Cartoon, SundayIsland

‘Patrimony of the Rich’ to the ‘Inheritance of the Poor’:

6% of GDP in State Investment for Education

August 4, 2012, 5:34 pm . the sundayisland


by Ahilan Kadirgamar

In presenting the recommendations of the Special Committee on Education to the State Council in 1944, C.W.W. Kannangara, then the Minister of Education, famously rephrased the quote of a 19th century Scottish jurist and politician: "Sir, it was the boast of the great Augustus that he found Rome of brick and left it of marble. How much nobler will that be for this State Council when we shall be able to say that we found education expensive and left it cheap; that we found it in a sealed book and left it in an open letter; that we found it the patrimony of the rich and left it the inheritance of the poor."

The reforms that led to decades of free education in this country were drafted by a multi-ethnic Committee of 23 educationists. The Committee existed for three years with sittings in Jaffna, Kandy, Galle, Batticaloa and Colombo. Sessional Paper 24, the Report of the Committee, reflected a wide range of concerns and provided the grounds for a national policy on education. The strength of the Report was its breadth of analysis and its grounding in issues facing education in Ceylon at that time. However, it was able to make a major mark on education in the country by channelling those broader concerns into an unequivocal demand for free education.

Today, almost 70 years later, free education is under attack and on the brink of destruction. Although the Government postponed a secretly drafted and controversial private education bill that met with much protest in January, it has been complicit, together with successive governments, in propelling the slow death of free education. State investment in education is at an all time low of 1.9% of GDP. When educational spending is so low, in fact one of the lowest in the world, private education is supported and promoted by default. It is the wealthier classes that can augment a poorly funded public education system with private services by sending their children to expensive tuition classes, international schools, or additional diploma courses and putting them through private academies or universities abroad. This is where the call for 6% of GDP in state investment for education by the Federation of University Teachers Associations (FUTA) is a demand worthy of support. It deserves admiration in line with the recommendation of Kannangara and his Committee on Education for free education in the 1940s.

While there are many other demands and a whole range of issues that FUTA is engaging with, - including the political appointments of administrators, militarisation of university space, the Z-score fiasco and the shutting down of rural schools - topics on which many academics have prolifically written about in recent weeks, in this article, I wish to specifically address the political economy of the 6% demand. FUTA’s 6% demand, one of the most insightful political demands in our recent history, is being shunned or dismissed by mainstream economists for ideological reasons. Given the complicity of the mainstream economic establishment in the escalation of the global economic crisis, and their current push towards further austerity and cuts to social welfare in the West, the dismissal of neoclassical economists or the positions of neoliberal international agencies such as the World Bank and IMF should not deter us from exploring the 6% demand.

Rethinking GDP and Economic Growth

The FUTA call for 6%, initially a demand of 5,000 university teachers, is now burgeoning into one that encompasses the concerns of 230,000 school teachers, over four million students, their families as well as the broader citizenry. The 6% demand is thus becoming a demand of the public and about our society. Will this public demand be able to open our imagination to think in radically different ways about the economy? For example, what percent of our GDP should the government invest in health, the other pillar of our society? How do such demands on the state for social welfare relate to our social expectations of the economy? And what do GDP and economic growth mean beyond being measures of the total goods and services produced in this country? And, more importantly, who benefits from such economic growth?

The Government boasts 8% GDP growth and US$ 2,800 per capita GDP last year. But what do these numbers mean when between 2005 and 2010 education as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 2.9% to 1.9% and expenditure per university student as a ratio of per capita income has fallen from 130% to 70%? The tenure of the Rajapaksa Government has so far been characterised by an attack on education and social welfare more broadly. These changes are neither accidental nor inevitable as some economists and Government propagandists would like to have us believe. Rather, it reflects the priorities of the Government.

Looking at recurrent expenditure, including the salaries of teachers, versus capital expenditure, the longer term investment in educational development including for example in school and university buildings, would give us a better idea of the Governmentpriorities. Taken together, capital expenditure on education and health amounts to only 10% of capital expenditure on all other infrastructure. Indeed, the build out of roads and ports we see all over the country is a much higher priority for the Government than the essential social infrastructures of education and health. While the capital expenditure in transport and communication was less than three times the capital expenditure on education in 2005, by 2011 it had risen sharply to over eight times that on education. According to the Finance Ministry’s Annual Report the total projected capital investment from 2012 to 2016 is Rs. 125 billion for education and Rs. 132 billion for health, but a staggering Rs. 803 billion for roads. All this points to a major shift in the priorities of the Government, with less and less being spent on social welfare.

The 6% demand also pushes us to think about the meaning of GDP and economic growth, and who it serves. Transforming public education into a booming private business to serve the wealthier classes in this country as well as foreign students who can afford the high fees, would admittedly contribute towards GDP growth. But would it serve broader society? This is where there is a clear and important distinction between state investment in education as a percentage of GDP and private sector share of education as a percentage of GDP. The private education bill and the promotion of private universities will increase private sector share of education as a percentage of GDP as well as contribute towards GDP growth. However, such private universities due to their high costs will only serve the wealthy. Furthermore, the state university system accessible to the broader citizenry will also be undermined as university lecturers are poached by higher paying private universities.

Resisting Neoliberal Policies

The important question is why these cuts to social welfare are taking place now and where they are coming from. Austerity measures that restrict the Budget and stipulate cuts to education and social welfare are part of a larger neoliberal class project serving the interests of finance capital. The neoliberal policies of privatisation and austerity favour financialisation of the economy in order to reward global finance capital and the local financial elite. These policies facilitate the accumulation of capital with profits accruing to the financial sector from all other sectors of the economy. Such neoliberal accumulation ravages social welfare by transforming public institutions for education and health into profit making enterprises. In other words, what in our recent history was claimed to be peoples entitlements in the form free education, with the onslaught of private education will indebt families as they are forced to take loans and even mortgage and sell their homes to educate their children. Furthermore, our education system was built with decades of collective social efforts and social investment. Now, with the process of privatisation, this educational inheritance of the people will be dispossessed in order for financiers backing educational businesses to make profits.

The neoliberalisation of education, characteristic of the neoliberal process of "accumulation by dispossession", has become prevalent in many countries around the world, particularly in the West, with cuts to education accelerating in the context of the global economic crisis. With student debt in Western countries mounting, education has become a severe burden on the youth rather than enabling their social and economic future. And, this is where, merely looking for models of education in the West or the functioning of Western universities as the path to revitalise education in Sri Lanka, is bound to be disastrous. Indeed, back in the 1940s, Kannangara and his Committee were cautious in assessing the models in the UK, the US and the West when insisting on free education in Ceylon:

"Few will disagree with the proposition that education in a democratic society should be free at all stages. Talents and ability are not confined to any social class or group and any social system must provide for their emergence by the provision of equal educational opportunities. ... It may be asked why these progressive and advanced democracies have not thought of making education completely free, i.e., from kindergarten up to and including the University stage. ... But partly influenced by financial considerations very few countries, even of the West, have made secondary education free for all entrants, and Universities which offer free education are exceptional."

If in the late colonial period, our visionary educationists could think beyond such models, certainly we can also chart a different path from the currently dominant neoliberal policies transforming education. Furthermore, FUTA’s 6% demand is one they also recognize will take time, a demand that for now requires a commitment from the Government towards step by step increases in state investment. As some researchers have written and historical data shows, between 1954 and 1964, Sri Lanka’s investment in education rose from 2.6% to 4.6% of GDP. So, even from our own history, there is a precedent for the viability of the 6% demand, provided there is political will on the part of the Government.

The reality unfortunately is that the Rajapaksa Government is not interested in addressing the crisis in education. Not only has the Government dragged negotiations with FUTA in recent weeks despite the crippling strike, but ironically reflecting the priorities of the Government, the President recently held a meeting with stockbrokers which was followed by the Finance Secretary meeting twice with the financial sector. The Government claims to be seeking their input for the next Budget, but perhaps their interest is in propping up the stock market? The FUTA struggle is then being waged, not only in the context of the crisis in education, but also in the backdrop of the hegemony of finance capital. Therefore, FUTA’s trade union action and particularly its 6% demand, needs public support to transform it into a long term national struggle of the citizenry, a struggle that must recognise education as the "inheritance of the poor" built over decades by previous generations.

What ails our education system?

August 4, 2012, 5:44 pm


Prof. Nedra Karunaratne, the island

Sri Lanka boasted of an impeccable record for having the highest literacy rate in Asia. The credit was largely attributed to free education and implementation of compulsory primary education to all citizens. However, over the past decade or more, erosion of the education system with respect to teacher quality, availability of resources in rural schools, interference in school admissions and various forms of corruption in conducting examinations has led to a gradual deterioration of the system. The recent Z score fiasco is a good example of the infiltration of ‘nonexperts’ into controlling areas where subject experts are required. In any administrative structure, the lack of a knowledgeable leader at the helm eventually results in the boat steering in the wrong direction.

To start at the beginning- a firm foundation is the key to building a solid structure. A good primary education is the foundation for a future generation of intelligent, conscientious, responsible and hardworking society. Primary education is not only for learning subject matter but also for shaping the character and moral values of the children. Sadly the children of today only receive a partial education in subject matter (with the rest to be acquired compulsorily at the private tuition class conducted by the class teacher) with hardly any education in character building, no example set by the teacher toward moral responsibility and little guidance by many parents who are too busy with making ends meet.

A recent survey on the sexual abuse of children has revealed that the victims were mostly from families with no parental supervision or care. With this dismal start, the child is programmed to passing one examination after another by hook or by crook invariably being channelled from one tutory to the next in search of the ‘god’ teacher who can give them the passport to the seat of higher learning. This is appalling for those of us who had the luxury of going to school to play and learn and not require the help of any teaching assistant other than the class teacher.

Now why has this happened? What ails our education system? Primary and secondary education moulds the workforce and builds up the nation. Nation building is not carpeting roads alone. To mould a child, a trained teacher is a must. Training in both subject area and teaching practice incorporates a dimension not inherent in everyone. With the appointment over a period of 30 years or more of untrained teachers, many on minimum qualifications, some with just a basic degree, a slow crumbling of the high standards of education along with ad hoc syllabus changes has given rise to the present situation.

What happened to the trained school teacher of yore? The increase in moral deterioration of the society, lack of responsibility of administrators and the nonchalance of the general workforce is a consequence of this. The solution should be in the criteria of teacher recruitment, and inculcation of social responsibility in those aspiring to enter the profession. Fr. Mervyn Fernando’s article ‘A godless, dhamma-less education system?’ in The Island of July 11, 2012, explicitly states "The key role in a holistic/humanistic education is played by the teacher. Child psychology or even common sense makes clear that the life of a child is shaped firstly by parents (or parent substitutes) and subsequently by teachers. These are the two sets of gurus, the de-guru, recognized by the ancient educational wisdom of the East. The experiences of the child from these gurus and their example shape the child’s life–his/her mind, heart and spirit—especially in the early impressionable years.  A vision or dhamma is concretized in a vision of life and a set of values which a child has to absorb in graded steps to grow in wisdom and virtue as he/she grows in age."

Having gone through this rat race the student who progresses to the next stage in the education system, very likely does not seem to understand that there is a transition from the school setting. This may be why the Higher Education Ministry decided to impart leadership training (again without consulting subject experts) to new University entrants last year. However, the UGC and the Ministry are unaware that students need to be trained in leadership and character at a younger age. It is not possible to teach an old dog, new tricks. The university is a place of higher learning rather than a place for character moulding.

These inadequacies in the school education curriculum do not seem to have caught the attention of the general public - or are they oblivious due to their tunnel vision of one goal - entering the university? The gravity of the situation and lack of interest by those responsible has resulted in University Academics taking up the task of attracting the attention of those holding the reins to this reality with the demand for allocating 6% of the GDP towards education. Did anyone wonder why the demand for the allocation is for education and not an allocation for higher education? The answer is obviously because the formative years are the most important in the life of a human.

Reform the schools and the education system along with changes to the examination system and teacher training methods and lo and behold no doubt the output would be very different. The attitudes of every officer dealing with education whether primary, secondary or tertiary need to be re-evaluated if any of these changes are to take effect. Train the teachers in teaching practice and child psychology and a better society will be born. Build more schools without closing down the existing schools to continue the tradition of free education.

Interestingly, a broadcast on TNL News Radio and a report in the Srilankamirror of June 25, 2012 was to the effect that the Minister of Higher Education had stated that "the closure of rural schools is a sign of development and that rural children preferred to attend urban schools since they have better facilities." The truth of this statement is of utmost importance since the rural child is daily being deprived of the right to attend a school nearby while the urban child travels miles to a National School of repute. In some of the North American countries, children must attend the school nearest to their home. No child is permitted to by-pass the closest school he is eligible to attend and travel to one further away.

So far the ministerial advisors have had no solution to the school admission policy. What kind of future generation are we producing? Will it be a nation of disillusioned students and disappointed parents seeking other avenues to satisfy their dreams? What will our nation gain by continuing to turn a blind eye to this bubbling hot pot? Definitely an exodus of young talent seeking education abroad and young families seeking better education for their children overseas if affluence permits, or bite the dust if not.

If the demand for the 6% of GDP allocation for education is met, would there be better teachers, better schools and more satisfaction for students and parents? The answer lies in the manner in which educational policies are implemented. Of prime importance to any successful system is the execution of the policies according to the set standard. It is more the exception than the rule these days that administrators follow not the policy but the fancy of the person under whose jurisdiction they come. Several of the appointed administrators are unaware of the duties they need to perform to get the job done. Needless to say it is a consequence of the most suitable not receiving their due place.

The appointment of school principals and vice principals is a case in point (not to mention other appointments in the seats of higher learning). The Daily Mirror of June 12, 2012 reports that "a fresh crisis emerged in the education sector after the Public Service Commission (PSC) rejected recommendations by the Education Ministry regarding the appointment of principals to national schools". The story goes on to say that Minister Bandula Gunawardane received Cabinet approval to do away with the requirement of those qualified in Sri Lanka Education Administrative Service (SLEAS) for appointment as national school principals.

This malady has spread to all sectors of the government departments and rectifying an error of such magnitude cannot be done overnight leave alone in a lifetime without adopting drastic measures with respect to restricting politicized appointments. The lack of responsibility and accountability has created a monster in the entire government sector. No wonder the private sector is more productive and socially responsible as accountability is a prime requirement from the highest to the lowest employee. Is this the reason why many of our graduates demand jobs from the government rather than seek employment in the private sector?

So what then for our universities? The Z score for selection to Universities has opened a fresh can of worms. A few years back in 2005, when the marking of the A/L scripts were defective due to a faulty computer, several undeserving students found their way into the Universities citing human right violations and mental stress. If a mistake is made in issuing results, how can the mistake be corrected by giving places at the University to those selected in error? This time around, the problem is of far greater proportion due to the controversies of calculating the Z scores for two different examinations. Considering the first verdict cancelling the Z score, is it justifiable to seek redress in the very court which deemed those results null and void? The Daily Mirror (July 24, 2012) quotes Senior Professor R.O. Thattil who said "the previous Z scores had been nullified and therefore, students should not compare them with the new Z scores. It is incorrect to compare the two calculations now that the previous calculation has been declared null and void."

Again are we forgetting that ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ in trying to reach out to another error to rectify the original error? The delay in the rectification has caused undue stress to the candidates. How the Ministry of Higher Education should or would handle this is anyone’s guess. There may be many solutions to this dilemma, but whichever is adopted one set of disappointed candidates will prevail. The root cause of this problem has not dawned on anyone as yet. The lack of planning with regard to pre-allocation of places for the two different sets of candidates or with regard to prior consensus on the calculation of the Z score has given rise to this heartache and bitterness. All this boils down to the stark reality of the unsuitability and incompetence of those in responsible places. Let’s vote for the 6% of GDP allocation for education and hope it will save our schools and Universities as well as provide our children with good governance. Investing in responsible development ensures the security of the future generation and benefits all its citizens.

(The writer is Professor of Chemistry, University of Peradeniya)