to the inability of the administrators to gauge certain aspects of university life and its over-reaction to certain developments, which as today, was overtly interventionist and aggressive, for which they paid a heavy price. It was again a powerful regime with a five sixth majority in Parliament and the administrators of the period, who often took refuge in their political strength to hit back at the academic and student community. A bit of Macarthism haunted the period. History has repeated itself and another powerful regime, reminding us of the late eighties, more in the nature of frightened administrators, have strived hard to plug an interventionist policy. Over-display of political arrogance has its own dysfunctional consequences; the academic community of a country cannot be converted into an appendage of a fist of political power.
Of course, financial constraints within the system need to be recognized. The call to treat all universities- fifteen in number- equally, and this demand of egalitarianism has created a fresh set of problems as the treasury does not want to allocate larger capital grants for university buildings. In this country, all development projects have a constituency-orientation as politicians are likely to make use of them for their political advantage. Unfortunately for them, the capital expenditure for university buildings does not accrue constituency benefits in terms of more votes at an election. University expenditure is often cut back in order to divert it to primary and secondary education. Expenditure is often compared by the Treasury by institutions and activities. At one stage, in order to discourage this call for equality of status for all universities, it was decided to treat all universities equally in order t reduce the attractiveness of the established universities but the student and popular perception was entirely different. It was manifestly impossible to give all the fifteen universities equal status as the investment involved was heavy, and the increase in the investment, though a fundamental requirement for the system to develop into a major network, was to be on a staggered basis. It was thought that the universities would eventually move towards such a system where the respective universities would not differ enormously in their standards and aims as centers of intellectual activity. The realization of this objective depended, to a larger extent, on a calculated program of development, which, with political transformations, would not be disturbed. Given the nature of competitive party politics of the country, one could not envision such a programme of development but the maturity of the intellectual and professional community is such that it could be successfully handled.
More opportunities for education
It is universally acknowledged that education is the fundamental mechanism for social inclusion through the creation of more opportunities for education, and it is necessary to ensure that no student is denied the opportunity for higher education due to financial constraints. This, in fact, is the crux of the issue today. All governments have recognized the need to give higher priority to education as the major instrument for achieving rapid economic growth with emphasis on such issues as the expansion of access, and excellence and equity. The academic community is guided by these considerations and they rightly demand an increase allocation for the development of universities. Higher education can definitely transform the economy and society, and the point argued is that the expansion and improvement of quality in higher education is not possible without enhanced funding. In a country, where State funding is the cornerstone of the system, the increase of funding is always subject to controversy. This, of course, is the problem faced by all governments, the priorities of which are different as some of the priorities are guided by both parochial and political considerations.
Modern day Universities are not monastic establishments; they are knowledge institutions capable of responding to social needs. Over- emphasis on undergraduate education has, unfortunately, developed a different perception of the universities in the public mind and this has had a major effect on the process of policy-making; for instance, some tend to adopt a negative attitude to higher education. This, perhaps, was due to the lack of social responsiveness and a case has to be made for the recognition of universities as knowledge-producing institutions.
Transforming society into a knowledge hub
Sri Lanka needs, at this moment, a plan to develop and enhance the potential of its excellent human resource base to transform the society into a knowledge hub as advertised by the Government in power. A knowledge intensive environment would surely accelerate the process of economic and social development in the country. Therefore, Universities, as in India, could be converted into active engines in this process of social transformation, as the Sri Lankan university system, since 1921 and 1942, made a tremendous contribution to the development through the production of a variety of talent required for the advancement of the country. This contribution has been made in the context of a University tradition, which came to be built around both University autonomy and academic freedom; both these concepts were part and parcel of the Sri Lankan university tradition and it cannot be destroyed by a Sri Lankan variant of Macarthism.
It was both university autonomy and academic freedom which helped universities world over to conquer new frontiers of knowledge. In the experience of all universities, the assault on academic freedom comes via political interference, and often the attention of the public is turned towards the social sciences. The professions which have a long tradition and emphasize scientific and technological knowledge such as medicine and natural sciences become more difficult to be interfered with. The rise of universities and the social sciences as one of the main disciplines of the university, rather paradoxically, was considered the reason for both expansion and the problem of the modern university. This was very much true in the Sri Lankan context, and the growing dominance of the humanities and social sciences irked the policy- makers and all kinds of inroads were made into both university autonomy and academic freedom. Many theoreticians such as Harold Laski, Jennings, G.D. H.Cole, Ernest Barker, R.H. Tawney, Bernard Crick and Ralph Miliband were of the opinion that such subjects made a profound influence on the political wisdom and the political destinies of the country. In 1968, the most students who revolted against the State in France came from sociology and Cohen Bendit himself was a Sociology major.
Universities: Vehicles of indoctrination?
Therefore, universities cannot become vehicles of indoctrination, promoting a particular political ideology or a religious point of view. As Max Weber rightly pointed out, "Universities are not institutions for inculcation of absolute or ultimate moral values". They teach the select facts, their conditions, laws and their inter-relations, with a view to "sharpen the student’s capacity to understand the actual conditions" and "discover the truth on his own and in accordance with his own conscience". A university needs to give recognition to pluralism of methodological and theoretical approaches in the search for knowledge. Surely any university will always be plural, by which we mean the existence of different ideas. Harold Laski was of the opinion that it was a place for both assent and dissent. As such, one cannot convert the university to toe the political line of the party in power. Today, the distrust of universities has become a distressing subject; for some strange reason, the part of the Government establishment has begun to distrust the universities and this has inhibited the universities of this country. University, which represents the great tradition of freedom from State interference, offers a platform for the discussion of the major issues affecting a country. Yet, universities supported by the state have seen a threat to their academic freedom. But one must be reminded that the state, whatever its power and resources, cannot kill and destroy academic freedom, which, in reality, is the life-blood of a university. Political interference becomes disastrous, and when universities are weakened, its effect on both society and the State is more. Universities cannot be asked to betray their great tradition, which Cardinal Newman enshrined in his work, the Idea of a University (1852), which laid a solid foundation for intellectual freedom.
Continued tomorrow
මොරටු සිසුහු කටුබැද්දෙ පෙළපාළි
Lankadeepa, 01/08/2012
Share
12 ජූලි මස 31 11:29:04 | රේඛා තරංගනී පොන්සේකා
ඉසෙඞ් ස්කෝර් කඩඉම් ලකුණු අසාධාරණය ඉවත්කර සරසවි ඇඳුරු වර්ජනය විසඳා නිදහස් අධ්‍යාපනය සුරකින ලෙස ඉල්ලා මොරටුව සරසවි සිසුහු අද සරසවියේ සිට පෙළපාළියෙන් කටුබැද්දට ආහ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)