Tuesday, July 31, 2012


University admissions 2012/13

 

article_image
In 2011, our son sat for his A/L’s for the second time in the Maths stream and passed with 3 As. However, with the latest release of the rankings, his district rank had gone down by over 100 positions. It seems that this is the plight for all the students who sat GCE A/L from the old syllabus. Their ranks have reduced drastically. This has also meant that even though previously they thought they could enter university, now they have realized they may not be able to. It is a mental agony for these innocent students. The examinations department has requested all students who wish to sit for A/L’s exam this August to apply immediately. However, as anyone can understand, A/L is not an exam for which one can prepare in a mere 2 weeks time! It’ll require at least six months to prepare for the exam adequately. The students who followed the old syllabus sat the A/L’s either for the second or the third time. Hence, for some of them, it is the last chance they have to enter university.

This is not the first time that local GCE A/L exam was held for two syllabuses. In the past, syllabuses have been changed many times and yet students did not experience any difficulties when entering the university. The whole process was handled smoothly. That being the case, the UGC should be able to find out how the admissions were handled at that time so that the same method can be followed.

In order to ensure that the students are not penalized, we suggest that a quota system be introduced to admit "qualified" students from both categories. The quota allocated to each batch can be based on the ratio between the number of students who passed the exam from the two syllabuses. Or, the quota could be determined by analyzing admissions in previous years to identify the percentages of students admitted from each sitting (first timers and repeaters) in the past few years. There should be two cut off marks; one for the students of the new syllabus and another for the students of the old syllabus. The district and island ranks should also be announced separately.

Else, we suggest that the intake for this year should be increased, if possible, and the increase in the intake could be used to admit students from the old syllabus. The students who sat from the old syllabus did the examination for either the 2nd or the 3rd time. Therefore for the ones who did the exam for the third time, they do not have any other chance to get selected to a university. Therefore it is clear that the ones who are most affected by this situation are the ones who sat the exam under the old syllabus.

We hope that this matter will be handled in a way that is beneficial to all the students who sat for the 2011 A/L exam.

Worried Parent

University admissions 2012/13

 

article_image
In 2011, our son sat for his A/L’s for the second time in the Maths stream and passed with 3 As. However, with the latest release of the rankings, his district rank had gone down by over 100 positions. It seems that this is the plight for all the students who sat GCE A/L from the old syllabus. Their ranks have reduced drastically. This has also meant that even though previously they thought they could enter university, now they have realized they may not be able to. It is a mental agony for these innocent students. The examinations department has requested all students who wish to sit for A/L’s exam this August to apply immediately. However, as anyone can understand, A/L is not an exam for which one can prepare in a mere 2 weeks time! It’ll require at least six months to prepare for the exam adequately. The students who followed the old syllabus sat the A/L’s either for the second or the third time. Hence, for some of them, it is the last chance they have to enter university.

This is not the first time that local GCE A/L exam was held for two syllabuses. In the past, syllabuses have been changed many times and yet students did not experience any difficulties when entering the university. The whole process was handled smoothly. That being the case, the UGC should be able to find out how the admissions were handled at that time so that the same method can be followed.

In order to ensure that the students are not penalized, we suggest that a quota system be introduced to admit "qualified" students from both categories. The quota allocated to each batch can be based on the ratio between the number of students who passed the exam from the two syllabuses. Or, the quota could be determined by analyzing admissions in previous years to identify the percentages of students admitted from each sitting (first timers and repeaters) in the past few years. There should be two cut off marks; one for the students of the new syllabus and another for the students of the old syllabus. The district and island ranks should also be announced separately.

Else, we suggest that the intake for this year should be increased, if possible, and the increase in the intake could be used to admit students from the old syllabus. The students who sat from the old syllabus did the examination for either the 2nd or the 3rd time. Therefore for the ones who did the exam for the third time, they do not have any other chance to get selected to a university. Therefore it is clear that the ones who are most affected by this situation are the ones who sat the exam under the old syllabus.

We hope that this matter will be handled in a way that is beneficial to all the students who sat for the 2011 A/L exam.

Worried Parent

President for win-win situation, SB unwilling to budge

University crisis:

 , the island

article_image
President Mahinda Rajapaksa yesterday told newspaper editors at Temple Trees that what he envisaged as a solution to the on-going university strike was a win-win situation. He said the strikers had to appreciate the difficulties of the government and be realistic. Insisting that the university teachers were better paid than even the judges of the apex court in the country, he said there was no way their demand for more and more pay hikes could be met as that would prompt other professionals to follow suit.

When it was pointed out that what the university teachers had got were not salary increases as such but allowances, President Rajapaksa said that the fact remained that their income had increased substantially in absolute terms and that fact had to be appreciated.

While the meeting was on President Rajapaksa telephoned Higher Education Minister S. B. Dissanayake, who was at his Ministry and asked him to make a beeline there to field questions from the media.

Minister Dissanayake insisted that university teachers had been given substantial pay hikes and the government had even chosen to turn a blind eye to some of their practices such as availing themselves sabbatical leave to work at other local universities instead of going overseas. He said it was wrong for anyone to draw two salaries from the government.

In other countries universities conducted fee levying courses and in Sri Lanka, too, universities should adopt that method to generate income, Minister Dissanayake said. The Federation of University Teachers (FUTA) wanted the government to allocate 6 per cent of the GDP for education, but the country was already spending a similar amount on education, if expenditure borne by various institutions, was taken into account, he argued. He said that besides the Education and Higher Education Ministries other ministries such as Fisheries conducted educational programme.

Minister Dissanayake said though the FUTA was on strike, 30 per cent of university teachers worked and some universities had not joined the strike at all. In response to a recent appeal he made to the striking dons, about 10 per cent of them had reported back to work, he claimed.

President Rajapaksa said the FUTA should have refrained from resorting to trade union action after its meeting with his Secretary Lalith Weeratunga, who had undertaken to explore the ways and means of settling the dispute.

Asked what action the government intended to take to deal with the FUTA strike, Minister Dissanayake said it would be made known at an appropriate time.

——

Z-score dispute:

Govt. ascertaining data to evolve a solution - President

The government would see to it that no injustice would be caused to any student owing to the Z-score dispute, president Mahinda Rajapaksa told newspaper editors yesterday at Temple Trees. He said he had called for a report from the Ministry of Higher Education on the issue and it was expected shortly.

President Rajapaksa said that before initiating action to solve students’ problems due to the Z-score issue, he needed to ascertain accurate information about the situation from relevant authorities including the UGC and Vice Chancellors of universities.

——-

Opposition scared of elections — MR

‘I’ve shut the door on UNP defectors’

When the SLFP was in the Opposition, it had always demanded elections, but today the UNP was scared of polls, President Mahinda Rajapaksa said yesterday. "A political party that shies away from taking part in electoral contests should be ashamed of itself."

Asked whether there was any truth in rumours that UNP MP Dayasiri Jayasekera was trying to cross over to the government, President Rajapaksa said his government had a door which opened both ways and anyone was free to either enter or leave. Subsequently, he said some Opposition MPs had expressed their desire to cross over but he had not encouraged them to do so.

The President, however, refused to either deny or confirm the reports that MP Jayasekera was planning to cross over.

Monday, July 30, 2012


 Sri Lanka universities considering admittance of 3,000 more students as redress to Z-score issue
Sun, Jul 29, 2012, 08:09 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
July 29, Colombo: The Chairman of Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission Prathibha Mahanama Hewa says that the higher education authorities have agreed to consider taking in 3,000 more students in the next batch.
The Chairman of the HRC said that the move is aimed at redressing the G.C.E. Advanced Level examination students who claim they lost admissions to the universities due to change of Z-score results.
The Commission has also recommended to the Ministry of Higher Education to obtain legal advice from the Attorney General's Department to grant relief to the students who have lost chance.
The Commission says that this discussion was held since it is practically difficult to consider around 1,000 petitions that have been received from the Advanced Level students.
The students have complained that their rights have been violated by the whole fiasco over the national exam results which select the university entrants.

Ending FUTA strike: A shortcut

 , the island

article_image
The FUTA strike has derailed higher education for the last several weeks causing serious dislocation to studies of youth who have entered universities in the face of severe competition and economic hardship. It is also posing a second hurdle to victims of bureaucratic bungling who are pleading and struggling to jump over the Z-score fence.

To my mind the FUTA dispute is being prolonged by a multiplicity of negotiators, statements, and centers of resolution. I remember reading a statement by one of the representatives of the FUTA that they would be satisfied if the Government responded positively to their demands that could be met without incurring expenditure, in case the economic situation did not permit accommodation of financial demands. I move that the FUTA makes a public statement specifying the minimum they need to end the strike, reserving of course, their right to negotiate the balance in due time.

If FUTA’s bottom-line appeared just and reasonable in the public eye, it would be difficult for the Government to resist it. The President is most likely to approve such a formula offhand, in line with his characteristic approach to dispute resolution. That should put an immediate end to the FUTA deadlock.

Somapala Gunadheera


FUTA says not informed about Minister’s call

 

by Dasun Edirisinghe, the island

Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) yesterday said that they had not been informed by official letter to report to work today (30) by the Higher Education Minister S. B. Dissanayake.

FUTA spokesman Dr. Devaka Weerakoon told ‘The Island’ that even if they were officially asked to report to work, they would not do it until a permanent solution to their demands was found.

FUTA has been on strike from July 04 demanding an annual six per cent allocation of the GDP for education, that they be consulted when taking decisions on higher education and a pay hike.

Dr. Weerakoon said that Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga, too, broke his promise and they were not invited for talks at the Presidential Secretariat after the second round of talks.

"We will announce serious decisions next week on our strike," he said adding that those decisions were still being discussed by the FUTA executive committee.

The senior academic said that they conducted a seminar to educate school teachers on the matter last Saturday in Colombo.

More than 500 teachers countrywide participated in the seminar on FUTA’s invitation, he said.

Dr. Weerakoon said that their teams from Sri Jayewardenepura and Ruhuna Universities were engaged in collecting signatures for a petition against the government at Kataragama yesterday and it would continue during the Perahera season.

Secretary to the Higher Education Ministry, Dr. Sunil Jayantha Navaratne, when contacted by The Island said that they would inform FUTA officially to return to work soon.

However, FUTA had asked for a meeting with Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga and the ministry would coordinate it, he said.

Sunday, July 29, 2012


Uni Academics In Moratuwa And Ruhuna Threatened

Sunday Leader, 29/07/2012


By Indika Sri Aravinda
Academics attached to the Moratuwa and Ruhuna universities have been threatened, the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) said.
President of FUTA Dr Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri said that some lecturers are even monitored by military intelligence officers. He said that despite the government inviting lecturers who are on protest to return to work tomorrow (Monday) so far nothing has been given on writing. The university lecturers are protesting over salary demands and other issues. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri said that they have already placed their demands before the government.

News

FUTA spurns ministry ‘invitation’, vows to carry on strike

View(s): 132

A defiant Federation of University Teachers Association (FUTA) said yesterday it would continue its strike despite an “invitation” from the Higher Education Minister to report to work tomorrow.FUTA spokesman Devaka Weerakoon said they would carry on their strike, until they received a positive response from the government.
He said if the minister wanted to invite the lecturers back to work, the invitation should go to the FUTA president and the lecturers should be informed. “He is simply inviting us to work like inviting us to a party,” he said.
Dr. Weerakoon was referring to the sms news alert which said “All university lecturers who are currently on strike are invited to report to work from 30th July – Higher Education Minister.”
However, he said the striking lecturers were hopeful their talks with Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga would bear fruit. In response, Higher Education Ministry Secretary Sunil Jayantha Nawarathne said the text message was a humble request made by the Ministry taken in the interest of the students who had been affected by the strike action.
He said it was only a request and there would be no consequences if the lecturers did not respond to it.
But he said he hoped that as a responsible organisation, FUTA members would be present in classes tomorrow.
Meanwhile a proposed meeting between the FUTA and Public Relations Minister Mervyn Silva did not take place on Monday.
Minister Silva who was to meet FUTA President Nirmal Devasiri to discuss their demands said he was still hopeful that if FUTA officials fix a date and time for the meeting with him, a solution could be worked out.
But a FUTA official said the Minister had told them he would call them and fix an appointment but he did not do so.
Dr. Weerakoon said they would welcome Minister Silva for discussions, but they did not believe he could provide a solution to their problem.

News

Shattered hopes: Revised Z-score adds to A/Level students’ woes

View(s): 147

The release of the revised Z-score results has given rise to a fresh controversy amidst shattered dreams for students who sat last year’s GCE Advanced level examination.
Some students who had enough Z-score points to enter university under the aborted Z-score system now find a reduction in their points after the revised Z-score results were released by education authorities following the Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court directed the authorities to scrap the earlier Z-score results, consequent to a fundamental rights petition filed by some students claiming there were anomalies in the calculation of the Z-score.
A student gives vent to her feelings at a protest held opposite the Fort on Friday. Pic by Indika Handuwala
The petitioners argued that the authorities had taken both the new and the old syllabuses as one when calculating the Z-scores. The court ordered two separate calculations – one for students who followed the old syllabus and the other for students who followed the new syllabus.
Hundreds of students this week turned up at the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Human Rights Commission to complain that under the revised Z-score system their marks had come down.
“Is this what we get after studying and working hard for 13 years? I obtained three A passes with an Z- score of 1.8825 and I was selected to the law faculty but with the new score I can barely get in to the arts faculty,” said Maleesha Amarasekara, who ranked 39th from the Colombo District under the aborted Z-score system.
Saminda Gunawardena from Royal College, Colombo sat the exam from the bio stream and obtained an Z-score of 2.0748. He was selected to do medicine. However, his dream of becoming a doctor was shattered when the score came down to 1.9090 under the revised system.
“This is the most important exam in a student’s life and I studied hard to obtain good results. What about all those hours I spent studying late and making short notes? The officials can say anything but it is the students who have to go through the trauma,” he said.
Arts stream student Patalee Nirupamala is also in agony because she is not sure whether she will enter university. “The first time I got an Z score of 1.4008. This was sufficient to enter the arts faculty, but now with an Z-score of only 1.0680 I can’t enter any faculty. Now we are asked to prepare for the exam within a couple of weeks. I don’t think I am in a proper frame of mind to face an exam,” she said.
The shock is too much for these young students, a psychiatrist whom we contacted said. Dr. Harishchandra Gambheera warned that the Z-score shock could remain a stressful event in these students’ lives. “Up to 23 per cent of these students go through an acute stressful period and this might lead to anxiety and depression. The impact of the crisis on the students is high and there will inevitably be psychological issues,” he said.
A familiar sight now: Students gathering in front of the UGC on a daily basis. Pic by Mangala Weerasekera
However it is not just the students who are affected by the current crisis. Parents too go through untold emotional distress.
“Since childhood my son’s dream was to become an engineer and he sat the exam in the maths stream. We are now worried that he may not get selected to the engineering faculty,” lamented P. H. S. M. Piyarathne, mother of a student.
Jayarathne Hemasiri, another depressed parent from Kurunegala, said he had great hopes for his son’s education.
“I made sure that my son received the best education and sent him to tuition classes with my hard earned money. We were pleased when his Z-score was enough to secure him a seat in the university but later with all these recalculations we were disappointed that my son who got two As and a B will not be able to achieve his dream of becoming an engineer,” he said. When asked for comments, the Peradeniya University’s Senior Professor, R. O. Thattil, who introduced the Z-score system to Sri Lanka, said the problem was not in the method that was adopted to calculate the Z-score but in the decision to combine the old and new syllabuses to form one common Z-score.
“These two values cannot be combined as the old and new syllabuses are two different sets. The method ratified by the Supreme Court will be used in the future when calculating Z-score values. In other words, separate Z-scores will be issued for different syllabuses,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Higher Education Ministry has little to offer in terms of a solution to the crisis. Higher Education Minister S. B. Dissanayake, however, said the President had called for a full report on the crisis over the revised Z-score and additional 2000-3000 students will be given university admission this time.
Saminda Gunawardena
Patalee Nirupamala.
P. H. S. M. Piyarathne: Mother of a student

The minister said students who sat the exam under the old and the new syllabus and had obtained enough Z-score would be given university admission and they would start their first semester in October.
The Colombo University’s Senor Zoology Lecturer Deveka Weerakoon said they were willing to accommodate extra students who sat the exam under two different syllabuses, but the universities would require extra funds to function. He said the students should not be penalised for the blunder.
Education officials said students who had failed the exam or who had not received a high Z-score to enter university could sit the exam again. But students said they had only five days to reapply for the exam and less than two weeks to prepare for it.
Protests and petitions
The National Youth Front together with the University Youth Front held a protest last Thursday outside the University Grants Commission (UGC) office in Colombo.They demanded all the students whose high Z-score had come down under the revised system be granted university admission. They also demanded that the August exams be postponed so that students who wanted to sit the exam again would have time to prepare for it.
They also prepared a petition against the revised Z-score values with opposition UNP parliamentarians Akila Viraj Kariyawasam and Ruwan Wijewardena signing it.Also protesting against the revised system was the Teacher’s Association of Sri Lanka.
“It is a big injustice to the students. Ministers S.B. Dissanayake and Bandula Gunawardena who once claimed that there was nothing wrong with the results or the Z-score are silent today. The government has to take immediate action to implement a system where students will not be subjected to any injustice,” Teachers’ Association of Sri Lanka President Mahinda Jayasinghe said.
Around 250 university students representing Inter University Students’ Federation staged a demonstration outside the Fort Railway Station this week to voice their displeasure at the state of education in Sri Lanka. Dileepa Madushanka, secretary of the Students’ Union of the University of Visual and Performing Arts, said they demand a practical solution to this problem without violating the rights of the students. He also said the government should increase the budgetary allocations for education.
Students have a solution: It’s on the Facebook
Traumatised Advanced Level students have created a platform on Facebook to express their anger and grievances on the latest Z-score crisis. Here are a few comments posted by students on this Facebook page named ‘Z-score Magadiya’:� “We cannot rely on the promises of the government any more. I don’t think even the re-scrutinised results are accurate. Now they are trying to say something to console us and just get away with it”.
“There is only one solution to this issue; the authorities will have to issue separate cut off marks for old and new syllabuses and enter students to universities under the percentage of 60% from the old syllabus and 40% from the new syllabus. If UGC issues a common cut off mark for both syllabuses, whole of the student population will face an injustice”.
“Two exams, two scales, two cut-off marks, that’s what all of you should ask for”.

6% of GDP For Education: Who Is Telling The Truth?


By
Dr. Nirmal
Ranjith
Dewasiri, SundayLeader
Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) is asking the government to prioritise education and to invest in education. Towards this end FUTA has shown a concrete figure of measurement: the allocation on education as a percentage of GDP. This is a globally accepted measurement and the figure of 6% has been agreed to by the Sri Lankan government at many forums. FUTA has also shown that the government is not anywhere close to meeting this standard. Instead of engaging meaningfully with FUTA on this issue and trying to figure out a way of meeting its commitments, the government is spending its energy on trying to show not only that FUTA is wrong, but that these internationally accepted benchmarks which are used not only by Sri Lanka but all other countries are wrong! It is also bending over backwards to suggest that investing more in education is impossible and by implication, not necessary. This simply means, the government is saying it is NOT interested in education. The government is asking the public, the citizens of this country to take the responsibility for education. The government is stating over and over again, that it is simply not willing to allocate funds for education. It is saying this while it has shown its willingness to allocate funds for other, arguably less critical sectors. This is definitely not the mandate with which this government came into power. It is definitely not the legacy to which the constituent parties of this government can lay claim to. No other government has dared to so openly declare its intentions of divesting itself of the responsibility for education. Does this government want to be remembered as that which was responsible for the destruction of education in Sri Lanka?
Part I
FUTA’s response to the attempt by the government to suggest that currently the spending on education amounts to about 5% of GDP
In response to FUTA’s demand that the government increase its spending on education to 6% of the GDP, the government has recognised that there is a UNESCO recommendation to this effect and said that it already spends 5% of the GDP on education, since expenditure borne by individuals and private parties should also be included in it.
FUTA is glad that the government has finally come out of a state of denial and has begun to address the issues FUTA has raised. However it is clear from the above statements of the government that it is trying to deceive the public. These statements are factually incorrect and are designed to deliberately mislead the public.

6% of GDP for Education: the Rationale and the Government’s Dilemma and Table 1: Country Comparison Based on World Bank Data available for the nearest year to 2010
The government position that UNESCO refers to the total amount spent nationally on education including expenditure of education borne by individuals and private parties, is incorrect. Hence, it is grossly misleading for the government to say that Sri Lanka is presently spending approximately five percent of its GDP for education. The globally accepted measure is to assess public (that means government) spending on education. This most definitely does NOT include private contributions.
This is because there is global recognition that governments must take primary responsibility for education. The Sri Lankan government by insisting on including individual and private expenditure on education as part of calculating public expenditure on education is essentially saying it is unable and unwilling to accept responsibility for education. This is a serious issue and a clear diversion from not only existing education policy but the stated policy of this government, and specifically the Mahinda Chinthanaya.
The government needs to clearly tell the public if this is its current position on education.
It is highly unlikely that the government is unaware of the actual details. In fact, figures for government education spending (1.9% of GDP and 8.1% of total expenditure) are included in the 2011 Central Bank annual report and the 2010 University Grants Commission annual report. These figures have not been calculated by FUTA but by the government itself! Thus we believe that the government position is aimed at deliberately misleading the public. Or is the government now saying that the statistics available in the Central Bank Annual Report and the University Grants Commission’s Annual Report are wrong? If that is the case, this is an extremely serious issue since the public will no longer have faith in any figures presented by the government!
Comparison of government spending on education with government revenue.
The Government stressed that the FUTA demand to allocate six percent for education from government revenue, which only amounts to 14.3 percent of the GDP, is impractical and hilarious.
This statement is also factually incorrect and is aimed at deliberately misleading the public. First of all, particular budgetary allocations are expenditure items and hence should be compared against the total government expenditure and not against government revenue. That is the accepted practice and we find it not hilarious but quite tragic that the government seems to be unaware of this. Typically, expenditure always exceeds revenue due to high deficit created in budgeting. In 2010 government revenue (excluding grants) was 14.6% of GDP while the total government expenditure was 23.1% of GDP. In this context the question that FUTA asks is why Sri Lanka cannot immediately allocate at least 2.9% of GDP for education and then delineate a road map to increase education spending up to the already committed value of 6% of GDP by 2015 as already agreed by the government at various international and regional forums?
We suspect that the reasons could be either that the government priority on education is low or that its fiscal management policies are wrong. We also suspect that the government says one thing to the international community and another thing locally. Or else, that within the government there is disagreement on policy since the various statements the government makes are contradictory. Or even that, what the government says and what the government does are completely different. By holding the government to account based on its own stated policies and its own published figures, FUTA has exposed the lies and duplicities of this government.
The statement by the government that all countries that allocate more than 6% of GDP for education either charge fees for education or have high poverty levels is wrong.
Government has stated that almost all the countries which have allocated more than six percent of their GDPs for education either charge fees for education or have high poverty levels. This statement is incorrect.
If you look at the data in the following table where we have listed countries spending more than 6% for education, it becomes clear that the government is purposely trying to mislead the public. Many of the countries listed cannot be categorised poor by any stretch of imagination. Nor do they all charge fees for education.
The government tries to portray that Sri Lanka is the only country that provides free education. This is factually incorrect. In many developed and middle and upper-middle income countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Scotland, and Sweden even University education is free.
University per student funding has decreased.
Government has said that the allocation for universities has been increased over the past years. The amount which was Rs. 5000 million in 2000 was increased to Rs. 10,200 million in 2005, Rs. 19,600 million in 2010 and Rs. 25,000 million in 2012.
The above statement does not address the level of per student government funding and is hence misleading. Allocation for universities has increased but at the same time student enrolment has increased as well. Thus what really needs to be compared is the average per student cost. The graph below shows that this measure (per capita expenditure on students) has steadily decreased over the past few years.
Part II
Introduction
Government (public) education spending reflects government policy on education. There are several international indicators to assess and monitor government funding for education. Compliance of this must be assessed and monitored with appropriate indicators. According to the World Bank, the following are among the indicators identified as World Development Indicators for education: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator
•    Public spending on education, total (% of GDP)
•    Public spending on education, total (% of government expenditure)
A comparison of Sri Lankan public spending indicators with other countries using data available for the year closest to 2009 (either 2007 or 2008) indicates the following. Of the above indicators when considering public spending on education as a % of government spending Sri Lanka (with 8.08% of government spending) ranks 129th out of 132 countries for which the data is available for the year 2009 or the closest to 2009 (either 2007 or 2008). Only Georgia, Lebanon and Monaco spend less than Sri Lanka. The world average is 15.58%. Among Upper Middle income countries it is 16.20% and among South Asian countries it is 12.63%.
If public spending on education as a % of the GDP is taken of the 151 countries for which the data is available for the year 2009 or the closest to 2009 (either 2007 or 2008) Sri Lanka is ranked 145th with 2.06%. Brunei, Darussalam, Lebanon, Zambia, Central African Republic, Monaco and the United Arab Emirates lag behind Sri Lanka. The world average is 4.6%. Among Lower Middle income countries it is 4.03% and among South Asian countries it is 2.46%. Considering that Sri Lanka currently allocates only 1.9% of GDP on education, our ranking must have fallen even further. Sri Lanka along with other countries has committed to reaching the 6% benchmark by 2015. They should immediately ensure that their spending on education is at least on par with public spending on education in regional and other comparable countries. This would reflect Sri Lanka’s commitment to public education and signal a reversal from the decline in spending since 2005.
The government rationalises its low expenditure on education by claiming that countries that spend more on education are either where education is so poor that they need to invest more in education or where the countries are economically stronger. However, this is not a very rational argument:
•    Sri Lanka’s overall government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is comparable to the averages of South Asian countries and lower middle-income countries.
•    Sri Lanka’s government revenue as a percentage of GDP is also comparable to the averages of lower middle-income countries and is in fact, higher than the averages of other South Asian countries.
This means, that there is no significant difference in either government revenue or government expenditure as a percentage of GDP between Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries and lower middle-income countries.
The next logical question to be asked then has to be why is Sri Lanka’s public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, less than the average for South Asian countries and lower middle-income countries? Is it because education is a low priority for the government? Or is it because of poor fiscal management policy?
The Sri Lankan government must provide the public with answers to these questions! Distracting the public by misinformation and deliberate lies suggests that the government is unwilling or unable to answer these very important questions.
The importance of government spending on public education
In many countries in the region, the education sector claims the largest share of public expenditure devoted to social welfare. This is because most governments acknowledge that sectors such as education must be the primary responsibility of the state. This is to ensure both the quality of education as well as equity in accessing education. This is also why there are globally accepted benchmarks for public expenditure on education and standard indicators for measuring a country’s public expenditure on education.
Sri Lanka falls way below in both indices described above when compared to other South Asian countries and Lower Middle-income countries. Alarmingly, the trend over the past few years has been for these indices to show a decline despite the fact that Sri Lanka has committed itself, at regional international forums, to increase public spending on education to reach 6% of GDP by the year 2015. This suggests that over the past several years, successive governments and for this government in particular, education has been a low priority.
Sri Lanka compared to other countries:
Where does Sri Lanka stand compared to other countries in public education spending?
Government education spending in Sri Lanka as a percentage of GDP was 1.9% in 2010. The average investment among South Asian countries is 2.9% of GDP whereas the average among Sub-Saharan African developing countries is 4.7%. The average investment among low and middle-income countries is 4.6% (Sri Lanka is now regarded as a middle income country).
Education spending in Sri Lanka as a percentage of government expenditure on education was 8.1% in 2010. For the same measure the average among South Asian countries is about 15% whereas the average among Sub-Saharan African developing countries is 19%. The average among low and middle-income countries is about 18%.
Is government spending on education low because of low revenue and expenditure?
In Sri Lanka the overall government expenditure as a percentage of GDP was 23.1% in 2010. This is how Sri Lanka compares with other regions:
•    The average among South Asian countries is 16%
•    The average for Sub-Saharan African developing countries is around 24%.
•    The average among lower middle-income countries is around 20%.
This shows the although Sri Lanka’s overall government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is comparable to the average of other countries, its expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP is far lower.
In Sri Lanka, government revenue (excluding grants) as a percentage of GDP was 14.6% in 2010. In comparison:
•    The average government revenue among South Asian countries is about 12%
•    The average for Sub-Saharan African developing countries it is around 24%.
•    The average among lower middle-income countries is about 16%
•    The average among low and middle-income countries is around 19%.
This shows that the Sri Lankan government’s revenue as a percentage of GDP is not significantly different to other regional countries and countries of similar economic levels.
But, in Sri Lanka, government spending on education as a percentage of government revenue was 14.6% in 2010. This is significantly less than the average of lower middle-income countries and South Asian countries where this value is around 23%.
This means, that whatever way we look at it, that is:
•    As a percentage of GDP,
•    As a percentage of total government expenditure,
•    As a percentage of government revenue,
Sri Lanka spends less than other countries on education. For a country that boasts of its educational achievements, this is a shocking state of affairs. What is particularly significant is that this was not the situation in the past, but that our investment in education has been rapidly declining in recent years. While we are happy to reap the benefits of our past policies, we are selfishly and irresponsibly not ensuring that future generations will reap the same benefits. Investment in education does not produce instant results; investment in education is an investment in the future; an investment in future generations. We can only conclude from the current trends in education spending, that the government is neither interested in the future nor is it interested in future generations. Certainly, it is not interested in ensuring education for future generations.
Of course, we are also already facing the consequences of this policy. Very soon, if things do not get better, if we do not halt the decline in public expenditure on education, things can only get worse.
Finally, what is important for us is to understand what all of these facts, figures, arguments and counter arguments mean. Very simply, FUTA is asking the government to prioritise education and to invest in education. As one of the measures of this prioritization and investment, FUTA has shown a concrete figure of measurement: the allocation on education as a percentage of GDP. This is a globally accepted measurement and the figure of 6% has been agreed to by the Sri Lankan government at many forums. FUTA has also shown through many means (analyzing government revenue as well as expenditure) that the government is not anywhere close to meeting this standard. What does all of this mean?
What has been the government’s response to this? Instead of engaging meaningfully with FUTA on this issue and trying to figure out a way of meetings its commitments, the government is spending its energy on trying to show not only that FUTA is wrong, but that these internationally accepted benchmarks which are used not only by Sri Lanka but all other countries are wrong! It is also bending over backwards to suggest that investing more in education is impossible and by implication, not necessary. What does this mean? Very simply, the government is saying it is NOT interested in education. The government is asking the public, the citizens of this country to take the responsibility for education. The government is stating over and over again, that it is simply not willing to allocate funds for education. It is saying this while it has shown its willingness to allocate funds for other, arguably less critical sectors.
Is this the government position? Because, this is definitely not the mandate with which this government came into power. It is definitely not the legacy to which the constituent parties of this government can lay claim to. No other government has dared to so openly declare its intentions of divesting itself of the responsibility for education.
Does this government want to be remembered as that which was responsible for the destruction of education in Sri Lanka?
References
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator Role of Public Expenditure on the Provision of Education and Health, Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2003, (http://www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/survey2003/Survey03-12.pdf)
Central Bank Annual Report, 2011
Universities Grants Commission Annual Report, 2010
World Bank Report, ‘Transforming School Education in Sri Lanka: From Cut Stones to Polished Jewels’, 2011
————————–
This article was first posted on Colombo Telegraph

No cheers for Govt. or FUTA

  • Written by  The Nation
  • Sunday, 29 July 2012 00:00
  • font size decrease font size increase font size 
  • Print 
  • Email
Rate this item
(2 votes)
The Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) is up in arms.  University students point fingers at the government for non-resolution of issues raised by their gurus.  University aspirants, victims of the Z-score imbroglio, are waiting on politicians to sort out the blame-game.  Add to this the fact that there is a huge mismatch between the education system and overall national skill requirement with a view to the future based on long term development policy with not even a whisper regarding the compilation of an occupational classification and we can conclude ‘Education is a mess’.  
FUTA has now gone beyond the salary issue to talk about education in general and specifically about budgetary allocations, countering claims made by the Government (a statement on the subject authored by FUTA President Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri is carried in these pages).  It is incumbent on the Government therefore to respond as comprehensively to each and every point made.  Telling lecturers to get back to work and mouthing promises about redress will simply not work.  
FUTA has now moved from petition and strike to public agitation.  It has taken to the streets.  There is a big gap between taking to the streets and taking the streets of course, but there are talks of an ‘Academic Spring’ and FUTA feeding on general dissatisfaction and disappointment.  It makes political sense in terms of achieving objectives.  The downside is that such a course of action automatically turns teachers into pawns of broader political projects, some of which are orchestrated by forces that really don’t give a damn about education, ‘free’ or otherwise.  If FUTA or anyone else is unconcerned about the names and purposes of political bedfellows it only means that integrity is up for barter.
FUTA may be made of academics but right now it is made of politicians, activists and, let’s face it, agent provocateurs. Right now it is in unionist mode.  Still, given the vocation it is not out of order to toss back to FUTA certain tenets that are central to the membership.  
We can ask about academic honesty.  We can ask Dr. Dewasiri if FUTA is ready to write about all the negatives of the academic community that makes its membership.  What about competencies, for example?  How about the incessant infighting for the so-called voluntary posts that the FUTA membership has self-righteously resigned from on occasion?  FUTA’s professed love for students and scholarship does not right true when one considers rank favoritism and a culture of down-grading students who are considered potential threats to position, would Dr. Dewasiri disagree?  Can all of it be put down to fund-lack and flawed government policy?
How about rampant mediocrity?  Will FUTA admit, for example, that its membership happily made use of a scandalous decision to count in even newspaper articles and appreciations when awarding professorships?  When will FUTA tell us how many peer reviewed articles have been published by individual members in various internationally respected journals?  
Prominent members of FUTA have on occasion written tirades against private universities, even as other prominent FUTA members have openly advocated capitalism and submission to market forces.  In fact the latter kind was conspicuous in their silence in the first two decades of the ‘Open Economy’.  Is party loyalty driving academic thrust, then?   Why have those who opposed the Malabe Medical facility on grounds of quality-lack remained silent about even poorer facilities and human resources at Rajarata?
The Government certainly does not have the moral right to ask such questions.  The people can, though.  Many would prefer academics as opposed to politicians playing Opposition in a nation that sorely needs strong critiques of regime and system.  
Right now FUTA seems determined to take on broader issues.  That has to be applauded in the better-late-than-never sense.  It requires responsibility, however.  And responsibility requires honesty.  That’s lacking and that lack may prove fatal in terms of winning over public trust, so important for the role that FUTA seeks to play, going strictly by its statements.
Right now, no one is applauding the government.  There are some hand claps for the academics, but they are guarded.  Rightly so.  Both parties have poor briefs to defend.  That shows how poverty stricken we all are as a people and as a nation.