18 November 2024 01:14 am Views - 101
(From left) - Prabashini Sriyaratne, Dr. Chandana Bandara,
Prof. Arjuna Parakrama and Shantha Kulatunga
|
The National Education Policy Framework 2023-2033 (NEPF) has come under much scrutiny by senior academics and education consultants who have been advocating for the right to free education
|
The National Education Policy Framework 2023-2033 (NEPF) has come under much scrutiny by senior academics and education consultants who have been advocating for the right to free education. They believe that this document which has been drafted sans proper consultations from education stakeholders has the potential to exacerbate social inequalities, increase class disparities and ultimately lead to greater social unrest. It is in this backdrop that CSOs called upon the new government and the fresh set of policymakers aspiring to make their entry into Parliament to submit their policies and proposals with regards to the education sector in the country.
Ensuring equal access to education
Speaking at a recent media briefing, Dr. Chandana Bandara, Chairman of the Education Development Coalition - an Organisation that has been advocating for free education which came about in 2004 reiterated the fact that every child should have equal access to education. “We have always demanded the National Education Commission, Education Ministry and other stakeholders to bring about reforms which are favourable for our children and when drafting these documents all stakeholders need to participate at these discussions. We have submitted our written observations to the Cabinet of Ministers, party offices and respective ministries. Therefore we have a duty to urge the new set of policymakers to refrain from implementing baseless reforms and instead to submit their views and proposals with regards to the education sector. As at present, we are unclear about their plans to reform the education system,” he added.
More privileges for privileged students?
Sri Lanka’s free education system has been a pillar of societal equity, providing access to education regardless of socioeconomic status. Critics opine that most education policies often reflect interests of the ruling class and that the NEPF hints at a broader neoliberal agenda.
In his remarks, senior professor Arjuna Parakrama explained how the NEPF was drafted during the previous government. “The NEPF was drafted by a committee of 25 individuals appointed by the Cabinet. Eight out of these 25 individuals have their businesses in the telecommunications sector. This committee includes two university teachers who haven’t participated in any discussions, tourism sector officials and many individuals in unrelated sectors. There are some questionable appointments as well. We had to obtain the details of these individuals via the RTI Act when usually the names of committee members are included in the report itself. They justified these appointments by saying that individuals with a background in telecommunications are eligible to serve on this committee. Therefore the framework includes everything from pre-school to ICT and AI but we don’t see many crucial and important areas being included in it. Therefore this committee was appointed without any transparency and the appointments were based on personal relationships,” he claimed.
Prof. Parakrama further said that this committee report was submitted to the Cabinet in October and that it was subsequently approved. “But it is an absurd report. After the Cabinet approves a document it should be tabled in Parliament. There’s a Sectoral Oversight Committee for education in Parliament. The document was officially referred to this committee headed by V. Radhakrishnan who had no ministerial portfolios in government. There are only 12 individuals in this committee and some of them have never attended a meeting. The quorum of this meeting was three individuals including the chairman of the committee and therefore we were able to discuss this matter. We spoke for months and there were various individuals who appeared as Secretary to the Ministry of Education. When we inquired from the ministry we received a response from the President’s office. So we realised that these reforms were being done by the President. But they published a brilliant report which was swept under the carpet. However, the former president and the president’s office began implementing the NEPF when there were observations and recommendations on its contents,” he claimed further.
According to senior academics such as Prof. Parakrama, the NEPF will provide privileged students with more privileges and it would increase anomalies within the education system. “This document has been designed to generate profits and destroy free education rather than making education a fundamental right. Nowhere does it mention about the right to education. The NEC drafted a NEPF 2020-2030 which was simply rejected by the President. But the initial document includes all stakeholders and is a comprehensive document rather than the latest 30-page brief. Education policies are implemented by the NEC as per the law of this country. But the proposals by the Commission have been ignored or taken for granted. So now education is not a fundamental right but a financial investment.”
He further said that the state’s allocation for education has drastically reduced. “There’s not even one place which mentions that they are collecting funds for education. University students are asked to pay their fees from their third year. The other concern is with regards to privatisation of the education sector amidst mounting economic burden. This has been done intentionally. People find it difficult to have three meals a day and is it right to charge fees for education? Privileged students are being given more opportunities and benefits while local and underprivileged students face multiple injustices. This includes closing down schools and transferring teachers from remote schools to schools in cities. Remote schools are therefore deprived of their resource pool,” Prof. Parakrama stressed.
“The NEPF hasn’t addressed some of the main issues such as regulating international schools,” he added. “There are around 390 international schools out of which seven of them come under the BOI and the rest come under the Company Registration Act which means they are businesses. So it doesn’t matter if the teachers are recruited according to a procedure or not. All that they need is an accountant and they only need to submit a budget. They don’t have any transactions with the education ministry. So who is monitoring these institutions? Even the incumbent government policy document hasn’t included any clauses regarding this issue with regards to monitoring international schools. How can an educational institution be registered as a company or an institution with a commercial purpose? It is a known fact that many politicians send their children to affluent schools and therefore if these institutions are being regulated it would be an issue for these privileged students. Hence they are being excluded. On the other hand, the NEPF doesn’t mention any chapter on tuition classes either.”
He further highlighted various anomalies that need to be addressed. “Did you know that the number one school in the country and the 3624th school are located within the Colombo educational zone? Isn’t this a shame? This is an issue about being rich and poor. We are talking about the same educational zone. Shouldn’t we be addressing these issues first? Therefore, we need to engage in a continuous struggle to voice our concerns to safeguard free education,” he underscored.
The recommendations submitted by the Sectoral Oversight Committee are as follows ;
Teacher Service as a closed service
In her comments, Prabashini Sriyaratne a civil activist who has been advocating for the access to free education said that one positive proposal included in the NEPF is with regards to teachers’ councils because this is about the dignity of teachers. “This has been a suggestion we have made for some time. We faced issues with regards to our salaries. Teachers are paid very less compared to other government sector employees. One of the proposals was to declare the Sri Lanka Teacher Service as a closed service. This includes the teachers, principals, teacher advisor’s service and the administrative service. But none of these have been discussed with teacher unions for instance. So we are surprised to see how these documents have been drafted without conducting proper consultations,” she added.