The Long March To Nowhere

By Dinidu de Alwis

Thousands of university students, academics, civil society activists and politicians congregated at Lipton Circus on Friday, marking an end to a long march which university teachers began just a few days prior. The Federation of University Teachers Association (FUTA) was the driving force behind the entire movement, and they have been – for the last months or so – calling for increased spending by the government on the education sector.
The t-shirts, caps and hundreds of placards in black and orange carry a figure – 6%. For the academics, the fraction 6% marks the amount from Sri Lanka’s Gross Domestic Product that they want spent on education. This represents around USD 3.8 billion for this year, considering Sri Lanka expects a 6.8% growth over its 2011 GDP of US$ 59.2 billion.
The 6% figure which FUTA speaks of stems from the repeated commitments that Sri Lanka has made over the recent past to increase the island’s education spending. Whilst Sri Lanka’s commitment has not been met – ever – Sri Lanka’s education sector spending has been suffering over the recent past as a result of increased expenditure on the defence sector. However, even following the end of the war in 2009, expenditure on the defence sector has risen, and education spending has continued to decline.
But this was not the initial demand of the university teachers. Academics demanded a hike in their pay, citing regional and international salary structures. In a comparison that FUTA made, Sri Lanka ranked among the lowest in academic salaries, and FUTA warned that unless the salary structure was given a complete overhaul, the education sector would continue to suffer.
Sri Lanka’s education spending is low: no question can be raised about it. Whilst the United Kingdom spent 11.3% of its public expense allocation  on education in 2009, the United States spent 13.1%, Singapore spent 11.6%, Pakistan spent 11.2% and Cuba a whopping 17.5%.
Even comparing the spending as a portion of the GDP, Sri Lanka still ranks quite low. The United Kingdom’s figure stands at 5.6%, US’s at 5.4%, Singapore’s at 3.1% and Pakistan’s at 2.7%. Cuba again ranks highest at 13.1%, compared to Sri Lanka’s fractional 2.1%.
When FUTA started their union action however, this was not the cause, nor was it the demand. The demand for higher pay shifted to a demand of increased spending on education when the academics’ union began to take flak from the government about their demands, considering the body was given a healthy pay rise just the previous year.
Sri Lanka’s education sector spending priorities are however, a bit skewed. Even though the number of state funded schools dropped from 9,723 in 2005 to 9,714 in 2011, the number of Pirivena’s rose from 653 to 716 over the same period. The number of teachers grew from 189,234 to 271,112 from 2005 to 2011 marking a 14% increase, but the number of Pirivena teachers grew from 5,481 to 6,457 – marking a dramatic 18% increase.
The World Bank, in a report on Sri Lanka’s education sector, also noted that Sri Lanka has been spending only around 2-3% of the GDP on the education sector, compared to a 3.5% average in the rest of the region.
Whilst Sri Lanka had 85 private schools in 2005, this number grew to 97 in 2011. The number of students who are attending private schools too grew from 106,000 in 2005 to 120,000 in 2011. As the state education sector drifts slowly into chaos, the private sector – as the market usually does – moves in to fill the gap.
It is the same private sector that FUTA is now also opposing. Among FUTA’s demands is one to abolish private sector universities in the country, the controversial South Asia Institute of Technology and Medicine being the poster-child villain of the movement. Even though FUTA has not been able to rationally argue out why the private sector is the enemy of free education (and it has to be noted that the term free education does not refer to free as in state funded, but free as in free to choose – the Sinhala word, Nidahas as opposed to Nomile, encompasses the spirit with which the sector was founded in modern history).
The state-funded education system has however, helped Sri Lanka attain an adult literacy level comparable to those of developed nations. “However, literacy alone will no longer suffice in the knowledge era. It will be increasingly important for educated individuals to supply the workforce with market-oriented skills needed to create rapid economic growth and national development,” the World Bank stated in a report.
This mismatch between the education system’s outputs and the employment market in Sri Lanka was highlighted during a recent panel discussion held at the economic issues think tank, the Institute of Policy Studies. During a discussion on education and employment in Sri Lanka, the general opinion that prevailed with the private sector employers who were present at the discussion was that the island’s education system – specifically the tertiary education system – does not produce the necessary skills required for the booming private sector in Sri Lanka.
As a country develops, both in its basic social indicators and on the economic front, more money is pumped into the market by the private sector. Even in Sri Lanka, the private sector has been booming – despite flawed macroeconomic fundamentals such as widespread graft, corruption, nepotism, energy instability and relatively high inflation – after the three-decade war came to an end. The private sector however, is still struggling to find individuals who are both knowledgeable and skilled, and the finger is invariably pointed at the government.
The unemployment levels are disproportionately divided between the various sectors, and whilst unemployment for medical, engineering, computer science and technology-based graduates are almost unheard of, it is the more abstract study areas that see graduates who are without jobs. The responsibility – after truckloads of water and numerous canisters of tear gas – shifts to the government, and due to political pressure, thousands are absorbed into the state sector, oft into positions specifically created for the purpose.
It is the same students which the private sector refuse to accept due to lack of employability who oppose the move for private universities. In their eyes, the charity and foundation driven model of private universities will not work in Sri Lanka, and they see the private sector’s entry into the education system as one that will harm the state education structure.
Following FUTA’s call for the abolishing of private universities, the academics’ union has cozied up to the Marxist-party backed Inter-University Student Federation, who also oppose the move for private universities. Along with them, various opposition parties, including the idealistically-capitalist United National Party, have also joined the movement. Many tend to have politically-left leaning tendencies, including Dr. Wickramabahu Karunaratne, who joined the march during its final stages.
After months of protest, the long march by the FUTA has now come to an end. Their spokesman, Dr. Mahim Mendis from the Open University of Sri Lanka, as a passing remark says that even though the march has finished, their movement will not. They have successfully managed to shift attention from the salary hikes that they requested to the fact that Sri Lanka’s education is broken. Large scale overhauls are required and Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, an academic-turned politician with the ruling United People’s Freedom Alliance, accepts this fact (see inset).
FUTA’s struggle for better pay, even though now sugar-coated in a call for educational reforms, has brought this issue into the spotlight. Their demands however, cannot be flimsy and short-sighted like Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri’s remarks made during a recent panel discussion.  If fundamental changes are to be made, they have to also be supported by FUTA, and for FUTA’s call for higher spending on education to be taken more seriously by the current government, the demands should be accompanied by a detailed plan of where they want the money spent. Long walks would otherwise only take the academics’ union so far.

FUTA Unsure Of Direction

By Dinouk Colombage

FUTA President Dr  Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri has made it clear that despite FUTA demanding a six percent increase in the allocations to the educations budget, the union is still unsure of what the money should be spent on.
In a debate involving UPFA Parliamentarian Prof. Rajiva Wijesinghe, and moderated by UNP Parliamentarian Eran Wickramaratne, the union president was caught unawares by several questions all demanding to know where the 6% increase in the education budget would be spent. Responding to a question posed by a member of the audience, Dewasiri responded that while FUTA had highlighted some of the main concerns, they were still awaiting a proper dialogue to identify where the money should be spent.
While Wijesinghe agreed that there were numerous issues in the education sector, he denied that they would be solved by simply increasing the budget allocation. Highlighting several key aspects which needed to be revamped, including the controversial Grade 5 scholarship exam, Wijesinghe was able to illustrate the lack of direction on the part of FUTA.
He went one step further and suggested that rather than taking strike action, FUTA should have used the courts, which are at their disposal, and file a Fundamental Rights petition against the Ministry.
While Dewasiri was correct in saying that the strike action by FUTA has opened an avenue of dialogue regarding the issues in the education sector, the apparent lack of planning by FUTA is a cause of concern.
The audience were not impressed with both arguments as most members demanded to know what the 6% would be spent on. Wijesinghe suggested that the discussions take place with academics and education boards, avoiding the politicians. However, Dewasiri was adamant that no change would be possible unless the politicians were to take an active role.
The final comments of the evening from the audience showed that the FUTA strike was threatening to lead public opinion away from the issue and take on a political angle. Wijesinghe was questioned why military expenditure was on the rise, and the number of troops in the North continues to increase while the education sector continues to struggle. He responded that the politicisation of every issue would lead to no resolution, and that the sole focus should be the issues in the education sector.