It is only too easy for authorities to beat up on international schools as unreliable and tuition teachers as exploiters. It is also too easy to label some Government schools as popular schools and take credit for those when in truth these schools are essentially run on contributions from well-to-do parents.
It is also too easy to hide behind three national examinations carried out by the Department of Examinations, let parents pay for the tuition to help their children jump though these hoops, and claim credit for pass rates and pretend we have free education.
It is harder to take stock of the ground realities and make the systemic changes needed.
The last major reforms were carried out during 1995-2005 under President Chandrika Bandaranaike. As Tara de Mel, Secretary of Education for a significant part of that period, notes with dismay in her book ‘Challenges to Change,’ despite leadership by the President and execution by a committed set of officials, these reforms failed to hold.
Political opportunism looms large among the obstacles, she notes. Clearly, reforming education is not something that one minister of education or even a president can do by themselves. It needs the participation and acceptance of multiple actors and institutions, including political interests.
The Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) on Education in Parliament is one of those newly-established institutions to bring together different political interests for evidence-based deliberations. Not all SOCs may follow up on these expectations, but recent deliberations by the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Education shows promise.
For example, regarding recently raised issues of regulating international schools, the Chairman of the SOC has called for more information on the matter, including Section 25 in Act No.8 of 1961 that prevents the ministry from recognising international schools.
Tagging onto those SOC discussions, the State Minister of Higher Education has proposed that tuition teachers should be licensed. If licensing requires setting standards, it is time policymakers turned their attention to setting standards and licensing all schools under a common criteria, not just international schools or tuition providers. After all, don’t standards matter for all schools?
Why does the Government label some schools as popular schools and let popularity be the determinant of the quality of education? Do students in these so-called popular schools get a proper education? What about other children who do not get to attend popular schools? Are they getting a quality education? Why label some schools as national schools with no standards defined as to what it takes to be a national school?
When all assisted schools were brought under the Director General of Education in 1960 through the Assisted Schools and Training Colleges Act No.5 of 1960 followed by a Supplementary Act No.8 of 1961, the idea was that education, which is financed by the State, has to be managed and controlled by the State.
However, the insertion of Section 25 on Regulation of the Establishment of Schools effectively took the initiative beyond its original intention and took away the right of any new organisation to provide education for five to 14-year-olds.
For example: “(1) No person shall on or after the date of the commencement of this Act – (a) establish any school for the education of persons who are between the age of five years and the age of 14 years (both ages inclusive); or (b) establish any school other than a school referred to in paragraph (a), for the education of persons who are below the age of 18 years without the prior approval of the director (Section 25 of Act No.6 of 1961).”
In effect, Clause 25 prohibits anybody providing school education for ages 5-14, but allows providing school education for ages 16-18 with prior permission.
However, over time, parents and private providers found loopholes or opportunities to increase private or semi-private arrangements.
Today we have an extensive system of (1) schools registered through the Board of Investment as international schools, (2) tuition providers who, contrary to popular belief, are critical in enabling a level playing field for students sitting for GCE A/Levels, and (3) so-called popular schools whose popularity hinges on the fact that they can leverage additional operational funds from wealthy parents and alumni. These entities more or less determine their own standards.
Let me elaborate on each type.
Tuition teachers provide a level playing field for GCE A/Level students
As noted in a 2016 National Institute of Education (NIE) study of student attendance in Grade 13 using a representative sample of 279 schools from across the country, 72% of students in Grade 13 do not attend school from the January to July period. In the Western Province non-attendance is as high as 88%. Non-attendance varied across disciplines, with 76.5%, 76%, 70.5%, and 68% of students in the commerce, science, technology and arts streams, respectively, not attending.
The overwhelming reason for non-attendance of students given by 4,103 principals, teachers, students, and parents who were interviewed as part of the study is that the schools are not able to equip students to face a competitive exam like the A/Levels.
Putting two and two together, we can surmise that tuition providers fill the gap. More importantly, despite bad apples like Tissa Jananayake, a tuition guru infamous for his racist and xenophobic monologues, mass-scale classes by tuition teachers are affordable alternatives to those who cannot afford private one-on-one tuition.
International schools are a relief for parents seeking alternatives
The international schools were called by the SOC on Education to respond to concerns that there are fake institutions appearing as international schools. I am sure international schools welcomed this call by the SOC because they have long advocated for recognition and regulation.
Legally, the ministry cannot recognise these schools but morally, the Government cannot go after them because they are serving parents from all walks of life who are desperate for alternatives to available neighbourhood schools. They do not wish to push their children excessively for success in competitive exams or pay bribes to get them into popular schools.
I personally know a family which decided not to pay the going rate for a bribe to get their child into a popular school close to their home and opted for a second-tier international school which they could afford. I also know a parent who resides in Australia, but wanting to raise their children in a ‘good Sinhala Buddhist environment,’ paid a sum of money to some intermediary to get the children into a leading school mid-year.
Parents who send their children to international schools are tax-paying citizens of this country, but they have been forced to pay a heavy sum for their children’s education through no fault of theirs. On top of the financial burden, their children are treated as second-class citizens. For example, the children may follow the local curriculum, but the principal of their school cannot vouch for them in their applications for the national examinations. The children must seek the grama niladhari officer or some other State official.
Popular schools are largely enclaves created by and for well-to-do parents
Annually, the Ministry of Education (MoE) publishes a list of popular schools, based presumably on the number of applications they receive for admission to Grade 1. The distribution of these schools by Divisional Secretariat Divisions (DSD) shows the fallacy of the Government’s claims of equity in education. Two thirds of 330 DSDs do not have a popular school situated in the locality.
Coincidentally, As Prof. Sampath Amaratunge highlighted recently, two-thirds of schools with A/Level classes do not offer the science stream. A policy dialogue followed up with a study by the Education Forum Sri Lanka shows that all schools receive funding equally on a per student basis and teachers are allocated evenly, at least on paper.
In practice, schools like Royal College may spend Rs. 200 million per year on operational costs in addition to paltry sums given by the ministry, thanks to influential parents and alumni.
But what kind of education is imparted by these schools whose average class size exceeds 50 due to high demand? What is the environment for inquiry-based learning in these schools? What opportunities do these children get for social-emotional learning? If, as reported, children learn to lie about their place of residence from day one and parents bribe to get their children into these schools, what kind of values are inculcated through these schools?
Why not standards for all schools?
If the MoE were to apply the standards it would apply to international schools or tutors, such as class size, space for activities outside of class, opportunities for social-emotional learning, and additional measures like student behaviour and even inclusiveness, I wonder how some of the popular schools would fare. In fact, if basic conditions such as the availability of teachers and teacher attendance are met, some of the 9,000+ non-popular schools would fare better than so-called popular schools.
What we need is a set of standards that apply to all educational institutions, simple measures that capture those, and a public dashboard which makes it possible for parents and policymakers to compare available opportunities, no matter what label one might use for these institutions.
(The writer is a scientist turned policy analyst. Her areas of expertise are education policy and public sector performance. She is currently a Senior Research Fellow at LIRNEasia, a regional think tank based in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and Co-Founder of Education Forum Sri Lanka – www.educationforum.lk – an independent platform for policy dialogue and advocacy)