Features

The Dark Side of Meritocracy

Published

2 months ago

2026/07/24

During the colonial era, Sri Lanka had a stronger economy than Singapore. Over the past seven decades, however, the two countries have followed sharply different paths. Singapore’s rise as a global economic hub is often attributed to three core principles: meritocracy, pragmatism, and honesty.

Critics argue that Sri Lanka’s problems reflect a failure to uphold these principles, a point that needs little proof, as we have seen it all firsthand. Today, there is renewed interest in restoring these values to governance, especially pragmatism and honesty, both of which Sri Lanka urgently needs. Meritocracy, however, is not that simple: the ways merit is assessed and acquired can undermine the very purpose meritocracy is meant to serve. While Sri Lanka must embrace meritocracy, we must take measures to prevent it from drifting into the dark side.

Meritocracy is commonly defined as a social, political, or economic system in which people are chosen for positions based on ability, talent, and effort, collectively called merits, rather than wealth, class, or inherited privilege.

Sri Lanka has a deep-rooted culture that not only tolerates but often venerates inherited privileges such as nepotism—advancement based on family ties or close personal connections; patronage—rewards and positions given in exchange for loyalty or political support; cronyism—favours given to friends or allies, especially in business or politics; aristocracy—power based on inherited status, class, or birth; and oligarchy—power held by a small, privileged group. These are legacies of a long history of monarchy, colonialism, and feudalism. Furthermore, social divisions based on religion, ethnicity, and caste add to the complexity. Our culture has a way of resigning itself to these social injustices by attributing them to fate or bad karma.

These deep-rooted practices have all but replaced meritocracy, causing immense damage to the country’s economy and social fabric. Therefore, adhering to meritocracy seems the obvious thing to do, but there are two unseen problems lurking beneath. First, an individual’s ability to earn merits depends on many factors, and the opportunities for earning merits are not equally available to all, a legacy of our past unjust practices. For those who have less or no opportunities to earn merits, the competition is over even before it begins.

Merit not a single universal quality

Second, “merit” is not a single universal quality. It varies with the job or position. A pilot, teacher, farmer, judge, engineer, and political leader each require different forms of ability, judgment, discipline, and responsibility. Therefore, merit must be assessed according to the demands of the role, not merely by the results of a standard test or formal qualifications, as practiced today. If we practice meritocracy under the present conditions, we will not get the expected outcome: meritocracy. Ironically, a cyclical process.

Therefore, adhering to meritocracy while ignoring the conditions that rob the opportunities to gain merits will only perpetuate unjust and outdated systems under the pretext of fair and progressive reform. Merit is a wonderful way to choose a pilot, but a terrible way to decide who deserves a dignified life.

This is a complex issue, and Sri Lanka has tried to address it in many ways in the past, with questionable, if not disastrous, results. The key point of this analysis is that our definition of merit is narrow and misleading. “Merit” is rarely an objective, universal metric. What one organisation values as merit may differ drastically from another. Our system equates merits or skills with the ability to perform on tests, starting from Grade five through final examinations at university. That is a problem as it does not measure the ability to do a job successfully.

Standard tests measure convergent thinking, that is, finding the single correct answer to a problem, but they completely miss identifying divergent thinking, which involves generating novel, creative solutions where no single answer exists. In other words, it is the ability to be “street smart” when confronted with real life problems that counts. Not the ability to cross the box in a test paper. Convergent thinking can be quantified; that is what test scores provide, and that has become the standard currency of merit in our society. On the other hand, there is no test to quantify the divergent thinking ability needed to solve complex problems on the ground. It is that skill we need to identify and nurture if we are to succeed economically and socially as a country.

The sunset example

A few terms used in relation to this subject need clarification: in the first scenario presented in the illustration, only the person standing on the highest ground can enjoy the sunset. The fence, which may have been erected for safety or as a boundary, blocks the view of the two people on lower ground. This is inequality. If the height of the fence were lowered enough for all three people to see the sunset, as in the second scenario, that would represent formal equality: treating everyone the same, regardless of where they stand. It seems fair, but it has drawbacks.

First, when the fence is lowered, the original purpose of the fence may be compromised or lost. If the fence were built for safety, someone on higher ground could trip and fall over the cliff on the other side. Second, the person on higher ground could still see the sunset for longer than the others. For example, if one person’s position is one foot higher than another’s, he or she could see the sunset about 4.2 seconds longer; if the difference is 1,000 feet, the sunset lasts about 2 minutes and 13 seconds longer. In other words, the person on higher ground still has an inbuilt advantage. This is true in real life as well. In the third scenario, the fence is lowered proportionally. There is an appearance of equality, but the longer sunset enjoyed from higher ground has not been addressed. In the fourth scenario, conditions have been equalized in a more justifiable way.

That is the theory. British sociologist Michael Young is credited with coining the term meritocracy in his 1958 satirical book The Rise of the Meritocracy. He warned that a pure meritocracy could create a permanent, arrogant ruling elite whose members believed they owed all their success solely to their own efforts, while making the lower classes feel entirely responsible for their poverty. Scholars across the developed world are raising concerns about the outcome of true meritocracies, including in our model country, Singapore (Ong Ye Kung, 2018).

Permanent arrogant ruling elite?

Create a permanent, arrogant ruling elite? That is a dire warning we cannot ignore. Such a condition can create new divisions, disrupt national unity, and damage economic development. Sri Lanka has experienced enough of it: two youth uprisings, a civil war, ongoing social tensions, and a failed economy. Let us be clear, deep down, the root cause of these conflicts is the lack of equal opportunities to participate in the country’s economy and earn a decent living. Those with ulterior motives may give different meaning, but that is the reality. We cannot afford repetitions.

Tests that measure convergent thinking ability by asking how quickly one can find the single correct answer to a carefully structured problem. The test taker’s ability to answer such questions does not depend on education alone, but it also depends on family status and support, social background, nutrition, safety, and access to networking. In some cases, geography, disability, caste, ethnicity, religion, and political influence also come into play. Unequal opportunities create unequal merit. Therefore, a purely meritocratic system can appear fair while still rewarding advantages accumulated long before competition begins. When there are so many factors in play, equalising all of them, creating a just environment, let alone the most crucial factor, education, can be a herculean task.

The better alternative is to use a measure of divergent thinking ability, but that presents several problems. Divergent thinking is the thought process used to generate creative ideas by exploring many workable solutions. Instead of looking for a single, correct answer, which is convergent thinking, divergent thinking expands outward in multiple, non-linear directions. It is often spontaneous, free-flowing, and associated with “thinking outside the box.” Convergent thinking ability peaks during early adulthood and diminishes with age, whereas divergent thinking ability increases throughout life. Experience counts. Therefore, to assess divergent thinking ability, it is necessary to observe an individual’s performance while he or she is facing real-life problems over a longer period than what it takes to do a standard test.

Reasons for reassessing the push

Sri Lanka has other reasons for reassessing the push to establish a conventional meritocracy. According to available data, one-fifth of Sri Lanka’s labour force is employed in the public sector, while the rest is divided between the private sector and informal employment in a two-to-three ratio. This means that more than 60% of the labour force consists of small-scale, unregistered family units, subsistence farmers, street vendors, three-wheel drivers, daily-wage laborers, and independent tradespeople such as plumbers, carpenters, and masons. In addition, it is estimated that about 8.6 to 9.2 million Sri Lankans who can work are not actively looking for employment; more than 71% of them are female.

Promised Justice

The promised “justice” of meritocracy does not reach them. For example, the country had been self-sufficient in rice on many occasions, but rice farmers remain trapped in a cycle of enduring poverty with little hope of escape. Sri Lanka’s Inequality Index increased from 37.7 in 2019 to 39.8, reflecting the disproportionate burden on the informal labour force, even though Sri Lanka was declared an Upper-Middle-Income country by the same monitoring organization. Our system does not provide the opportunity for all citizens to participate in the economy, and that is a major hindrance to economic development.

Success and justice require assessing both the convergent and divergent thinking abilities of an individual as an entry requirement as well as during their performance in the position. The private sector practices this, but the current public sector system fails on both counts. The perils of selecting or electing people who are not qualified to do the job do not need explanation. Sadly, that has been Sri Lanka’s legacy. In addition, the current system fails to assess the job performance of elected or selected people and hold them accountable. Public sector jobs are for life. Pay increases and promotions are predetermined and, unlike in the private sector, are not based on performance or productivity.

This is the fundamental reason for needing education reforms. Our education system was first designed to provide clerical support to colonial administrators. Conditions have changed, but the system remains stubbornly unchanged. The education system is not designed to meet the country’s needs. On one hand, it has created a shortage of qualified people to provide essential services. On the other hand, brain drain fulfills the needs of affluent countries at the expense of hard-earned taxpayer money.

University graudates

In this system, higher education has been enlisted in defining merit and conferring the credentials that a market meritocracy rewards, while distorting the mission of higher education. Many university graduates end up in teaching positions when they have no teaching experience. The same applies to university teachers as well. This writer has seen his share of university teachers who would not have tenure if their students were allowed to grade their performance, as happens in most Western countries.

The lack of a system to evaluate employee performance, particularly in the public sector, is a serious error. In the current system, this is the only opportunity to assess divergent thinking ability, or the so-called soft skills and mindset, which, along with hard skills, are crucial in delivering the intended service and achieving personal growth: actual merit. Instead, public sector employees’ promotions and pay increases follow a fixed timetable, irrespective of their performance. This guaranteed-for-life employment system not only eliminates accountability but also kills motivation to do the job well and discourages innovation. Both individuals and the country suffer as a result.

The other drawback is the social devaluation of vocational skills in favour of professional skills—another residue of our feudal past that refuses to go away. This prestige hierarchy places undue emphasis on university education at the expense of vocational training. Both students and parents are under severe pressure to do well at exams, and this creates a wholesale drive to send children to elite schools in the capital and feed a massive tuition industry. This fixation on a few professions fails to recognise the significance of the other vocational professions to the economy.

Professionals may claim that they have invested more in achieving their skills and deserve preferential treatment, but they should not forget that farmers, plantation workers, and domestic workers abroad, to name a few, contribute to maintaining the infrastructure that allows professionals to earn their merit: the ‘moral desert.’ Society must have the decency to recognise their contribution, not in slogans, but by providing them with the means to lead a decent life.

Even under the best of conditions, meritocracy has become another form of hereditary system, much as aristocracy was. Affluent, privileged parents have figured out how to pass their privilege on to their children, not by bequeathing them land or estates, as in aristocratic societies, but by equipping them to compete successfully and get well-paid jobs, particularly in the private sector, and amass wealth. Meritocracy fails because it turns success into a moral claim, breeds arrogance among winners, creates shame among losers, reproduces privilege, and undermines democratic solidarity. Critics see it as a way to whitewash elitism (Sandel 2021, Markovits 2019, Littler 2017, Frank 2016, Guinier 2015).

Shortcomings

On the surface, meritocracy is the right practice. Indeed, meritocracy must be practiced; one cannot hire a mechanic to pilot a plane just because he is well connected. Yet, even under the best of conditions, meritocracy has shortcomings; and efforts to provide justice in earning merit, as shown in the fourth scenario in the illustration, not only unachievable, but it can create new social problems, as we have seen in our own past. Besides, such measures are only temporary, like medication given for an acute illness. They should not remain in place indefinitely. Lasting solutions must honor the dignity of work rather than credential achievement alone. That will also solve the rampant shortage of qualified workers while addressing the issue of brain drain. Most Nordic countries and some Eastern European countries have found their own solutions to this problem.

Nordic approaches may not transfer directly to Sri Lanka, but one conclusion is clear: our education system must be reformed to address these conditions. Sri Lankans spend more on the thriving shadow education system than the education department’s budget, while other pressing issues get neglected, for example, childhood malnutrition. Education should not merely grant credentials of limited value at home while serving affluent countries at taxpayers’ expense. In Singapore, our model country, meritocracy is not a “moral desert” driven solely by exam competition; it is grounded in “national duty.” We have recognised our past mistakes, but solving such a complex problem needs long-term strategic planning. Therefore, now is the right moment to begin a serious dialogue and include the right strategy in our plan for a happy and prosperous nation.

by Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.

All News Advertisement

Features

Sections of US media looking power straight in the eye

Published

37 mins ago

2026/10/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Trump addressing the media at the White House.(BBC)

Some fundamental freedoms seen to be at the heart of democracy in the US – religion, speech, the press, assembly and the right to petition the government – are at risk of being undermined at present by the country’s Executive President. However, the latter is being legally challenged on this score by some sections of the US media and the citizenry of the country could take heart from this notable defense of media freedom.

In fact this is good news for the world of democracy. The push back is coming from organizations such as CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC who constitute the nucleus as it were of the US media and their solidarity no less than their resourcefulness calls for commendation.

Following a recent White House decision to suspend CNN from what was referred to as ‘participation in presidential pool coverages’, the other media organizations mentioned refused to replace it in the pool. Their position was that the public had a right to receive ‘accurate and independent information about the government.’

Earlier, the White House decided to bar MS NOW and Politico from entering its premises following the restrictions imposed on CNN. The organizations were accused of publishing “FAKE NEWS’ , ‘Fiction’ and ‘lies’ in respect of the administration. These organizations lost no time in initiating a federal lawsuit accusing the central administration of violating their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

However, the latter litigating organizations could now consider themselves as having been vindicated because the federal court hearing their case has ordered the Trump administration to temporarily restore White House press access to journalists from the mentioned media institutions. Notably, the court has declared that the ban is ‘likely unconstitutional’. The case is proceeding.

The mass media of the most vibrant democracies of the West ought to be no strangers to such inspirational acts of solidarity and exemplifications of independence but there are lessons here for the democracies of the South that could stand them in good stead. Minus the right of a people to be informed, the rest of fundamental rights featuring in Southern Bills of Rights and legislation of the kind are bereft of substance and meaning.

It is informed decision-making on the part of a citizenry that makes for democratic vibrancy and on this score many a Southern democracy fails. While Southern publics generally demand of their governments continuous economic well being and substantive material benefits they are not equally desirous of being informed and knowledgeable.

This lacuna in the consciousness of many Southern publics enables their governments ‘to get off the hook’, so to speak and govern, or more often misgovern, their countries with impunity. Among other factors, this species of mass ignorance makes it possible for governments to dismantle democracy and rule in perpetuity.

Accordingly, an educated and constantly informed public is an essential precondition for the flourishing of democracy and independent media are integral to this process. Minus an independent mass media sector that meets the knowledge needs of the people responsibly, democracy is as good as dead.

Needless to say, those sections of the US media that are currently taking the Trump administration to task over its media curbs are acutely aware of the cruciality of these fundamental knowledge requirements.

The hope of democratic opinion worldwide and locally is likely to be that media independence would thrive in the manner in which it is flourishing in the most vibrant and accountable democracies of the West.

Southern countries such as Sri Lanka that lay claim to democratic credentials, but are democracy-deficient in many ways, need to be particularly cognizant of these requirements. The publics of these countries need to go the extra mile to ensure the thriving of an independent but responsible mass media sector.

In fact it is veritably a matter of life and death. It is only an independent media sector that could, while ensuring the existence of an informed public, impress on the latter the need to protect and perpetuate its fundamental rights. In the absence of these campaigns, such publics could be eventually having on their hands governments that boast of ruling in perpetuity.

Taking a leaf from the sections of the US media referred to independent media organizations in Southern states need to act in solidarity as well. They would need to act on the basis of the principle that acts of victimization suffered by members in their fold at the hands of governments, for instance, are in fact inimical acts directed at their collectivity and which call for united remedial action. In short, no independent mass media institution could see itself as ‘an island’.

Besides some general guidance on the importance of media independence and solidarity, the message coming from the US with regard to media praxis is that power must be stood-up to unblinkingly. The mentioned sections of the US media are primarily in a struggle to ward off encroachments on their independence in the areas of policy and practice by the political executive, that is the President.

The latter would ride rough-shod over the media in the absence of robust opposition by the media itself to inimical executive action of this kind.

While media independence needs to be seen as crucial to democratic development, an obligation is cast on the media to ensure that it uses such independence responsibly and constructively.

The worst that could afflict a media sector is for it to fall prey to the clichetic ‘freedom of the wild ass’. In fact recurring irresponsibility on the part of the media could lend credence to the perception that a tightly regulated media is best for a country. It is a short step from this misguided view to the position that political authoritarianism is best for a state. That turn of events would be of course catastrophic for a democracy.

The issues discussed thus far point to the need for a broad discourse among Southern democracies in particular on what is best for them in this connection. Given the risks underscored earlier for Southern countries in particular a broad discussion on the matters at hand, which includes the public, emerges as a must for Sri Lanka. Besides, media solidarity within democratic countries and internationally is a must.

Features

What lessons can be learned to improve quality of Sri Lanka’s Grade 6 syllabus

Published

38 mins ago

2026/10/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya

by Prof. M. W. Amarasiri de Silva

Following public controversy over an inappropriate web link found in an English study module, the Sri Lankan government formally deferred the full rollout of the Grade 6 curriculum reforms to January 2027. In the interim, state schools will maintain the existing syllabus, reverting to standard eight-period daily timetables and previous textbooks to ensure uninterrupted instruction. Prime Minister and Minister of Education Dr. Harini Amarasuriya emphasized that this temporary pause allows the Education Ministry to thoroughly review all instructional materials, fix editorial flaws, and conduct scientific impact assessments across pilot schools prior to nation-wide implementation.

To address the oversight, an expert committee evaluated the flawed materials, completed necessary amendments, and finalised discussions to resubmit corrected modules for printing. Beyond revising written texts, the Ministry established a broader preparation roadmap—allocating funds for extensive teacher training programs set to begin mid-year, alongside scheduled informational briefings for parents, teachers, and students. Prime Minister Amarasuriya reaffirmed that none of the valid first-term modules were completely discarded or scrapped, preserving state resources while systematically rebuilding public trust and strengthening quality assurance protocols.

In this respect, this article reviews the current grade 6 syllabus comparing it with similar syllabi of India and the USA, with a view to make recommendations for the upcoming grade 6 syllabus revision.

Architecture of nation’s future

Education is the quiet architecture of a nation’s future. It is the unseen scaffolding upon which generations build their character, their intellect, and their capacity to contribute meaningfully to society. In Sri Lanka, the Grade 6 syllabus occupies a particularly important place in this architecture. It is the bridge between primary learning and the more demanding intellectual terrain of secondary education. It is the moment when children begin to move from learning basic facts to understanding concepts, from memorising information to applying knowledge, and from passive reception to active engagement. Yet, despite its importance, the Grade 6 curriculum in Sri Lanka has long struggled with issues of breadth, depth, relevance, and pedagogy. As global education systems evolve, Sri Lanka must examine what lessons can be learned from international models—particularly India and the United States—to strengthen its own curriculum and prepare students for a rapidly changing world.

The first lesson Sri Lanka can learn is the value of conceptual clarity. India’s NCERT curriculum, especially in Mathematics and Science, is globally respected for its logical progression and conceptual depth. Indian students are introduced early to the idea that mathematics is not merely a set of procedures but a language of reasoning. They learn why a ratio works, not just how to compute one. They understand the structure of an equation, not merely the steps to solve it. In Science, they explore the properties of materials, the structure of plants, and the principles of motion with a clarity that encourages curiosity rather than rote memorisation.

Sri Lanka’s Grade 6 syllabus, while competency-based, often leans heavily toward content coverage. Students are expected to learn many topics, but the time allocated for each is limited, and the teaching culture often emphasizes memorisation over understanding. If Sri Lanka wishes to improve the quality of its syllabus, it must embrace the idea that fewer topics taught well are better than many topics taught superficially. Conceptual mastery builds confidence, and confidence builds lifelong learners.

Lesson from the US

A second lesson comes from the United States, where the curriculum is built around skills rather than content. American students in Grade 6 are expected to read complex texts, analyse arguments, write essays supported by evidence, conduct experiments, and engage in collaborative projects. The emphasis is not on how much they know but on what they can do with what they know. This skills-based approach encourages critical thinking, creativity, and independence—qualities essential for success in the modern world.

Sri Lanka’s syllabus, by contrast, often rewards students for reproducing information rather than interpreting it. The exam culture reinforces this tendency, as students are assessed primarily through written tests that measure recall. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must integrate more opportunities for students to think, question, debate, and create. The classroom should become a space where students learn to solve problems, not just memorize solutions.

Another important lesson comes from the breadth of Sri Lanka’s own curriculum. One of the strengths of the Sri Lankan system is its inclusion of cultural and religious education. Subjects such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity provide moral grounding and cultural identity. Art, Music, Drama, and Health contribute to holistic development. These subjects remind students that education is not merely about academic achievement but about becoming a balanced human being. However, breadth without depth can become burdensome. Grade 6 students in Sri Lanka often juggle more than ten subjects, each with its own textbook, competencies, and assessments. This creates pressure not only for students but also for teachers, who must rush through content to meet syllabus requirements. The lesson here is not to reduce cultural subjects but to integrate them more meaningfully. Religious education can be taught through ethical discussions, community projects, and reflective writing. Art and Music can be connected to history, literature, and social studies. Health can be linked to science and physical education. Integration reduces overload while enriching learning.

Another lesson from India

India offers another valuable lesson in the form of standardised textbooks. NCERT books are used across the country, ensuring consistency in quality and content. They are written by subject experts, reviewed rigorously, and updated periodically. Sri Lanka’s textbooks, while generally well-structured, vary in quality and often lag behind modern pedagogical standards. Some are dense, text-heavy, and lacking in visual aids or real-world examples. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must invest in high-quality textbooks that are engaging, accessible, and aligned with contemporary educational research. Textbooks should not merely transmit information; they should inspire curiosity. They should include stories, diagrams, experiments, and activities that make learning enjoyable and meaningful.

The United States provides a lesson in inquiry-based science education. American students conduct experiments, build models, observe natural phenomena, and engage in engineering design challenges. They learn science not as a set of facts but as a process of discovery. Sri Lanka’s science curriculum includes experiments, but many schools lack the resources, laboratory facilities, or teacher training to implement them effectively. Improving the syllabus requires improving the ecosystem around it. Schools need laboratories, equipment, and teacher development programs that empower educators to teach science through inquiry. A syllabus is only as strong as the environment in which it is taught. ***

International models

Another area where Sri Lanka can learn from international models is language education. In India, students often learn three languages—English, Hindi, and Sanskrit or Urdu. This heavy language load has its challenges, but it also produces students with strong linguistic skills. In the United States, English Language Arts emphasises reading complex texts, writing arguments, and analysing literature. Sri Lanka’s English curriculum, while improving, still struggles with uneven implementation across schools. Many students reach secondary school without adequate proficiency in English, limiting their access to global knowledge. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must strengthen English instruction through better teacher training, more reading opportunities, and a shift from grammar-heavy teaching to communication-focused learning. At the same time, Sinhala and Tamil instruction should be modernised to include creative writing, literature appreciation, and critical reading.

Social Studies is another area ripe for improvement. Sri Lanka’s curriculum includes History, Geography, and Civics, but the teaching often emphasises memorization of dates, definitions, and facts. India’s Social Science curriculum, while also content-heavy, provides clearer conceptual frameworks. The United States, however, excels in teaching civics and citizenship. American students learn how governments function, how laws are made, how communities solve problems, and how citizens participate in democracy. Sri Lanka can strengthen its Civics curriculum by incorporating more discussions on governance, rights, responsibilities, and community engagement. Students should learn not only the structure of government but also the values that sustain it—justice, equality, and participation.

One of the most important lessons Sri Lanka can learn is the value of reducing exam pressure. In both India and Sri Lanka, exams dominate the educational landscape. Students are judged primarily by their ability to perform on written tests. The United States, while not free from assessment challenges, uses a wider range of evaluation methods—projects, presentations, portfolios, and continuous assessment. These methods allow students to demonstrate learning in diverse ways. Sri Lanka should consider adopting a more balanced assessment system that values creativity, collaboration, and practical skills alongside academic knowledge.

Technology integration is another area where Sri Lanka can improve. The United States incorporates digital literacy, coding, online research, and digital citizenship into the curriculum. Sri Lanka’s ICT syllabus is well-structured, but implementation varies widely. Many schools lack computers, internet access, or trained ICT teachers. Improving the syllabus requires improving infrastructure. Students must learn to navigate the digital world safely and effectively. They must learn coding not as a luxury but as a basic skill. They must learn to evaluate online information critically, a skill essential in an era of misinformation.

Teacher training

Teacher training is perhaps the most critical lesson of all. A syllabus is only as effective as the teachers who deliver it. India invests heavily in teacher training through national programs, workshops, and online platforms. The United States emphasises professional development, peer collaboration, and instructional coaching. Sri Lanka must strengthen its teacher training programmes, ensuring that educators understand not only what to teach but how to teach it. Teachers should be trained in inquiry-based learning, differentiated instruction, formative assessment, and classroom management. They should be empowered to adapt the syllabus to the needs of their students rather than follow it mechanically.

Sri Lanka must learn the lesson of relevance. A syllabus must prepare students not only for exams but for life. It must teach them how to think, how to communicate, how to solve problems, and how to work with others. It must prepare them for a world where knowledge is abundant, but wisdom is scarce. It must help them navigate a future shaped by technology, globalisation, environmental challenges, and social change. To improve the syllabus, Sri Lanka must ask: What kind of citizens do we want to produce? What kind of thinkers? What kind of leaders? The answers to these questions should shape the curriculum.

Lastly, improving the quality of Sri Lanka’s Grade 6 syllabus requires learning from both international models and local strengths. From India, Sri Lanka can learn the value of conceptual clarity and standardised textbooks. From the United States, it can learn the importance of skills, inquiry, and creativity. From its own traditions, it can preserve cultural education, moral development, and holistic learning. The goal is not to copy another country’s system but to build a uniquely Sri Lankan curriculum that is modern, relevant, and empowering. A curriculum that honours the past while preparing students for the future. A curriculum that nurtures thinkers, creators, and compassionate citizens. A curriculum worthy of a nation with immense potential and a proud educational heritage. If Sri Lanka embraces these lessons, the Grade 6 syllabus can become not just a bridge to secondary education but a foundation for national progress.

Features

Three magical nights at Colombo Fashion Week

Published

39 mins ago

2026/10/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

Melloney Dassanayaka is certainly a familiar name here, and abroad, as well, having represented Sri Lanka at the Miss Universe 2024 pageant, held in Mexico.

A former National Basketball player, she is also involved in several projects, beneficial to the community, including financial literacy for single women-headed families in the country.

A banker by profession, Melloney hold a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration.

Melloney with Asanka de Mel of Lovi Sri Lanka

This extremely talented old girl of Holy Family Convent, Bambalapitiya, was in the limelight, once more, when she was seen on the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week.

It was her very first experience, at this prestigious event, and she loved every minute of it, she said, and, what’s more, she was featured on three consecutive days.

According to the itinerary, on day 01 she walked for Lovi Sri Lanka; day 02 Rizwan Beyg (Pakistan designer), Arsath Furkhan (Indian designer), Haoyi Yan (Chinese designer) and Samant Chauhan (Indian designer); and on day 03 Vaishali Shandangule (Indian designer).