Daily Mirror, FRIDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2012 00:46
Activities in all universities were crippled today as non-academic staff members launched a countrywide strike demanding higher wages and other perks, threatening to continue their strike from February 29 on wards if the government fails to meet their demands.
Universities will continue to be closed tomorrow (Friday) due to a countrywide strike. The universities were forced to shut down as university lecture halls, laboratories, libraries, transport, administrative work, security, canteens and other services provided by university non-academic staff were stopped due to the strike. (Olindhi Jayasundere)
Friday, February 24, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
පේරාදෙණියේ සිංහයෝ කතාකරති!
By Prof. Milton Rajatatne, University of Peradeniya
Originally published in the Ravaya Newspaper.
Download the googledoc article
Peradeniya Lions
Originally published in the Ravaya Newspaper.
Download the googledoc article
Peradeniya Lions
Friday, February 3, 2012
Governance of our universities
The Island, February 2, 2012, 7:17 pm
by Dr. Janaka Ratnasiri
Before I address the issue of governance of universities, let me make a few general remarks on the governance of the country’s public sector organisations. Sri Lanka has two systems of public sector organisations other than ministries – one referred to as departments and the other the so-called semi-government organisations. In the case of a government department, its administration rests solely on a single person serving as the Head of the Department who is also its Chief Executive Officer (CEO). He is referred to by many names such as the Director General or Commissioner General or Conservator General etc. In his decision making, he is strictly governed by the government’s administrative regulations (AR) and financial regulations (FR) as well as on many financial and administrative circulars issued from time to time by the Treasury and the Public Administration (PA) Ministry, respectively. He has little discretion of his own and whatever discretion he has, he is not in a position to use it the way he wants as he is closely watched by trade unions. Generally, in most departments, the head is appointed from the ranks based on seniority unless there is compelling evidence against such an appointment.
In the case of semi-government organisations referred to generally as statutory boards and specifically as Authorities, Boards, Commissions, Corporations etc., the CEO is not the sole authority responsible for the administration of the organisation. Almost all these organisations have been established under a separate Act of Parliament which describes their mandates and objectives. The Act also provides for the appointment of a governing body responsible for its general governance and financial control. The governing body, referred to by different names such as Board of Directors, Governing Board, Management Board, Council etc., is chaired by a person specifically nominated by the Minister in charge. The attributes of the board members are also spelt out in the Act. Most of these statutory boards were established in the sixties and seventies to introduce some flexibility to the administration of government bodies with a view to improve their efficiencies without being stifled by ARs and FRs.
The appointment of the CEO is in the hands of the Minister and may or may not be appointed out of the ranks. The CEO is only a member of the board and has no powers to make decisions which is done collectively by the Board and of course guided by the Chairman. Though the Act gives the boards the necessary powers to act independently, it is customary today to seek the approval of the Ministry and even the Treasury before any decision is implemented. The smooth operation of the organisation lies to a great extent on the relationship between the Chairman and the CEO. The CEO cannot act unilaterally on any issue as he is answerable to the Board. In general, this collective decision making is a better system than what is found in departments where only a single person does all the decision making.
In universities, on the other hand, the prevailing system is quite different. Universities do have boards of management called the Councils responsible for overall administration, and another called the Senate responsible for decision making on academic matters. However, the Chairman of the Council and the CEO are one and the same person - the Vice Chancellor (VC) - a feature not found in any other organisation. The universities do have another person above the VC, that is the Chancellor, but currently his functions are limited to chairing the Annual Convocations where he gives away the degree certificates to the newly passing out graduates and garlanding them. He does not play any role in any decision making activity, not even in any advisory capacity. Thus, the VC has the total control of all university affairs including those of the students. By any standard, this system cannot be accepted as satisfactory and it should be rectified by bringing the decision making process in universities to fall in line with that of the other public sector organisations. It is not difficult to do this change even now as the universities already have the Chancellor and this change could be done simply by making the Chancellor the Chairman of the Council. If any amendments to the Act or regulations need to be done to effect such a change, I believe there should be no barrier for that. Such a change could bring about a more balanced decision making process acceptable to everybody concerned, minimising conflict situations in our universities. In the future, cognizance may be made on this new role of a Chancellor when appointing them.
According to recent media reports, there have been student agitations in several universities on a wide range of issues. In some of these, students have taken to the road voicing their protests against the VCs. At least in one university, the VC has been debarred from taking any policy decision for which a separate committee has been appointed by higher authorities. It is obvious that there has been a breakdown of the trust placed by students on the VC and it is important that this should be restored to ensure smooth operation of universities. Many of the ills prevailing in universities could be avoided by separating out the VC’s functions as the CEO of the university and his decision making function as the Council Chairman. Student protests against the university system including VCs are of course not something new, and these used to come up from time to time even from the time of the first Sri Lankan VC – Sir Nicholas Attygalle. Incidentally, he too was known to govern the University with an iron fist.
In addition to the above anomaly, there is another serious matter that could cause the prevailing loss of trust in the VCs; that is the current procedure adopted for the appointment of a VC. Out of the candidates nominated or who submit applications for the post of a VC when it falls vacant and advertised, the Council selects three persons suitable for the post and forwards their names to higher authorities for the final selection. While there are strict guidelines laid out for the initial selection, there are no such guidelines prescribed for the final selection. A question that would come up in the minds of any right thinking person is what justification is there to depend on a political authority to do the final selection of a VC. Why cannot the Council itself do the final selection based solely on the merits of the candidate – both academic and humane - rather on extraneous factors?
I am sure if the person appointed as VC is someone whom the students could look up to, many of the problems that plague our universities would not come up. However, even if the best person is appointed in the manner adopted at present, he or she has little acceptance as the best person, particularly by students who will see the new VC as a political appointee rather than as a respected academic. Such a perception of a VC does not do any good to the system or to the person himself. It only undermines the credibility of the person however good the person is. In the event of a crisis, everyone concerned – academics, non-academics, students and others – will certainly listen to a person who could stand on his own feet rather than to a person who has received state patronage.
Currently, Sri Lanka is at the receiving end of international criticism in many fronts ranging from alleged war crimes to suppression of media freedom. To those elements who wish to damage the image of Sri Lanka, any interference in the appointment of a VC by the Head of State may also appear as suppression of academic freedom, and they will not hesitate to add this to the list of alleged crimes against the society. I believe anywhere in the democratic world, the selection of a person for appointment as the VC is a task carried out solely by the university and nowhere by a head of state as done here. Hence, sooner this procedure is done away with the better it is for the system and for the country.
Let the Council alone decide the most suitable person for appointment as the VC, judging solely on the merits. Such a VC appointed through accepted procedure could then earn the respect from all quarters – academics (both local and international), non-academics, students and the community. It is the only way the government could restore the dignity of the VC’s position. A VC held in high esteem will certainly be able to avoid any conflict situation in universities which has been a bane in the country erupting from time to time in recent times. The government, too, should have faith in such a system and I am sure that any person so selected as the VC will serve the university, community and the country with equal loyalty to the government as one appointed under the current system.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Leadership programme a flop, ragging must be eradicated - FUTA
The Island, February 1, 2012, 10:36 pm
by DasunEdirisinghe
University academics yesterday vehemently condemned ragging in Sri Lankan universities and blamed higher education minister S. B. Dissanayake for not consulting teachers when taking decisions on university affairs,
President of the Federation of University Teachers Associations (FUTA) Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri said that their members were committed to working towards the elimination of ragging.
"Our members have always condemned ragging and have attempted to do everything within their capacity to mitigate and to help eradicate it," he said in a statement last night.
Dr. Devasiri denied Minister S. B. Dissanayake’s claim that some sections of university teachers were supportive of ragging in the Peradeniya University.
Dr. Devasiri said that FUTA noted that the ‘leadership programme’ initiated by the higher education ministry without consulting academics, was also a complete flop as far as bringing ragging to a close was concerned.
"It is clear that the academic community, the university authorities and the government alone cannot solve this and unless the students themselves make a conscientious decision to do so this problem will continue to plague the university system," Dr. Devasiri said.
The senior academic said that FUTA urgently and strongly requested all student unions, the Inter University Students Federation (IUSF)led by the JVP rebel group and others to take immediate steps towards eliminating ragging from the entire university system.
Despite Minister S. B. Dissanayake’s claim that ragging was present only in IUSF dominated universities, a statement by the Arts Faculty Teachers’ Association, University of Colombo, indicated that ragging was prevalent in other universities as well, Dr. Devasiri said.
The statement said: "The FUTA also vehemently condemns the role of the government and the Minister of Higher Education regarding two related trends with regard to its handling of university and academics matters. One, the authoritarian manner in which action is taken with regard to administrative matters, namely the imposition of ultra-expensive private security firms on universities, militarization of universities, politicization of universities, infringement of university autonomy, excessive use of force in curbing the democratic right of the students to protest and suppression of student protests under the guise of adopting measures to prevent ragging; Secondly, obscuring all other relevant issues plaguing the university system such as, the meager funds allocated for higher education, non-consultative process adopted in higher education reforms, inadequate funding to carryout research, salary and benefits related commitments made to the academic community, by only focusing on ragging. The Academic community is very disturbed by these alarming trends and urges the government and the Minister of Higher Education to act prudently in dealing with all issues that are undermining the higher educational system in the country today."
by DasunEdirisinghe
University academics yesterday vehemently condemned ragging in Sri Lankan universities and blamed higher education minister S. B. Dissanayake for not consulting teachers when taking decisions on university affairs,
President of the Federation of University Teachers Associations (FUTA) Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri said that their members were committed to working towards the elimination of ragging.
"Our members have always condemned ragging and have attempted to do everything within their capacity to mitigate and to help eradicate it," he said in a statement last night.
Dr. Devasiri denied Minister S. B. Dissanayake’s claim that some sections of university teachers were supportive of ragging in the Peradeniya University.
Dr. Devasiri said that FUTA noted that the ‘leadership programme’ initiated by the higher education ministry without consulting academics, was also a complete flop as far as bringing ragging to a close was concerned.
"It is clear that the academic community, the university authorities and the government alone cannot solve this and unless the students themselves make a conscientious decision to do so this problem will continue to plague the university system," Dr. Devasiri said.
The senior academic said that FUTA urgently and strongly requested all student unions, the Inter University Students Federation (IUSF)
Despite Minister S. B. Dissanayake’s claim that ragging was present only in IUSF dominated universities, a statement by the Arts Faculty Teachers’ Association, University of Colombo, indicated that ragging was prevalent in other universities as well, Dr. Devasiri said.
The statement said: "The FUTA also vehemently condemns the role of the government and the Minister of Higher Education regarding two related trends with regard to its handling of university and academics matters. One, the authoritarian manner in which action is taken with regard to administrative matters, namely the imposition of ultra-expensive private security firms on universities, militarization of universities, politicization of universities, infringement of university autonomy, excessive use of force in curbing the democratic right of the students to protest and suppression of student protests under the guise of adopting measures to prevent ragging; Secondly, obscuring all other relevant issues plaguing the university system such as, the meager funds allocated for higher education, non-consultative process adopted in higher education reforms, inadequate funding to carryout research, salary and benefits related commitments made to the academic community, by only focusing on ragging. The Academic community is very disturbed by these alarming trends and urges the government and the Minister of Higher Education to act prudently in dealing with all issues that are undermining the higher educational system in the country today."
Chile's Commander Camila, the student who can shut down a city
The Guardian, 24/08/2011
Camila Vallejo's call for better and cheaper education has seen student protests transform into a two-day nationwide shutdown
Chilean student leader Camila Vallejo sits among a peace sign created from empty teargas canisters used by police against protesters. Photograph: Roberto Candia/AP
Not since the days of Zapatistas' Subcomandante Marcos has Latin America been so charmed by a rebel leader. This time, there is no ski mask, no pipe and no gun, just a silver nose ring.
Meet Commander Camila, a student leader in Chile who has become the face of a populist uprising that some analysts are calling the Chilean winter. Her press conferences can lead to the sacking of a minister. The street marches she leads shut down sections of the Chilean capital. She has the government on the run, and now even has police protection after receiving death threats.
Yet six months ago, no one had heard of Camila Vallejo, the 23-year-old spearheading an uprising that has shaken not only the presidency of the billionaire businessman Sebastián Piñera, but the entire Chilean political class. Opinion polls show that 26% of the public support Piñera and only 16% back his recently ousted Concertación coalition.
Wednesday saw the start of a two-day nationwide shutdown, as transport workers and other public-sector employees joined the burgeoning student movement in protest.
"There are huge levels of discontent," said Vallejo in a recent interview. "It is always the youth that make the first move … we don't have family commitments, this allows us to be freer. We took the first step, but we are no longer alone, the older generations are now joining this fight."
Elected as only the second female leader in the 105-year history of the University of Chile's student union, Vallejo, who is also a member of the Chilean Communist party, is the face of a movement the likes of which has not been seen since the last years of Augusto Pinochet in the 80s.
Hundreds of thousands of high-school and university students have refused to go to lessons since early June, calling for better and more affordable education and an end to a two-tier system that creates a few wealthy, elite colleges amid many underfunded public ones. Vallejo has organised several cacerolazos – protests in which participants bang pots and pans. Some demonstrations have turned violent.
"We don't want violence, our fight is not versus the police or to destroy commercial shops … our fight is to recover the right to education, on that we have been emphatic and clear," said Vallejo as she stood outside the presidential palace.
The government has rushed out a number of initiatives to try to head off protests, promising to amend Chile's constitution to include a guarantee of quality education and cutting interest rates on student loans from 6.4% to 2%. But the promise of an extra 1.9 trillion Chilean pesos (£2.5bn) in education spending has done little to quell the uprising. Few analysts believe the students will back down despite a heavy police presence at recent demonstrations.
As she spoke, Vallejo was surrounded by students laying out a huge peace sign made up of hundreds of empty teargas canisters that had been used against students.
"Here we have more than 50m pesos' worth of teargas bombs," said Vallejo. "Imagine how much was used on the regional or the national level? This is unacceptable, we want to reiterate our demand that we made to the minister of the interior that he step aside."
Tatiana Acuña, a government official in the ministry of culture, was recently fired for suggesting that the assassination of Vallejo would end the protests. On Tuesday, Chile's supreme court ordered police protection for the student leader.
Vallejo has become a cult figure – with odes on YouTube and predictions that her charisma may well catapult her into Chilean politics. "We are all in love with her," said the Bolivian vice-president, Álvaro García Linera.
At a recent gathering of Bolivian youth leaders he urged students to follow the example of the youth movements in the rest of South America. "You need to talk about what is happening in Argentina, Brazil or Chile, where there is a young and beautiful leader, who is leading the youth in a grand uprising," said García Linera.
Vallejo said on the subject of her looks: "You have to recognise that beauty can be a hook. It can be a compliment, they come to listen to me because of my appearance, but then I explain the ideas. A movement as historical as this cannot be summarised in such superficial terms.
"We do not want to improve the actual system; we want a profound change – to stop seeing education as a consumer good, to see education as a right where the state provides a guarantee.
"Why do we need education? To make profits. To make a business? Or to develop the country and have social integration and development? Those are the issues in dispute."
Meet Commander Camila, a student leader in Chile who has become the face of a populist uprising that some analysts are calling the Chilean winter. Her press conferences can lead to the sacking of a minister. The street marches she leads shut down sections of the Chilean capital. She has the government on the run, and now even has police protection after receiving death threats.
Yet six months ago, no one had heard of Camila Vallejo, the 23-year-old spearheading an uprising that has shaken not only the presidency of the billionaire businessman Sebastián Piñera, but the entire Chilean political class. Opinion polls show that 26% of the public support Piñera and only 16% back his recently ousted Concertación coalition.
Wednesday saw the start of a two-day nationwide shutdown, as transport workers and other public-sector employees joined the burgeoning student movement in protest.
"There are huge levels of discontent," said Vallejo in a recent interview. "It is always the youth that make the first move … we don't have family commitments, this allows us to be freer. We took the first step, but we are no longer alone, the older generations are now joining this fight."
Elected as only the second female leader in the 105-year history of the University of Chile's student union, Vallejo, who is also a member of the Chilean Communist party, is the face of a movement the likes of which has not been seen since the last years of Augusto Pinochet in the 80s.
Hundreds of thousands of high-school and university students have refused to go to lessons since early June, calling for better and more affordable education and an end to a two-tier system that creates a few wealthy, elite colleges amid many underfunded public ones. Vallejo has organised several cacerolazos – protests in which participants bang pots and pans. Some demonstrations have turned violent.
"We don't want violence, our fight is not versus the police or to destroy commercial shops … our fight is to recover the right to education, on that we have been emphatic and clear," said Vallejo as she stood outside the presidential palace.
The government has rushed out a number of initiatives to try to head off protests, promising to amend Chile's constitution to include a guarantee of quality education and cutting interest rates on student loans from 6.4% to 2%. But the promise of an extra 1.9 trillion Chilean pesos (£2.5bn) in education spending has done little to quell the uprising. Few analysts believe the students will back down despite a heavy police presence at recent demonstrations.
As she spoke, Vallejo was surrounded by students laying out a huge peace sign made up of hundreds of empty teargas canisters that had been used against students.
"Here we have more than 50m pesos' worth of teargas bombs," said Vallejo. "Imagine how much was used on the regional or the national level? This is unacceptable, we want to reiterate our demand that we made to the minister of the interior that he step aside."
Tatiana Acuña, a government official in the ministry of culture, was recently fired for suggesting that the assassination of Vallejo would end the protests. On Tuesday, Chile's supreme court ordered police protection for the student leader.
Vallejo has become a cult figure – with odes on YouTube and predictions that her charisma may well catapult her into Chilean politics. "We are all in love with her," said the Bolivian vice-president, Álvaro García Linera.
At a recent gathering of Bolivian youth leaders he urged students to follow the example of the youth movements in the rest of South America. "You need to talk about what is happening in Argentina, Brazil or Chile, where there is a young and beautiful leader, who is leading the youth in a grand uprising," said García Linera.
Vallejo said on the subject of her looks: "You have to recognise that beauty can be a hook. It can be a compliment, they come to listen to me because of my appearance, but then I explain the ideas. A movement as historical as this cannot be summarised in such superficial terms.
"We do not want to improve the actual system; we want a profound change – to stop seeing education as a consumer good, to see education as a right where the state provides a guarantee.
"Why do we need education? To make profits. To make a business? Or to develop the country and have social integration and development? Those are the issues in dispute."
Education and Higher Education: Bouquets and Brickbats
The Island, February 1, 2012, 12:00 pm
By Prof. H. Sriyananda
It is indeed a rare occasion in Sri Lanka today that one can genuinely offer ‘Bouquets’ to anyone in authority, but it is with pleasure that I would like to offer my congratulations to the Government of Sri Lanka for the recent announcement that the Private Universities Bill is withdrawn, at least for the time being. I only hope that this is not a mere tactical withdrawal to divert attention, but is based on the realisation of the impropriety of the manner of its intended introduction.
I grant that there are strong arguments both for and against the establishment of ‘private universities’. Most of these are based on emotional judgments, knee-jerk reactions and long-held prejudices that have not been examined critically. This is complicated by the fact that private universities mean quite different things to different people. I do not propose to discuss these issues in this short article, but to highlight the manner in which such issues have been handled in the past and to suggest how this can be handled now.
Most people are very eloquent in stating that education is valued very highly in our culture. This is perhaps true, and that may be why, on previous occasions, with rare and disastrous exceptions, any proposals for changes in the existing system of education have been subjected to widespread public debate, not only among the so-called ‘stake-holders’, but among the mass of the people, for ALL citizens are vital stake-holders of the future of our children. If we confine our attention to the ‘modern’ period, the Colebrook-Cameron Commission (1829) made proposals for wide-ranging changes in the then existing system of education under the British, and consequently, the Education Commission was established in 1834 for the management of all schools under the government. Towards the end of the colonial period, the University of Ceylon was established in 1942, after a very long public debate about its functions, structure and even the location. In 1958, the Needham Commission was appointed by the then Government of Ceylon to study and report on the need for expanding university education, and submitted its report after conducting a series of public sittings all over the country.
In 1961, the National Education Commission (NEC) was appointed by the government to report on proposals for a unified education system for the whole country, with Prof. J E Jayasuriya as the Chairman and 20 eminent members including Dr C W W Kannangara, L H Mettananda, S Natesan and T Vimalananda. In 1963, The T P de S Munasignhe Commission was appointed to report on Technical Education, and subsequently, a white paper was issued in 1964. Unfortunately, the government was defeated before the white paper could be discussed, and the new government dropped the matter altogether. However, the Ceylon College of Technology (now, the University of Maratuwa) was established in 1966 as a result of the recommendations of the Munasinghe Commission.
In Higher Education, the National Council of Higher Education (1966) and the Jayaratne Reforms (1972) can be both considered to be knee-jerk reactions to specific situations, undertaken without much discussion and without reaching consensus. Neither could last a change of government, and were ultimately replaced by the present system of higher education introduced by the 1978 Universities Act which was prepared after much discussion, with the then Secretary to the Ministry of Higher Education visiting all the seats of higher education and all other learned institutions of relevance and meeting with all those concerned, including with students. It has now lasted more than three decades, and many changes of government.
There is something we need to learn from these three episodes – while it is possible for governments to pass legislation without consultation, they are short lived, even though the harm they do will be long lasting.
And now it is time for the brickbats.
Even though some two weeks have elapsed since the announcement of the withdrawal of the proposed Bill, there appears to be no action to follow it up with a genuine attempt at a public discussion on the issues that were supposed to have been addressed by the proposed ‘urgent’ legislation. The government could appoint a Commission of Inquiry (with demonstrably independent and competent commissioners) to inquire into and report on the state of education / higher education in the country and to suggest how they can be improved to meet the current and future needs. For, obviously, the problems are there not only in higher education, but also in general education.
The fact that the universities as they are now cannot admit all those who ‘qualify’ through the GCE A/L Exam is true, but it begs the question whether these students can benefit from a university education. It is necessary to look more carefully at pre-university education and at the phenomenon of private tuition and coaching for examinations. It has also caused a complete erosion of free education at school level, and it is starting to happen at university level.
If it already has some suggestions, it can present a white paper for public discussion, and even facilitate such a discussion, leading to a general consensus document. The absence of such a course of action only suggests that the government is only marking time to re-launch its aborted legislation, perhaps at a moment when the public attention is diverted to some other issue. The Commission appointed to report on the z-score fiasco can only illustrate how not to appoint a commission of inquiry. It is patently unfair by the officers paid out of public funds to be asked to sit on such a commission – for they can neither refuse, nor can they come up with a really independent report, in the present atmosphere.
The step-motherly treatment given to education is highlighted by the fact that the National Education Commission, established in 1991 ‘to make recommendations to the President, on educational policy in all its aspects, with a view to, ensuring continuity in educational policy and enabling the education system to respond to changing needs in society. Review and analyze such policies and plans in operation and where necessary, to recommend to the President, changes in such Policy Plan or plans.’ is currently in abeyance – there are no sitting commissioners, and its website says ‘New Commission will be appointed by HE the president’! When is the question? [This is a permanent commission, not to be confused with the Jayasuriya commission of 1961.]
By Prof. H. Sriyananda
It is indeed a rare occasion in Sri Lanka today that one can genuinely offer ‘Bouquets’ to anyone in authority, but it is with pleasure that I would like to offer my congratulations to the Government of Sri Lanka for the recent announcement that the Private Universities Bill is withdrawn, at least for the time being. I only hope that this is not a mere tactical withdrawal to divert attention, but is based on the realisation of the impropriety of the manner of its intended introduction.
I grant that there are strong arguments both for and against the establishment of ‘private universities’. Most of these are based on emotional judgments, knee-jerk reactions and long-held prejudices that have not been examined critically. This is complicated by the fact that private universities mean quite different things to different people. I do not propose to discuss these issues in this short article, but to highlight the manner in which such issues have been handled in the past and to suggest how this can be handled now.
Most people are very eloquent in stating that education is valued very highly in our culture. This is perhaps true, and that may be why, on previous occasions, with rare and disastrous exceptions, any proposals for changes in the existing system of education have been subjected to widespread public debate, not only among the so-called ‘stake-holders’, but among the mass of the people, for ALL citizens are vital stake-holders of the future of our children. If we confine our attention to the ‘modern’ period, the Colebrook-Cameron Commission (1829) made proposals for wide-ranging changes in the then existing system of education under the British, and consequently, the Education Commission was established in 1834 for the management of all schools under the government. Towards the end of the colonial period, the University of Ceylon was established in 1942, after a very long public debate about its functions, structure and even the location. In 1958, the Needham Commission was appointed by the then Government of Ceylon to study and report on the need for expanding university education, and submitted its report after conducting a series of public sittings all over the country.
In 1961, the National Education Commission (NEC) was appointed by the government to report on proposals for a unified education system for the whole country, with Prof. J E Jayasuriya as the Chairman and 20 eminent members including Dr C W W Kannangara, L H Mettananda, S Natesan and T Vimalananda. In 1963, The T P de S Munasignhe Commission was appointed to report on Technical Education, and subsequently, a white paper was issued in 1964. Unfortunately, the government was defeated before the white paper could be discussed, and the new government dropped the matter altogether. However, the Ceylon College of Technology (now, the University of Maratuwa) was established in 1966 as a result of the recommendations of the Munasinghe Commission.
In Higher Education, the National Council of Higher Education (1966) and the Jayaratne Reforms (1972) can be both considered to be knee-jerk reactions to specific situations, undertaken without much discussion and without reaching consensus. Neither could last a change of government, and were ultimately replaced by the present system of higher education introduced by the 1978 Universities Act which was prepared after much discussion, with the then Secretary to the Ministry of Higher Education visiting all the seats of higher education and all other learned institutions of relevance and meeting with all those concerned, including with students. It has now lasted more than three decades, and many changes of government.
There is something we need to learn from these three episodes – while it is possible for governments to pass legislation without consultation, they are short lived, even though the harm they do will be long lasting.
And now it is time for the brickbats.
Even though some two weeks have elapsed since the announcement of the withdrawal of the proposed Bill, there appears to be no action to follow it up with a genuine attempt at a public discussion on the issues that were supposed to have been addressed by the proposed ‘urgent’ legislation. The government could appoint a Commission of Inquiry (with demonstrably independent and competent commissioners) to inquire into and report on the state of education / higher education in the country and to suggest how they can be improved to meet the current and future needs. For, obviously, the problems are there not only in higher education, but also in general education.
The fact that the universities as they are now cannot admit all those who ‘qualify’ through the GCE A/L Exam is true, but it begs the question whether these students can benefit from a university education. It is necessary to look more carefully at pre-university education and at the phenomenon of private tuition and coaching for examinations. It has also caused a complete erosion of free education at school level, and it is starting to happen at university level.
If it already has some suggestions, it can present a white paper for public discussion, and even facilitate such a discussion, leading to a general consensus document. The absence of such a course of action only suggests that the government is only marking time to re-launch its aborted legislation, perhaps at a moment when the public attention is diverted to some other issue. The Commission appointed to report on the z-score fiasco can only illustrate how not to appoint a commission of inquiry. It is patently unfair by the officers paid out of public funds to be asked to sit on such a commission – for they can neither refuse, nor can they come up with a really independent report, in the present atmosphere.
The step-motherly treatment given to education is highlighted by the fact that the National Education Commission, established in 1991 ‘to make recommendations to the President, on educational policy in all its aspects, with a view to, ensuring continuity in educational policy and enabling the education system to respond to changing needs in society. Review and analyze such policies and plans in operation and where necessary, to recommend to the President, changes in such Policy Plan or plans.’ is currently in abeyance – there are no sitting commissioners, and its website says ‘New Commission will be appointed by HE the president’! When is the question? [This is a permanent commission, not to be confused with the Jayasuriya commission of 1961.]
Saturday, January 28, 2012
UK Government set to drop private universities plan
The Guardian, 24/01/2012
Higher education bill due to be introduced in Queen's speech reported to have been delayed indefinitely
David Willetts said there would be further discussion of the private universities plan. Photograph: Geraint Lewis/Alamy
The government has abandoned plans to reform the university system that would have made it easier for private colleges to set up new universities.
A higher education bill due to be introduced in the Queen's speech has been delayed indefinitely, according to the Daily Telegraph.
The Liberal Democrats were opposed to further reforms to higher education after the controversial decision to raise tuition fees, the paper reported.
The universities minister, David Willetts, said: "There's going to be a further discussion in cabinet in the next couple of weeks. There's no final decision either way yet."
Two private universities in England – Buckingham and BPP – have degree-awarding powers, and several other private providers focus on professional courses such as business studies, management and law.
They are not subject to the same government requirements on widening access to students from poorer backgrounds, or the cap on student numbers.
The maximum state-backed loan available for students at private universities has risen from just over £3,000 to £6,000 for students starting this autumn in a move Willetts described as a first step towards bringing in private providers of higher education.
Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the UCU, the college lecturers' union, said: "Plans to allow private companies greater access to taxpayers' money would have seen them getting rich at the expense of the UK taxpayer.
"In the US, for-profit universities and colleges have been investigated for the mis-selling of qualifications to vulnerable students and their families. That is the last thing we needed here as students struggle to adapt to the new fees regime.
"The government should be applauded for appearing to listen to the experts in the case. We will continue to expose the dangers of allowing those whose first priority is to their shareholders a greater hold on our higher education system."
The coalition has already introduced sweeping change to the university system without the need for primary legislation, including increasing the cap on tuition fees and giving universities the power to recruit unlimited numbers of the best performing students.
A higher education bill due to be introduced in the Queen's speech has been delayed indefinitely, according to the Daily Telegraph.
The Liberal Democrats were opposed to further reforms to higher education after the controversial decision to raise tuition fees, the paper reported.
The universities minister, David Willetts, said: "There's going to be a further discussion in cabinet in the next couple of weeks. There's no final decision either way yet."
Two private universities in England – Buckingham and BPP – have degree-awarding powers, and several other private providers focus on professional courses such as business studies, management and law.
They are not subject to the same government requirements on widening access to students from poorer backgrounds, or the cap on student numbers.
The maximum state-backed loan available for students at private universities has risen from just over £3,000 to £6,000 for students starting this autumn in a move Willetts described as a first step towards bringing in private providers of higher education.
Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the UCU, the college lecturers' union, said: "Plans to allow private companies greater access to taxpayers' money would have seen them getting rich at the expense of the UK taxpayer.
"In the US, for-profit universities and colleges have been investigated for the mis-selling of qualifications to vulnerable students and their families. That is the last thing we needed here as students struggle to adapt to the new fees regime.
"The government should be applauded for appearing to listen to the experts in the case. We will continue to expose the dangers of allowing those whose first priority is to their shareholders a greater hold on our higher education system."
The coalition has already introduced sweeping change to the university system without the need for primary legislation, including increasing the cap on tuition fees and giving universities the power to recruit unlimited numbers of the best performing students.
GCE A/L - 2011 : Urgent review of results a must
Sunday Times, 22/01/2012
| Open letter to Ministers of Education and Higher Education | ||
I have watched with great pain of mind the events and developments that took
place after the release of the results of the GCE A/L Examination held in 2011.
Many errors and omissions in the results have been reported and a presidential
committee was appointed to look into this matter. The report of this committee
has now been submitted to the President.
Results of the GCE A/L examination this time have been openly challenged. It is essential to restore public confidence in this examination as early as possible. The whole procedure of processing marks at the Examination Department should be investigated to understand the root of the problem. Urgent action also should be taken to prevent the recurrence of such errors in the future. It must be stressed at the outset that any attempt to cover up this issue will lead to much greater repercussions and complications affecting a large number of youth in Sri Lanka. It is in this context I have been compelled to write this letter. I was personally responsible for initiating a dialogue, appointing a committee and implementing the Z-score method to rank students for university admission when I was serving as the Secretary to the Ministry. The Z-score method is much superior to aggregates in ranking students in different streams. There are difficult low scoring subjects and relatively easy high scoring subjects at the GCE A/L exam. Z-score brings the marks of the subjects to the same level so that meaningful rankings can be worked out. It has been proved that the ranking on this basis is more fair and reliable, and it is considered the best and simplest option available to minimize discrepancies that arise due to different subjects, number of subjects, variable marking and different curricula (old syllabus/ new syllabus). A comprehensive proposal in this regard was forwarded by Professor R.O. Thattil of the University of Peradeniya who served as the consultant to the Ministry and the UGC to implement this scheme during 2000/2001. It was successfully implemented in 2001 with two groups (one group offered 3 subjects and the other group 4 subjects) who sat the GCE A/L exam. Since then this method was in operation smoothly until 2011. Two issues regarding the results of GCE A/L Examination held in 2011 have been highlighted. 1. Errors in district and island rankings issued by the Department of Examinations 2. Issue raised by experts regarding the formula used to calculate the Z-score Both these issues are of equal importance and it is necessary to rectify the situation without any further delay. I have read in the newspapers that errors in rankings are due to wrong entries and processing errors done by the Department of Examinations. It is regrettable to note that independent checks/ audits have not been carried out. Is this the way national examinations are conducted in Sri Lanka? If this is true how can we accept the accuracy of the other entries and Z-scores? All the entries and the processing steps therefore should be rechecked to confirm accuracy of the results.
This time the mean and variances of a subject from the old and new syllabi were pooled together to calculate the Z-score. This is a fundamental error made by the expert committee. In this type of situation two student groups should be considered as two separate populations and the Z-score for each group separately calculated. Then the average Z-scores of the three subjects can be used to rank students. This is the method we followed successfully in 2001 for the two groups (3- subjects and 4-subjects). Unfortunately, the presidential committee appointed to look into this matter has overlooked this important issue of using a wrong formula for the calculation of Z-scores. This has affected all the Z-scores, and the rankings worked out using these erroneous Z-scores are also incorrect. Thus, Z-scores and rankings of all the streams need to be corrected. I read in the newspapers that a teachers union is contemplating legal action against the Department of Examinations regarding this issue. If this happens, undoubtedly it will be a prolonged battle lasting for months if not years. Such action will lead to a serious situation where the results will be invalidated for some time. Then, the students who sat this examination will not be in a position to gain admission to any higher education institution in Sri Lanka or abroad for a considerable period of time. This is a harmful and serious situation affecting the future of our young generation. If this happens, it will be one of the most serious setbacks in the history of education in Sri Lanka. Therefore, all parties concerned should make a concerted effort to avoid this situation at any cost. There is another issue which needs the attention of education authorities urgently. During 2000/2001 we initiated action to hold the A/L exam in April instead of August due to strong reasons. We arranged A/L classes to commence in schools immediately after the O/L results are released, and the A/L exam was held for the first time in April 2002. Now it has been changed to August again for the convenience of officials disregarding all the benefits of having the exam in April. Let me explain the benefits of this change. When the A/L exam is held in August, it is not possible to begin A/L classes for the students who sat the O/L exam in December of the previous year until September the following year. As a result, these students wait for nearly nine months wasting their valuable time. Similarly after the A/L exam in August the students have to wait till October next year for admission to universities losing about two years in their prime life time. This can be avoided by commencing A/L classes in April this year and conducting the A/L exam in April 2014 and onwards. If this is implemented, those who qualify for admission to universities based on the results of this exam can be admitted to universities in the same year minimizing the waiting period. This effectively saves about two years of their prime life time, which can be profitably used in their higher education. The following steps are strongly recommended. 1.A complete comprehensive review of all the entries and processing steps of the results of GCE A/L Exam- 2011 should be carried out in the presence of observers / experts nominated by the University Grants Commission. 2. Recalculation of Z-scores should be carried out using the correct formula employed previously in 2001 in consultation with Professor R.O. Thattil,who served as a consultant to the UGC/ Higher Education Ministry in 2001. 3. Release of the corrected results after completing (1) and (2) procedures indicated above. 4. Make necessary arrangements to conduct the GCE A/L examination in April every year with effect from 2014 and streamline the university admission process with a common academic year. I earnestly request the two Ministers to give serious consideration to the above proposal and implement the same in the best interest of the nation. Professor R.P. Gunawardane, Indiana State University, USA - (Formerly Secretary, Ministry of Education and Higher Education, Secretary, Higher Education and IT Development, Chairman, National Education Commission, Senior Professor & Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya) (The writer may be contacted by Email: rpgunawardane@gmail.com) |
Examinations Department should pass the “Integrity Test”
Colombo Telegraph, 21/01/2012
By JC Weliamuna -
In the late 1970s, a Deputy Commissioner of Examinations was prosecuted for interfering with the results of a son of a Minister and a son of a school principal. He was jailed. It was possible to prosecute him because the then Commissioner got wind of this illegal activity and moved for prosecution of this officer. Is this possible now? Can an officer who extends favours to a politician in power be ever prosecuted presently? This is the question before you and me today.
Let me also raise few other questions. When credible foreign universities offer places to Sri Lankan students for undergraduate studies, they presume that the Advanced Level results reflect the genuine talent of the student concerned. What would happen if the main foreign universities have doubts about the credibility of the A/L examination results issued by the Department of Examinations? If a list of students is given by a powerful politician to the Department to ensure university entrance, can the Commissioner say “No”? If a powerful politician indicates to the Department that he/she wants best results from his/her area or his/her past school, can the Commissioner say “No”?
In this article, I share my thoughts on some aspects of the present status of governance and how it has affected the integrity of the Department of Education.
Proud history of Excellence to a Questionable Entity
In 1952, one year after its establishment, the Department of Examinations had conducted 8 local examinations and 27 foreign examinations. When the Senior School Certificate (SSC – as the GCO Ordinary Level was then known) was started in 1952, there were 53,000 candidates. The number of subjects offered was 60. The Higher School Certificate (HSC) was started in 1945 and continued until 1963 when the examination became the GCE Advanced Level (‘A’ level).. At that time only 31,011 candidates sat the examination, as compared presently with something in the region of 300,000. In 1968, the Examinations Ordinance was enacted authorizing the Department to conduct all public examinations. This indicates the nature and responsibilities cast on the Department whose integrity and recognition is absolutely vital for the nation and its citizens.
When the Department of Examinations commenced in 1951, its first head was Mr. L.L.K. Gunatunga (1951-59). Recently the 18th Commissioner took over. Seven of the former Heads of the Department are still among the living. Until the 17th Commissioner Anura Edirisinghe assumed office in 2005 as the Commissioner- General of Examinations, this Department had maintained the highest integrity. If at all there were any issues, they revolved around a few corrupt individuals who were dealt with severely. With the appointment of Mr. Edirisinghe, the dark period started around 2005 raising many internal issues. We have witnessed the collapse of integrity of several other public institutions with one single wrong appointment at the top.
Fortunately, the Media (in particular, the alternative media) closely monitored and reported unprecedented scale of irregularities in the Department since then. Unfortunately the authorities and the public did not take sufficient notice of it or meaningful actions to remedy the situation.
Jayasiri Withana (Ravaya) exposed through series of article an evidential trail of irregularities demonstrating how this department lost its credibility under the leadership of Mr. Edirisinghe. Let me share with you one instance how credibility of examinations came under serious challenge but no one was held accountable. The then principal of Rahula College, Kithrisi Liyanagamage challenged the Chemistry results of 2004 A/L results. Previously, the school had about 40 “ A Grade” passes but that year it had only 9 “A Grade passes” for the entire Matara district. Those who analysed the results sensed some irregularity or at least a serious lapse. This led to a teachers’ meeting at which Edirisinghe was requested to review the results of 10 of the best students. Edirisinghe reiterated the accuracy of the results and said that if there was any change (even 1%), he would not stay in office. There was a review of result in the entire district resulting in major changes. The 5A’s of Rahula College became 63 but Edirisinghe stayed on. This, however, led to a committee being appointed by the President comprising former Supreme Court Justice Priyantha Perera, Mr. Gunapala Wickramaratne, a distinguished former commissioner and another but the report of the committee was never released to the public. What we heard was that the responsibility had been passed on to the “Optical Mark Reader (OMR) machine”.
Present A/L Fiasco & Refusal to Identify Errors
The present A/L saga was perhaps the worst of all. It had distorted the entire results. It should be remembered that there were two syllabuses for A/L last year – let me call ‘Old Syllabus’ and ‘New Syllabus’. For each subject, there were two different syllabuses, different examination papers, different marking schemes and different structures in every sense. The Education Sector trade unions were the first to raise the issue of major irregularities in the results. Then the results were not released. When the President directed the Department to issue the results, the Department issued it within One Day.
Let us start with the main THREE ERRORS in the AL results. When the trade unions and candidates raised issues, the Minister of Higher Education and the Minister of Education made hilarious explanations. First it was said that the mistake is only about the district ranking and not about Z-score. But, up to now, no explanation was offered why District Ranking had gone wrong. Then Prof. Raphel O. Thattil, who played a major role in introducing the Z-Score challenged the mode of calculating the Z-score. Those who are familiar with the mathematical calculation of Z-score are aware that the Z-score is a calculation based on standard normal distribution of certain figures (in this instance, marks) of an identified single population/pool. It may be technically difficult for a person without some mathematical knowledge to understand but it is not difficult to understand that the Z-score for a subject is based only on that subject of one examination of one syllabus. The Department appears to have taken the Old Syllabus subject and the New Syllabus subject (e.g. old syllabus Chemistry and New Syllabus Chemistry) into the same pool in calculating the Z-Score of that subject. If a score of average/mean is to be made, such can be mathematically done after calculating the Z-scores separately and then averaging it with an acceptable formula. Instead, what appears to have been done by the Department is to take some unknown method to calculate “combined mean” erroneously. To me the entire Z-score crisis is this. When Prof. Thattil and many other mathematicians pointed out this basic error, there was an aggressive humiliation on them in the government media, which is the propaganda machine of the government.
The second error is that results of a subject were not released. Many candidates who offered the Russian language did not get the results. Students at Rahula National School of Alawwa, known to be among the best in the Arts stream in the country, particularly for languages suffered seriously when their Russian Language marks were not given. Among the students was an outstanding student with 2 “A Grade” passes (German language and Logic). If she had obtained an A Grade with high Z-score, probably the best student in Arts might have come from Alawwa, and not form the Hambantota District. First the Department said the answer scripts were misplaced and later said they were found. How were they misplaced? Who has found them and how? Besides this, those students had now received (after two weeks) their results without District Ranking and Island Ranking!
The third error is individual-based. For the first time in the history of public examinations in the country, thousands of candidates received distorted results. Students received results for subjects they have never sat for. Hundreds of students did not receive full results for their subjects. Private candidates did not receive results for many weeks. The government or the Department of Examinations has failed to tender any explanation to many of those errors occurred in respect of individual results, such as not entering District or All Island Rank, omitting Z-Score, and mixing up of subjects. The uncertainty and confusion was such that public began to wonder whether the results were completely manipulated or whether the results were handled by an amateur group without any experience in examination work. Undoubtedly this cannot be a simple computer error.
The correct results are imperative. For the sake of governance, it is also imperative to let the public know how the results were distorted in the most important competitive examination in the country. The biggest error is therefore that failure on the part of the authorities to offer any valid and logical explanation. Probably it will not happened unless the public demand it.
Presidential Committee
From the JR Jayewardene era, we have seen the President appointing a committee whenever a complex issue arose, but whether those committees ever addressed the main issues remains unanswered. Responding to the present A/L examination problem, President Rajapaksa appointed a Committee headed by a Ministry Secretary, two Vice Chancellors and two others but did not include a single retired Commissioner of Examinations. A/L results was an issue where the government was under real challenge; this could have led to a public outcry against the government itself.
In other words, the government has a political stake in the issue – very much more than the best interest of the 300,000 candidates. In such circumstances, any committee appointed should have credibility and acceptance along with public confidence. The Committee’s mandate and approach should be objective. There should not be any doubt about its work and should not allow people to think that it will whitewash the failures of the Government/Department of Examination.
I do not wish to say anything general about the members of this committee, because at least some of them have shown independence in the past. However, take the case of Vice Chancellors appointed to the committee. Vice Chancellor of Colombo University (Prof. Shanika Hirimburegama) came on public platforms during last election to politically support President Rajapaksa. She has defended the government in almost all the challenging political issues. Another stakeholder in the examination mechanism, though not a member of this committee, is the Chairman of the University Grants Commission, (Prof. Gamini Samaranayaka) who was also on the same political platforms, defending this government at any cost. In my view, some members of the committee have an enormous vested interest in the government and such members will always consider the interest of the government, rather than independent judgment. Such persons will want to defend and protect the image of the government. Undoubtedly the public and trade unions will raise doubts on the findings of this committee, even if the committee addresses some of the main issues.
Who is to be Blamed and Who is Accountable?
It is interesting to note that no one is held accountable for the mess. This is the usual pattern of governance today in many institutions, which are plagued with corruption, maladministration and irregularities. Hard earned reputation, once collapsed, is not easy to regain.
Anura Ekanayaka retired with a pension and obviously there is no likelihood him being held accountable. When these issues were raised relating to the last A/L examination, a Minister said the Department of Examinations is independent and therefore, the government cannot interfere with its work! This statement was just proved wrong with the present Commissioner General Pushpakumara assuming office. This is a department which never welcomed politicians even for functions. This occasion was graced by the Education Minister, who was entangled with the controversy of the Department itself. The new commissioner virtually bent down before the Minister Gunawardana, disclosing the true nature of the character and demeanor of the new head of the Department.
We have witnessed what happened to the Judiciary with the appointment of former Attorney General SN Silva as Chief Justice (CJ). When he was appointed as CJ, there were two motions on his professional misconduct before the very same Supreme Court. Nevertheless, President Kumaratunga appointed him purely on political considerations. This example demonstrated that a single bad appointment (as head of an institution) is sufficient to ruin the institution beyond repair. The same fate has now befallen on the Department of Examinations. This department has crumbled reminding us of one eternal truth; an institution cannot run on its own without integrity of those who run it.
Who should be a head of the Examinations Department? This was once answered by the respected former Commissioner, Gunapala Wickramaratne in his article titled “Perceptive Encomium to Examination (souvenir published by the Department to celebrated its 50th year – 2001).
“….. There is an unwritten law not to advertise the post of Commissioner General but to select from within or outside, an officer with administrative ability, very high quality character and higher quality of independence and integrity …….. The Commissioner General is the Head of a department quite distinct from any other Heads of the Public Service. The credibility and public confidence in evaluation and certification depend on the degree of realization of and the dedication and commitment to the onerous responsibility….”
The degeneration of the public service and institutions did not happen overnight. The 1972 and 1978 Constitutions and those who administered them were mainly responsible for this decay; nevertheless we had some individuals who were not prepared to bow down to pressure and were not motivated by vested interest. Honorable individuals constantly realize that the government’s policy and individual conscience are two different things. Though the government policy can be manipulated, the conscience of decent human beings cannot be manipulated. Unfortunately, most of the high positions have been filled today not on merit and objective criteria but purely on political connections. The objectives of institutions can easily be manipulated to suit the appointing authority – the political chief. The appointees have a vested interest in the political mater’s survival and do not care about their legitimate duties. They believe that Mahinda Chintanaya (policy) has to take precedence over their conscience and values.
The crisis of the Department of Examinations is thus a yet another reflection of the present status of governance and nothing else. Sooner the public realize it, the better it is. The A/L level mess demonstrates how the decay of governance can affect a future of a nation. The conduct of the Head of the Department reminds us of the famous quotation of Thomas Jefferson, scholar and statesman, who once said,
“Never suppose that in any possible situation or under any circumstances that it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing however slightly so it may appear to you… Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise … and that exercise will make them habitual…”
*JC Weliamuna -Constitutional Lawyer, Eisenhower Fellow, Senior Ashoka Fellow and former Executive Director of the Transparency International Sri Lanka
By JC Weliamuna -
JC Weliamuna
Let me also raise few other questions. When credible foreign universities offer places to Sri Lankan students for undergraduate studies, they presume that the Advanced Level results reflect the genuine talent of the student concerned. What would happen if the main foreign universities have doubts about the credibility of the A/L examination results issued by the Department of Examinations? If a list of students is given by a powerful politician to the Department to ensure university entrance, can the Commissioner say “No”? If a powerful politician indicates to the Department that he/she wants best results from his/her area or his/her past school, can the Commissioner say “No”?
In this article, I share my thoughts on some aspects of the present status of governance and how it has affected the integrity of the Department of Education.
Proud history of Excellence to a Questionable Entity
In 1952, one year after its establishment, the Department of Examinations had conducted 8 local examinations and 27 foreign examinations. When the Senior School Certificate (SSC – as the GCO Ordinary Level was then known) was started in 1952, there were 53,000 candidates. The number of subjects offered was 60. The Higher School Certificate (HSC) was started in 1945 and continued until 1963 when the examination became the GCE Advanced Level (‘A’ level).. At that time only 31,011 candidates sat the examination, as compared presently with something in the region of 300,000. In 1968, the Examinations Ordinance was enacted authorizing the Department to conduct all public examinations. This indicates the nature and responsibilities cast on the Department whose integrity and recognition is absolutely vital for the nation and its citizens.
With the appointment of Mr. Edirisinghe, the dark period started around 2005 raising many internal issues. We have witnessed the collapse of integrity of several other public institutions with one single wrong appointment at the top.
Fortunately, the Media (in particular, the alternative media) closely monitored and reported unprecedented scale of irregularities in the Department since then. Unfortunately the authorities and the public did not take sufficient notice of it or meaningful actions to remedy the situation.
Jayasiri Withana (Ravaya) exposed through series of article an evidential trail of irregularities demonstrating how this department lost its credibility under the leadership of Mr. Edirisinghe. Let me share with you one instance how credibility of examinations came under serious challenge but no one was held accountable. The then principal of Rahula College, Kithrisi Liyanagamage challenged the Chemistry results of 2004 A/L results. Previously, the school had about 40 “ A Grade” passes but that year it had only 9 “A Grade passes” for the entire Matara district. Those who analysed the results sensed some irregularity or at least a serious lapse. This led to a teachers’ meeting at which Edirisinghe was requested to review the results of 10 of the best students. Edirisinghe reiterated the accuracy of the results and said that if there was any change (even 1%), he would not stay in office. There was a review of result in the entire district resulting in major changes. The 5A’s of Rahula College became 63 but Edirisinghe stayed on. This, however, led to a committee being appointed by the President comprising former Supreme Court Justice Priyantha Perera, Mr. Gunapala Wickramaratne, a distinguished former commissioner and another but the report of the committee was never released to the public. What we heard was that the responsibility had been passed on to the “Optical Mark Reader (OMR) machine”.
Present A/L Fiasco & Refusal to Identify Errors
The present A/L saga was perhaps the worst of all. It had distorted the entire results. It should be remembered that there were two syllabuses for A/L last year – let me call ‘Old Syllabus’ and ‘New Syllabus’. For each subject, there were two different syllabuses, different examination papers, different marking schemes and different structures in every sense. The Education Sector trade unions were the first to raise the issue of major irregularities in the results. Then the results were not released. When the President directed the Department to issue the results, the Department issued it within One Day.
First the Department said the answer scripts were misplaced and later said they were found. How were they misplaced? Who has found them and how? Besides this, those students had now received (after two weeks) their results without District Ranking and Island Ranking!
The second error is that results of a subject were not released. Many candidates who offered the Russian language did not get the results. Students at Rahula National School of Alawwa, known to be among the best in the Arts stream in the country, particularly for languages suffered seriously when their Russian Language marks were not given. Among the students was an outstanding student with 2 “A Grade” passes (German language and Logic). If she had obtained an A Grade with high Z-score, probably the best student in Arts might have come from Alawwa, and not form the Hambantota District. First the Department said the answer scripts were misplaced and later said they were found. How were they misplaced? Who has found them and how? Besides this, those students had now received (after two weeks) their results without District Ranking and Island Ranking!
The third error is individual-based. For the first time in the history of public examinations in the country, thousands of candidates received distorted results. Students received results for subjects they have never sat for. Hundreds of students did not receive full results for their subjects. Private candidates did not receive results for many weeks. The government or the Department of Examinations has failed to tender any explanation to many of those errors occurred in respect of individual results, such as not entering District or All Island Rank, omitting Z-Score, and mixing up of subjects. The uncertainty and confusion was such that public began to wonder whether the results were completely manipulated or whether the results were handled by an amateur group without any experience in examination work. Undoubtedly this cannot be a simple computer error.
The correct results are imperative. For the sake of governance, it is also imperative to let the public know how the results were distorted in the most important competitive examination in the country. The biggest error is therefore that failure on the part of the authorities to offer any valid and logical explanation. Probably it will not happened unless the public demand it.
Presidential Committee
. The uncertainty and confusion was such that public began to wonder whether the results were completely manipulated or whether the results were handled by an amateur group without any experience in examination work. Undoubtedly this cannot be a simple computer error.
In other words, the government has a political stake in the issue – very much more than the best interest of the 300,000 candidates. In such circumstances, any committee appointed should have credibility and acceptance along with public confidence. The Committee’s mandate and approach should be objective. There should not be any doubt about its work and should not allow people to think that it will whitewash the failures of the Government/Department of Examination.
I do not wish to say anything general about the members of this committee, because at least some of them have shown independence in the past. However, take the case of Vice Chancellors appointed to the committee. Vice Chancellor of Colombo University (Prof. Shanika Hirimburegama) came on public platforms during last election to politically support President Rajapaksa. She has defended the government in almost all the challenging political issues. Another stakeholder in the examination mechanism, though not a member of this committee, is the Chairman of the University Grants Commission, (Prof. Gamini Samaranayaka) who was also on the same political platforms, defending this government at any cost. In my view, some members of the committee have an enormous vested interest in the government and such members will always consider the interest of the government, rather than independent judgment. Such persons will want to defend and protect the image of the government. Undoubtedly the public and trade unions will raise doubts on the findings of this committee, even if the committee addresses some of the main issues.
Who is to be Blamed and Who is Accountable?
It is interesting to note that no one is held accountable for the mess. This is the usual pattern of governance today in many institutions, which are plagued with corruption, maladministration and irregularities. Hard earned reputation, once collapsed, is not easy to regain.
Anura Ekanayaka retired with a pension and obviously there is no likelihood him being held accountable. When these issues were raised relating to the last A/L examination, a Minister said the Department of Examinations is independent and therefore, the government cannot interfere with its work! This statement was just proved wrong with the present Commissioner General Pushpakumara assuming office. This is a department which never welcomed politicians even for functions. This occasion was graced by the Education Minister, who was entangled with the controversy of the Department itself. The new commissioner virtually bent down before the Minister Gunawardana, disclosing the true nature of the character and demeanor of the new head of the Department.
We have witnessed what happened to the Judiciary with the appointment of former Attorney General SN Silva as Chief Justice (CJ). When he was appointed as CJ, there were two motions on his professional misconduct before the very same Supreme Court. Nevertheless, President Kumaratunga appointed him purely on political considerations. This example demonstrated that a single bad appointment (as head of an institution) is sufficient to ruin the institution beyond repair. The same fate has now befallen on the Department of Examinations. This department has crumbled reminding us of one eternal truth; an institution cannot run on its own without integrity of those who run it.
Who should be a head of the Examinations Department? This was once answered by the respected former Commissioner, Gunapala Wickramaratne in his article titled “Perceptive Encomium to Examination (souvenir published by the Department to celebrated its 50th year – 2001).
“….. There is an unwritten law not to advertise the post of Commissioner General but to select from within or outside, an officer with administrative ability, very high quality character and higher quality of independence and integrity …….. The Commissioner General is the Head of a department quite distinct from any other Heads of the Public Service. The credibility and public confidence in evaluation and certification depend on the degree of realization of and the dedication and commitment to the onerous responsibility….”
The degeneration of the public service and institutions did not happen overnight. The 1972 and 1978 Constitutions and those who administered them were mainly responsible for this decay; nevertheless we had some individuals who were not prepared to bow down to pressure and were not motivated by vested interest. Honorable individuals constantly realize that the government’s policy and individual conscience are two different things. Though the government policy can be manipulated, the conscience of decent human beings cannot be manipulated. Unfortunately, most of the high positions have been filled today not on merit and objective criteria but purely on political connections. The objectives of institutions can easily be manipulated to suit the appointing authority – the political chief. The appointees have a vested interest in the political mater’s survival and do not care about their legitimate duties. They believe that Mahinda Chintanaya (policy) has to take precedence over their conscience and values.
The crisis of the Department of Examinations is thus a yet another reflection of the present status of governance and nothing else. Sooner the public realize it, the better it is. The A/L level mess demonstrates how the decay of governance can affect a future of a nation. The conduct of the Head of the Department reminds us of the famous quotation of Thomas Jefferson, scholar and statesman, who once said,
“Never suppose that in any possible situation or under any circumstances that it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing however slightly so it may appear to you… Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise … and that exercise will make them habitual…”
*JC Weliamuna -Constitutional Lawyer, Eisenhower Fellow, Senior Ashoka Fellow and former Executive Director of the Transparency International Sri Lanka
A-Level fiasco and private universities Bill - Pressure mounts on the government
Island, January 21, 2012, 3:51 pm
Kumar David
It is no coincidence that in the face of the storm created by the A-Level results fiasco the government hastily withdrew the Bill to permit private universities. Indeed the regime has been frying on several fronts and is beating a hasty retreat on most. The most serious of the current crises is the A-Level fiasco and public anger will not subside despite the analgesic of a Presidential Committee that fudged the conundrum. Anti-government sections will exploit it and President Rajapaksa, Higher Education Minister SB and Education Minister Bandula are in for a torrid time when university admission lists are finalised. The New-JVP is sure to lead a campaign that will attract public support.
Though no supporter of the UPFA or the Rajapaksa brothers, I had thought that thanks to war victory and the sweep of chauvinism through the Sinhalese community, this government would be stable for most of its full term of office following the 2010 election cycle. I am not so sure anymore; already 2012 is emerging as a year of uncertainty on this and many more issues.
The A-Level fiasco
The best available information is that the cock-up in the A-Level results happened for a simple reason; candidates who sat the examination under the Old Syllabus (OS) and under the New Syllabus (NS) were treated as a single ‘population’ (a statistical term) in the calculation of z-scores. Bear with me and let me explain what z-scores are; it is useful for everybody to get a handle since it has become a hot topic.
Obviously, scoring patterns (raw marks) in say mathematics (several candidates may score 100%) and in say literature are quite different. So how do we compare subjects with wide divergences in raw marks? The method is to bring the means (subject averages) of all subjects to a common point; statistically, that’s easy enough. Then comparison is possible by examining how far above or below the mean a candidate’s attainment is in any subject.
But there is a second problem; the natural spread of raw marks is different in different subjects. In some subjects the raw marks may naturally spread all the way from say 100 to nearly zero, while in others marks may be bunched around the average. How to compare subjects with divergent spreads? This is done by scaling in such a way that, after processing, the marks in all subjects have the same pattern of spread, that is, distributions are made similar. Statistically speaking, all marks have been processed so as to have the same variance (or standard deviation).
A candidate’s z-score is his/her mark, in each subject, after both mean and variance in each subject, has been aligned in the aforesaid manner. Now one can compare the z-score of one candidate in mathematics and another in literature without being in a situation of comparing apples and oranges. A statistician would say that different subjects are being handled as distinct ‘populations’ and scores aligned to a consistent pattern.
Candidates who sit for different examination papers in similar subjects, say physics old syllabus (POS) and physics new syllabus (PNS), should similarly be treated as different ‘populations’. For example, say the average mark in POS is 50 and the average mark in PNS is 60. Then can you really say that a candidate who scores 62 in PNS is better than one who scores 61 in POS? Of course not; OS and NS candidates in similar subjects should be treated like candidates who take different subjects. That is to say their z-scores should be processed as distinct ‘populations’. From all reports the fiasco has arisen because OS and NS scores were not processed as separate ‘populations’ in z-score calculations. When this is not done the final z-scores are a jumbled mess from pooling two distinct ‘populations’, say POS and PNS, into one. Different z-scores within the jumble cannot be meaningfully compared; they are indeed apples and oranges shoved into one basket.
The examination authorities and ministry had two years lead time to think, design and disclose to the public how it intended to handle this apparent conflict of interest between OS and NS. The authorities failed to do so and have infuriated the public. The President has taken a goodly share of the anger upon himself by rushing the authorities to release examination results prematurely.
There have been errors in the finalisation of district lists but these are errors pure and simple, not matters of methodological significance. We are assured that they have been rectified and I am prepared to accept the assurance. The problem lies elsewhere. If the z-scores are recomputed as suggested above, rankings will change and some candidates who are currently ineligible for university admission will become eligible, pushing out others who are currently ‘eligible’. If the scores are not recomputed all those currently excluded will argue that they have been unfairly excluded. There is no respite; the government has caught a tiger by the tail! I do not see how not just Bandula, but even Rajapaksa is going to extricate himself from this hole. Bandula must take formal responsibility and resign; did I hear you say "Fat hopes"?
The private universities debate
A Bill to allow private universities – invariably in partnership with established overseas institutions – was drafted in secrecy and was to be rushed through parliament. It masquerades under the wolf in sheep’s clothing pseudonym ‘Quality Assurance, Accreditation and Qualification Frame Bill’. The university teachers’ federation publicised a leaked copy and it is a hair raising document that tramples academic independence underfoot. Power would be centralised and the minister would decide what is to be taught and who would teach, and much else.
The ever pliant Supreme Court would have certified it as an urgent Bill as it did with the foul 18th Amendment and the Act nationalising 35 enterprises. Apart from strangulation and burial of the public university system this mode of enactment is an affront to democratic rights of citizens in a matter of utmost public importance. In the 1940s the Act to establish the University of Ceylon went through protracted public consultation and refinement by more than one committee of local and international experts. Colonial liberalism was more open, transparent and democratic than the Rajapaksa regime!
JVP led student bodies, are on the boil; protest marches are breaking out and SB, whose penchant for strong-arm stuff is known, is threatening hell and fury. The case of the student bodies and the majority of the academic community is that the government is attempting to scuttle Lanka’s university free education system. This reading is made against the background a sharp pro-business rightward turn in economic policy concocted in cahoots with the IMF.
In my view the suspicion that the government is bent on undermining the university system, now all public but for the contested Malabe medical school, is justified. The fear is substantiated by the treatment successive governments have meted out to the universities for decades. While neighbours like India, Singapore and Malaysia are proud of their public universities and venture to grow their best into centres of international excellence, Sri Lanka has simply starved its universities of: (i) funds (library, laboratory and lodgings), (ii) a research ethos and opportunities, (iii) national recognition, and (iv) international connections. For an account of how public universities are being run to the ground see Ranga Jayasuriya’s piece on page 5 of LakbimaNews, 15 January.
The government wants a by now problematic and potentially expensive public university system off its hands; it would like to delegate high-flyer slots to new fee levying private universities. Thereafter a second class rump public university system will be retained for the yako classes. Lanka is the lowest spender on education in South Asia as a percentage of GDP (2%) and a percentage of the budget (7.5%).
Yes, having fee-levying private universities is good; it expands opportunity for those who can afford to pay. However, remember that the worlds finest, Harvard, Princeton, MIT etc, are private but not-for-profit schools. Actually they use the income from their huge endowment funds to provide scholarships for outstanding financially strapped applicants from the US and anywhere in the world. The fundamental thing is that these are universities, centres of academic excellence, not business ventures. Their raison d’etre is different from institutions outreaching, mainly out of the UK and Australia (no offence meant), to earn profit overseas due to funding difficulties at home. The latter are primarily business ventures, they subscribe to the philosophy of education as a marketed commodity; often they are degree factories with lax standards where one can buy Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, even PhDs. OK this is an overstatement, but you get the gist of what I am saying, and I speak from knowledge of such outreach ventures in Hong Kong.
Private universities are fine in principle but if they are to be built over the dead body of the public university system by a government with deeply step-motherly motives, well that’s another matter. Oxford and Cambridge take no notice of private colleges on the banks of the Thames; the latter offer no competition. But when public universities are being run to the ground instead of being nurtured as centres of excellence, then privatisation is an entirely different story.
In this context the GCE(A/L) examination mess is seen by most as a deliberate conspiracy by the government and the Ministries of Education and Higher Education to turn the public against the free education system and rush through an iniquitous Bill. Though I find this conspiracy theory far fetched it has taken a grip on the public mind. Swathes of public opinion buy it; parent’s associations, teacher’s unions and grass roots bodies are mobilising for a showdown. The standoff between government and student-teacher-parent combine may turn out to be a more serious conflict than just A-Level results. SB must take responsibility and resign; but did I hear you say "Fat hopes" again!
Kumar David
It is no coincidence that in the face of the storm created by the A-Level results fiasco the government hastily withdrew the Bill to permit private universities. Indeed the regime has been frying on several fronts and is beating a hasty retreat on most. The most serious of the current crises is the A-Level fiasco and public anger will not subside despite the analgesic of a Presidential Committee that fudged the conundrum. Anti-government sections will exploit it and President Rajapaksa, Higher Education Minister SB and Education Minister Bandula are in for a torrid time when university admission lists are finalised. The New-JVP is sure to lead a campaign that will attract public support.
Though no supporter of the UPFA or the Rajapaksa brothers, I had thought that thanks to war victory and the sweep of chauvinism through the Sinhalese community, this government would be stable for most of its full term of office following the 2010 election cycle. I am not so sure anymore; already 2012 is emerging as a year of uncertainty on this and many more issues.
The A-Level fiasco
The best available information is that the cock-up in the A-Level results happened for a simple reason; candidates who sat the examination under the Old Syllabus (OS) and under the New Syllabus (NS) were treated as a single ‘population’ (a statistical term) in the calculation of z-scores. Bear with me and let me explain what z-scores are; it is useful for everybody to get a handle since it has become a hot topic.
Obviously, scoring patterns (raw marks) in say mathematics (several candidates may score 100%) and in say literature are quite different. So how do we compare subjects with wide divergences in raw marks? The method is to bring the means (subject averages) of all subjects to a common point; statistically, that’s easy enough. Then comparison is possible by examining how far above or below the mean a candidate’s attainment is in any subject.
But there is a second problem; the natural spread of raw marks is different in different subjects. In some subjects the raw marks may naturally spread all the way from say 100 to nearly zero, while in others marks may be bunched around the average. How to compare subjects with divergent spreads? This is done by scaling in such a way that, after processing, the marks in all subjects have the same pattern of spread, that is, distributions are made similar. Statistically speaking, all marks have been processed so as to have the same variance (or standard deviation).
A candidate’s z-score is his/her mark, in each subject, after both mean and variance in each subject, has been aligned in the aforesaid manner. Now one can compare the z-score of one candidate in mathematics and another in literature without being in a situation of comparing apples and oranges. A statistician would say that different subjects are being handled as distinct ‘populations’ and scores aligned to a consistent pattern.
Candidates who sit for different examination papers in similar subjects, say physics old syllabus (POS) and physics new syllabus (PNS), should similarly be treated as different ‘populations’. For example, say the average mark in POS is 50 and the average mark in PNS is 60. Then can you really say that a candidate who scores 62 in PNS is better than one who scores 61 in POS? Of course not; OS and NS candidates in similar subjects should be treated like candidates who take different subjects. That is to say their z-scores should be processed as distinct ‘populations’. From all reports the fiasco has arisen because OS and NS scores were not processed as separate ‘populations’ in z-score calculations. When this is not done the final z-scores are a jumbled mess from pooling two distinct ‘populations’, say POS and PNS, into one. Different z-scores within the jumble cannot be meaningfully compared; they are indeed apples and oranges shoved into one basket.
The examination authorities and ministry had two years lead time to think, design and disclose to the public how it intended to handle this apparent conflict of interest between OS and NS. The authorities failed to do so and have infuriated the public. The President has taken a goodly share of the anger upon himself by rushing the authorities to release examination results prematurely.
There have been errors in the finalisation of district lists but these are errors pure and simple, not matters of methodological significance. We are assured that they have been rectified and I am prepared to accept the assurance. The problem lies elsewhere. If the z-scores are recomputed as suggested above, rankings will change and some candidates who are currently ineligible for university admission will become eligible, pushing out others who are currently ‘eligible’. If the scores are not recomputed all those currently excluded will argue that they have been unfairly excluded. There is no respite; the government has caught a tiger by the tail! I do not see how not just Bandula, but even Rajapaksa is going to extricate himself from this hole. Bandula must take formal responsibility and resign; did I hear you say "Fat hopes"?
The private universities debate
A Bill to allow private universities – invariably in partnership with established overseas institutions – was drafted in secrecy and was to be rushed through parliament. It masquerades under the wolf in sheep’s clothing pseudonym ‘Quality Assurance, Accreditation and Qualification Frame Bill’. The university teachers’ federation publicised a leaked copy and it is a hair raising document that tramples academic independence underfoot. Power would be centralised and the minister would decide what is to be taught and who would teach, and much else.
The ever pliant Supreme Court would have certified it as an urgent Bill as it did with the foul 18th Amendment and the Act nationalising 35 enterprises. Apart from strangulation and burial of the public university system this mode of enactment is an affront to democratic rights of citizens in a matter of utmost public importance. In the 1940s the Act to establish the University of Ceylon went through protracted public consultation and refinement by more than one committee of local and international experts. Colonial liberalism was more open, transparent and democratic than the Rajapaksa regime!
JVP led student bodies, are on the boil; protest marches are breaking out and SB, whose penchant for strong-arm stuff is known, is threatening hell and fury. The case of the student bodies and the majority of the academic community is that the government is attempting to scuttle Lanka’s university free education system. This reading is made against the background a sharp pro-business rightward turn in economic policy concocted in cahoots with the IMF.
In my view the suspicion that the government is bent on undermining the university system, now all public but for the contested Malabe medical school, is justified. The fear is substantiated by the treatment successive governments have meted out to the universities for decades. While neighbours like India, Singapore and Malaysia are proud of their public universities and venture to grow their best into centres of international excellence, Sri Lanka has simply starved its universities of: (i) funds (library, laboratory and lodgings), (ii) a research ethos and opportunities, (iii) national recognition, and (iv) international connections. For an account of how public universities are being run to the ground see Ranga Jayasuriya’s piece on page 5 of LakbimaNews, 15 January.
The government wants a by now problematic and potentially expensive public university system off its hands; it would like to delegate high-flyer slots to new fee levying private universities. Thereafter a second class rump public university system will be retained for the yako classes. Lanka is the lowest spender on education in South Asia as a percentage of GDP (2%) and a percentage of the budget (7.5%).
Yes, having fee-levying private universities is good; it expands opportunity for those who can afford to pay. However, remember that the worlds finest, Harvard, Princeton, MIT etc, are private but not-for-profit schools. Actually they use the income from their huge endowment funds to provide scholarships for outstanding financially strapped applicants from the US and anywhere in the world. The fundamental thing is that these are universities, centres of academic excellence, not business ventures. Their raison d’etre is different from institutions outreaching, mainly out of the UK and Australia (no offence meant), to earn profit overseas due to funding difficulties at home. The latter are primarily business ventures, they subscribe to the philosophy of education as a marketed commodity; often they are degree factories with lax standards where one can buy Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, even PhDs. OK this is an overstatement, but you get the gist of what I am saying, and I speak from knowledge of such outreach ventures in Hong Kong.
Private universities are fine in principle but if they are to be built over the dead body of the public university system by a government with deeply step-motherly motives, well that’s another matter. Oxford and Cambridge take no notice of private colleges on the banks of the Thames; the latter offer no competition. But when public universities are being run to the ground instead of being nurtured as centres of excellence, then privatisation is an entirely different story.
In this context the GCE(A/L) examination mess is seen by most as a deliberate conspiracy by the government and the Ministries of Education and Higher Education to turn the public against the free education system and rush through an iniquitous Bill. Though I find this conspiracy theory far fetched it has taken a grip on the public mind. Swathes of public opinion buy it; parent’s associations, teacher’s unions and grass roots bodies are mobilising for a showdown. The standoff between government and student-teacher-parent combine may turn out to be a more serious conflict than just A-Level results. SB must take responsibility and resign; but did I hear you say "Fat hopes" again!
Friday, January 20, 2012
University Governance
By Jayadeva Uyangoda, Arts Faculty Teacher's Union, University of Colombo
Download the google doc document
University Governance_Uyangoda.pdf
Download the google doc document
University Governance_Uyangoda.pdf
Wider Implications of the new bill
By Sudesh Mantilleke, University of Peradeniya,
On 17th January 2012, at the Arts Theater of the University of Peradeniya there were informative sessions on Higher Education and so called 'Private University Bill'. At the end of presentations and discussion, it was understood that the new bill that is to be tabled in the parliament is not only about private or new universities but has enormous impact on public universities.
Initially, most of the members were in a view that the impact of the new bill on the public Universities is indirect. However, now it is clear that the bill has a direct impact on public Universities. The new bill, if approved, will establish a very powerful Agency (Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency) that can manipulate the public University system. Final Decisions even regarding study programs (basically what to teach) will not be taken by the Faculty boards and Senates of the respective Universities, but by so called 'Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency' in which the minister of HE has a tremendous power.
Therefore, if we identify the new bill as the 'Private University Bill' that underestimates its real impact on Public University System of this country.
This is a suggestion to all members and collectives who are against this new bill to characterize it as 'University Reforms Bill', 'Higher Education Reforms Bill' or any other suitable label instead of just 'Private University Bill'.
On 17th January 2012, at the Arts Theater of the University of Peradeniya there were informative sessions on Higher Education and so called 'Private University Bill'. At the end of presentations and discussion, it was understood that the new bill that is to be tabled in the parliament is not only about private or new universities but has enormous impact on public universities.
Initially, most of the members were in a view that the impact of the new bill on the public Universities is indirect. However, now it is clear that the bill has a direct impact on public Universities. The new bill, if approved, will establish a very powerful Agency (Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency) that can manipulate the public University system. Final Decisions even regarding study programs (basically what to teach) will not be taken by the Faculty boards and Senates of the respective Universities, but by so called 'Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency' in which the minister of HE has a tremendous power.
Therefore, if we identify the new bill as the 'Private University Bill' that underestimates its real impact on Public University System of this country.
This is a suggestion to all members and collectives who are against this new bill to characterize it as 'University Reforms Bill', 'Higher Education Reforms Bill' or any other suitable label instead of just 'Private University Bill'.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Another Brick In The Wall
The Sunday Leader, 15/01/2012,
Education and Sri Lankan Ministers
By Nirmala Kannangara
Sri Lanka must surely boast the largest number of education ministers although none of them have discharged their duties as expected but contributed to an all time mock-up of the system.
The recent A/L result fiasco, the public outcry against the government and its education ministers have taken center stage for messing up the future of children.
Typically none of the five ministers have come forward to take responsibility but instead have passed the buck on to certain government officials. In addition the country’s entire higher education system too is in the doldrums.
From the time Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake took office university unrest has worsened. Universities are closed for a good part of each semester.
Considering all these factors questions have now been raised as to why a small country like ours need so many education ministers.
In the central government alone there are five ministers for education- Education Minister Bandula Gunawardena and his Deputy Minister Vijith Wijayamuni Soyza, Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake and his Deputy Minister Nandimithra Ekanayake and Mohan Lal Grero as the Monitoring Education MP.
In addition all the nine provinces have their own Education Ministers and their deputies and Monitoring Provincial Council Members. What their duties are and whether they have fulfilled them is the multi million rupee question – which is costing this country and her future generation dearly.
Eyebrows are being raised as to why such a number of ministers are maintained with public money when they have failed even to regularize a proper mechanism for grade one admission.
From grade one to grade twelve each year the debacles remain endless. Closure of schools, lack of teachers in remote schools, grade one admission mess, delay in printing government text books or delay in distributing uniform materials, errors in school text books, disclosure of grade five scholarship exam papers, errors in O/L exam papers and the latest being the A/L result fiasco.
The question is who is responsible?
With regard to the A/L fiasco, according to the government the preliminary investigations have revealed that it was the data entry operators that have messed up the results but nothing to do with the relevant ministers. Sri Lanka is the only country that puts the blame on officials when it comes to any irregularity but grabs credit to the government for any achievements.
There were protests all over the country demanding the review of the A/L results as there were instances that students have received results for different subjects for which they have not sat at the examination.
“This is the state of this wonder of Asia. The vision for the future which is the emerging wonder of Sri Lanka as stated in the bankrupt Mahinda Chinthanaya,” said an angry teacher from one of Sri Lanka’s premier boys schools Royal College Colombo.
Meanwhile, many universities have been shut indefinitely after university students protested against the formation of private universities in the country.
Despite the arrests of student leaders last year, and the pending trials, college unrest has returned on a large scale causing major disruption in the country’s higher education system
Amongst the abuse meted out against the students are – virginity tests that were carried out forcefully on female students by the head of the Sri Jayawardenapura University, providing security to some universities by a private security firm owned by a certain high official in the Defence Ministry and deploying army and police to thwart student protests.
“Protesting students had been evicted from the Sri Jayawardenapura university last week by a court order following a monument of a killed student being destroyed by the army although they (army) deny the claim,” a university student said.
Meanwhile these university students claim that the government is interfering in their work and accused the Higher Education Minister who too was a union leader in his days at the Peradeniya University for trying to privatize the country’s higher education system.
“This is why all these suppressions are meted out against us. The primary and secondary schools are now in the process of closing down systematically. That was why the President clearly stated in his budget speech that selected 1000 schools in the country would be re-organized. If so what will happen to the other 8662 schools in the country. Nearly 300 schools have already closed down and it is estimated that there are 1528 schools in the country with less than 100 students in each school. Sufficient infrastructure has to be provided to these schools together with the required number of teachers. Without concentrating to these lapses they are trying to privatize the entire education system,” a student of Jayawardenapura University told The Sunday Leader on condition of anonymity.
Meanwhile adding worst to the higher education system in the country the Executive Committee of the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA), at its meeting held on January 6, has decided to resort to trade union action to urge the government and the higher educational authorities to uphold the commitments made to the academics in the country.
As its first move, all members of the unions affiliated to the FUTA will hold a token strike on Tuesday January 17.
According to the FUTA the government deliberately failed to uphold the promise given to them when they had the discussion with President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2011.
“The three month long trade union action launched by the FUTA last year was temporarily suspended following the agreements reached between the FUTA and the government through the direct intervention of the President. Since then the FUTA worked tirelessly with University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Higher Education Ministry to reach the goals but however, the higher educational authorities consistently failed to uphold the assurances given to the university academics,” The FUTA said.
The FUTA wishes to summarize the foremost amongst the commitments that were promised by the governmental authorities.
“We demanded FUTA representation at decision-making processes pertaining to the education and higher education- which was one of the key demands to which the authorities agreed. However we have reliably understands that Quality Assurance Accreditation and Qualification Framework Bill commonly known as the Non-State University Bill which has already received the cabinet approval will be presented to the Parliament this month without a proper dialogue of Vice Chancellors, Rectors, Deans, Heads of Academic Departments, Senate and Council members and academic staff of the universities. As a result the academic staff have deeply disturbed and puzzled over the secrecy behind the purported bill which is against the agreement,” President FUTA said.
FUTA also stressed the need of proving enough of money on higher education.
“A recent World Bank report shows that Sri Lanka spends only 1 .9% of the GDP on education although it has to be increased up to 6% of the GDP, the lowest in the region, while other middle income countries spend on average 4.6% of their GDP. To fulfill Sri Lanka’s aspirations of becoming a knowledge hub, FUTA recommended that this has to be increased; however this recommendation too has been neglected,” alleged the FUTA .
Meanwhile they alleged that the right of the Universities to spend even the small amounts of money allocated for the education of the students has been taken away.
“Even the pittance provided for higher education has been snatched away in order to pay for costly government sponsored projects such as imposing ultra-expensive security firms while the standard tender procedures of hiring and outsourcing have been deliberately avoided,” FUTA President Prof. Nirmal Ranjith said.
The implementations of the salary scheme in compliance with the Jiffry-Malik proposals of 2008 too have failed by the government according to Prof. Ranjith.
“Though the authorities agreed to consider the above proposal, there has been no genuine interest in implementing the proposals while no attempts have been made to address the salary issue of the university teachers from the previous budget,” he said. FUTA Spokesperson, Dr. Mahim Mendis told The Sunday Leader that the proposed trade union actions followed by the token strike would be extremely serious.
“Leave alone our salaries why could not the government allocate at least 6% from the gross domestic product (GDP). When the government has allocated much more funds to other unimportant sectors, the allocation for the higher education is far more less than the other countries in the region. This is the reason why the country’s tertiary literacy level is below 7% although the primary literacy level is said to be 90%,” claimed Dr. Mendis.
Dr. Mendis said that their salaries too have to be increased on par with the Central Bank salary scales.
“We wanted the government to increase our salaries step by step to reach the Central Bank salary scale. It is the university academics that produce the experts for the national development in the country. As a result of this step-motherly treatment to university lecturers, the brain drain will get accelerated and that was why our universities have failed to retain PhD holders but surviving mainly with the BA and MA holders,” said Dr. Mendis.
According to Dr. Mendis, there are not more than 25- 30% PhD holders in each university academic staff and accuses the government for its failure to retain them due to poor salary structures.
“University Dons with PhD leave the country in search of greener pasture as they are not paid well. How could a country produce intellectuals without a proper education given to the university students by PhD holders? In Sri Lanka the university students are taught by BA and MA holders who are qualified to lecture primary and secondary education,” alleged Dr. Mendis.
When contacted, Education Minister Bandula Gunawardena said that he was able to streamline the country’s education system and has new plans to upgrade the schools in the country specially the remote schools.
However he got annoyed when asked as to what happened to the A/L examination fiasco and who was at fault.
Deputy Education Minister Vijith Wijayamuni Soyza after an ‘official’ foreign tour was not available for a comment as his mobile phone was switched off since his arrival to the country.
Higher Education Minister Nandimithra Ekanayake was away in UK for a world education forum from January 9 to 11 but his ministry officials told The Sunday Leader that he will be back only after January 15. Education Monitoring MP Mohan Lal Grero too was out of the country and not available for comment.
S.B. Dissanayake, Bandula Gunawardena and Mohan Lal Grero
The recent A/L result fiasco, the public outcry against the government and its education ministers have taken center stage for messing up the future of children.
Typically none of the five ministers have come forward to take responsibility but instead have passed the buck on to certain government officials. In addition the country’s entire higher education system too is in the doldrums.
From the time Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake took office university unrest has worsened. Universities are closed for a good part of each semester.
Considering all these factors questions have now been raised as to why a small country like ours need so many education ministers.
In the central government alone there are five ministers for education- Education Minister Bandula Gunawardena and his Deputy Minister Vijith Wijayamuni Soyza, Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake and his Deputy Minister Nandimithra Ekanayake and Mohan Lal Grero as the Monitoring Education MP.
In addition all the nine provinces have their own Education Ministers and their deputies and Monitoring Provincial Council Members. What their duties are and whether they have fulfilled them is the multi million rupee question – which is costing this country and her future generation dearly.
Eyebrows are being raised as to why such a number of ministers are maintained with public money when they have failed even to regularize a proper mechanism for grade one admission.
From grade one to grade twelve each year the debacles remain endless. Closure of schools, lack of teachers in remote schools, grade one admission mess, delay in printing government text books or delay in distributing uniform materials, errors in school text books, disclosure of grade five scholarship exam papers, errors in O/L exam papers and the latest being the A/L result fiasco.
The question is who is responsible?
With regard to the A/L fiasco, according to the government the preliminary investigations have revealed that it was the data entry operators that have messed up the results but nothing to do with the relevant ministers. Sri Lanka is the only country that puts the blame on officials when it comes to any irregularity but grabs credit to the government for any achievements.
There were protests all over the country demanding the review of the A/L results as there were instances that students have received results for different subjects for which they have not sat at the examination.
“This is the state of this wonder of Asia. The vision for the future which is the emerging wonder of Sri Lanka as stated in the bankrupt Mahinda Chinthanaya,” said an angry teacher from one of Sri Lanka’s premier boys schools Royal College Colombo.
Meanwhile, many universities have been shut indefinitely after university students protested against the formation of private universities in the country.
Despite the arrests of student leaders last year, and the pending trials, college unrest has returned on a large scale causing major disruption in the country’s higher education system
Amongst the abuse meted out against the students are – virginity tests that were carried out forcefully on female students by the head of the Sri Jayawardenapura University, providing security to some universities by a private security firm owned by a certain high official in the Defence Ministry and deploying army and police to thwart student protests.
“Protesting students had been evicted from the Sri Jayawardenapura university last week by a court order following a monument of a killed student being destroyed by the army although they (army) deny the claim,” a university student said.
Meanwhile these university students claim that the government is interfering in their work and accused the Higher Education Minister who too was a union leader in his days at the Peradeniya University for trying to privatize the country’s higher education system.
“This is why all these suppressions are meted out against us. The primary and secondary schools are now in the process of closing down systematically. That was why the President clearly stated in his budget speech that selected 1000 schools in the country would be re-organized. If so what will happen to the other 8662 schools in the country. Nearly 300 schools have already closed down and it is estimated that there are 1528 schools in the country with less than 100 students in each school. Sufficient infrastructure has to be provided to these schools together with the required number of teachers. Without concentrating to these lapses they are trying to privatize the entire education system,” a student of Jayawardenapura University told The Sunday Leader on condition of anonymity.
Meanwhile adding worst to the higher education system in the country the Executive Committee of the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA), at its meeting held on January 6, has decided to resort to trade union action to urge the government and the higher educational authorities to uphold the commitments made to the academics in the country.
As its first move, all members of the unions affiliated to the FUTA will hold a token strike on Tuesday January 17.
According to the FUTA the government deliberately failed to uphold the promise given to them when they had the discussion with President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2011.
“The three month long trade union action launched by the FUTA last year was temporarily suspended following the agreements reached between the FUTA and the government through the direct intervention of the President. Since then the FUTA worked tirelessly with University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Higher Education Ministry to reach the goals but however, the higher educational authorities consistently failed to uphold the assurances given to the university academics,” The FUTA said.
The FUTA wishes to summarize the foremost amongst the commitments that were promised by the governmental authorities.
“We demanded FUTA representation at decision-making processes pertaining to the education and higher education- which was one of the key demands to which the authorities agreed. However we have reliably understands that Quality Assurance Accreditation and Qualification Framework Bill commonly known as the Non-State University Bill which has already received the cabinet approval will be presented to the Parliament this month without a proper dialogue of Vice Chancellors, Rectors, Deans, Heads of Academic Departments, Senate and Council members and academic staff of the universities. As a result the academic staff have deeply disturbed and puzzled over the secrecy behind the purported bill which is against the agreement,” President FUTA said.
FUTA also stressed the need of proving enough of money on higher education.
“A recent World Bank report shows that Sri Lanka spends only 1 .9% of the GDP on education although it has to be increased up to 6% of the GDP, the lowest in the region, while other middle income countries spend on average 4.6% of their GDP. To fulfill Sri Lanka’s aspirations of becoming a knowledge hub, FUTA recommended that this has to be increased; however this recommendation too has been neglected,” alleged the FUTA .
Meanwhile they alleged that the right of the Universities to spend even the small amounts of money allocated for the education of the students has been taken away.
“Even the pittance provided for higher education has been snatched away in order to pay for costly government sponsored projects such as imposing ultra-expensive security firms while the standard tender procedures of hiring and outsourcing have been deliberately avoided,” FUTA President Prof. Nirmal Ranjith said.
The implementations of the salary scheme in compliance with the Jiffry-Malik proposals of 2008 too have failed by the government according to Prof. Ranjith.
“Though the authorities agreed to consider the above proposal, there has been no genuine interest in implementing the proposals while no attempts have been made to address the salary issue of the university teachers from the previous budget,” he said. FUTA Spokesperson, Dr. Mahim Mendis told The Sunday Leader that the proposed trade union actions followed by the token strike would be extremely serious.
“Leave alone our salaries why could not the government allocate at least 6% from the gross domestic product (GDP). When the government has allocated much more funds to other unimportant sectors, the allocation for the higher education is far more less than the other countries in the region. This is the reason why the country’s tertiary literacy level is below 7% although the primary literacy level is said to be 90%,” claimed Dr. Mendis.
Dr. Mendis said that their salaries too have to be increased on par with the Central Bank salary scales.
“We wanted the government to increase our salaries step by step to reach the Central Bank salary scale. It is the university academics that produce the experts for the national development in the country. As a result of this step-motherly treatment to university lecturers, the brain drain will get accelerated and that was why our universities have failed to retain PhD holders but surviving mainly with the BA and MA holders,” said Dr. Mendis.
According to Dr. Mendis, there are not more than 25- 30% PhD holders in each university academic staff and accuses the government for its failure to retain them due to poor salary structures.
“University Dons with PhD leave the country in search of greener pasture as they are not paid well. How could a country produce intellectuals without a proper education given to the university students by PhD holders? In Sri Lanka the university students are taught by BA and MA holders who are qualified to lecture primary and secondary education,” alleged Dr. Mendis.
When contacted, Education Minister Bandula Gunawardena said that he was able to streamline the country’s education system and has new plans to upgrade the schools in the country specially the remote schools.
However he got annoyed when asked as to what happened to the A/L examination fiasco and who was at fault.
Deputy Education Minister Vijith Wijayamuni Soyza after an ‘official’ foreign tour was not available for a comment as his mobile phone was switched off since his arrival to the country.
Higher Education Minister Nandimithra Ekanayake was away in UK for a world education forum from January 9 to 11 but his ministry officials told The Sunday Leader that he will be back only after January 15. Education Monitoring MP Mohan Lal Grero too was out of the country and not available for comment.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Quality of University Education
The Island, January 14, 2012, 4:43 pm
Prof. N.A.de S. Amaratunga
There had been several letters in The Island on the subject of university education written by erudite scholars. In this brief note I would attempt to present another aspect of this problem. There was a time when the objective of university education was to train a person for life. Now the aim of university education it seems is to train a person for a job. In fact the employability of the product appears to be the main criterion for assessment of the quality of university education. Times have changed it appears and perhaps everybody is enslaved in the struggle for achieving the dubious goal of economic development. The important question is, caught as we are in that predicament, could anybody or any university pursue a different path and have a different goal. Could university education while improving the employability of its product also instill the good human qualities that equip a person for life? Or is the world so degenerate that these two goals are incompatible?
University education may have several important objectives and the following three may be more important in the context of the need to improve employability while enhancing the human qualities; (1) improve the problem solving ability of the graduate, (2) improve the creative ability of the graduate and (3) enhance the sensitivity of the graduate, which could be defined as heightened awareness of oneself and others within the context of personal and social relationships. Obviously good human qualities would stand in good stead in the procurement of employment as well and thus there is no need for these two goals to be incompatible. The above three objectives if realised would significantly enable a person not only to find a job but also to lead a harmonious life.
A university graduate has to be of a higher caliber and must posses the intellect and the capacity to solve the problems that afflict the individual, the community or the environment as the case may be depending on the work he or she is engaged in. Whether the graduate is a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer, a scientist, a bank manager, an economist, an agriculturist or a factory manager what he or she would be called upon to do very often is problem solving. If this person has not been adequately trained in the methods of problem solving he would not make a good doctor, an engineer, a scientist etc. The concept of problem based learning which has been incorporated in the curricula of some universities has arisen out of the need for the above mentioned competency. The employability of a graduate and also the prospects of keeping a job and gaining promotion would very much depend on his or her problem solving ability. Problems arise not only in employment but abundantly in life too. A person who has a developed ability to solve problems would be well equipped to face life. Unfortunately the curricula and particularly the learning methods adopted by most of the Sri Lankan universities do not focus adequately on this aspect of education.
Creativity is an inherent human characteristic and its manifestation is variable among human beings. When creativity is nurtured to its optimum capacity the chances of producing great poets, musicians, novelists, scientists, engineers, physicians etc. are enhanced. Else those who have the potential, if denied of the environment and the opportunities, may never develop to their full capacity. Unfortunately in the universities creativity appears to be considered less important except perhaps in the area of fine arts. Even in the areas like literature and architecture, weightage given for creativity and the facilitation provided for its growth are inadequate. This is understandable given the present need to train people to perform stereotyped functions like machines in order to be able to contribute to the economic development. However this need not be so. Space for creativity could be provided to advantage in any curriculum at the required level whether in humanities, science, medicine, agriculture, engineering or any other. Further creativity and problem solving ability are complementary characteristics. A creative doctor would be a better doctor and so it is with other professions and jobs. A creative person is better equipped to solve life’s problems including personal problems.
Universities in the larger context have an obligation to make their products more sensitive to the needs and attitudes of their fellow beings. They should be able to appreciate human weaknesses and strengths and respond in a positive manner. They should be able to accommodate different points of view. If this characteristic is lacking maximum use of the other two abilities, problem solving and creativity, cannot be satisfactorily achieved. Sensitivity is one of the natural good human qualities which everybody posses in varying degree and which could be developed to a desirable level by means of education and exposure to humanizing experiences. Learning subjects like humanities and exposure to good literature, drama, music and art is one way of achieving this objective. Studies carried out in the medical faculties in the USA have found that introduction of humanities in small modules into the medical curriculum could result in making the doctors more sensitive to their patients’ needs. It was found that such a measure could positively reduce the brutalisation that may result from following an isolated, compartmentalised curriculum that focuses on human morbidity.
University student violence in general and "ragging" in particular could be a phenomenon that has its origins in the insensitivity that prevails among the present younger generation. Brutalising nature of the whole education system must take the blame for this sad state of affairs. True, there is a political element in the causation of student violence but it is the insensitive mind set that makes the individual student vulnerable to the political manipulations and the consequent conviction that violence is the means that could bring about change. They are insensitive to the agony that the victim of their ragging undergoes or the damage they cause to state property or the indignity they cause to the university dons.
University curricula in Sri Lanka at present are compartmentalised and fragmented into areas called science, arts, commerce and so on. One has to fit into one of these water tight compartments irrespective of ones talents and desires. If one has an interest for instance in both science and arts, or say geography and mathematics, history and music or any other selection of subjects one should be able to expect the university to provide facilities to pursue such an interest as far as possible. But in our system this is not possible. One should be able to read for a degree in say mathematics and literature. The fostering of such a combination of talents by the university may result in the birth of a mathematician with deep sensitivity and creativity. Even the professional courses such as medicine and engineering could have modules in humanities, music, literature, drama etc. which would help in making the student appreciative of the wider world and better trained for life. Moreover it would remove to a great extent the dehumanizing factor that could lurk in a narrow based education.
The malady however does not lie entirely within the university system. The school education must take its share of the blame. After all the raw material for university education is produced in the schools. Fragmentation and compartmentalization start in the schools. Separation into science, arts and commerce streams which starts at Advanced Level continues into the university and other higher education systems. The rot sets in even before that. From year one in school a child should be given the freedom, the encouragement and the facilities for the development of his or her inherent talents, natural thirst for knowledge, inborn creativity, flair and imagination. Instead the child is burdened with an excessive quantity of "learning" which blunts the more desirable inborn qualities such as self learning ability, creativity etc. The child does not enjoy his or her childhood but is forced to learn things he may not like. At the fifth year in school the child is induced to take a highly competitive examination that has a vast syllabus. Tuition classes start very early in the child’s life and this goes on until the A Level exam is taken. If the child survives the ordeal without damage to his or her mental state he may enter the university but is he prepared for a university education in the true sense of the word. This young person has very little thirst for learning which he considers to be a burden, his creative talents are blunted, he has inadequate problem solving ability and he may not be very sensitive of the feelings of his fellow beings. What is worse he may be selfish, aggressive, and competitive to an extreme degree. School education seems to be designed to facilitate the development of undesirable human qualities.
Thus the young person who enters the university expects everything to be taught to him. His horizon is very narrow and his interests are also limited. He is not looking for opportunities to express his creativity, or practice his problem solving ability for they are not adequately developed. I suppose a university can do nothing more than what it does given the material it has to deal with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)