What ails our universities

August 5, 2012, 8:10 pm , the island


Universities in Sri Lanka are very much in the news these days. Here are a few comments on what is happening in the areas of examinations, awarding of classes, favouritism, corruption and gross violation of human rights that most of the academic staff indulge in, resulting in many brilliant scholars leaving Sri Lanka for academic positions in other countries. It is not a secret that most of these teachers are unfair and vindictive towards students who they think would pose a threat to them if they obtain excellent results. This system has been in operation for many, many years and everyone knows how it works. When one goes to a foreign country such as USA, Canada or Australia one comes across students who have passed out from these universities. They begin talking of their experiences and the shameful manner in which most of them have been victimized by the so-called intelligentsia of our own country is indeed amazing. Not surprisingly these young people know the university dons who are really good at this game.

Those who pretend to be paragons of virtue are also in the same gang. Their victims simply vote with their feet, unable to fight back among numerous malpractices that these dons resort to, here is just one. At the final examinations the answer scripts are marked by a lecturer and the rule is for the scripts to be reviewed by a second examiner from a reputed overseas University. However, in the Science Faculty of a university papers are handed over to the department head who places his signature on the marks/ score sheet and never even glances at the scripts. The interesting fact is that this department head has no inkling of the branch of study yet claims a fee for every sheet that he has ‘marked’ as the second examiner. One notorious don gives marks even without marking the script. How ingenious!

I see two glaring flaws in the system prevailing in our SL universities – as against those in the USA and Canada, namely:

1. There is no evaluation of teachers by students, peer group as well as by higher authorities. Thus a lecturer who joins the staff remains there regardless of the quality of teaching imparted to the students. In USA and in Canada – two countries where I am reasonably qualified to talk about, university teachers are evaluated at regular intervals and awarded tenure only if they reach a certain level of proficiency and erudition. I know so many Sri Lankan dons who have not done any worthwhile teaching nor research but ‘existed’ coolly and comfortably in these places to the end of their days. A tenure system should be introduced to weed out the bad eggs.

2. There is no provision for re-scrutiny of answer scripts after examinations, a provision that is available for GCE OL and GCE AL students for payment of a fee. None are infallible – there could be errors in marking; even in addition of marks. It is a violation of human rights not to permit this facility when it is available for school students. This leads to much corruption and malpractices. Who can say that grades are not changed to give undue advantage to some and even lowered for others who are not favourites? Or even awarding grades without marking scripts at all? Who is there to challenge these malpractices? University dons should demonstrate integrity and honesty, be above blame in all their actions.

I hope that the facts mentioned here will serve as constructive ideas to introduce a system of reform in examinations procedure in Sri Lankan universities.

Srima Warusawithana

Canada

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)

* Education sector trade union in Sri Lanka gathers over 100,000 signatures demanding resignations of two ministers
Sat, Aug 4, 2012, 08:01 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
Aug 04, Colombo: An education sector trade union in Sri Lanka has gathered over 100,000 signatures demanding the resignations of Education Minister Bandula Gunawardena and Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake.
General Secretary of the Ceylon Teacher Services Union (CTSU), Mahinda Jayasinghe said the petition demanding the resignations of the two ministers has been signed by people in several districts.
He said the petition has so far been signed by people from Colombo, Gampaha, Ratnapura and Kurunegala districts and it would be taken to the Kegalle, Kandy and Embilipitiya districts next week.
According to Jayasinghe, there has been a good response for the petition since people were disgruntled with the failure of these two ministers to address the issues in the education sector, especially the controversy surrounding the Z-scores of last year's GCE Advanced Level examination.
He charged that the Z-score issue has now pushed the people to the limit of their patience due to the impact it has had on thousands of students.

In defence of university autonomy and academic freedom

August 2, 2012, 7:38 pm , the island

By Prof. Wiswa Warnapala

Continued from yesterday

In the last three or four decades, there was a considerable expansion in the intake which, of course, was stimulated by a great demand for higher education. The rapid increase in the number of students, which had taken place in the sixties, was not simultaneously accompanied by a concentrated attention on quality. It was in the last decade that a major effort has been invested in this direction, and the very process of transformation was accelerated in the last few years. It was the exhortation of this policy which called upon the universities to devote their energies to improving the quality of education offered to the students. This had to be done notwithstanding the increasing pressure for the expansion of the intake. The compelling reason was that the country demanded a greater measure of social and educational equality which partly, was one of the aspirations of the post-colonial state. This had a direct impact on the expansion of the universities, and it became lop-sided because the inevitable expansion was on arts and humanities. As was inevitable, the expansion created numerous problems. A numerical expansion was planned to be carried out within a period through a network of provincial universities; the objective of this policy was to make special innovations with regard to their curriculum and new specializations to be given priority. What was vital in each of them was the introduction of new disciplines; it was constantly mentioned that the quality of the University graduate must not be sacrificed to quantity. Character, temperament and wider qualities of mind are, of course, as important as intellectual attainments.

The maintenance of academic standards depended on two important factors, the quality of the undergraduate material reaching the universities from the schools and the quality of training provided by the universities themselves. The two factors are closely related. Well-educated teachers are required to train the school population and to avoid the schools from sending ill-educated entrants to the universities. The main question was the capacity of the schools to produce such freshmen of quality. In this connection, it needs to be recommended that more than ninety percent of the undergraduates are recipients of the Mahapola grants. There is no question that the universities attract suitably qualified university students, who do not need cosmetic ventures such as leadership training programs in army camps, the authors of which, perhaps, never understood the mission of a University. The existing school network is certain to increase the supply of potential undergraduates and the future increase, though not predicted with accuracy, will be substantial, and this indicates the magnitude of the investment needed for higher education. Given the number of universities, investments on an unprecedented scale will be needed, and to decide how this is to be achieved is the responsibility of the government.

Expanded access led to reduction in quality

It has been realised that the elimination of all obstacles to an expanded access led to the reduction in quality. There is no doubt that the average quality has substantially suffered. Apart from the quality of the undergraduate, the maintenance of university standards depends, to a large extent, on the quality of the life and the education which the universities are expected to provide. Most complications of the system are tied to this basic proposition. The rapid increase of student numbers, resulting from a policy to expand access, has, naturally imposed severe strains on the system, contributing to the deterioration in the standards of university education in the country. In Sri Lanka, standards depend on a number of factors-quality of the academic staff, bilingualism and monolingualism of the academic staff, the ratio of staff to students, the buildings and their adequacy to the present requirements, library facilities, residential facilities, extra-curricular facilities and canteen facilities. The sudden expansion of numbers has exceeded the levels of accommodation. In the meantime, the student body, politicized or not, began to make new demands on the universities. In this environment of shortage and inadequacies, the leisured university life with adequate opportunities for regular contact between the staff and the student became impossible, which clearly affected the intellectual life of the university.

The doubling of the numbers of the students in the last four decades could be justified on the ground that it raised the proportion of the population which has had the advantage of university education. The output of graduates from all faculties has had a major impact on the social and economic potential of the country. Advantages of university education for social and economic progress of a given society have been widely recognized. The creation of useful knowledge, as anticipated, has had a direct link with the creation of employment opportunities for the output of graduates in Sri Lanka. The perception of the public is that the University education is a means of training for a particular career. As an inevitable consequence, the failure to provide employment has created a sense of frustration and disillusionment among the unemployed graduates. One way out is to establish an active post-graduate intellectual culture, and the many forms of specialized study could be better left to the post-graduate students. The absence of such a post- graduate intellectual culture is a major deficiency in the present system, which, partially, has been rectified with outside assistance. Sri Lanka does not have benefactors who can dole out money for research. Further, the notion of research has been given a different value. Unfortunately, for many policy makers, university is essentially a place for impartation of knowledge than a place for the creation of knowledge. Therefore, the teaching, at the expense of research, has gained importance.

Principle of public welfare

To conclude, the relationship between the state and the universities, by implication, is a difficult one, as the current debate of the question illustrates. The hard task is to devise appropriate means of reconciling the planning and control of the universities with the maintenance of academic freedom. The need for some kind of central planning of university education through direct government intervention, as the system remains wholly state- funded, has been widely recognised. Universities, in the execution of their policies, needs to be based on the principle of public welfare. However, central control and planning, even through the UGC, cannot involve the curtailment of academic freedom. It needs to be reminded to those who intend in invoking Macarthian techniques of witch- hunting and interference, that such forms of interference would definitely lead to intellectual retardation. As Eric Ashby notes, "the price of autonomy is to abjure power". There are examples of arbitrary political interference in the affairs of the universities in the Commonwealth, but they rarely became issues of political contention, because most governments have shown themselves scrupulously careful to avoid even the appearance of interference with academic freedom. The relationship between the state and the universities, which evolved and conceived as a form of partnership, should not be disturbed and all conflicts between the two parties, each of which showing their own power at the expense of the other, need to be avoided in the interest of the development of the universities. The main responsibility for this kind of arrangement rests with the UGC as the accepted intermediary between the state and the universities, and the accomplishment of this important task depends on the goodwill and understanding between the university community and the UGC. The developing climate of distrust between the State and the universities is certainly not in the interest of higher education in Sri Lanka. The simple truth is that universities need to be given better resources as higher education is an investment in human capital.

Concluded

Dons demand more

August 2, 2012, 7:49 pm , the island

It was heartening to read the news item in the front page of The Island of July 31 of the position taken by  President Rajapakse on the above. He quite rightly has said that there is no way their demand for more and more pay hikes could be met as that would prompt other professionals to follow suit. The dons should understand that there should be some parity in the salary scales of similar professions, as was the case a few decades ago, if not the entire administrative structure can collapse. The country has become almost ungovernable now because of the successive Governments’ failure to stand firm when unreasonable demands were made for pay hikes by powerful trade unions over the years.

If I remember right when I joined the Engineering Service in 1970, my salary was Rs. 650 a month, salary of a new recruit to the Medical Service was Rs 680 and the salary of an arts graduate joining the Administrative Service was Rs.620. All were on the same salary scale with an annual increment of Rs 30. The engineering graduates were given one increment more than the Arts graduates as the engineering degree course duration is one year more than the arts degree course and the Medical Doctors were given one increment more than the Engineers as the medical degree course is one year more than the engineering degree course. The Graduates joining the semi government services such as Corporations, Boards, Institutes etc.were paid generally 33. 3 percent more than their counterparts in Govt. service, mainly to compensate for the pension rights and job security to a certain extent. No wonder the services functioned smoothly then!

Talking about Dons in lighter vein, I am reminded of an encounter we had, in mid nineteen sixties at the Colombo Campus with our physics lecturer Professor Mylvaganam, a brilliant product of Oxford University and a superb lecturer,  who was extremely  strict especially to us male students!  Those days we had to get our "record books" signed by the lecturers in charge of the subjects in order to sit the exams, for some reason or other,  about twelve of us in the batch couldn’t get this done on time and we had to approach Professor Mylvaganam. We were standing just out side his majestic office which had swing doors and he could see our feet from underneath and when he roared " come in " , I almost got shoved in and my "friends" bolted! I quite respectfully handed over my " record book " and requested his signature timidly. He took it and without glancing at it even, threw it, through the open windows of his office on to the lawn outside and said

"COME IN MY FREE TIME AND I HAVE NO FREE TIME"!!!      

  R.Arambewela

  Colombo     

‘Dont let Privatization of Education Destroy the Free Education System’

1 August 2012, 11:27 pm, http://dbsjeyaraj.com

Vivimarie VanderPoorten

by Roel Raymond

Vivimarie VanderPoorten is an award winning Sri Lankan poet. Her first book Nothing Prepares You won the Gratiaen Prize for the best piece of English literary work in Sri Lanka, in 2007.

In 2009 she was recipient of a higher honour; the SAARC Poetry Award, which was followed by the publication of her second book Stitch Your Eyelids Shut, in 2010.

Vivimarie is also a senior lecturer in English language, literature and linguistics at the Open University of Sri Lanka, which puts her firmly at the fore of the on-going strike by academics, spearheaded by the Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA). Ceylon Today spoke with Vivimarie to understand her reasons for supporting the strike, factors that led to trade union action by the academics and the nature of their demands.

Q:How is it that you are involved in this massive, on-going strike by academics?

A: I am currently the Assistant Secretary of OUTA – that is, the Open University Teachers’ Association. OUTA is a part of the Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA), hence my support and involvement.

Q: What demands are your collective unions making?

A: Our unions are faced with a number of unaddressed issues. However, for the sake of convenience, they can be broken down into two major demands. We ask that the government 1) Enhance recruitment and retention of the highest qualified academics and that it 2) Safeguards and uplifts the State education sector.

Q: What does FUTA mean by ‘Enhance recruitment and retention of the highest qualified academics’?

A: Basically, to make sure the Sri Lankan university system ‘gets the best’. That is, to ensure we recruit those graduates that top the batch; the ones that obtain First Class and Second Uppers, as probationary lecturers (the first rung on the academic ladder). At the moment the university system is unable to attract these graduates as lecturers because the salaries on offer are abysmally low. Even if universities do manage to recruit these top students to their teaching staff, they are unable to retain them as many leave the island to study for their Masters or Ph.Ds and opt to stay abroad, preferring to take up better paying teaching appointments there. This is the ‘brain-drain’ we speak of; our country is being drained of the best of its brains because it has not yet been able to create a university system that will use and look after its best.

Q: You are currently a senior lecturer at the Open University of Sri Lanka, were you ever offered a post abroad?

A: Yes, I was, after obtaining my Ph.D at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland I was asked if I would be interested in teaching on the Masters programme.

Q: You obviously chose not to. What would you have been paid if you had?

A: I would have been paid about 45,000 GBP per annum as a starting fee.

Q: Why choose the Open University instead?

A: There were, obviously, many reasons for choosing to do so. I had always wanted to teach – I knew that. I had also worked briefly – as a new graduate in English and Economics – for the Social Scientists Association in Sri Lanka. It was there that I began to be socially and politically aware, and form opinions for myself. By the time I had completed my Ph.D, I knew I wanted to give back to the State education system from which so many had benefited, myself included.

Q: How long have you been at the Open University?

A: 15 years now, at the Department of Language Studies.

Q: The second demand the unions are making is to ‘safeguards and uplift the State education sector’ – what does this entail?

A: We have made a number of detailed request to this end, key among them are a call for 1) six per cent of the GDP to be allocated to Education, 2) that politicization within universities is ended and 3) the university community be involved in all higher education reforms.

Q: Six per cent of the GDP is a serious commitment. Do you feel that request is justifiable?

A: Totally. The current budgetary allocation towards education is a meagre 1.9% of the GDP. This is one of the lowest in the world – countries like Kenya (7.1%), Bangladesh (2.1%), India (3.7%), Nepal (3.4%) and Namibia (7.2%) allocate more than that towards education! The budgetary allocation towards education has decreased since this government came into power in 2005; back then 2.5% of the GDP was the commitment towards education, now it is 1.9%.

Q: What do your unions mean when it asks for ‘de-politicization’ of the university system?

A: It means that all government meddling with the administration of universities must come to a complete end. The Minister of Higher Education currently meddles with even the micro-management of the universities and this cannot be continued. We are governed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) – a body that at one time was staffed with impartial academics that recognized their role in safeguarding the interests of the entire university system – teachers, students all. The UGC is now more interested in agreeing to act as a mouthpiece on behalf of the government rather than university representatives.

Q: You say the minister meddles in even the micro-management of universities; can you give me an example of one such incident?

A: Yes, the University of the Visual and Performing Arts that is situated near the NelumPokuna insists that qualifying students sit an aptitude test before being allowed to enter their programme. Recently, some students with ‘connections’ that had not passed the test had complained to the Minister who in turn called the Vice Chancellor at the University and asked that the aptitude test be removed; which he did.

Q: Vice Chancellors; what exactly is their function and are they not independent?

A: Vice Chancellors are the Administrative Heads of universities – like the ‘Principal’ in a school; he or she has the highest authority. A Vice Chancellor is expected to be independent and run the universities autonomously but that no longer happens as all Vice Chancellors are appointed by the President and hence, chosen more for their political affiliations than impartial authority.

Q: The question of privatizing universities has been subject to much debate – what is your unions’ stance on this?

A: We are not against privatization – by all means do set up private universities in this country, but don’t do it at the expense of the State education system – in other words, don’t kill the free education system to embrace the private one. Instead, simultaneously develop both systems – that way both the affluent student and the one that is not have access to education.

There is another way tackling this issue ; the government could invest more in the existing universities – enlarge them, bring them up to international standards and then charge a fee to students that didn’t qualify for free entrance and education. Further still, if the government invested more in the existing universities they could actually increase local intake – ending the cut-throat competition to get into local universities because there are only limited spots open.

Q: Tell me more about the strike action launched by the university trade unions..

A: As of the 4 July 2012 all teaching activities have been stopped and all examinations have been stopped. In addition to not reporting to work we are also conducting a very organized campaign – a one million signature campaign that is going very well. Academics took to the streets and handed out leaflets explain the reasons for our strike action – just imagine that, Professors standing out at street corners explaining to the average man that his actions are aimed at saving free education for our children, for the future. We have currently close to 100,000 signatures and this number is growing by the hour! In addition to that we run an active online campaign on blogs and Facebook – membership currently at 10,000+ and we use that tool to network and raise awareness on the reasons for our collective strike action, and what our demands are in all three languages.

Q: Doesn’t this trade union action affect university teachers themselves?

A: Yes, it does. This trade union action affects our teaching, it affects our day to day lives, it affects our pay; but we mean to continue to the dogged end. It is important to note that we don’t enjoy what we are doing. As academics we are used to looking at things critically, consider all aspects, all sides, looking for the shades of grey and not just the polarized hues of black and white, and yet, with this trade union action we are being forced to look at things in terms of black and white and take a stand accordingly. This doesn’t make us very comfortable, and yet we must, because we have been pushed to do so. It is heartening that many of our students are supporting us and with us because they know this is a struggle for long term benefits and for the common good, not just for lecturers to get a salary hike.

Q: And for how long will your unions’ be on strike?

A: For as long as it takes. We will continue this trade union action until the government gives in to our demands, or at the very least until a compromise, FUTA and its affiliated trade unions can be happy with, is reached. There must be serious and genuine commitment from the government for us to move forward. courtesy: Ceylon Today

University teachers for excellence in education

August 2, 2012, 7:36 pm, the island

By Dileni Gunewardena

There is trouble in the universities and trouble in the schools. While frustrated students and academics have taken to the streets, there has been much posturing among those responsible for the state of education and higher education in this country. This article attempts to counter prevalent misconceptions about the nature, motivation and demands of the Federation of University Teachers' Associations (FUTA) and the academics they represent.

FUTA comprises over 40 member unions of university teachers of the Universities of Colombo, Peradeniya, Moratuwa, Kelaniya, Sri Jayawardenapura, Ruhuna, Jaffna, Visual and Performing Arts, as well as of Wayamba, Rajarata, Eastern, South Eastern, and Open Universities with a total strength of approximately four thousand members. FUTA has been in existence since 1983. Among its current opponents are former leaders of FUTA. However, I believe that there is a significant difference between the current FUTA leadership and its forebears that explains why the current TU action has garnered widespread support among academics, students, intellectuals and leading lights in the country, as well as the general public.

Clever, young and committed

The most striking feature of today's university trade union leadership is that it comprises academics with outstanding scholarly credentials. A search in scholarly research databases for their names reveals them to be authors of international repute, award-winners for Ph.D. and postdoctoral research, with impeccable track records of international research publications. They represent the best in Sri Lanka's University system today. Among the few I know (of) are an internationally published historian, a distinguished young evolutionary biologist, an outstanding macroeconomist with a Ph.D. from East Asia's best university, a brilliant mechanical engineer, Sri Lanka's first Ph.D. in counseling psychology, and two award-wining authors and poets, all of them trained in some of the best universities and post-doctoral research labs in the world. In fact, in terms of research and publications, these scholar-trade unionists have better academic credentials than several present-day Vice-Chancellors.

Many in the FUTA leadership and others who give dynamism to the movement are in their late thirties or early forties. They are recent Ph.D.'s, having completed their doctorates in the last five to ten years. Most of them funded their own postgraduate studies through teaching assistantships and research fellowships, because state-funded scholarships for postgraduate studies have simply not been available to university academics, at least in the last twenty five years. These academics were brilliant enough to obtain admission and funding on their own merit to some of the best universities in the world, and often turned down good job opportunities in developed countries to return to Sri Lanka, to the ill-paid positions in the universities that nurtured them.

These leaders have a vision for university education in this country, precisely because of the excellent overseas training they themselves received. Dynamic teachers and solid researchers, they have in the past few years, engaged in curriculum revision exercises, brought in external funding to their universities to improve teaching, learning and research infrastructure through competitive research and development grants, disseminated knowledge through workshops and seminars, launched new undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes and inspired recent cohorts of students to pursue academic careers and obtain training in good universities abroad. A critical mass of such academics is what helps universities to thrive and become engines of change and promote Sri Lanka as a knowledge hub.

But these same academics have watched with regret as their colleagues have left the universities for academic positions in universities abroad. They know that if this trend continues-as it will, if salaries are not raised and the present political interference and micro-management of universities continues-the universities that they serve with dedication and commitment will no longer be spaces for intellectual growth and independent thinking.

FUTA demands

FUTA's current demands fall into two categories: (A) outstanding salary-related demands and (B) demands relating to the state education. The first set of demands relates to the remuneration scheme required to retain and recruit highly qualified academics. Principally, FUTA demands the complete implementation of the Prof. M.T.M. Jiffry and Prof. Malik Ranasinghe proposals made in 2008 in consultation with the University Grants Commission (UGC), Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), and FUTA. The second set of demands specifically asks that the Government (1) delineates a course of action to increase government spending on education that will reach 6% of GDP within the next 2 years, (2) clearly states government policy on state funded education, (3)suspends all existing higher education reform processes until a proper consultative process involving all stakeholders and the public takes place, (4) agrees to refrain from the politicization and?micromanagement of the Universities so that these institutions can thrive as autonomous institutions that would act as catalysts in the development of Sri Lanka. [A detailed summary of FUTA demands can be found at http://futa-sl.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/FUTA_Demands_Comprehensive_19_06_2012.pdf ]

What motivates this set of demands? University academics realize that they do not work in a vacuum. They are constantly accused of producing "unemployable" graduates. However, they can only do their best with the raw material -students-they are given. Recent analyses of education standards conducted by government entities themselves have shown that there are many quality issues in both primary and secondary education in Sri Lanka (World Bank, Treasures of the Education System in Sri Lanka, 2005, Transforming School Education in Sri Lanka: from Cut Stones to Polished Jewels, 2011). To be able to achieve the kind of transformation required in both school and university education, quality inputs-training, learning and teaching infrastructure, research facilities and better remuneration-will be needed. The type of inputs and facilities required for education and higher education are spelt out in the Mahinda Chinthana Vision 2010 document. In recognition that the measures that need to be taken to ensure quality education for all (EFA) involve substantial budgetary allocations to education, ministers and high level government officials of eight South Asian countries including Sri Lanka, at the second ministerial meeting of the South Asia EFA Forum in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in December 2009, committed to a public expenditure allocation for education that is equivalent to 6% of the country's GDP (UNESCO, Reaching the Unreached in Education in Asia-Pacific to meet the EFA goals by 2015: A Commitment to Action, 2010, p.6). While none of these countries had spent anywhere close to this target in 2010, data from Sri Lanka's Central Bank report and World Development Indicators of the World Bank show that Sri Lanka lags far below her SAARC neighbours, as the graph taken from World Bank (2011, p.30) shows. FUTA's demand is simply that the government takes steps to meet its own commitment.

Nowhere in the list of FUTA demands is there opposition to the private provision of education. Rather, what FUTA requests is a broad-based consultative process on education reform, and clarity regarding the government's commitment to the continued provision of state education.

Who will suffer if FUTA loses?

FUTA president Dr. Nirmal Ranjith has stated that if FUTA loses its demands, it will not be FUTA that loses, but the general public of Sri Lanka. It has been very clear that (especially younger, qualified) university academics are waiting on the outcome of these negotiations in order to make career decisions. If FUTA loses, over the next few years, the best and the brightest will leave the universities for jobs abroad or in the private sector of Sri Lanka. After all, university lecturers are not just teachers, they are skilled professionals: engineers, doctors, scientists, lawyers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, linguists, etc. who are not restricted to teaching jobs in universities. Eventually, even those with a commitment to stay will leave-not because of the lack of pecuniary benefits, but because of the absence of other colleagues with whom they have a shared vision. Meanwhile, private universities which are not hamstrung by salary structures and patronage will be able to attract some of these academics. Eventually, the only academics who will be left in the universities are those who have few options elsewhere, who possibly were hired to the universities because of their political affiliations.

With the exodus of high-quality academics from the state university system, there will emerge a dual system of higher education in Sri Lanka, a low-quality state system and a higher quality fee-levying system. Who then will suffer? A depleted and poor quality state higher education system is obviously a poor return to taxpayers. Countries with a strong higher education system also had strong state education systems, which provided the backbone of the higher education system, especially in terms of research. But the greatest losers will be the students of state universities-the sons and daughters of the average Sri Lankan. In the future, such students may continue to enter the university, but will receive a poor quality education, while their counterparts in the private sector will have the benefit of better academic staff and better infrastructure. As the gap between these two sectors widens, the social fabric of the country is likely to be threatened. It is interesting to note that in Sri Lanka's history, the highest state expenditure on education (5.2 % of GDP) was allocated in 1972, one year after the 1971 youth insurrection.

Sri Lanka has been called the land of missed opportunities. If higher education officials are unable to grasp the opportunity in this "academic spring", perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury, himself trained in one of the best economics departments in the world, can. Otherwise, sadly, the "knowledge hub" will remain in the sphere of the rhetoric, and the reality that is the education system in Sri Lanka will continue its sad decline from mediocrity to poverty.

Dileni Gunewardena is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics and Statistics of the University of Peradeniya.

FUTA adopts new strategy to secure pay hike

August 2, 2012, 9:52 pm 

By Shamindra Ferdinando, the island

The Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA) yesterday separated its ongoing strike to win a pay hike from the overall push for an agreement with the government on the allocation of 6 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for education.

FUTA Chief Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri asserted that even if an agreement could be reached on salary and related issues, their battle for enhanced allocation for the education sector would continue. The head of the Department of History of the Faculty of the Colombo University reiterated FUTA’s commitment in the wake of the government and the FUTA initiating a fresh dialogue to settle the ongoing strike.

Dr. Devsiri was addressing the media at the National Library Services Board yesterday morning having met presidential secretary Lalith Weeratunga and Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa the previous night. The government kept Higher Education Minister S. B. Dissanayake and University Grants Commission (UGC) Chairman Prof. Gamini Samaranayake out of Wednesday’s meeting.

A large group of trade unions, including the main union affiliated to the JVP, too, joined the media briefing. Addressing the gathering on behalf of the JVP, Mahinda Jayasinghe alleged that the government was trying to further limit its role in the education sector. Comparing the State sector spending for education in the SAARC region, Jayasinghe said that GoSL’s contribution to the vital sector was now negligible. Unfortunately those who had immensely benefited from free education remained silent when the government was destroying everything. Both free education and free health services were on the verge of collapse due to rapid decrease in State support, he said, adding that the parents were finding it difficult to provide education.

The FUTA chief said that deliberations were held at the Economic Affairs Ministry in a cordial atmosphere, though an agreement couldn’t be reached. "We discuss various aspects, though it is too early to speculate on the outcome," he said.

The soft-spoken academician said that both parties felt that an early settlement was necessary. The FUTA asserted that successful conclusion of the ongoing deliberations would entirely depend on a serious intervention on the part of the government. "Next few days will be crucial," Dr. Devasiri said, while stressing on the importance of taking decisive action to settle the crisis.

The FUTA launched a strike on July 4 to win their demands, mainly allocation of 6 per cent of the GDP for education and a pay hike.

Asked by the local BBC correspondent whether the government was serious in the latest initiative or trying to wear out the FUTA, a smiling Dr. Devasiri said that he didn’t like to comment on the government strategy. Expressing confidence that the government wouldn’t adopt such a counterproductive strategy, the FUTA chief warned such a move would invariably fail.

Devasiri pointed out that the direct involvement of Messrs Weeratunga and Basil Rajapaksa meant that the government was keen to settle the crisis. But the possibility of the ultimate failure of the ongoing talks, too, couldn’t be ruled out. He regretted the failure on the part of Minister Dissanayake and Prof. Samaranayake to help resolve the crisis.

When The Island pointed out that Minister Dissanayake had alleged that the FUTA made a series of demands, including government allocation of funds to teach two children of each FUTA member and the association was, too, greedy, Devasiri that Prof. Navaratne Bandara made a suggestion to that effect sometime ago, though the FUTA wasn’t pushing for that particular demand at the moment. Prof. Devasiri revealed that JVP parliamentary group leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake got in touch with him soon after Minister Dissanayake first made the allegation in parliament. Devasiri insisted that Prof. Navaratne’s proposal was not on the agenda, while likening offer of scholarships to the children of FUTA members to various perks and privileges offered to the public sector.

However, Ven. Dambara Amila thero accused Minister Dissanayake of making an attempt to give a different interpretation to what he called scholarship issue. The Ven. thero said that that FUTA made that particular proposal after Minister Dissanayake offered scholarships to foreign students. "We felt our children should be given scholarships first before foreigners were accommodated," the Ven. thero said.

The Island also raised the issue of the government trebling the university intake without having the necessary infrastructure facilities and giving preferential treatment to FUTA and over two dozen of State sector enterprises, whereas the vast majority of government servants and private sector workers were struggling to make ends meet, the FUTA asserted that that wasn’t the forum to discuss such issues.

Asked whether education and health sector trade unions had at least bothered to inquire into complaints that those who shirk their duties do a much better job for a fee, the FUTA said that there were problems, which couldn’t be tackled by them alone.