A statement by state university teachers

One of the major initiatives of the NPP government is reforming the country’s education system. Immediately after coming to power, the government started the process of bringing about “transformational” changes to general education. The budgetary allocation to education has been increased to 2% of GDP (from 1.8% in 2023). Although this increase is not sufficient, the government has pledged to build infrastructure, recruit more teachers, increase facilities at schools and identified education reforms as an urgent need. These are all welcome moves. However, it is with deep concern that we express our views on the general education reforms that are currently underway.

The government’s approach to education reform has been hasty and lacking in transparency and public consultation. Announcements regarding the reforms planned for January 2026 were made in July 2025. In August, 2025, a set of slides was circulated, initially through unofficial sources. It was only in November 2025, just three months ahead of implementation, that an official policy document, Transforming General Education in Sri Lanka 2025, was released. The Ministry of Education held a series of meetings about the reforms. However, by this time the modules had already been written, published, and teacher training commenced.

The new general education policy shows a discrepancy between its conceptual approach and content. The objectives of the curriculum reforms include: to promote “critical thinking”, “multiple intelligences”, “a deeper understanding of the social and political value of the humanities and social sciences” and embed the “values of equity, inclusivity and social justice” (p. 9). Yet, the new curriculum places minimal emphasis on social sciences and humanities, and leaves little time for critical thinking or for molding social justice-oriented citizens. Subjects such as environment, history and civics, are left out at the primary level, while at the junior secondary level, civics and history are allocated only 10 and 20 hours per term. The increase in the number of “essential subjects” to 15 restricts the hours available for fundamentals like mathematics and language; only 30 hours are allocated to mathematics and the mother tongue, per term, at junior secondary level. Learning the second national language and about our conflict-ridden history are still not priorities despite the government’s pledge to address ethnic cohesion. The time allocation for Entrepreneurship and Financial Literacy, now an essential subject, is on par with the second national language, geography and civics. At the senior secondary level (O/L), social sciences and humanities are only electives. If the government is committed to the objectives that it has laid out, there should be a serious re-think of what subjects will be taught at each grade, the time allocated to each, their progress across different levels, and their weight in the overall curriculum.

A positive aspect of  the reforms is the importance given to vocational training. A curriculum that recognises differences in students, whether in terms of their interest in subject matter, styles of learning, or their respective needs, and caters to those diverse needs, would make education more pluralistic and therefore democratic. However, there must be some caution placed on how difference is treated, and this should not be reflected in vocational training alone, but in all aspects of the curriculum. For instance, will the history curriculum account for different narratives of history, including the recent history of Sri Lanka and the histories of minorities and marginalized communities? Will the family structures depicted in textbooks go beyond conventional conceptions of the nuclear family? Addressing these areas too would allow students to feel more represented in curricula and enable them to move through their years of schooling in ways that are unconstrained by stereotypes and unjust barriers.

The textbooks for the Grade 6 modules on the National Institute of Education (NIE) website appear to have not gone through rigorous review. They contain rampant typographical errors and include (some undeclared) AI-generated content, including images that  seem distant from the student experience. Some textbooks contain incorrect or misleading information. The Global Studies textbook associates specific facial features, hair colour, and skin colour, with particular countries and regions, and refers to Indigenous peoples in offensive terms long rejected by these communities (e.g. “Pygmies”, “Eskimos”). Nigerians are portrayed as poor/agricultural and with no electricity. The Entrepreneurship and Financial Literacy textbook introduces students to “world famous entrepreneurs”, mostly men, and equates success with business acumen. Such content contradicts the policy’s stated commitment to “values of equity, inclusivity and social justice” (p. 9). Is this the kind of content we want in our textbooks?

The “career interest test” proposed at the end of Grade 9 is deeply troubling. It is inappropriate to direct children to choose their career paths at the age of fourteen, when the vocational pathways, beyond secondary education, remain underdeveloped. Students should be provided adequate time to explore what interests them before they are asked to make educational choices that have a bearing on career paths, especially when we consider the highly stratified nature of occupations in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the curriculum must counter the stereotyping of jobs and vocations to ensure that students from certain backgrounds are not intentionally placed in paths of study simply because of what their parents’ vocations or economic conditions are; they must also not be constrained by gendered understandings of career pathways.

The modules encourage digital literacy and exposure to new communication technologies. On the surface, this initiative seems progressive and timely. However, there are multiple aspects such as access, quality of content and age-appropriateness that need consideration before the uncritical acceptance of digitality. Not all teachers will know how to use communication technologies ethically and responsibly. Given that many schools lack even basic infrastructure, the digital divide will be stark. There is the question of how to provide digital devices to all students, which will surely fall on the shoulders of parents. These problems will widen the gap in access to digital literacy, as well as education, between well-resourced and other schools.

The NIE is responsible for conceptualizing, developing, writing and reviewing the general education curriculum. Although the Institution was established for the worthy cause of supporting the country’s general education system, currently the NIE appears to be ill-equipped and under-staffed, and seems to lack the experience and expertise required for writing, developing and reviewing curricula and textbooks.  It is clear by now that the NIE’s structure and mandate need to be reviewed and re-invigorated.

In light of these issues, the recent Cabinet decision to postpone implementation of the reforms for Grade 6 to 2027 is welcome. The proposed general education reforms have resulted in a backlash from opposition parties and teachers’ and student unions, much of it, legitimately, focusing on the lack of transparency and consultation in the process and some of it on the quality and substance of the content. Embedded within this pushback are highly problematic gendered and misogynistic attacks on the Minister of Education. However, we understand the problems in the new curriculum as reflecting long standing and systemic issues plaguing the education sector and the state apparatus. They cannot be seen apart from the errors and highly questionable content in the old curriculum, itself a product of years of reduced state funding for education, conditionalities imposed by external funding agencies, and the consequent erosion of state institutions. With the NPP government in charge of educational reforms, we had expectations of a stronger democratic process underpinning the reforms to education, and attention to issues that have been neglected in previous reform efforts.

With these considerations in mind, we, the undersigned, urgently request the Government to consider the following:

1. postpone implementation and holistically review the new curriculum, including at primary level.

2. adopt a consultative process  on educational reforms by holding public sittings across the country .

3. review the larger institutional structure of the educational apparatus of the state and bring greater coordination within its constituent parts

4. review the NIE’s mandate and strengthen its capacity to develop curricula, such as through the appointment of           external scholars via      an open and transparent process, to advise and review curriculum content and textbooks.

5. consider the new policy and curriculum to be live documents and make space for building consensus in policy formulation and curriculum development to ensure alignment of the curriculum with policy.

6. ensure textbooks (other than in language subjects) appear in draft form in both Sinhala and Tamil at an early stage so that writers and reviewers from all communities can participate in the process of scrutiny and revision from the very beginning.

7. formulate a plan for addressing difficulties in implementation and future development of the sector, such as resource disparities, teacher training needs, and student needs.

A.M. Navaratna Bandara, formerly, University of Peradeniya

Ahilan Kadirgamar, University of Jaffna

Ahilan Packiyanathan, University of Jaffna

Arumugam Saravanabawan, University of Jaffna

Aruni Samarakoon, University of Ruhuna

Ayomi Irugalbandara, The Open University of Sri Lanka.

Buddhima Padmasiri, The Open University of Sri Lanka

Camena Guneratne, The Open University of Sri Lanka

Charudaththe B.Illangasinghe, University of the Visual & Performing Arts

Chulani Kodikara, formerly, University of Colombo

Chulantha Jayawardena, University of Moratuwa

Dayani Gunathilaka, formerly, Uva Wellassa University of Sri Lanka

Dayapala Thiranagama, formerly, University of Kelaniya

Dhanuka Bandara, University of Jaffna

Dinali Fernando, University of Kelaniya

Erandika de Silva, formerly, University of Jaffna

G.Thirukkumaran, University of Jaffna

Gameela Samarasinghe, University of Colombo

Gayathri M. Hewagama, University of Peradeniya

Geethika Dharmasinghe, University of Colombo

F. H. Abdul Rauf, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka

H. Sriyananda, Emeritus Professor, The Open University of Sri Lanka

Hasini Lecamwasam, University of Peradeniya

(Rev.) J.C. Paul Rohan, University of Jaffna

James Robinson, University of Jaffna

Kanapathy Gajapathy, University of Jaffna

Kanishka Werawella, University of Colombo

Kasun Gajasinghe, formerly, University of Peradeniya

Kaushalya Herath, formerly, University of Moratuwa

Kaushalya Perera, University of Colombo

Kethakie Nagahawatte, formerly, University of Colombo

Krishan Siriwardhana, University of Colombo

Krishmi Abesinghe Mallawa Arachchige, formerly, University of Peradeniya

L. Raguram, University of Jaffna

Liyanage Amarakeerthi, University of Peradeniya

Madhara Karunarathne, University of Peradeniya

Madushani Randeniya, University of Peradeniya

Mahendran Thiruvarangan, University of Jaffna

Manikya Kodithuwakku, The Open University of Sri Lanka

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan, University of Jaffna

Nadeesh de Silva, The Open University of Sri Lanka

Nath Gunawardena, University of Colombo

Nicola Perera, University of Colombo

Nimal Savitri Kumar, Emeritus Professor, University of Peradeniya

Nira Wickramasinghe, formerly, University of Colombo

Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri, University of Colombo

P. Iyngaran, University of Jaffna

Pathujan Srinagaruban, University of Jaffna

Pavithra Ekanayake, University of Peradeniya

Piyanjali de Zoysa, University of Colombo

Prabha Manuratne, University of Kelaniya

Pradeep Peiris, University of Colombo

Pradeepa Korale-Gedara, formerly, University of Peradeniya

Prageeth R. Weerathunga, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka

Priyantha Fonseka, University of Peradeniya

Rajendra Surenthirakumaran, University of Jaffna

Ramesh Ramasamy, University of Peradeniya

Ramila Usoof, University of Peradeniya

Ramya Kumar, University of Jaffna

Rivindu de Zoysa, University of Colombo

Rukshaan Ibrahim, formerly, University of Jaffna

Rumala Morel,  University of Peradeniya

Rupika S. Rajakaruna, University of Peradeniya

S. Jeevasuthan, University of Jaffna

S. Rajashanthan, University of Jaffna

S. Vijayakumar, University of Jaffna

Sabreena Niles, University of Kelaniya

Sanjayan Rajasingham, University of Jaffna

Sarala Emmanuel, The Open University of Sri Lanka

Sasinindu Patabendige, formerly, University of Jaffna

Savitri Goonesekere, Emeritus Professor, University of Colombo

Selvaraj Vishvika, University of Peradeniya

Shamala Kumar, University of Peradeniya

Sivamohan Sumathy, formerly, University of Peradeniya

Sivagnanam Jeyasankar, Eastern University Sri Lanka

Sivanandam Sivasegaram, formerly, University of Peradeniya

Sudesh Mantillake, University of Peradeniya

Suhanya Aravinthon, University of Jaffna

Sumedha Madawala, University of Peradeniya

Tasneem Hamead, formerly, University of Colombo.

Thamotharampillai Sanathanan, University of Jaffna

Tharakabhanu de Alwis, University of Peradeniya

Tharmarajah Manoranjan, University of Jaffna

Thavachchelvi Rasan, University of Jaffna

Thirunavukkarasu Vigneswaran, University of Jaffna

Timaandra Wijesuriya, University of Jaffna

Udari Abeyasinghe, University of Peradeniya

Unnathi Samaraweera, University of Colombo

Vasanthi Thevanesam, Professor Emeritus, University of Peradeniya

Vathilingam Vijayabaskar, University of Jaffna

Vihanga Perera, University of Sri Jayewardenepura

Vijaya Kumar, Emeritus Professor, University of Peradeniya

Viraji Jayaweera, University of Peradeniya

Yathursha Ulakentheran, formerly, University of Jaffna