By Athulasiri Samarakoon –

Dr. Athulasiri Kumara Samarakoon

Amidst a severe economic crisis and an IMF-driven reform process, the Sri Lankan government’s recent legislative surge, comprising over 42 bills, aims to reshape various facets of the country’s political, economic, legal, and social spheres. Central among these, for me, is the National Education Policy Framework (NEPF), which is yet to be tabled in Parliament. The proposed NEPF has already drawn significant attention and criticism. Opposition comes from the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA), Medical Academics’ and Professionals’ Unions, Teachers’ Unions, Professional Trade Unions, the Inter-University Students’ Federation (IUSF), and opposition parties. Critics, including prominent figures like Prof. Arjuna Parakrama, argue that the NEPF poses a dire threat to Sri Lanka’s tradition of free education, a legacy established by CWW Kannangara in the 1940s. A closer examination of the NEPF reveals its potential to exacerbate social inequalities, increase class disparities, and ultimately lead to greater social unrest.

Free Education Under Threat

Sri Lanka’s free education system has long been a pillar of societal equity, providing access to education regardless of socio-economic status. However, the NEPF proposes several reforms that could undermine this foundational principle. One of the most concerning aspects is the advocacy for “public-private partnerships facilitated in all sectors” (Policy 33). This move risks the commercialization of education, potentially widening the gap between the rich and the poor. The introduction of market-driven forces into the education system could lead to a scenario where quality education becomes a privilege of the affluent, thereby entrenching existing social inequalities.

Additionally, the funding and resources section of the NEPF clearly highlights that state funding will not be prominent, but funds collected from students and private partnerships will be key. The policy suggests that students will be given loans to enter universities rather than direct funds being sent to universities, which could exacerbate financial burdens on students. Provisions like No. 35, which proposes to finance government schools based on enrolment and performance, and No. 36, which outlines a three-component model for tertiary education funding—government funding, student contributions, and other generated funds—suggest a shift towards a performance-based, market-driven approach that risks increasing disparities.

Further complicating the situation are Provisions No. 37, which transitions to enrollment-based funding in tertiary education, and No. 38, which allows students with government-backed loans to choose between state and non-state institutions. This loan-based model places significant financial pressure on students and could deter low-income families from pursuing higher education, reinforcing socio-economic divides. Provision No. 39, removing limits on foreign investment in higher education, could lead to a proliferation of private institutions focused on profit, further marginalizing public institutions.

These reforms, if implemented, could dismantle the structures supporting equitable access to education, undermining the legacy of free education in Sri Lanka. The NEPF’s emphasis on commercialization and reduced state funding threatens to deepen class disparities and social inequalities, ultimately leading to greater social unrest. The gradual withdrawal of the state from funding and administration of public education will cause for the abolition of free education and removing equitable access to quality learning opportunities.

The proposed replacement of the University Grants Commission (UGC) with a National Higher Education Commission (Policy No.29), which would treat both non-state and state universities under the same policy and recognition, blurs the distinction between public and private institutions. This, coupled with the divestment of administrative powers from the Ministry of Education, hints at a broader neoliberal agenda. By prioritizing market interests over educational welfare, these changes threaten to dismantle the structures that have historically supported equitable access to education. The NEPF’s emphasis on economically driven subjects, such as artificial intelligence and sustainable development (Policy 05), further narrows the educational landscape. While digital literacy and global priorities are important, the focus on marketable skills at the expense of critical thinking and civic engagement can deepen class divisions.

Class Disparities

From a critical perspective, education policies often reflect the interests of the ruling class. In Sri Lanka, where political power is concentrated within elite circles, the NEPF’s reforms could perpetuate rather than alleviate class disparities. The state’s push towards neoliberal education reforms aligns with global trends that prioritize economic efficiency over social justice. However, resistance to these reforms is crucial to preserving public education and ensuring that it remains a tool for social mobility and equity.

The establishment of a parliamentary select committee, led by Minister Wijayadasa Rajapakshe, to spearhead education reform adds a layer of complexity. This move, coupled with structural changes, may further entrench market forces within the education sector, eroding the foundations of free education.

The NEPF’s approach is emblematic of ‘”economism”, Prof. Sivamohan Sumathy of Peradeniya University argues, where education is treated as a commodity. This perspective is reflected in the Central Bank Report of 2010, which outlines the vision of Sri Lanka as the “Knowledge Hub of Asia.” While this vision emphasizes innovation and economic growth, it fails to address the broader social implications. The focus on creating a professional labor class for economic gain overlooks the need for greater social mobility and empowerment of marginalized communities.

The concept of a Knowledge Hub prioritizes immediate economic benefits over long-term social equity. This approach runs contrary to the democratic ideals envisioned by pioneers like Kannangara. By emphasizing infrastructure and services in urban centers, the government’s policy risks leaving rural and marginalized populations behind. The disparities in spending on education between urban and provincial areas already exacerbate social inequalities, and the NEPF could further widen this gap.

Conclusion

The NEPF’s proposed reforms warrant critical scrutiny within the broader socio-economic context. Education should serve as a tool for liberation rather than oppression. The current reforms threaten to undermine this ideal by prioritizing market interests and deepening class disparities. To ensure a more just and equitable society, Sri Lanka must protect its legacy of free education and prioritize equitable access to quality learning opportunities. The pursuit of a knowledge economy should not come at the expense of social justice and inclusivity. The government must adopt a more balanced approach that considers the needs and aspirations of all segments of society, particularly the marginalized and oppressed.

Sri Lanka’s education system stands at a critical juncture. The NEPF, while presented as a necessary modernization, risks undoing decades of progress towards educational equity. It is imperative that stakeholders, policymakers, and the public engage in a comprehensive dialogue to ensure that any reforms enhance rather than erode the principles of free and equitable education. The future of Sri Lanka’s youth and the fabric of its society depend on it.