Features
Saving education: “Up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s Superman!”
by Shamala Kumar
Education is in trouble. Dhammika Perera and other great men with vast repositories of funds and an admirable charitable proclivity may be indeed a great relief to a sector depleted of funds. In fact, from the 1970s, public spending for welfare programmes have plummeted globally, and in Sri Lanka education spending has dropped from 4% of GDP in the 1950-60s to 1.2% in 2022. The era of “trickle-down” economics has justified ending programmes designed to reduce material inequality and brought in its place programmes conducive to capital accumulation, rationalized through arguments that once accumulated, capital would seep into the underbelly of the economy in efficient and effective ways. In doing so, the Thatcherian “dependency” disease would be cured. These policies brought with them heightened wealth disparities and created the likes of Dhammika Perera. It was also the shift towards neoliberalism that ideologically and structurally created a dangerous vacuum into which corporate magnates have stepped in.
The Vacuum – Neoliberal Spaces
Neoliberalism builds on assumptions that human wellbeing and success require institutional structures that favour markets, facilitate individual competition and support the expansion of private enterprise, in the name of efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation. As quoted in Harvey (2005), neoliberal values make market exchange “an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide to all human action…” He elaborates “it emphasizes the significance of contractual relations in the marketplace. It holds that the social good will be maximised by maximising… market transactions, and it seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market.”
With the world turning neoliberal, conceptions of democracy and the role of state and private enterprises have gradually shifted. Democracy after all is messy, inefficient, and the mandates and functions of public institutions have traditionally been inconsistent with free market logic. As markets function to maximize individual returns, people are now construed as mere individuals, each competing for limited resources, for maximum private gain. They are less an integral element of a social system; instead, they are units, each aspiring for self-actualization in a market of goods and services. The state’s role is to remove all barriers as individuals choose and acquire goods and services that can fulfil their desires.
The assumption that such a logic will result in success, however, is flawed even by criteria derived from such thinking. For instance, research indicates that privatized social services have resulted in cost escalations (not efficient) and inferior quality (not effective). Beyond neoliberal metrics of success, however, they have also removed humanity from public institutions, heightened disparities in access and introduced greater precarity into the lives of the poorest segments of society.
Within a neoliberal ideology, public education is assumed to be costly, ineffective, and inefficient, and requiring business interventions to make otherwise. The role of educational institutions, within this logic, is one where consumers (not students) exercise choices in accumulating marketable competencies, through the purchase of knowledge, skills and attitudes from education markets. The crisis is then one of consumers not being able to accrue “quality” competencies. The sterile neoliberal state must ensure that individuals and private enterprises are measurable on a common metric that would allow consumers these choices.
In developing an explanation for why education is in crisis, the problem is narrowly defined as one of inefficiency (and corruption) to be resolved by private sector engagement. Bad teachers and students need to be controlled through managerial systems of monitoring and accountability. If only education were open to markets, it is argued, education would become good. Unspoken is the sense of alienation students experience, shoving “marketable” stuff into their heads in fear of their inadequacy to land jobs in clearly mercilessly classed and gendered markets. Unacknowledged is the violence in considering success simply a function of marketable skill sets and welfare as charitable “handout”. Overlooked is evidence that parental wealth is the best predictor of social mobility and the estimated 30% of our population unable to fulfil necessities, much less pay for education. When framed in the language of markets, the problem is simple. Consider instead, how disquieting framing it as issues of structural inequalities, which free market exacerbate.
No champions from within?
The public, in general, understand how dysfunctional our education system is. One might wonder why those most invested in it, teachers and students, do not push back on these simplistic narratives. Partly, any pushback from within, especially of a collective nature, is labelled as anti-market, backward, inefficient and ineffective. Those speaking out are identified as the bad ones and therefore integral to the problem. Any criticism is further evidence that the system needs fixing. Thus, teachers and students attempting to draw attention to the multiple crises facing education have now been effectively shut up through vilification and repression.
Superman
As the government stews in neoliberal logic, backed by a public groomed for decades into the ideal neoliberal citizen and as public educational institutions flail, with teachers and students effectively mummed into silence, the philanthropist emerges as saviour; a billionaire, savant of private enterprise who will save us from ourselves. Like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, known for its interventions in health and education globally, the Dhammika and Prescilla Perera Foundation is poised to save education in Sri Lanka. The Foundation has over the last few years created and promulgated ‘DP education’, an online platform to supplement school education, a “digital university”, which is a compilation of already available free online university courses or MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), and a virtual IT campus. These initiatives will perhaps help students access additional resources, but they are unlikely to solve our crises in education.
The philanthropist himself is a product of the era. The accumulation of capital, facilitated by government policies, have helped create the likes of Bezos and Ambani, of vast wealth; wealth, which a few decades ago, would have been taxed into public coffers. They are men with origin stories of overcoming unfathomable obstacles; superhuman rich people, with megalomaniac aspirations. Their stories align with the individualist narrative of the neoliberal ethic. Any solutions to education by men such as these would likely be ones in which everyone, through sheer will, overcomes their lot in life and achieves the fruits of their labour.
Philanthropists also bring private sector modes of functioning into social programmes – methods that arguably got them their wealth. It likely involved quick, aggressive, and sometimes risky decisions, that disrupt existing structures. Public institutions, theoretically at least, must use bureaucratic systems to ensure a fair process to determine priority, mechanisms and costs. Decision-making is slow and deliberate in contrast to those of the self-described business magnate “disruptors” turned philanthropists. Ramya Kumar (together with Seitz and McCoy – in press) go further, stating that philanthrocapitalism comes with an expectation that welfare investments, as with a business investment, must demonstrate tangible and measurable benefits. Dammika Perera’s vision for Sri Lanka includes revamping education to achieve jobs-related quantified outcomes and ignores complex and less measurable aspirations, such as the nurturing of a citizenry able to foster democracy or an intellectually vibrant society.
The philanthropist is also less subject to public scrutiny. The global reach of the Gates Foundation has resulted in policy interventions across the world (Schwab, 2023). The little independent research available indicates its effectiveness is limited. Resource starved public institutions and nongovernmental agencies that depend on such foundations for funding, fear criticism may dry up precious funds. Schwab, in fact, documents instances where pushback resulted in such effects.
Whereas taxes would have allowed us, some say, into how the funds were spent (at least we have institutions like the PUCSL to investigate the practices of some public institutions), these funds are at the discretion of one or a few individuals. Thus, individuals, merely because they have the funds are given a platform and an inordinate say into public policy. As Wattegama stated in 2022, we must take Dammika Perera’s interventions into education seriously, simply because of his wealth.
As philanthropy becomes a favour source of fundings, reliance on public funds, tied to public policy and democratic process, become a less significant. For higher education, after the financial crisis, this trend is evident. As Prabha Manuratne voiced at a discussion on the subject, education funding has moved from being a political right to a target of charitable giving. Lastly, as Ramya Kumar et al. (in press) state, it also changes the public sentiments towards the philanthropist and the class they belong to, making their wealth palatable to the general public.
As Dammika Perera and others step in to save us and save education, we must view their overtures with caution, asking of our governments why their funds cannot be directed to education through progressive taxation in ways that enhances public scrutiny and public power, rather than diminish them.
(Shamala Kumar teaches at the University of Peradeniya)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies
by Jehan Perera
The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.
The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.
But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Proposed Laws
The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.
The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.
The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.
Civil Society
The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.
Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.
The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.
By Ramya Kumar
According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.
An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.
The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.
Top-down check-box activities
The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.
There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).
1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….
2: And with pictures and all…
1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”
2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..
1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…
2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!
1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.
2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…
Auditing everything but power
QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.
The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.
A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.
This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.
External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.
Rethinking university QA
Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.
QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.
(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)
. Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.
Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.
The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.
Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.
The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.
Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor
Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!
This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.
Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.
Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!
For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.
Heavy showers (100-150) mm likely at some places in the Western, Sabaragamuwa, Central, Uva and Southern provinces showerss above 75 mm are likely in the other areas of the island.
Presidential pardons: Govt. studying Justice Thurairaja’s recommendations – Minister
Mahinda and Shiranthi hospitalised
Monks must be allowed to wear robes when produced in court: Mahanayake Theras
Jt. Opp. seeks presidential pardon for Ven. Gnanasara
Shiranthi’s anticipatory bail application rejected
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
#SundayIsland 17th December – Headlines
Sunday Island – 28th March
Sunday Island Headlines – 21 March
Sunday Island – 21st February – Headlines
-
Features5 days agoThe Sri Lankan who made Scottish history
-
Sports5 days agoNissanka absence opens door for Sri Lanka’s young guns
-
News6 days agoGnansara Thera to be assigned to prison printing section: Officials
-
News4 days agoNDB fraud Rs 60mn more than reported
-
News4 days agoRemoving monk’s robes matter for Sangha to decide: Mahanayake Theras
-
Features5 days agoFuture of Sri Lanka’s state university system: Should it be shut down and reopened?
-
News6 days agoOIC of FCID summoned before Maligakanda Magistrate
-
News5 days agoShiranthi R remanded until 13 Oct.