Connect with us

Features

Meritocratic education policy: Widening disparities

Published

on

The recently unveiled education reforms have provoked considerable buzz among scholars, researchers, teachers, parents, and students. Everyone is seeking to contribute, but the government is proceeding without a consultative process or proper document, relying only on an evolving PowerPoint presentation. While the reforms remain obscure, the Education Minister has been issuing statements about how people should not rely on news regarding the reforms that are circulated on social media platforms.

Government Scholarships Programme

While the education reform blueprint stays hidden, the administration is moving fast with implementation. For example, one of the NPP election pledges was to ‘provide 200 scholarships every year for high school graduates to pursue degrees at globally ranked universities.’ As a first step towards achieving this objective, the Government has invited applications from outstanding performers from the recent Advanced Level Examination. A news item published in The Sunday Times (24th of August 2025), titled Applications open for scholarships to internationally ranked universities: ‘Twenty-five to fifty students who were high achievers at the Advanced Level exam from schools across the country will be picked to study at ranked international universities under the first phase of the government scholarships programme.’

As stated in the article, priority will be given to degree programmes that are not offered by local universities and that the government assumes will contribute to national development. It is not clear what the government’s idea of ‘development’ is, or why the government is incapable of introducing these new subjects into the local university system, rather than sending students abroad.

The scholarships will be fully funded, covering tuition and academic fees as well as a monthly stipend, health insurance, and one-time economy-class round-trip airfare, including local transportation to the nearest airport. The project aims to award a total of 200 scholarships, from 2025 to 2029, to place recipients in the top 500 universities in the world. Those influenced by neoliberal economic frameworks may believe that this project is excellent since it allows high-achieving students to study overseas. However, while this seems true on the surface, the ground realities may be different and this reform will likely have adverse consequences.

Celebrating Merit

In a meritocratic society, the success of high achievers is morally justified, and winners believe that they have earned their success solely through their talent and hard work. Through such a lens, high marks in exams, academic excellence, and awards, might seem like the sole success of the achiever. However, we live in an unequal society, and students’ access to resources, such as better schools, private tuition, transportation, food, and other basic requirements, varies, depending on their socioeconomic status, region, school, gender, ethnicity, and a variety of other factors. Thus, acquiring merit is not solely a matter of talent and hard work, but is conditioned by other socio-economic and political factors. However, in a meritocratic system, “merit” will be celebrated, disregarding these unequal opportunities. The selective system would impose an unnecessary burden on students, as there will be competition to be selected for the scholarship scheme.

Instead of recognising the diverse potential of each student and guiding them in the proper direction, the government’s plan to offer international scholarships to those who perform outstandingly at their A/Ls reinforces the current regressive meritocratic system. The meritocratic system begins with the Grade five scholarship exam and continues throughout general education until students reach university. However, not every student who passes the exam gets an opportunity to attend, due to a lack of universities in the country. This initiative of providing foreign scholarships contradicts the guiding principles mentioned in the Ministry of Education’s, education reforms PowerPoint slides, which includes ‘free education and equal access,’ as well as ‘acceptability for all.’ In other words, if the government intends to export ‘high-achieving’ A/L students abroad, it will contradict their commitment to building a less competitive education system, where everyone has equal acceptance.

Widening the Disparities

A meritocratic regime would deepen societal inequities. While more privileged students ,would have a better chance of achieving high merit, underprivileged students would have fewer opportunities to be among those selected for foreign degree programmes. The students who are unable to make it to the scholarships to go abroad, would remain in the underfunded Sri Lankan university system. Students from more affluent families would prefer enrolling in private universities with better facilities. In a few years, local university students, graduating from the underfunded state university system, will have to compete in the job market with foreign university graduates whose education was also funded by the state. It is important to remember that government funds are sourced from taxpayers’ money, contributed by both the privileged and the underprivileged. Therefore, when allocating these funds, the government should uphold transparency and justice.

In general, foreign-educated students have a higher chance of being appointed to decision-making positions and securing better jobs than local university graduates. And, in particular, as stated in the mentioned newspaper article, the government’s intention anyway is to utilise these graduates in the country’s development. In that sense, when recruiting for higher decision-making positions, the government will give priority to these graduates. The disparity created by short-sighted government education policies would push the country’s population into a long-standing cycle of inequality, affecting generations to come.

Discouraging the sustainability of Local Universities

Sending 25–50 students for undergraduate studies at the world’s top 500 institutions is a costly endeavour. The financing for these students will come from monies that could be used to improve the country’s higher education system. In that manner, this new venture would have a long-term impact on the country’s university system. Due to fewer funds allocated, the local universities will remain below standard. Against this background, the students who are unable to make it to the foreign-funded university list will probably have to enroll in local universities, which have been neglected or underfunded by successive governments. At the same time, the new initiative to send selected students abroad for education shows the government’s undervaluing of the existing university system and their incapability of improving it.

Perpetuating Colonial Structures

The foreign scholarship initiative reminds me of the colonial education policy on Ceylon. In 1870, the colonial government established a scholarship scheme to UK universities for one scholar. In 1907, the government expanded it for two scholarships, one for Arts and one for Science, in alternate years. Up until the year 1921, the avenues for higher education were largely confined to a colonial government funded scholarship programme that enabled a selected group of capable students to pursue their studies in the United Kingdom. Concurrently, the external degree examinations, offered by the University of London, created a pathway for a limited number of individuals to achieve academic credentials. Given how the British Empire approached higher education in its colonies, it did not invest in fostering critical thinking, or innovation, rather its primary goal was to produce a small group of intermediates—English-educated elites—who would serve colonial administration and governance.

The emphasis on sending students overseas for higher education guaranteed that knowledge, legitimacy, and power remained firmly rooted in Britain, but the great bulk of the local populace remained excluded from advanced education.

When seen in this manner, the contemporary scholarship project seems a continuation of the colonial structure. Both the colonial programme, and the current approach, prioritises training a small, privileged group overseas, while giving less priority to systemic investment in local institutions. In these circumstances, education is viewed not as a public good that should benefit society as a whole, but as a method of generating a small governing or decision-making elite. The fundamental consequence is the same: a cycle of inequality in which the majority of students are marginalised, while those with foreign credentials hold positions of power and influence.

Thus, the similarity is more than just superficial. Both regimes represent a governing ideology that prioritises selective elite development above comprehensive educational and social change. The present government’s scholarship scheme shows how firmly the colonial thinking is embedded in the country’s education rationale. Instead of democratising knowledge and investing in systemic development, such policies perpetuate educational hierarchies that benefit a selected few at the expense of the majority.

The Path to Success

The government is deliberately undermining the state university system by suggesting that our system is incapable of producing good students (not at all substantiated) and in the process makes a case for actively defunding higher education. The path to elevating the country’s higher education system both in quality and quantity would be to increase funding and introduce progressive reforms to both general education and higher education. Simultaneously, integrating updated knowledge and enhancing critical thinking across both general and higher education is crucial, from rewriting curriculum to supporting interdisciplinary learning, research, and innovation. Strengthening teacher training, improving infrastructure, extending digital resources, addressing inequalities to resources, and forging relationships with overseas institutions can all help to improve the system without having to export selective students for better education opportunities. By prioritising these fundamental improvements, the country can create a stronger higher education system that benefits the vast majority of its students, rather than favouring a small fraction through overseas scholarships.

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

by Anushka Kahandagamage



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines

Published

on

Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.

Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.

Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.

Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.

Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.

The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.

The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:

=Joint planning across operational divisions

=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making

=Continuous cross-functional consultation

=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates

Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.

Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.

By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst

Continue Reading

Features

Why Pi Day?

Published

on

International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow

The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.

Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Archimedes

It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.

Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.

Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.

π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)

The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.

π = 9801/(1103 √8)

For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.

It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.

This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.

Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.

Happy Pi Day!

The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.

by R N A de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

on

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.

Continue Reading

Trending