University dons: Emoluments and benefits

September 4, 2012, 12:00 pm ,The Island

A large number of statements have been made and a great deal of information has been in the public domain recently re the adequacy or otherwise of the emoluments and other benefits enjoyed by University academic staff. FUTA and several others have pointed out that such emoluments are essential in order to attract persons with very high and mandatory PG qualifications to become Senior Lecturers and thereby reduce the current shortage of adequately qualified academics necessary for the large number of universities that exist today. Whatever, those benefits were or are, I am an Emeritus Professor of Chemistry who was patriotic enough to serve the University system in Sri Lanka for 43 years since graduation without ever even applying for any other job within or outside Sri Lanka, I therefore consider it my paramount duty and obligation to point out at least one very important and significant fact that, to my knowledge, has so far not been spotlighted by any party during the current trade union action of FUTA. I am bringing this to the notice of the Sri Lankan public since it is a very relevant fact which should not be overlooked and I am now able to point it out publicly since I will not benefit in any way by the current action as I retired 3 years ago at the mandatory age of retirement of 65 years.

We are all aware that a very large number of state officials and officers both in the public service as well as semi-government institutions (such as Corporations, Institutes, Authorities etc) have had, for many years , the government approved privilege of having an official vehicle permanently allotted to them personally with official drivers – a vehicle that is permitted to be used not only for official travel but also for a considerable amount of private /personal travel. The huge number of persons entitled to this benefit now includes not only Heads of Departments (including the overall Head who used to be referred to as the Director) but a whole array of others including Additional Secretaries of Ministries, Judges at various levels and in addition to the Directors General and Additional Director General of such institutions, a number of persons holding posts designated as Directors of sub-departments. To cite another example, in the Attorney General’s department, this includes a large numbers of Deputy Solicitors General, I wish to make it quite clear that I am not objecting to this practice since it is done with full government approval perhaps with the needs of such departments and institutions in mind and/or perhaps at the request of such bodies and relevant trade unions. The cost of this benefit can be easily assessed at a minimum monthly average lying between Rs 85,000 to Rs 140,000 per officer since it comprises the investment of an individual vehicle (equivalent monthly interest cost of Rs 35-55,000), driver’s salary (with allowances) apart from overtime of say another Rs 25,000 to 35,000 and fuel costs (Rs. 20- 60,000). This, no doubt, can very easily be seen to comprise an amount that is much more than the monthly salary of most if not all such officers.

On the other hand, in the University system only the Vice-Chancellor is entitled to this privilege for many years and no other academic , whether he be a Senior Professor or otherwise, can even dream of such a benefit unless he is close to the political high-ups and becomes a Vice-Chancellor! Therefore, it appears to be very unfair, if not cruel, to say that a University Professor gets a salary more than the Chief Justice. It is very regrettable that even the Minister of Higher Education, (who told Parliament two years ago that a professor should be paid Rs 200,000 per month) made such a statement recently and thereby tried to show that at present the University Professor gets a higher income than the Chief Justice. Leave alone the Chief Justice, the whole array of government officials of much lower status than the Chief Justice, whether in the judicial sphere or otherwise, get much more than a Professor’s income, at least indirectly through the personal vehicle allotted to him! Leave alone a vehicle for personal use, a university academic very often is unable to obtain even the very paltry vehicle loan that is permissible under UGC circulars! University academics also do not get housing or other benefits, which public servants quite often obtain.

I hope I have been able to correct grossly misleading statements made by politicians who should be more responsible to realise what they are talking about. It is very important that politicians as well as the public should realise that the Universities are having a huge recruitment and retention problem at the senior lecturer level and above and if immediate steps are not taken to redress this situation we will arrive at a state from which the tertiary educational sector will never ever be able to recover from.

Emeritus Prof. J N Oleap Fernando,

Emeritus Professor of Chemistry

The Open University of Sri Lanka

Are FUTA demands credible?

September 4, 2012, 7:39 pm , The Island

By Spectator  

What is the layman to make of the FUTA (Federation of University Teachers’ Associations) set of demands presented to the government relating to higher salaries for university dons and to wider policy on education? A strike of FUTA members has followed inconclusive negotiations with the government. A positive feature is the wide-ranging discussion and debate of the issues in the media following the strike. The public has benefited from the differing views expressed on the pros and cons of FUTA demands.

The morality of the strike action by FUTA, however, has surprisingly received scant attention. There can be little dispute that strike action of FUTA professionals, who belong to the top 5% of income earners in the country, is detrimental to the cream of youth studying at the 15 universities in the country. Disrupting education of youth for an unknown period surely presents a moral dilemma even in this materialistic age. Striking before exhausting all other options, including mobilizing collective trade union agitation on their demands and soliciting political support of the Opposition in Parliament, is perhaps not FUTA`s finest hour.

Trade Unions and Public Policy

Informed judgment on FUTA demands must be based on reason and evidence. FUTA and its supporters have not helped by the arguments put forward to underpin their demands.

One doubts that anyone challenges the right of FUTA, or for that matter any trade union, to make demands going beyond wages/salaries (and conditions of employment) to areas that are of an economic, social and political nature. However anyone would be hard pressed to subscribe to the view that governments must necessarily accede to individual or collective trade union demands on wider public policy and, in the case of FUTA accept demands related to fiscal policy to finance education because that is "what the society, the people, the citizens and the so-called stakeholders have to say".

It is common sense that the Government in its consideration of demands on matters of fiscal policy, such as those made by FUTA, take account, and safeguard, the interest of all stakeholders in society. That is what they are elected to do. Governments have the responsibility to be the arbiter of competing claims (e.g. education, health, defense) for the allocation of resources available to the Government. Moreover the allocations made are subject to Cabinet approval followed by parliamentary approval. The decision making processes of Government (where Treasury economists play a prominent role) balancing the interests of all stakeholders in society are far from being based on a colonial and neo-colonial attitude. It is the basis of budgetary policy of all countries and not specific to Sri Lanka.

Education spending of 6% of GDP annually

One of the central demands of FUTA is that the Government pledges to spend on education annually 6% of GDP compared to 1.86% currently on general education (2011). FUTA has argued that 6% of GDP is the figure that the Government committed itself in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) framework at UNESCO and that it should fulfill that pledge "in the next few years". FUTA has not felt it incumbent to justify this figure in any other way. Nor has it explained why it has taken upon itself to speak on behalf of all stakeholders on education without consulting let alone associating them.

The comments on the 6% of GDP demand of FUTA can be put succinctly.

(1) Few Governments have achieved the target of 6% of GDP on education spending. FUTA has given no comparative figures to buttress their case. Likewise no country has pledged to achieve the target "in the next few years" as FUTA demands from the Sri Lanka Government.

(2) High or low percentages of GDP on education spending is not the best yardstick to judge the quality of education in different countries. Japan and Singapore spend significantly less on education as a proportion of GDP than the USA and the United Kingdom. Education services and standards are deemed to be better in Japan and Singapore than in most developed countries that spend a higher percentage of GDP on education. China spends about the same percentage of GDP on education as Sri Lanka. It has had over 30 years of near or above 10% economic growth annually. What should be noted is that the low percentage of GDP spent on education in Sri Lanka in comparison with rich countries is partly explained by the variability of relative costs. Providing the same labour intensive basic educational services cost much more in rich countries than in Sri Lanka.

(3) FUTA gives no breakdown of how much is spent on universities and how much on government schools. Nor does it indicate the funding per pupil at universities and schools. One suspects it is hugely disproportionate in favour of university students and far wider than in other countries. Elitist concentration on high quality university education and relative negligence of school education, as in India (and perhaps in the United States at least for Afro-Americans), is not the best way forward to have a more democratic society. More money for all educational services is important but how it is spent is more important. FUTA stresses the former but has nothing to say on the latter except to demand higher salaries for university dons.

(4) Numerical targets such as 6% GDP education spending would have little value if achieved primarily by payment of higher salaries and emoluments (another central objective of FUTA for its members). There is no evidence to suggest that the quality of education would improve by salary inflation. That is the experience elsewhere, notably in the United Kingdom from 1997-2010. 

(5) FUTA is clear that it wants far more money (mind boggling figures of hundreds of billions of rupees) to be spent on education to achieve the 6% target. It is however unable or unwilling to work out what the Government would have to give up spending to accommodate its demand or how the money should be generated. The idea that it could be obtained by better collection of taxes is far too simplistic. If it was that easy it would have been done already for reasons other than increasing education spending.

(6) The clamour for 6% GDP a year for education spending may have consequences unintended by FUTA. The Government (with Official Opposition support) may encourage the private sector (including foreign institutions) to spend big money to establish private schools, universities and vocationally-oriented institutions in Sri Lanka; and set up a mechanism to regulate the establishments. The next logical step, as witnessed in many other countries when per capita incomes increase, is for the State to no longer consider education in state universities and state schools as a public good to be financed entirely by public funds. Instead public funds would be supplemented by the Government charging variable fees from students for different university courses ( e.g. higher fees for medicine, engineering and information technology courses that lead to higher earnings in employment) and, more generally, for all students (at universities and schools) with the impact mitigated by long-term, low interest loans or free education vouchers. National educational spending as a percentage of GDP could then rise towards the 6% target albeit in an unforeseen way.

(7) Supporters of the 6% of GDP on education spending need to bear in mind that while many of the claims of the benefits of education and skills may be true they apply to other sectors, notably to the health sector, for the same reasons as for education. The current inadequacies of state health services have left the country not well prepared for widely shared economic growth. Simple arithmetic would show that it is impossible to conceive of spending, primarily from Government resources, 6% of GDP on each of even two sectors, education and health.

The Government and FUTA may well come to a face-saving fudged compromise on the FUTA demands. Both sides are well advised, however, to collaborate closely, and in a meaningful way, to improve the educational and skill levels in the country in a cost effective manner. A "top down" approach of setting a figure of 6% of GDP for educational spending and then thinking of ways and means to spend the billions of rupees involved is not the right way to go about the task. A "bottom up" approach of first examining the requirements at every step of the educational and skills ladder, and how best to achieve the objectives in the shortest time at least cost, is a better way to proceed.

What is called for is a national education plan highlighting the direction of changes required over say the next 15 years. It should respond to the seeming public demand for English language learning, for a shift in emphasis in teaching from the humanities to science, technology, engineering, management and practical subjects at university level, for high quality science and technical education at schools and technical colleges, for job-related state vocational education and for a national scheme of apprenticeships.

If there is a clear vision of the direction of policy on education and skills, and a credible plan for implementation of the changes, step by step, finding the money to do so for state universities and state schools, may not present a major problem. Higher taxes, a gradual decline in defense spending, the sale of state enterprises with proceeds wholly earmarked for education and long-term, low interest loans from international financial institutions are all options to raise the necessary resources.

Let’s sing that song together

September 4, 2012, 5:02 pm , The Island

By Liyanage Amarakeethi

(Excerpts of a speech delivered at the Arts Theatre, University of Peradeniya, on 29th August, 2012).

Last two months have been educational for me as, I am sure, they have been for all of you. During our trade union action last year, many of us in our generation, those of us who are mid-career academics in this university, learned from our seniors how to stand up for our rights. This time it is our generation that has had to take up leadership in this trade union action though we did have the invaluable support of our teachers at every step. Even though I was active in politics in my teenage-years, guided by my uncle who was the Kurunegala District Secretary of the Sama Samaja Party, and though I have been active individually in politics all along after that, for the last 20 some years I have stayed away from getting involved in any kind of party politics. The same is true of most of us who make the leadership of Peradeniya teacher associations.

Critical distance from

political parties

We may have intellectual engagements with the positions of different political parties, but as academics we have kept a critical distance from all parties. More importantly as academics we also keep a critical distance from the centres of power such as the state. We know very well that the state is an institution that is all too easily tempted into assuming that it has limitless power. Therefore, the institutions of civil society, including universities, have a responsibility to keep it in check, watched, and critiqued. To meet that responsibility of universities is our duty as intellectuals. So, we keep our distance from government. We have learned from the greatest intellectuals of our time that our duty as intellectuals is to speak truth to power. Genuine intellectuals speak truth to any centre of power. That is our duty. We have re-learned that lesson during our struggle.

Things I have learned during the last two months have been much more than what I learnt during the years of political activism in my youth. Today, I want to speak very briefly of some of those things. Before that, however, I want to recall what we have been up to for the last two months.

For the last two months, we have been united. No matter what our opponents and critics have said we have remained united. As intellectuals, we are men and women of ideas. We think. We rethink. We disagree. We debate. We rethink. That is our life, that is what we value about our life. Although each of us has his or her own ideas about things, we have come together to fight for a common cause because we know that many of the problems we face in our academic life have resulted from lack of funding allocated to our sector, to universities, creating conditions that made it difficult and sometimes impossible for us to teach and to do research. These things are our life. We come to life when we are busy at these things. We come to life in the presence of our students in classes, in lecture rooms and in labs. We come to life when we encounter great thoughts in the library. We get goose bumps when we see a new truth related to our subjects, to our fields. We know the pleasure of encountering a new idea. We know the pleasure of discovery. We know the pleasure of creativity. We know the pleasure of seeing our students thinking with us, learning with us, debating with us. Every day we find at least some children of our country learning something new with us, and this makes us look forward to what they will learn with us tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

Legacy of Free Education

To see everyday that in what we do together we are passing the legacy of free education to the next generation is also a pleasure for us. That is how we feel that we are in the middle of the stream of history in our country and the world, and it is a joy for us. That is also why we have chosen this life. That is why many of us have returned to this country after completing higher studies in much richer countries where better opportunities were available to us. We did not take them because our conscience told us to return to join the history of our own country, to take part in making the history of our own country, to remind ourselves that own individual destinies are inseparable from the destiny of our society, of our people, of our country.

These are all things that nourish our intellectual life, our creative life.

But of course, our salary is also important. Salary is fundamental for us to live with dignity, to achieve success in our academic endeavours, to live up to our responsibilities for our children and our families. We don’t have to shy away from demanding a respectable salary, a salary that will keep us interested in what we do, a salary that will sustain us through long hours of research, thinking, and writing and a salary that is enough that we do not have to turn away from our chosen and proper duties to eke out supplements to our income that we need to support our loved ones. We need a salary that is just enough that we do not have to go behind politicians to look for extra money. Our true vocation is to create knowledge and share it. For that we need a great deal of independence. For that we need a better salary than we now have, a much better salary. Therefore, the demand for an adequate salary for teachers has to be an integral part of the excellent universities that we dream of, and which we are trying to create for this country.

Academic freedom and autonomy

But we have realised that no amount of money can safeguard the academic freedom and autonomy that are also integral parts of excellent universities. We don’t want a better salary at the price of academic freedom. We want a salary increase but we don’t want the politicization of universities to be the price that is paid for it. We want politicization to stop. We want to to remove the political interference that has already taken root in universities. That is why our demand for better salary is only one part of our struggle, and that this is so is why our struggle is the most wide-ranging, the most socially-significant trade union action this country has ever seen.

For the last two months our struggle has not being limited to securing our own financial interests or even our own dignity, but we have dignified ourselves by drawing attention to the larger socio-political issues related to every aspect of the education sector of this country.

By doing so, we have transformed our struggle into a much larger social force. That is the secret of our success. Within two months, the sign "6%" has become a symbol of justice, of fundamental rights, and of democracy. It has become a visible sign that our goals transcend certain boundaries that we have often taken to be untranscendable. When others have seen in "6%" the sign of all that we are doing, they know that we have renewed our contract with society, to use once again the beautiful Gramscian phrase used by my friend Sumathy Sivamohan to describe what we do in her address last year at the public seminar organised by FUTA.

We can create something extremely important, a history making dialogue, something no political party could even think of. Many of the things that we have learned through this struggle about the importance of education, about democracy, about emancipation, and about freedom are things that are way beyond the consciousness of all of our political leaders. That is why the FUTA leadership is already regarded as harbingers of a new social reality. By talking to people on streets, by writing to the newspapers, by marching on roads, even by attending meetings like this, we have all added to that new reality.

FUTA does have a message. Every day that message grows in meaning as each of us adds to it. Every day that message reaches areas where such messages have never reached before.

FUTAmessage

What is that message? It is the message that free education at every level has been the most important factor for social change in the history of Sri Lanka and we must pass it on to our children and their children. The sense of social justice that the idea of free education brought into our society was unprecedented. Nothing like that has happened before and its importance continues. Its work is not yet done. That message needs to be heard in every village in this country. That message needs to be taken to every neighbourhood in this country. It needs to be shared in every slum in every city. That message needs to be passed to every citizen of this country, not just in Sri Lanka but wherever Sri Lankans have gone abroad to work, it has to be repeated. Only then will a social consciousness about the need of state- funded education will grow and grow and grow. We don’t want this consciousness to grow only for our jobs to be secure; we want the ideals of freedom we hold dear to us to be safe. Some may have other opportunities that education offers, but many like us will continue to have access to education only at these universities. We realised this was our last chance to take this message to our people. We were right. It seems that many people have forgotten the significance of free education. But, when we talked to them on the streets, at public rallies, the preciousness of free education, its absolute social value returned to their minds like the words of a beautiful song that they used to know. Now many of them remember the entire song. They will sing it. We will sing it with them. That will be the song of our victory!! One day, very soon, we will sing that song together!!

Though some of us may like to think that academic ivory towers are possible and they are there, and we can live in them in a peaceful independence, all of us know that the moment we go out of this beautiful university park we see poverty, we encounter social marginalization all around us. We see schools are closing down. The school at Uda Peradeniya, where our former vice chancellor received his primary education faces the risk of closure. It might have already disappeared from the map of that village if not for the poor children who still attend it. During our struggle we realised that hundreds of rural schools are disappearing. They are disappearing from the consciousness and memory of the people who no longer remember those schools as centres of excellent education and the conditions of social improvement.

During our struggle we saw how those memories were being systematically erased. Systematic cuts to funding to rural schools has undermined the very foundations through which the free education was once delivered.

Let’s sing...

I know that some of you thought that we went beyond the mandate of a trade union by talking about these issues by making them our own. But please consider: the very school system that made you educated citizens, that made it possible for you to be here, might not be able to produce anyone like you any more. That school system might not be able to send us students from every corner of our country who can join with us in the joy of true academic pursuits. All these issues appeared in front of us, when we reflected on how we could protect the state education sector in a way that will in turn protect our own academic lives.

There we found that free education has been the greatest social leveller in the modern history of our country. That is our inheritance, let us make it our legacy too. For various reasons our society may need all kinds of private education institutes, but it is the state education sector that can guarantee for all a sense of social equality, which was philosophical and political foundation of free education. For the last two months, we have been fighting for the preservation of our inheritance, this legacy. We are happy that many people have gained a new understanding of that invaluable inheritance. That was why our Colombo rally was the greatest ever public rally on education.

During the last two months, we have been able to put aside minor divisions among us. We have not not succumbed to factionalism. We have put aside personal ambitions. Deans, heads of the department, professors all put aside institutional hierarchies and we have marched alongside each other like equals. That in itself was a transforming experience for many of us. In that we discovered our shared humanity, we understood the value of humility. Our struggle made us all more human and humane.

The most crucial days of our struggle have arrived. These are days that will test our courage, our dedication. Perhaps, this September will bring us the greatest challenge that many of us have ever faced personally. But, as someone who participated in that awesome rally in Colombo and in the very enthusiastic action committee meeting after it, I can tell you that we shall overcome, we shall overcome and someday soon. After being without salaries for two months, our spirit remains unbroken; our courage keeps growing. The government may want to break us and to get us to their feet. We will not give them that pleasure. We are academics. We are the four thousand people in this country with an important role to play in this country. We are men and women who can shake governments and mobilise people with the visions of the future that we can create and share. We are academics, we are Peradeniya academics. Very soon, we will walk back into our classrooms with our heads still held high.

I am not a big leader of the FUTA but I trust my leadership. By the time we return to work in a few weeks, we will have won a significant number of our demands, as well as all our overdue salaries. And we will have reminded the people as well as the government the true meaning of free education. We will have created a public consciousness on education that will last for many years to come. We will have taken our places in history. Let’s stay united so that we get to see what we have set out to do become reality very soon.

Let me end this speech by quoting the title of one my favourite books. This is how two of the greatest educationists of the 20th century, Paulo Freire and Miles Horton named their book: "We make the road by walking."

Ladies and gentlemen. let’s finish this walk and make the road that will take our people to the land of educated citizenship. Let’s make that road to freedom.

GDP and education expenditure

September 3, 2012, 8:04 pm , The Island

One of FUTA demands is that Sri Lankan government should spend six percent of GDP on education.

GDP is the inflation adjusted market value of all goods and services produced (or alternatively, the value of the income generated such as profits and wages) in a country in a given period. The officials in the Department of Census and Statistics who produce these statistics know that social and economic elements not related to consumption and financial income are not measured by GDP. For example, GDP numbers do not always answer the quality of education, joy of university professors’ research findings or the intelligence of FUTA debate on education related expenditure.

By the way, the public spending on education in Australia was reported at 4.43 in 2008 (% of GDP), according to the World Bank. This includes the current and capital public expenditure on education and government spending on educational institutions (both public and private), as well as subsidies for private entities (students/households and other privates entities).

Siri Ipalawatte, Canberra

Email: nirmana@grapevine.com.au

Artists’ contribution to FUTA trade union action

September 3, 2012, 7:58 pm 

By Sarath Chandrajeewa, The Island

Sculptor/Professor – Faculty of Visual Arts University of the Visual and Performing Arts

The decision to award degrees for visual and performing arts was taken in 1974 as a result of a long struggle by the lecturers and art students. Some of today’s main universities were functioning as campuses of the University of Sri Lanka at that time.

Institute of Aesthetic Studies at first was established as an independent institute of the University of Sri Lanka. It was an amalgamation of the Government College of Arts and Crafts of Horton Place, the Government College of Dance and Drama, the Government College of Music at Albert Crescent and the Ramanadan Academy of Jaffna.

After 1978 the first three colleges were affiliated to the University of Kelaniya and the Ramanadan Academy to the University of Jaffna. In 2005, Institute of Aesthetic Studies was upgraded to an independent national university as the University of the Visual and Performing Arts. (UVPA)

This is the only University in this country, to award practical oriented degrees for Visual and Performing Arts. Most famous artists, painters, sculptors, musicians and dancers in this country emerged from this university and its prior institutes.

The majority of the lecturers in this university are actively supporting the on-going trade union action of the Federation of University Teachers Association (FUTA). There was a massive rally on the topic of ‘Save State Education’ at Hyde Park on August 23, 2012 organised by the FUTA. The giant Stage and backdrop at the rally was designed and constructed by the lectures of the Faculty of Visual Arts, Music was composed by the Faculty of Music and the Percussion Band was organised by the Faculty of Dance & Drama of UVPA.

Expenditure on Art Education

When compared to subject streams like science, commerce and Information Technology, it can be seen that less attention is paid to the field of creative arts and Humanities in this country.

But most other renowned universities the world over, where degrees are awarded for visual and performing art subjects like painting, sculpture, design, music, dance and drama are fully sponsored by their respective governments.

Government’s pressure on our universities is to turn them into money earning institutes. In this regard, we can take Singapore as an example. Many politicians in this country always take Singapore to prove Asia’s rapid development. It also is a country that earns maximum profit by treating Trade and Commerce as No. 1 priority. It’s timely to compare the vision of the government of Singapore regarding the art education with the first demand of the present trade union action of FUTA.

"Our objective is to double the GDP contribution of the creative industry to 6% by the year 2012. This will result in higher demand for creative talents and those who can contribute to meeting the growing market for creative products and services" (Dr Lee Boon Yang, Minister for Information, Communication and the arts – Singapore - www.lasalle.edu.sg)

There is an exact job market the world over for graduates in the fields of Visual and Performing Arts; creative arts, applied arts, fashion, multi-media, theatrical arts and music in the gradually expanding social and commercial structure. They are also treated in most countries as investments for creative and talent based job markets.

Likewise, as these graduates are also considered essential for a country as promoters of culture, the universities of visual and performing arts are sponsored by the respective governments around the world. It is regrettable, that even the University of the Visual and Performing Arts of this country also has established a ‘Center of Distance Learning’ for practical oriented degree programmes for fund raising. As in the case of medicine, engineering and architecture, gaining degrees in visual and performing arts is also not possible through distance learning. These degrees are earned through constant attendance and daily practical lessons. Even external degrees are not applicable for visual and performing art streams.

Asia’s Miracle

‘Sri Lanka is Asia’s Miracle’ is the slogan of the present government. These themes are useless without a substantial investment in the education sector. Recognising that the ‘Renaissance of the 21st century happens in Asia’, countries like Singapore, China, India, Japan, Malaysia, Korea and Bangladesh are getting prepared for this situation. Education comes first as the main force in this regard.

As examples, in the last century, focusing only on visual arts, our attention was always on Europe and America regarding painters and sculptors; on biennales like Venice, Sao Paolo and Havana. But Asia is rapidly gaining attention on Art in this 21st century. Delhi Triennial, Singapore, Beijing, Dhaka, Fukuoka and now Colombo biennales have gained international attention. This can be understood as that ‘Asia is turning to be the new creative hub in the 21st century.’

Considering the geological position of Sri Lanka, we cannot avoid this chance. Strengthening the education system should be priority No. 1 among other development plans including the new airports, harbours, highways, towers and hotels. The slogan Russians used when building the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution ‘save in all other projects, but not in education’ suits us. Investing in a fruitful education will also help to solve the problems that paved the way for the internal civil war and ethnic problems, especially after the 30 year war. Armed with a plan of such a vision only our country will be built as a strong nation.

Save State Education

The first demand of the lecturers this time is to invest 6% of the GDP for overall education.

This is not a demand for only university lecturers, but for the benefit of university academic support staff like instructors, demonstrators, accompanists, technical officers, non-academic staff and administration staff. Not stopping at that, it flows to teachers of the secondary education system, principals and other staff. This is a very fair demand, which covers the whole education system in the country. It also benefits parents who wish to give their children a good education.

The investment of 3.4% of GDP in education in 1995 has fallen drastically to 01.8% in 2011. This requires the attention of all Sri Lankans. This struggle is for the raising of this percentage to improve the quality of our education. This is also a struggle of artists, because the development of the education sector benefits the art market and appreciation of art. This demand is very reasonable and FUTA is asking this percentage to be raised systematically up to 6% in 2015.

Political Interferences

Political interference in the administration and education of universities has increased in recent times. Cronies of politicians are appointed to various institutions at the expense of the experienced and capable officers.

It is also tragic that even high ranking officers of the university administration have become spokespersons for politicians. Therefore, the FUTA demand that political interference with universities be ended is to be commended.

It is an accepted methodology to evaluate a portfolio with creative works or to have an aptitude test to select students for visual and performing art education. This was in use for a long time in this country, but it has been stopped on a directive of the Higher Education minister without any prior notice.

This will deal a severe blow to the process of producing creative artists as selections cannot based on GCE (Advanced Level) marks alone. Interviews are essential. As for Bachelor of Fine Arts or Bachelor of Visual Arts or Bachelor of Performing Arts degrees, candidates’ creative performance needs to be evaluated in addition to their the GCE A/L results, if those programmes are to be accepted by other universities in the world. The Higher Education Ministry directive is bound to lead to the UVPA losing recognition among its international counterparts.

The UVPA student intake for 2011 was doubled by bringing down the pass mark to 40% from 50% at the aptitude test. This has also been done by the Minister and has created many problems due to lack of facilities (Scrapping Aptitude Test: A bad decision - 2012.06.22 The Island).

UVPA big wigs silence vis-à-vis blatant political interference is regrettable. Though UGC is responsible for admitting university students, the universities have a say in matters such as the number of the students to be admitted, the criteria etc. The rights granted to Faculty Boards and Senates of the universities by the Universities ACT are now being violated by the political authority. Artists therefore support FUTA trade union action wholeheartedly.

Salaries of university teachers

If Sri Lanka is to realise its dream of being Asia’s Knowledge Hub, universities have a pivotal role to play. For this, the intellectuals, researchers, specialists and creative artists should be motivated to work in a free environment. They should be satisfied with the facilities they get. But, as regards their salaries and facilities available to them, Sri Lankan universities lag behind their counterparts in the region.

The government has called upon expatriate Sri Lankan intellectuals and specialists to return home and help develop the country, but it has done precious little to attract them. The universities are the ideal place for the returning expats to continue their experiments, studies and engage in creative pursuits but the conditions at local universities are so appalling that even their teachers who go overseas for educational purposes are reluctant to come back.

Establishing an academic service, formulating a suitable salary scale and providing the required facilities are necessary to stop the brain drain.

 

Solution to the University Crisis: A View from an Academic

September 1, 2012, 7:59 pm , The Island

Amal S. Kumarage
Senior Professor, Faculty of Engineering
University of Moratuwa

Mr CA Chandraprema in his article published in the Sunday Island of 19th August has dedicated two paragraphs to my detailed response to his previous criticism of the current trade union action of academics. Even though he states that his faith in academia has been restored after reading my article, I find that his faith is still wavering as it has not stopped his dismissal of the key issues and usual endorsement of Government view. I was however encouraged enough to write a further article to address the concern he has raised why ‘senior academics’ were not involved in negotiations and in drafting the FUTA demands.

Missing the Issue by asking ‘Who’ instead of ‘What"

Sri Lankan society has steadily been conditioned to filter any information based on who says it rather than what is said. From branding all dissent as ‘unpatriotic’, all criticism as ‘politically intent’ and even opinion as ‘unnecessary’, society has been conditioned to listen to and believe in a single source as opposed to appreciating different views. This sadly, in spite of our long legacy of education, reflects the lack of a truly educated populace. In the context of the current trade union action, the attempts at dismissing FUTA as extreme and painting all universities and academics as clowns in a circus are attempts at yet again distancing the populace from one of the last bastions of resistance to popular political ideology that seems bent on making people accept explanation without inquiry and leadership without accountability. Many responses to my earlier article called it ‘realistic’ and ‘moderate’. Thus I stand on that confirmation to propose the following as a direction towards solving the university crisis.

Slipping and Sliding: Irresponsible Stewardship

The Table 1 shows funding for full time undergraduate courses for the last three years where detailed figures are available.

Accordingly, the Faculty cost which is the academic input costs plus cost of libraries etc, are highest in Medicine at Rs 170,657 per student per year, while Commerce and Management records the lowest at Rs 44,470 per student per year. The university overhead per student which comprises mostly of other (administrative and non-academic) staff costs amounts to Rs 59,057 per student. Sadly this means that in some of our faculties the cost of non-academic staff inputs is higher than academic staff inputs! Adding all other cost components, the total average (weighted) cost across all the faculties’ amounts to around Rs 200,000 per undergraduate per year. This table shows how the average total cost per student has reduced by over 20% in the last three years, mostly due to reducing capital allocation. Even recurrent spending can be considered to have reduced when adjusted for inflation. This is the alarm that academics are raising for society to be mindful of the irresponsible handling of higher education.

It is seen from the table, that fund allocation per student has gone down over the last few years. Budgets for each university are not computed according to student numbers. Each year the budget is increased by a nominal margin and thereafter the Government usually requests for more students to be taken. These are not joint decisions. That is why Ministers prefer Vice chancellors and Deans who will readily oblige. This process lacks basic management safeguards of ensuring quality is maintained. A good example of this is the current request made by the UGC from the universities to admit some 6,300 extra students (an increase of around 30% on usual intake) due to the Z-score blunder without any additional resources. The mistake and responsibility of one institution is now conveniently passed on to all the universities. A few years ago, a similar problem with the Chemistry paper saw pressure put on the University of Moratuwa to increase the number admitted to a new program from 50 to 106, which led to over 40 students being unable to find employment on graduation. The Rajarata Medical Faculty came to being for the same reason. In many new programs, promised facilities are provided many years after such programs start leading to student protests and constraints on the proper development of such programs. These examples show how little understanding the Government displays on essentials of university education. It cannot be likened to a production line that can be increased or reduced by working overtime or operating an extra shift depending on a sudden ‘order’.

Make Financial Allocation Student based

The above costs for a degree by any standard are very low. Given the quality of some of the programs that produce graduates holding internationally accredited degrees this is indeed very cost-effective higher education. There is no comparison I am aware of in the world, where medical or engineering graduates who have an international recognition are produced at such cost. But could this cost be squeezed further? In fact this is the crux of the protest! Academics say that it can’t be done- not without a drop in quality. Having studied amount of fees charged by private institutions and costs of public universities from across several countries, it is apparent that further reduction in cost is not possible when it is currently only around 1/10th of that of leading universities. As such my proposal is for Government to start providing universities a per student financial allocation from 2013 onwards. I suggest that average spending should be raised by around 50%, to say Rs 300,000/- per student per year. The different programs may be provided adjusted amounts to compensate for current under spending and to match international norms. As such I believe that the Engineering Faculty should receive around Rs 360,000/- per student in 2012. This should be adjusted for inflation every subsequent year. Further adjustment to reflect the increasing GDP to reach targeted level may fine tune these allocations this further. The increased allocation can be only for new students starting from 2012/13 intake. It will then take around four years till the total funding increase is completed. This will give universities more time to adjust and use the increased funds more efficiently.

The analysis indicates that the capital required to start new programs or to increase of student numbers to existing programs should be calculated separately. At the University of Moratuwa, it costs around Rs 2 to 3 million per new student to provide additional classrooms, labs, staff rooms, other student facilities and equipment. This cost will be different for students in other programs. Thus if the UGC wishes to increase student numbers they should provide the additional capital expenditure in the said format. In this context if the UGC wishes to increase the admissions due to the Z score blunder, it will be easier to calculate the actual cost of its mistake. If as reported in some media, an additional 6,300 students are to be admitted, then this additional financial commitment would be around Rs 18 billion over four years, computed at Rs 300,000 recurrent cost per year per student and capital costs at say, Rs 1.5 million (being adjusted to account for less resource intense programs) per student for creating new capacity. As it may not be possible for a university to increase building space etc in just one year, capital funds may in consultation with the respective university and faculty, be also spread over four years or so making the cost burden Rs 4.5 billion per year. This for anyone who wishes to complain is currently what is spent to build just one km of elevated expressway!

The positive aspect of this funding approach is that the Z-score blunder can be transformed to a constructive feature by initiating a permanent capacity expansion. I believe this may be the solution that HE the President was expecting by saying that solutions must be ‘win-win’ for both sides. Temporary ‘fixes’ such as a one-off additional intake as has been suggested should be rejected outright, as they deteriorate standards for such an intake, which once lowered stay there permanently. According to the above formula and as shown in Table 2, the government will need to only marginally increase its total expenditure on universities in 2013 and will by 2015 achieve 0.48% of GDP, an increase from 0.21% in 2010. It should be noted that the calculations in the tables are approximate and based on assumed student figures and a growth of GDP of 6%.

 

Is Funding the Only Issue?

Additional funding is essential to improve and maintain quality. But that alone will not be adequate to bring about all the desired changes in university education. There are three major areas needing urgent reform that I will elaborate on in this article:

Financial autonomy: At present only the Vice-chancellor, Deputy VC, Deans, Registrar and the Bursar at the University of Moratuwa can approve any voucher or invoice of over Rs 5,000/-. Not even a Head of Department or Senior Professor can approve anything above this paltry amount. Much time of academics is spent on filling forms, following up payment vouchers, collecting cash from the Bursar, getting three, now increased to five quotations for getting simple supplies needed for doing anything out of the mundane. The Finance Ministry can intervene to ensure that financial autonomy is fully vested with the University and that the respective university council encouraged delegating authority so that the core competency in the university which is its academia and their energy and time can be released to pursue academic and research work. Councils must also be given greater flexibility to device incentives schemes as well as means of generating income to universities by providing research and marketable educational products. They must also be given greater discretion in utilizing earned incomes. It is grossly unfair to criticize universities when it is the Government AR and FR that are used to deflate the energy of the presently limited number of academics from doing anything innovative or entrepreneurial.

Recruitment autonomy: It is common knowledge that except for academic posts, applicants to all other posts in universities have to be selected from a list sent by the Ministry. The basis of inclusion in this list is a letter from a ruling party politician. Sadly most government institutions and now universities are being treated as the dumping ground of political supporters and their kith and kin. We know what happened to the CTB and the Railways which were in the 1960s, institutions of national pride. Our State universities are being dragged (currently kicking and screaming) along the same route to ridicule and destruction.

Parliament, the Auditor General and all other watch dogs of public interest have failed to stop such violations of autonomy, transparency and abuse of power. Unless universities are provided the functional autonomy to do their own recruitment to suit the requirements of running an educational institute, public should be made aware that universities cannot be held responsible for delivery or more precisely the lack of it. Thus the most pressing closure we require from the Hon Minister is the closure to political interference. The University Act must be amended accordingly and until then a circular issued to this effect.

Procedural Autonomy: Many readers of my previous article published in the Colombo Telegraph criticized the lack of research publications by Sri Lankan academics. As one of the species who has supervised several PhD candidates, scores of Masters Students and Research Assistants over 20 years, it should be said that State universities have in general no allocation earmarked for research (except the dubious ‘Research Allowance’ that was given in lieu of a salary increase last year). Currently the National Science Foundation (NSF) provides research funding for which it has a 26 page application form. The monthly allowance payable to a full time Research Scientist (one with post graduate qualifications) is only Rs 40,000/- and less for full time MSc and PhD students. I simply cannot find qualified, capable and experienced researchers at such allowances! In the universities abroad that we are often compared with, the research output of professors is almost entirely dependent on the availability of quality post graduate students and assistants they are able to hire. Moreover, even if one finds funding for a research project in Sri Lanka, funds to travel and present research papers at an international forum or for publication is often more challenging that the research itself. Furthermore, if and when you actually get the funds, it is possible that you could have missed the deadline for applying for overseas leave from the university which must be done 24-days before travel! Such are the unsupportive and archaic regulations within which research is expected to be carried out in Sri Lankan universities. If you add the constant chaos due to power cuts, flux in university calendars, and unavailability of suitable support staff, getting even the smallest research output is an effort. A Research Fund to provide regular funds for competitive proposals with simplified disbursement formats, higher remuneration of researchers together with stringent output requirements could be set up in each university to solve this problem.

The Issue of Retaining Academics

Much has been written on the inability of the current university salaries and work conditions to attract or retain quality academic staff in State universities. I wish to say no more. The higher student fees I propose could be used by the universities to overcome some of these problems. For example, I propose the creation of a Research Fund in each university equal to 1/10th of the total salary bill of academic staff to spend entirely on research activities of such academics supervising post graduate students, research fellows and for publications and travel for presentations of papers at conferences. A comprehensive family medical cover and insurance is another requirement as currently there is none and a source of stress for many. It can also provide a fund for assisting young recruits to lecturer grade to pursue higher qualifications, as scholarships are increasingly difficult to obtain. It would also be adequate to provide a ‘re-settlement’ package for those returning from PhD studies overseas to assist them to purchase a house and vehicle if they so desire of course, plus some entitlement for school admissions as these are some of the major concerns for someone returning from abroad with young children.

As per my calculation, if the Faculty of Engineering at University of Moratuwa is provided per student funding of Rs 350,000/-, the recurrent income to the university would increase by around Rs 100 million per year. This will be adequate to provide all the above proposals for the faculty plus leave enough for the 20% salary increase that is demanded at this stage plus hiring staff required for the additional students. The proposed tie to inflation and GDP will also enable universities to pay market rates to their staff without creating salary gaps and ensuing strikes!

Conclusion: More Money for Universities should ensure more Students will access Quality Education

Currently State universities admit just 15 percent of those qualifying to enter university while Private Higher Educational Institutes admit around 8 percent with an equal number seeking admission to foreign universities. The relative costs for providing such education are in the approximate ratio of 1 (State): 2-3 (Private): 5-10 (Foreign). There should be a plan to increase the overall access to universities for at least 50 percent of those qualified. Since State universities offer the lowest cost of higher education they should be nurtured and capacity further developed to become the primary provider. However quality should not be compromised by attempts to reduce cost further.

This article gives clear and practical steps the Government could take to resolve the crisis in the universities. It calls for a committed plan of increasing expenditure on State universities from 0.21 to 0.48 percent of GDP over 4 years. This cannot be a Herculean task for a government embarking on many ambitious and expensive development projects. It is the investment in higher education that will ensure that such projects are properly planned and implemented. Thus higher education is basic condition of sustainability in development efforts. A similar per student funding scheme may be developed for school education with an enhanced remuneration package and in-service training for teachers, for providing resources for student-based learning facilities. These too could be introduced in a stage-wise manner to make it practical and affordable. It is even possible that such strategic interventions can in fact enable quality of university and school education to be restored even without spending all of the 6% of GDP that is being demanded.

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the University of Moratuwa Teachers’ Association (UMTA) for the data mining and analytical work for this article and in particular the contributions from Dr Himan Punchihewa, Dr T. Sivakumar, Mr Ranil Sugathadasa and Ms Baudhi Abeysekera.

Lankan students at London Met University face deportation

September 1, 2012, 8:52 pm 

By Sujeeva Nivunhella in London, The Island

More than 2,000 overseas students, including scores of Sri Lankans face deportation from Great Britain within 60 days if they fail to find a United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) approved university after the British government stripped the Metropolitan University of its right to admit foreign students.

With this well-known higher seat of learning in London losing their Highly Trusted Status (HTS), which permits it to sponsor international students, around 100 Sri Lankan students reading for diverse degree programs will have to relocate to a UKBA approved campus or return to Sri Lanka, according to the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

However, unlike earlier occasions, the British Government has stepped in to request the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and Universities UK to set up a task force to support affected students and enable them to continue their studies in the UK. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), the UK Border Agency and the National Union of Students are also part of this task force.

The UKBA website says London Metropolitan University students now in the UK with a current, valid UK visa need not do anything immediately, and as for students on holiday outside Britain, they can return to the UK."New students planning to travel to the UK to start studying with London Metropolitan University should not travel", it advised.

Immigration Minister Damian Green said the University’s Highly Trusted Status was revoked due to "serious systematic failure". Most of students lacked a good standard of English knowledge and were not attending lectures. 

The Minister was quoted by Sky News saying "….the University proved to be a "very, very deficient" sponsor because more than a quarter of students sampled were studying there when they did not have permission to stay in the country. A "significant proportion" of students did not have a good standard of English and there was no proof that half of those sampled were turning up to lectures".

Professor Malcolm Gillies, the University’s Vice Chancellor, described the claims as not "particularly cogent" and said it would be disputing them, according to the

news report.

"I would go so far as to say that the UK Border Agency has been rewriting its own guidelines on this issue and this is something which should cause concern to all universities in the UK", he continued.

As foreign students were thrown into panic over the announcement, Universities Minister David Willetts, announcing the formation of a task force to help those affected by the decision, said "It is important that genuine students who are affected through no fault of their own are offered prompt advice and help, including, if necessary, with finding other institutions at which to finish their studies".

But, Keith Vaz, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said the move could harm Britain’s reputation as a prime destination for overseas students. "It has left thousands of students in limbo and I am afraid it may damage the reputation of this country as the best place in the world for overseas students".

"Just when we are welcoming thousands of overseas visitors for the Olympics, at the same time we are saying to thousands of overseas students who have paid a small fortune to come to Britain in good faith that they can no longer study at this university", he was quoted as saying.

Some 290,000 international students and their dependents are granted visas each year on average, according to statistics from the National Audit Office. They contribute over £5bn to the UK economy, Universities UK says.

NUS President Liam Burns said that politicians need to realize that a continued attitude of suspicion towards international students could endanger the continuation of higher education as a successful export industry. "This heavy-handed decision makes no sense for students, no sense for institutions and no sense for the country."

Emmanuel Egwu, international students’ officer at the university, was one of the many students angered by the decision. He was granted a visa to study at the university in 2009 and is in the final year of his course.

"I pay a lot of money. I’ve spent £30,000 to 40,000 in tuition fees - my parents sell properties and land to make sure they can pay my fees so what’s going to happen to people like me," he told Sky News.

A statement posted on the university’s website last night read: "The implications of the revocation are hugely significant and far-reaching, and the university has already started to deal with these.

"Our absolute priority is to our students, both current and prospective, and the University will meet all its obligations to them."

With the UK Border Agency (UKBA) examining alleged failings, reports spoke of about 2,700 students and student over-stayers removed since April 1 2009, while another 40,000 to 50,000 individuals may have entered in 2009 to work rather than study.