Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Period of Schooling – Isn’t it too Long?

, The Island

article_image

Sarath B S Abayakoon

The importance of school education is a subject that has been discussed for centuries. It is understood that school education expects to encompass discipline, social living, group work, and also expects to build self- confidence of a youngster at a very early age. It also must give him/her a first exposure to knowledge and applications, of the subjects taught, and should prepare the student for Higher level education. School education is the Launching Pad for one’s goals and actions for the future.

Considering the present state it is in, the school education in Sri Lanka is a topic that needs to be thoroughly discussed as the system certainly needs a complete overhauling. In this article, I will concentrate only on one of the relevant issues, the "Time period of schooling". The total time period of schooling in Sri Lanka is, (whether one includes the time spent at Universities or not) in comparison, higher than that of many developed countries. This results in our population joining the work force later than those in the developed world, thus effectively reducing the total output of the country, as we are continually losing the best productive years of our youth. Therefore, although there are many other important issues in our educational system that needs attention, I believe there is an urgent need to adequately address the time period of schooling, at the present time.

It would be pertinent to have a look at how the school system worked in the first few decades following our independence. The first level a child enters at a school was called Hodiya (the Kindergarten), followed by grades 1,2,3 etc. up to the University Entrance Examination. Junior School Certificate, obtained after completing Grade 8, was considered adequate enough for many jobs and Senior School Certificate (SSC) awarded after successful completion of Grade 10 certainly opened a multitude of opportunities, mainly to be recruited to many respectable government organizations. Those few who wanted to go beyond SSC to HSC (Higher School Certificate) and then to UE(University Entrance) were only high achievers. Both SSC and HSC examinations were held in the month of December each year.

One of the key elements in the above system was"successful completion". Once on being admitted to Hodiya, s/he had to complete each grade "successfully" to go to the next grade. Those who had excelled at the end of a particular grade were eligible for a"Double Promotion" so that they could skip the next grade, earning a leapfrog into the grade beyond. On the other end of the spectrum were those who performed poorly, who had to repeat the grade for at least one additional year.

Today, those students who complete 5 years of age at the end of January each year are admitted to Grade 1 at the beginning of January. So the age of the children who are entering national Schools vary from 4 yrs 11 months to 5 years 11 months at the time of entry. Assuming a normal distribution of the age, the average age at entry can be taken as 5 yrs and 5 months. At the school, they go through the primary education and secondary education up to the end of Grade 11, without any leapfrog or any setback.

The average age of a student facing GCE (Ordinary Level) examination at the end of their Grade 11 of studies, in December of that particular year, is thus 16 years and 5 months. This is the first time in their lives that they face an examination that can hold them back in their academic progression. Those who get through the GCE (O/L) examination are eligible to enter GCE (Advanced Level) classes. The irony of the system in today’s context is that in many government schools, the GCE (A/L) classes proper, do not start until the end of August– 8 months after sitting the GCE(O/L) examination. The GCE(A/L) examination is held 2 years later, making the average age of a candidate 19 yrs and one month at the time of facing the examination.

During the time I sat for GCE(A/L) examination, it was held in the month of April. I do not know the reasons for shifting it to April from December. However, I can barely remember why it was shifted to August from April afterwards. One bright individual at the decision making level (or was it many ?) suddenly realized that the month of April is a festive period and a highly competitive examination should not be held in April as all Sri Lankans must be busy celebrating rather than trying to shape up the future of themselves and that of the country. If one looks at the long list of public holidays in Sri Lanka, it is easy to see that there is a festival of some sort almost every month (Note:Ramzan is celebrated in August !!!!) and we should be thankful that the authorities did not decide to scrap the GCE(A/L) examination altogether.

It generally takes about three to four months to release the results of the GCE(A/L) examination and another five to six months for finalizing the cut off marks to enter universities after recorrections are done. If all goes well, the students will get to know their cut-off marks by about the month of May of the subsequent year and the Universities can absorb the fresh students in mid-August after necessary preliminaries. Assuming that the University system functions smoothly, a student following a four year degree programme will graduate eventually at an average age of about 24 years.

I entered the University at a younger age and graduated at the age of 21 yrs after following a 4 year degree and little more than a year later, I was enrolled in a Master’s programme in North America. However, all the other students in my class there, who had followed the North American system, were younger to me!! They usually graduate at an average age of about 21 and those who go for higher degrees can enroll in postgraduate programmes within six months of graduation.

It is therefore clear that we are keeping our children, for at least three years more, in studying than their counterparts in the developed world. What we are doing, is keeping young people within the confines of school buildings during their most productive age. During this period, Sri Lanka loses creativity and originality of the youth that can otherwise be effectively engaged for country’s progress. The resulting loss of possible production, in monitory terms, due to this wastage of time of the brightest minds of the country, is unimaginably large. Therefore, it is equally clear that we must take all efforts to cut down the total period of schooling, without affecting the quality of our products.

How can we do this? I propose to shorten the schooling period from 11 years to 10 years so that GCE(O/L) examination can be held after completing Grade 10 of studies. Advanced Level classes at schools must commence immediately after the GCE(O/L) examination, in the following month of January. The GCE (A/L) examination must be held in December, as it was done in the 60’s or latest in the following month of February. Five months is more than sufficient to complete corrections, recorrections and to release cut-off marks. Students who seek entry to local universities must be enrolled, by late August/early September. The average age of a student at the entry to a University will thus be 18 yrs. This will allow the country to use at least two additional years of the most productive period from the cream of our country.

Compressing 11 years of schooling into 10 years should not be a very difficult task to achieve. Cutting down the wastage of eight months after the GCE(O/L) examination, while gaining time, also keeps the students focused. This will make the classroom at school more appealing to the students as in the present system, they learn the subject at the tution classes before the subjects are taught at schools, resulting in a loss of interest. As for the release of results, the time taken for recorrections can be greatly reduced by conference marking. The Universities must be advised to release the academic staff members who are involved in such work, as releasing results early should be established as a national priority.

It is also adviceable to introduce the requirement of "successful completion" at the end of each year to go on to the next grade, at least up to the GCE (O/L) examination, which will also keep the students focused throughout their schooling period. Reintroduction of "Double Promotion" system may also be considered as a way of encouraging students to better their performance at all levels. Although these are important steps towards reshaping school education, its implementation has to be carefully thought out. It needs the establishment of a foolproof assessment system and complete commitment from teachers of all grades.

As stated at the beginning, this article addresses only a single issue that, in my view, needs urgent attention in a review of the school education system. Furthermore, it is something that can be achieved without too much additional resources if the authorities have the will to push forward and implement theproposed changes.

(Sarath B S Abayakoon is a Senior Professor in Civil Engineering at the University of Peradeniya. He served as a member of the University Grants Commission and also as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Peradeniya.)

Wasting the money allocated to education

, The Island

article_image
A couple of days back I predicted that the FUTA strike would soon be resolved by yet another increase in the salaries of university staff, with no correctives with regard to the grave problems now facing our education system. Recent reports in the papers suggest that this will indeed be the case.

That would be tragic, for it would provide yet another instance of state resources being squandered. Salaries should be paid in terms of work done, and sadly there is no system at present to ensure that university lecturers actually work satisfactorily for the salaries they earn. Of course it could be argued that this is true of other public servants too, but other public servants are not paid so well.

I should note that some, and indeed perhaps many, university lecturers do work hard. Amongst them, I was sure, having met him, was the FUTA Head Dr Dewasiri, who seemed to me an idealist. Certainly, in the last period for which statistics are available, he has taught for 378 hours per semester.

This is in marked contrast to several of his colleagues in the Arts Faculty in Colombo. In one Department 15 out of 17 had been assigned 90 hours or fewer per semester, ie 6 hours a week, in one semester. Some of them did more in the second semester, but never more than ten hours per week. Two, though, I should note, did ten or more in the first semester.

In the Peradeniya Arts Faculty I was sorry to note that English academics seemed the most leisured, with no one getting to over 100 hours per semester except for one person who did 150, having come in in the second semester. A more senior person, having been on sabbatical in the first semester, managed 18 hours in the second, which is just over 1 hour a week.

In the USJP Science Faculty, only 4 people out of 81 taught for more than 100 hours in even one semester. 4 persons did not have lectures assigned, while several had 15 or, in one case, just 10. In Moratuwa, by contrast, which I have long considered our best university, in the Faculty of Architecture, most had over 200 hours per term.

I could go on for hours, and perhaps I should, because it seems that I am the only person to have realised that the number of hours taught by all lecturers should be tabulated, and used as a Management tool. A year ago, at the Committee on Public Enterprises, we told the UGC to provide a schedule, which it seems had not been thought of by them previously. It took them several months to send it, which suggests that the universities had not thought of this either.

Sadly, when it reached COPE, in April, we were not told about this. Since the sub-committee responsibilities had been changed, I had not been to a meeting with the universities till today, and that was only by accident, because a Consultative Committee had been cancelled, without my being informed.

I was astonished to find that the UGC had done nothing with the schedule. They had wanted advice, it seemed, from COPE. Since they had not asked however, and since none of my colleagues seemed to have seen the schedule, it might have lain forgotten, had the Consultative Committee today not been cancelled.

I have suggested that the UGC actually call a meeting, with anyone concerned, who understands basic principles of management and accountability, to work out how to proceed, and ensure that the public get value for money, ie that university lecturers actually teach for at least a stipulated minimum number of hours per week. Whether we can ensure that this is teaching, rather than reading out notes for students to copy down, which I know some of my colleagues used to do, is another question. But at least we can make a start in ensuring awareness of what we should aim at, and the shoddy substitute for this that a significant number of those asking for higher salaries actually provide.

As a postscript, I was astounded to hear last week, with regard to another area in which I used to work, that the Director General of the Disaster Management Centre has had his salary reduced to under Rs 50,000 a month, whereas when he was recruited he was paid 150,000. Given the fantastic work he has done, and the responsibilities entrusted to him, I find it astonishing that government could countenance this, even while it contemplates paying people who teach for one hour a week over twice as much.

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

Wasting the money allocated to education

, The Island

article_image
A couple of days back I predicted that the FUTA strike would soon be resolved by yet another increase in the salaries of university staff, with no correctives with regard to the grave problems now facing our education system. Recent reports in the papers suggest that this will indeed be the case.

That would be tragic, for it would provide yet another instance of state resources being squandered. Salaries should be paid in terms of work done, and sadly there is no system at present to ensure that university lecturers actually work satisfactorily for the salaries they earn. Of course it could be argued that this is true of other public servants too, but other public servants are not paid so well.

I should note that some, and indeed perhaps many, university lecturers do work hard. Amongst them, I was sure, having met him, was the FUTA Head Dr Dewasiri, who seemed to me an idealist. Certainly, in the last period for which statistics are available, he has taught for 378 hours per semester.

This is in marked contrast to several of his colleagues in the Arts Faculty in Colombo. In one Department 15 out of 17 had been assigned 90 hours or fewer per semester, ie 6 hours a week, in one semester. Some of them did more in the second semester, but never more than ten hours per week. Two, though, I should note, did ten or more in the first semester.

In the Peradeniya Arts Faculty I was sorry to note that English academics seemed the most leisured, with no one getting to over 100 hours per semester except for one person who did 150, having come in in the second semester. A more senior person, having been on sabbatical in the first semester, managed 18 hours in the second, which is just over 1 hour a week.

In the USJP Science Faculty, only 4 people out of 81 taught for more than 100 hours in even one semester. 4 persons did not have lectures assigned, while several had 15 or, in one case, just 10. In Moratuwa, by contrast, which I have long considered our best university, in the Faculty of Architecture, most had over 200 hours per term.

I could go on for hours, and perhaps I should, because it seems that I am the only person to have realised that the number of hours taught by all lecturers should be tabulated, and used as a Management tool. A year ago, at the Committee on Public Enterprises, we told the UGC to provide a schedule, which it seems had not been thought of by them previously. It took them several months to send it, which suggests that the universities had not thought of this either.

Sadly, when it reached COPE, in April, we were not told about this. Since the sub-committee responsibilities had been changed, I had not been to a meeting with the universities till today, and that was only by accident, because a Consultative Committee had been cancelled, without my being informed.

I was astonished to find that the UGC had done nothing with the schedule. They had wanted advice, it seemed, from COPE. Since they had not asked however, and since none of my colleagues seemed to have seen the schedule, it might have lain forgotten, had the Consultative Committee today not been cancelled.

I have suggested that the UGC actually call a meeting, with anyone concerned, who understands basic principles of management and accountability, to work out how to proceed, and ensure that the public get value for money, ie that university lecturers actually teach for at least a stipulated minimum number of hours per week. Whether we can ensure that this is teaching, rather than reading out notes for students to copy down, which I know some of my colleagues used to do, is another question. But at least we can make a start in ensuring awareness of what we should aim at, and the shoddy substitute for this that a significant number of those asking for higher salaries actually provide.

As a postscript, I was astounded to hear last week, with regard to another area in which I used to work, that the Director General of the Disaster Management Centre has had his salary reduced to under Rs 50,000 a month, whereas when he was recruited he was paid 150,000. Given the fantastic work he has done, and the responsibilities entrusted to him, I find it astonishing that government could countenance this, even while it contemplates paying people who teach for one hour a week over twice as much.

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

A Review of Quotas in University Admissions

, The Island

article_image
by Devanesan Nesiah

My good friend Somapala Gunadheera has made some thoughtful observations (The Island 10 Sept. 2012) on the problems of University admissions, and noted that in my "Tamil Language Rights in Sri Lanka"(CPA, April 2012),I had not suggested ways and means of solving them. My analysis and suggestions were expressed in some publications way back in the 90s, and that is why I chose not to repeat them. But, since my friend has raised the question, I will (belatedly) retrace some of what I had written then, supplemented with an outline of the historical back ground.

The Jaffna youth have traditionally been depended on education for employment since other avenues have been lacking in comparison with other districts. Since Sinhala Only in 1956, Tamil speakers have had even more problems than previously in finding employment. They have responded with even greater focus on education and on acquiring superior academic and professional qualifications, especially in fields such as Medicine and Engineering in which such qualifications virtually guarantee employment. Thus, the proportions of Tamil youth entering the Medical and Engineering university faculties progressively increased, posing political problems for the government. In particular the intake from Jaffna, which has long had a disproportionate number of very good secondary schools was very high. The political problem came to a head in 1970 -71, in the first year of the newly elected Srimavo Bandaranaike administration.

A hasty (and shortsighted and irrational) decision was taken by the Cabinet of Ministers to fix different pass marks to students of different ethnic groups so as to achieve an acceptable ethnic mix in University admissions in 1971. This was blatantly racist. Predictably, the impact on Sri Lankan Tamils was traumatic, and a small section of Tamil youth took to armed rebellion. This ‘solution’ was also widely critisised by educationists at home and abroad. Modifications were, therefore, introduced in subsequent years for intakes in those years, but those schemes were also defective and, in any case, the damage done could not be undone. It was first sought to give a veneer of pseudo respectability by introducing what was called ‘linguistic standardisation’ which was again ethnic discrimination but in disguise. No educational or egalitarian or affirmative action/reverse discrimination principle was served. What it did serve was to instigate a serious of anti-Tamil pogroms culminating in a very bloody civil war which, with interruption, extended to 24 years (1985-2009), with a death toll of many tens of thousands, mostly of non-combatants.

Under ‘linguistic standardisation’, Sinhalese (Sinhala medium) students of all socio economic classes and in all schools gained privileged admissions to Medical, Engineering and some other faculties at the expense of Tamil and Muslim (Tamil medium) students of all socio economic classes and in all schools. This scheme was just as racist as the 1971 scheme. It would be an obscene travesty to describe as affirmative action/reverse discrimination a scheme that gives a step up to the child of senior Sinhalese professionals in the Sinhalese stream at Royal or Visakha or Trinity over a Tamil or Muslim child of estate laborers or slum dwellers purely on the basis of language medium. Whereas under affirmative action/reverse discrimination the under privileged would get a step up over the privileged, under linguistic standardisation, as in the above example the reverse may take place.

What is affirmative action/reverse discrimination? Its objective is to give a step up to the under privileged and/or the victims of discrimination with a view to compensating for the deprivation and/or discrimination. In India, quota reservations are constitutionally prescribed for Untouchables/ Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. For lack of space I will not spell out here the relevant sections of the Indian Constitution. In the US preferences are mandated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, however, does not expressly prescribe quotas nor identify the beneficiaries. In a land mark ruling the then Indian Chief Justice A. N. Ray affirmed that "equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of inequality. Equality of opportunity admits discrimination with reason" (State of Kerala v N. M.Thomas, 1976). In the US, in a landmark judgment, Supreme Court Justice Harry A.Blackmun claimed that " … in order to treat some person equally we must treat them differently"(Bakke v Regents of California, 1978). These quotations, approvingly cited in my book "Discrimination with Reason? The Policy of Reservations in the United States, India and Malaysia", Oxford University Press, 1997, set out the essence of affirmative action/reverse discrimination.

What Sri Lanka now has is District Quotas, also unsatisfactory in that it has no rational basis and is divisive on several counts, but an improvement on ‘linguistics standardisation’ in that it is not overtly racist. What has not been tried out is any solution based on affirmative action/reverse discrimination. Those of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes and Schedule Tribes in India and Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and few other categories in the US have claims to affirmative action/reverse discrimination to compensate for current discrimination as well as the cumulative impact of centuries of past discrimination. In Sri Lanka the major ethnic categories, with the possible exception of "Plantation Tamils", cannot claim such benefits. Numerically smaller categories such as Veddahs, Rodiyas and a few "Untouchable" castes among Tamils may claim such benefits but these claims are not as compelling as those in India. There could be a case for reserving small numbers of places in Sri Lankan Universities for children of such categories. But, in any case being located in ‘backward areas’ cannot generate such claims unless such privileges are tied to agreements to return to those areas after graduation to teach in under privileged schools with the view to progressively erasing such backwardness. In effect, since there are privileged schools in every district and the elite of those districts send their children to those or other privileged schools elsewhere, it is they who benefit from quotas outside Colombo and Jaffna rather than the most backward in those districts. Thus, District Quotas help the rural elite at the expense of the urban underclass. Moreover, the markup for some Districts is so high that within each class in the Universities the disparity between students is unduly large.

In India and the US, a disproportionate share of affirmative action/reverse discrimination benefits are appropriated by the elite of the disadvantaged communities. In fact, those countries have attempted to exclude benefits from such elite by prescribing socio economic cut off criteria, but this proved to be cumbersome and unworkable. In India, since the caste system continues to operate even among those converted to Christianity, they, too, enjoy quota benefits. But among Tribals, since converted to Christianity gain privileged access to good Christian schools, Christian Tribals were appropriating a disproportionate share of the Tribal quota benefits. For this and other reasons the Indian Supreme Court has ruled that the Tribals who convert to Christianity cease to be eligible for quota benefits.

Under the currently prevailing district quotas scheme, the under privileged everywhere in Sri Lanka suffer multiple disadvantages of socio economics backwardness, poor schooling as well as the bulk of the district quotas being appropriated by the privileged of those districts. Their situation is made worse by the fact that the children of the underclass to which they belong are virtually excluded from admission to ‘good schools’ to which children of privileged classes find easy access.

It is not possible to compensate for all handicaps. Moreover, most handicaps are difficult to define in terms of objective criteria. For example, if the parents are illiterate or if the situation at home is not conducive to children advancing in their studies, those handicaps are real but not easily quantifiable in terms of objective criteria and are therefore difficult to compensate for. But, one handicap that is both real and definable in objective terms is the quality of schooling. Perhaps, quotas can be justified if they are based on objective criteria related to a measure of the quality of schooling. It is also conceivable to use socio-economic criteria, but these would be highly subjective, especially in countries like Sri Lanka where most people are in the unorganised sector in which even the rich escape paying income tax. Our scheme may need to depend solely on an objective grading of schools.

For example schools may be graded 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the basis of the average of the last three (or four) years of admissions to university faculties. The total of the marks scored by a student at the university entrance examinations can be increased by 10, 20, 30 and 40 respectively for those attending schools graded 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. This ranking could vary from faculty to faculty since some schools may be good in Maths science, others in Bio science, etc. The ranking may also change gradually from year to year as schools improve or decline in respect of each discipline. This scheme has several important advantages. The grading is objective, transparent and any student or parent can understand it. It also addresses real disparities (unlike district quotas and linguistic quotas) in a meaningful manner. Further, the step up a child receives is modest so that there is no glaring disparity within each university class as under the current district quotas scheme. Moreover, since the step up is modest the incentive for each school to upgrade itself is not undermined; nor is it likely to provoke a negative backlash of resentment. It is a scheme such as this that can successfully replace the district quotas scheme that now prevails. But, a scheme such as this may not be acceptable to the elite outside Colombo and Jaffna among whom Ministers and Members of Parliament are well represented and who are well served by the district quotas scheme. Perhaps, this is why the District Quotas Scheme continued to prevail despite the protests of the Colombo elite, who also enjoy some political clout, and of the Jaffna elite and the underclass everywhere, who remain powerless.

Drunk and disorderly

, The Island

article_image
By Kath Noble

Something has gone to Mahinda Rajapaksa’s head, and I’m guessing it’s power. Because that seems to be the only thing that interests him these days – how to bolster his own position and how to undermine everybody else’s.

Hence his first priority after the end of the war was to get himself another term as president. The presidential election was called early, and it was followed within a couple of months by a parliamentary election, enabling him to strengthen his grip on the legislature too. The Opposition was in disarray. But that wasn’t enough. He wanted a two thirds majority, so a few more crossovers had to be engineered. Neatly bringing us to priority number two – legislation to reduce checks and balances on the executive, and to enable him to run again, as many times as he finds convenient, by abolishing term limits. The Constitution was changed. And it was ‘urgent’. Naturally, for what could be more important than Mahinda Rajapaksa’s future? Not peace-building, certainly. That’s for wimps. The third and final priority was to keep the Opposition cowed. Which is why he has called one election after another, to keep them in campaign mode so that they never get around to replacing their has-been leader.

The actual running of the country has suffered. But that needn’t matter if people learn to be satisfied with the mere appearance of achievement rather than the real thing. What matters is announcing that resettlement is complete and Manik Farm closed down, right? Not whether the IDPs are actually back home with roofs over their heads. Get with the programme, folks.

The Government isn’t bothered about ‘details’ like that. After all, it won the war – nothing else matters.

It certainly doesn’t matter that university teachers have been on strike for three months. Never mind that such a massive and sustained trade union action by a normally rather conservative group of people is unprecedented in Sri Lanka.

What matters is not giving in to terrorism.

Sorry, did I say terrorism? I must be getting confused – the modern world is so difficult for those of us with only limited intelligence. It’s academics Mahinda Rajapaksa shouldn’t negotiate with, right?

The FUTA struggle presents us with a crystal clear picture of the Government’s post-war failings.

The debate has exposed just how little substance there is to the grandiose vision that was set out in Mahinda Rajapaksa’s much-hyped Chintana. He wanted Sri Lanka to become a knowledge hub, for people to flock to its universities from around the world and for them to turn out graduates prepared to transform the country into the ‘Miracle of Asia’.

So far, so inspiring.

But Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed a man with half a brain to make it happen.

SB Dissanayake had only one idea for the development of universities – put a stop to ragging. Because this is how he managed to spend four years at the University of Sri Jayawardenepura following a degree in ‘public administration’ without learning even the basics of how to minister to a government department? I guess not. It was training in how to be a politician he was after those days, for which purpose I imagine ragging was very helpful. Who knows? Wiping out ragging is a pretty simple task. And as a ‘bonus’, it can be linked up with the further militarisation of society by making young people eager to discover the origins and meaning of life in the universe march around in circles and learn how to salute. A no-brainer, in other words. Anything else would no doubt turn out to be a bit tricky, the Minister may have thought, so it had better be left to the private sector. At least that would bring in some money.

I have already discussed the follies of the Private Universities Bill in these columns, so I will not bore readers by repeating myself, except to say the following – companies may provide the kind of education that students think will get them jobs, but they have absolutely no incentive to do anything more.

That leaves stopping ragging.

Now, ragging is a waste of time (and worse) that certainly ought to be stopped. But stopping it falls rather short of being a comprehensive plan for the creation of a knowledge-based society in Sri Lanka!

When confronted with other people’s ideas, the Minister hasn’t demonstrated a lot of patience. Indeed, his response to the FUTA struggle has mirrored the Government’s reaction to any and all criticism, displaying a totally absurd war mentality.

SB Dissanayake alternates between claiming that the demands of the university teachers are unreasonable, if not downright sinister, and saying that they have already been met.

Take the call for the Government to spend 6% of GDP on education. According to SB Dissanayake, this is a random figure dreamt up by Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri over his morning tea, with short eats provided by the Opposition, NGOs or most imaginatively Prabhakaran’s ghost, all to make trouble for Mahinda Rajapaksa. However, it is actually a globally accepted norm. What’s more, it is a target that the Government along with its counterparts in many other countries, including the whole of South Asia, has committed to reaching. The only person who thinks it is not important is the responsible minister in Sri Lanka.

Adding insult to injury, he then manages to claim both that public expenditure on education is already nearly at 6% and, in his very next utterance, that it need never be anywhere near 6% since Sri Lankans are already very well-educated. What a propaganda machine! The figure of 1.9% was calculated by the Government. The last time the UK allocated such a tiny proportion of GDP for education was during the First World War – it currently spends 6.1%. Think of all the extra ministers we could have if only we realised that 1.9% was enough for countries with near universal literacy! Maybe SB Dissanayake would agree to look after our universities once he has finished ‘revitalising’ the ones in Sri Lanka. We could do with some help with our trade union movement. But coming back to the point, it is official statistics that UNESCO includes in its global database (www.uis.unesco.org). FUTA has nothing to do with it. Rummaging around in the national income accounts to find some other vaguely associated spending to add to the 1.9%, as SB Dissanayake sometimes advocates, is simply not credible.

When the Minister is in a mood to accept that Sri Lanka does indeed spend only 1.9% of GDP on education, he is keen to point out that increasing the allocation would take up an impractically large share of government revenue. How thoughtful! Like any good housewife, he is keen to keep expenditure within income. Will he also offer to give up his perks in the national interest? Don’t hold your breath. But of course the economy doesn’t function like a household – increasing government expenditure can generate more income. The share of government expenditure, which is the only relevant figure, wouldn’t have to be unduly large either, since government expenditure could be increased to meet the 6% target.

But enough with the ‘details’, right?

SB Dissanayake would rather waste our time (or worse) calling the leaders of the FUTA struggle names, trying to make us suspect their motives.

Smear tactics are the bread and butter of the Government.

Its objective is not to find a solution to the problems in universities, but to hang on until academics have to give up their strike – three months is a long time to go without salaries.

It simply hates to lose. And winning has come to mean sticking to a position, whatever happens.

Mahinda Rajapaksa should be ashamed of himself for losing track of what is truly important. He did Sri Lanka a tremendous service by putting an end to the generation long war, for which the vast majority of people are extremely grateful, even if they do not approve of each and every action taken in the process. He amassed massive political capital. And he was, and indeed still is, in a position to do even more good for the country. Sri Lankans waited a long time for peace, not only to escape the relentless death and destruction but also because so many things were excused or put on hold because of the war. They have a long list of priorities, none of which it seems Mahinda Rajapaksa can be bothered to tackle now that he has ensured his own place in the history books.

A change of attitude at the top is required.

Kath Noble’s column may be accessed online at http://kathnoble.wordpress.com. She may be contacted at kathnoble99@gmail.com.

Rajitha lashes out at FUTA

, The Island

By Maheesha Mudugamuwa

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne yesterday (09) lashed out at the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) for demanding the allocation of six per cent of the GDP for education, saying it was not feasible.

FUTA had presented a number of demands to the government and those demands were not implemented anywhere in the world, he said, adding that the Government had allocated 1.87 percent from the GDP but lecturers were requesting a six per cent allocation, which was untenable.

Sri Lanka had allocated a huge amount of funds for the entire education sector more than in other country and the government was already spending excessive amounts of funds on school education, higher education, vocational and industrial training, Dr. Senaratne said.

According to reports, the six per cent demand is based on a UNESCO recommendation which urges countries to invest 4 to 6 per cent of the GDP on ‘education for all’ depending on a country’s democratic and economic status.

Dr. Senaratne said, "Not even developed countries are allocating a high percentage such as 6 per cent for the education. In America only 5.4 per cent of GDP is allocated for the education and in Canada 5.1 percent, in Australia 5.2 percent and in India only 4 percent. But these developed countries are not providing free education and health."

"If the government acts according to lecturers’ dictates we will have to tax the public even more," the minister said.

FUTA gets magic letter: Exco to decide whether to call off strike

, The Island

by Dasun Edirisinghe

The much anticipated Treasury Secretary Dr. P. B. Jayasundera’s letter announcing a short term solution to university teachers salary problem was issued to the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) yesterday.

FUTA President Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri said that their executive committee had decided to discuss the letter and issue a joint media statement with the government, after consulting branch trade unions in all universities today.

"We will decide the fate of the ongoing strike when the executive committee meets again on Thursday," he said.

Dr. Devasiri said that until then they would be on strike.

Yesterday’s FUTA executive committee meeting at the Open University of Sri Lanka lasted for two hours.

The FUTA launched the all - out strike on July 04 crippling universities.