By Nalaka Samaraweera –

When the Prime Minister, Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, began speaking about new education reforms earlier this year, many people had high hopes. Despite the government’s decision to continue the same economic policies followed by Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government, there was a strong belief that, at least in the field of education, things would be different. As a political party that did not spare even a single Pirivena in making its presence felt, and one that has long advocated for a fair and equitable education system, expectations were understandably high. As individuals and groups as key stakeholders of education, they were searching for any formal document outlining the reforms that the PM had been planning to implement starting in 2026. However, it was not possible for them, indicating a striking difference that sets the new reforms apart from the earlier reforms. That is the absence of such a formal document to make the public aware of the new reforms. Even the most controversial 1981 White Paper on Education and 2023 National Education Policy Framework had formal documents that invited people to discuss, criticize, or endorse.

A couple of weeks back, however, the situation began to change as public outcry emerged over claims that the new reforms advocate for the sideline of History from the school curriculum. The PM quickly responded to the allegation, stating that History would remain compulsory up to Grade 11 even under the new reforms. Media reports indicated that awareness sessions were conducted for several parties regarding the proposed reforms. Interestingly, a PowerPoint presentation (PPP) outlining the reforms has been circulating within limited circles. Since it lacks essential details and formality, several parties have called for a formal policy document. However, the government appears to consider the slides sufficient and even seems to take pride in them.

Despite criticisms from various parties, mainly due to the lack of consultation with key stakeholders in education, the lead proponent of the reforms, the PM, remains firmly committed to implementing them in Grades 1 and 6 beginning in 2026. While the Prime Minister has called for public suggestions to improve the reforms, she simultaneously speaks of teacher training to implement the reforms, raising doubts about whether public input will meaningfully influence the final outcome. Preparing a comprehensive policy document that addresses public concerns and training teachers accordingly before 2026 appears highly unrealistic.

I had the privilege, one that many have not yet, to go through the said PPP, which gives the impression that the proposed reforms are the outcome of a gradual preparation process that began in 2019. It is important to share my initial impression of this critical document. Simply put, I was both shocked and confused upon seeing such highly complicated and overambitious reforms proposed for the school curriculum, with little regard for the ground realities. However, the focus of this article is not to examine why these reforms appear overambitious, but rather to address the public outcry over the sidelining of History in the curriculum.

Do the reforms advocate sidelining History from the curriculum? My immediate and unequivocal answer to that question is a definite YES. As for the Prime Minister’s claim that History has been made compulsory for all, I must respectfully but firmly state that she is mistaken. For readers who have not had the privilege of seeing the PPP, allow me to summarize the relevant sections there. The most controversial part of the reforms is proposed for Grades 10–11, identified in the PPP as Senior Secondary Education Phase I. The suggested curriculum includes both subjects and modules, each measured in credits according to the hours allocated to them. The proposed structure consists of four categories: compulsory subjects, elective subjects, further learning modules, and transversal modules carrying 14, 4, 14, and 3 credits respectively. Students are therefore expected to complete 35 credits per term.

The controversy arises from the identification of only five compulsory subjects, notably excluding History and Aesthetics, marking a clear departure from the current system. These five compulsory subjects are: Mother Tongue, English, Mathematics, Science, and Religion. History and Aesthetics are instead placed in the elective subject basket, from which students must select two subjects out of nine. This arrangement means that both History and Aesthetics can be entirely omitted from a student’s selection. In the PPP, both compulsory subjects and the two elective subjects are grouped under the label Common Core Curriculum, which is highly misleading for readers. How can the compilers classify an elective subject as part of the core curriculum? A core subject is meant to cover an essential domain of knowledge/skill at a given stage of education, and it must be compulsory for all students. It cannot be replaced or substituted. For example, Mathematics is considered a core subject because mathematical literacy is regarded as an essential skill and knowledge domain for every student, making it irreplaceable. The existing curriculum grants core and compulsory status to History, recognizing its essential role in shaping students at this stage. This is justifiable just as Mathematics creates numerically literate citizens, History cultivates historically informed individuals.

What core aspects does History share with other subjects in the elective basket, such as Geography, Technology, Health and Physical Education, and Entrepreneurship and Financial Literacy? Removing the core and compulsory status previously assigned to History is one of the most significant issues in the new reforms. The compilers then adopted a rather unusual approach to create the impression that History remains compulsory for all. Under the “Further Learning Modules,” students must choose one of four pathways: STEM, Humanities, Management, or Skills Development. Each pathway prescribes a specific set of modules, and in three of them (STEM, Management, and Skills Development), History and Aesthetics are made compulsory. The Humanities pathway is the only one in which students are not mandatory to take History.

As a minor note, the Prime Minister’s claim is inaccurate, as a student in the Humanities pathway could omit History entirely. The major point, however, is this: first, the reforms remove History’s core and compulsory status, making it an elective. Then, they attempt to restore its apparent importance by making it compulsory in three of the four pathways. This ridiculous arrangement is best understood as an intermediate step toward eventually making History optional altogether. It is simply a matter of time.

What justifications do the proponents of the new reform offer? Although the PPP does not explicitly state them, some insights can be derived from their media appearances. They repeatedly emphasize the need to prepare students for Industry 4.0, the AI era, and other future-oriented challenges. Simultaneously, they advocate for reducing students’ examination burdens. Most likely, the decision to dilute the role of History is closely tied to an underlying ideology that History no longer holds sufficient value in the age of Industry 4.0. At the same time, this move is framed as a way to alleviate the burden of examinations on students.

If we take this latter concern for the discussion first, does that point hold any merit? Does it make any sensible argument to justify the removal of the core status just for the sake of relieving the examination burden? Can we compensate the core value of making a history-informed student from any of this?

Learning history primarily helps us understand how past events evolved into causes that shaped the course of human civilization. It also carries forward the collective civilization’s wisdom derived from humanity’s victories, achievements, atrocities, tragedies, etc. Moreover, by exposing us to diverse narratives and perspectives, the study of history sharpens critical thinking and deepens our understanding of the world.

What benefits can History offer to students being prepared for Industry 4.0? Shouldn’t they also learn lessons from Industry 1.0? The First Industrial Revolution was the world’s first encounter with machines transforming society. Understanding how the rise of machines affected people and communities then is crucial to grasping how thinking machines in the AI era might shape our world today. Students preparing for the so-called AI era should recognize that debates over the challenges technology poses to humanity are not entirely new. The 19th-century discussions on human alienation caused by machines can certainly shed light on today’s conversations about AI and its societal impact.

Sustainable development has emerged as the leading framework for societal progress, challenging key aspects of the Eurocentric worldview that has dominated for the past 200 years. In this context, people are turning to civilizational wisdom found in ancient knowledge systems looking for different worldviews. Our ancient irrigation systems, widely recognized as remarkable engineering feats, stand in stark contrast to modern irrigation due to their deep integration with the environment. How can we afford to ignore this knowledge when teaching our students as future engineers and technologists?

Learning about the European Renaissance reveals how profoundly new ideas can transform societies, politically, economically, and culturally. It makes clear the deep interplay between ideologies and the forces that drive societal change. Does this not matter just as much in today’s world? For anyone seeking to play a meaningful role in this new era, a deep understanding of both ideologies and the forces that shape society is essential.

How could the future Sri Lankan intelligentsia remain unaware of the 19th-century National Revival in Sri Lanka, a movement that rose in response to colonial neglect of indigenous values? This revival is widely recognized for shaping the modern intelligentsia and laying the very foundation in the fields of literature, art, music, and science in Sri Lanka. It offers vital lessons for preparing future intellectuals to respond meaningfully to global technological challenges.

As a positive note to the authors of the History textbooks in our schools, all the above historical cases were intentionally selected based on the content in Grades 10 and 11. Finally, we do not forget that the current Government promised to bring the Renaissance in its central political slogan “Punarudaya.” I believe they are aware of how the European Renaissance was shaped by millennia-old Greek civilization, which signifies the importance of history as the compass (Malimawa) for navigating to the future. It is deeply ironic that the same Government’s education reforms dilute the role of History making it elective.