By Athulasiri Samarakoon –

Dr. Athulasiri Kumara Samarakoon

Education reform should never be reduced to a purely technocratic exercise; however, the extent to which it can remain politically neutral is a matter of serious debate. Historically, education policy has been a site of ideological contestation and intense public interest. I think we need to examine Dr. Harini Amarasuriya’s recent education reforms under the NPP government within this broader historical and political context. As Dr. Amarasuriya has emphatically tried to convince civil society, and she continues to travel around the country explaining the reforms, her reforms attempt to introduce an overhaul of the system in terms of curriculum, administration, governance, and pedagogy. However, despite certain progressive intentions, the reforms have garnered little praise and considerable criticism, largely due to their philosophical depth, content, and method of implementation. Nevertheless, I remain personally convinced that Dr. Amarasuriya is genuinely committed to implementing these reforms and possesses the determination and political will to see them through.

We can begin this discussion by tracing the roots of Sri Lanka’s education policy to the seminal Kannangara Reforms of 1943. The CWW Kannangara report was foundational in establishing the principle of free education from primary to university level. It proposed the introduction of English as a subject from Grade Three onwards (original proposal), while ensuring that primary education be conducted in the vernacular. Kannangara’s vision treated education as a public good and a basic right, essential for social mobility and national integration. He envisioned a system that was both equitable and modern, setting a benchmark against which all subsequent reforms must be measured.

When we evaluate current reforms, including those of Dr. Amarasuriya, we must ask: do they, in principle, align with or diverge from the foundational goals of the Kannangara report? Since 1981, beginning with Ranil Wickremesinghe’s White Paper on education, most policy proposals, except for perhaps the Premadasa Udugama reform (1991), have taken a neoliberal turn. These reforms tended to emphasize the role of the private sector, rationalizing the withdrawal of the state from its educational obligations. Mostly, this trend gained momentum especially after 1977, when economic liberalization accelerated the proliferation of private schools and higher education institutions. These institutions often operate under the Companies Act, follow foreign syllabuses or altered local curricula, and frequently remain outside a clear regulatory framework.

Under Ranil Wickremesinghe’s leadership, the idea of Jathika Adyaapana Prathipaththi Ramuwa (National Education Policy Framework – 2023-2033) was introduced. Though not implemented, it was attacked by critics for its overt neoliberal orientation. The policy aimed to restructure education across production, distribution, administration, and governance lines by empowering the private sector and gradually reducing the state’s role. Parents, alumni associations, and private entities were expected to bear the financial burden, indicating a clear shift in the government’s approach to education as a public responsibility.

Additionally, we need to emphasize that some neoliberal reformers have begun to praise Dr. Amarasuriya’s proposal and even attempt to claim ownership of it for themselves. Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a presentation by Dr. Sunil Jayantha Nawarathne, former Secretary of the Ministry of Education and one-time Director General of the National Institute of Education (NIE). His talk aimed at educating Opposition Members of Parliament on the current wave of reforms. While taking pride in the reforms introduced during his own tenure under the PA governments, Dr. Nawarathne made a rather unexpected but generous observation: that the present reform efforts under the NPP government share many of the objectives and philosophical inclinations set during his own period of influence. He noted the similarities in the goals, the educational vision, and even in the reform of language. His argument was that these reforms, regardless of political authorship, should be given a chance to unfold without premature obstruction. Here we must remember that, however much this neoliberal school comes to agree with these reforms, it is due to certain similarities in content but not because the state role is emphasized by Dr. Amarasuriya, at least in her public addresses.

In contrast, the reforms under Dr. Harini Amarasuriya and the NPP cannot be described as neoliberal in character. Their public statements, policy direction, and political manifesto all emphasize education as a human right, not a commodity. The NPP’s vision for education is rooted in a worldview that sees the state as the primary provider and regulator of education. However, even these reforms have not been fully aligned with a clearly articulated and consistent state education policy. While the NPP leadership often reiterates the importance of free education and rejects the privatization of schooling, the institutional mechanisms to safeguard these ideals are still evolving.

Any serious reform of the education system today must pursue several non-negotiable objectives:

1. Preserve and strengthen the principle of free education, while updating it to remain relevant in a rapidly changing global environment.

2. Reduce the burden of competitive examinations and regulate the tuition industry, which thrives on a culture of fear, performance anxiety, and economic inequality.

3. Bridge the resource gap between elite and peripheral schools, diminish the obsession with “popular schools,” and work to make the “nearest school the best school.”

4. Make education a universal and enforceable right, ensuring equitable access across social classes, gender identities, ethnic groups, and regions.

5. Modernize the school curriculum to remove racial, caste, religious, gender, and class-based biases and make it inclusive, democratic, and empowering.

However, addressing the first and second concerns are the most important and feasible, considering the current economic context where ordinary people must be freed from the burden of education expenditure as much as possible. The third goal concerned with addressing resource disparities requires a significant increase in education spending to at least 4% of GDP, which is a difficult demand within the current IMF-influenced policy framework that encourages cuts in education and other welfare sectors. Nevertheless, if education is redefined not as an expense but as a vital investment, Dr. Amarasuriya must persuade the government to prioritize it in the upcoming budget or explore alternatives such as grants from the World Bank and other global development partners.

The final objective of modernizing educational content cannot be realized through bureaucratic measures alone. It necessitates the active engagement of intellectuals, educators, and curriculum developers who are free from ethno-racial, gender, and class biases. In the Sri Lankan context, scholars such as Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda, Prof. Deepika Udugama, Prof. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri, Prof. Harischandra Gambheera, Ms. Padmini Ranaweera, Prof. Shironika Karunanayaka, and Prof. Arjuna Parakrama (just to mention a few names which I can immediately call to mind) stand out as figures whose insights could be invaluable in shaping a genuinely transformative educational vision. Unfortunately, their expertise appears to have been overlooked in the PowerPoint presentation outlining the reforms proposed by Dr. Harini Amarasuriya. If Dr. Amarasuriya is genuinely committed to shaping a future-oriented and equitable education system, the inclusion of such intellectuals, and others of similar calibers, is imperative. Their contribution would help craft a curriculum that moves beyond producing parochial or compliant citizens and instead fosters critical thinking, empathy, and democratic participation among learners.

In conclusion, education reform is not merely about adjusting the curriculum or shifting administrative duties; it is a deep ideological process. While Dr. Amarasuriya’s efforts mark a departure from neoliberal trends, their success will depend on whether they embody the principles of equity, inclusion, and state responsibility envisioned by CWW Kannangara through his radical democratic aspirations first articulated 80 years ago.