Globalization and Education

Globalization and the Right to Education

(Text of a talk delivered at a Seminar organized by the Centre for Policy Alternatives, July 2004)

Globalization, like good poetry, communicates before it is understood. Though defining it may not be easy, globalization is identified with both improved communications and increased competition. Because information is so much more readily accessible, because the transport of goods and the widespread provision of services is so much quicker, the world has become much smaller. And in such a context we need to compete much more actively, to facilitate others taking what we have to offer as well as to obtain more efficiently what we need.

In this context however I cannot resist drawing attention to my principal critique of globalization as it is happening now. I feel that, far from there being too much of it, there isn’t enough. I say this because, while the more influential proponents of globalization advocate the removal of market restrictions, with regard to goods and services and capital, they are conspicuously silent on the removal of restrictions on the free movement of labour. This is understandable. While those who dominate the world now have an abundance of capital, and goods to spare, and expertise in services, they do not have quite such an abundance of labour. The third world does have labour, but we do not insist enough upon the need for consistency on the part of proponents of globalization. This is something that should be pursued more actively.

Of course there are elements of it in practice now, with for instance the proliferation of call centres in India, which has led to opposition from what might be termed the protectionist lobby in the United States. But in the long term what we should be pressing for is the removal of restrictions on the physical movement of labour too. I am pleased in this respect that at least some liberal think tanks in the United States have begun moving in this direction, and have presented arguments consistent with parallel ones regarding free trade about the economic benefits of such freedom with regard to labour. Still, I suspect it will be a long time before we are able to achieve that goal.

Meanwhile therefore we need to work on equipping ourselves to compete in the current context. That this requires better education is scarcely something one needs to argue, because obviously better training will enable our people to compete more effectively. The problem lies however in identifying what we mean by better training, and how that squares with prevailing views of education.

That the present education system does not provide education in the sense that is required now seems to me self evident, but clearly it has to be argued. Anecdotal evidence about poor performances of students, even those considered the most academically able, viz those admitted to university, is plentiful, but clearly proves nothing to those who pride themselves on our advanced literacy rates. The fact that these have not changed much since the time of independence, and that in any case literacy as calculated is scarcely a measure of education, still means nothing to those satisfied with the fact that the rest of South Asia is worse off than us in this respect. The fact that, in terms of actual numbers, those other countries have many more people educated in a fuller sense of the word than we do, and that those numbers contribute to swifter progress, is also not taken very seriously.

Indeed, I don’t suppose even statistics will be seen as actual evidence of a problem by those who are content with the laurels of the past. Still, I should just mention that Ordinary Level passes in both Science and Maths (to say nothing of English) have been in the region of 30% or less for several years. And figures with regard to the Tigers, those Asian countries that have been able to take positive advantage of globalization in recent years, suggest that there is a strong correlation between student capacities in mathematics at least and contemporary development.

Now we have actually recognized this, and the last half century has seen repeated radical changes in the maths curriculum as well as that of science. Indeed there is now an ongoing maths project that by all accounts has proved very successful. Yet by and large despite all this the general situation has deteriorated, and indeed a couple of years ago the Ordinary Level pass rate in maths, laughable previously, actually went down.

Why is this? My short answer, which brings me round to the topic that the organizers of this seminar clearly associate most fundamentally with globalization, is that the Ministry of Education is a mess and cannot arrange anything properly – though I should note that that has begun to change very radically in the last three months, a process that was begun more slowly three years ago but did not come to fruition. A year ago indeed I had come round to the view that the only solution for the mess in education in this country was to tell the Americans that Osama bin Laden was skulking in Isurupaya, in the Ministry of Education.

But having said this, I should add that I feel it would not make sense to blame those in the system. It is true that, only perhaps in Sri Lanka, would authorities admit that, having reformed the primary maths syllabus, they had not got round to doing the same for secondary level by the time those who had gone through the new primary syllabus got to secondary level. But that too I think is part of the system, a system that precludes responsibility and initiative, relying on management as well as learning simply by rote.

Which is where privatization comes in. I am a passionate believer in private education, and I believe it is essential, if a country is to retain expertise and achieve excellence, that there should be private education. However I believe equally passionately in the need for free education, so as to ensure that no one is deprived of education because of a lack of resources. And while International Declarations limit the right to such education to primary level, which I can understand for countries that had no tradition of education, in Sri Lanka it seems to me, given history and general expectations, that that right should extend to tertiary level too.

Where private education, or rather the concept of privatization, comes in is in contributing to the raising of standards through practices associated with the private sector. Obviously I am referring here to competition, but also to accountability, responsibility, initiative and incentives. Now I know that often we do not find this in the private sector, and I am afraid some of the private sector initiatives engaged in recently made a mockery of these concepts. Involving the private sector in education, in at least some of the projects undertaken with World Bank funding a year or two back, meant awarding contracts to cronies who had the ear or the pocket of those in governmental authority. If we are to evolve a system of public / private partnership in education, it is essential to investigate what happened and take action to ensure that such practices cannot be repeated, or at any rate not as easily as they were in the past.

But let me give you an example of what I mean, when I talk about encouraging qualities such as responsibility and initiative. Three years back the government engaged on what was termed the Amity School Project, which meant permitting English medium classes at junior secondary level, One objective of the programme was to enable children of different communities to learn together, while it was also hoped that the textbooks that were produced would introduce content and concepts that would empower students in the contemporary context.

In the process it was discovered – which is a reflection on our decision makers who do not ordinarily read Sinhala or Tamil books – that the books had a chauvinistic outlook and omitted much that seems basic general knowledge. While the NEC therefore was urging changes in these respects, the Ministry decided that there had to be uniformity. Instead then of adjusting the Sinhala and Tamil books, it abandoned the textbooks that promoted a broader outlook, and instead produced new direct translations of these for English medium students too.

Meanwhile schools had been given to understand that they could commence English medium classes at other levels, provided they did not expect state assistance with materials or teacher training. It was not only urban schools that embarked on this. I visited a school in Kalmunai for instance, where the Grade 1 students were even less inhibited in English than those in Grade 6. Though, perhaps having been coached, one little girl asked when they would get English books, the school was actually producing its own translations. However, before long, Isurupaya issued an edict that this was forbidden. The Minister, and it seems the Prime Minister too, had claimed that the circular did not actually mean what it said, and that schools could continue provided they did not ask for state aid, but the damage had been done. Parents were discouraged, and many – though thankfully not all – schools had to abandon the programme.

But, much as I deplore it, my target of criticism here is not the attitude of the last government – or rather, its leader; since I believe the Minister was actually much more enlightened, though relatively powerless - towards English medium education. My objection is to a system that insists on uniformity, and that will not allow schools to embark on initiatives for which they are prepared to take full responsibility. Unfortunately it allows those wholly outside the state system to do what they like. So we have a network of International Schools that can teach what they like, how they like, and charge what they want for their programmes. Those within the system, including what are termed private schools, are expected to conform rigorously.

And the same applies to the Tertiary Sector. We have state universities, some of which are extremely good, but which are shackled by so many regulations that it is extremely difficult to innovate and broaden both their intake and their outlook. Meanwhile the demand for foreign qualifications, whether obtained abroad or here, is multiplying. The government was supposed to develop a method of quality assurance whilst also enhancing opportunities for tertiary education that would not be beyond the reach of the majority of our population, but such initiatives have scarcely moved. The project that was supposed to assist in this has been so riddled with inefficiency, inconsistency and corruption that the radical reforms that are necessary will probably be tarred with the same brush and never revived.

What are those reforms? They should be based on the fundamental principle that state involvement in education is designed to promote both equity and excellence. This requires that state resources target those who might otherwise be deprived of education, whilst permitting others to engage in other initiatives too. It requires too that the state monitor practices, both to ensure that the services it provides are at the highest possible level, and also that other practices do not fall below general standards. It should not permit the best (or rather what it judges to be the best) to be the enemy of the good in the latter case; equally, it should not permit the mediocre to be the enemy of the good or the better in the former case.

What are some of the components of excellence in the present context? First, I would argue, are the technical skills necessary to access information without reliance on others. These are primarily English, and in particular reading skills in English, along with Information Technology. But to ensure use of these skills the state should also improve access, not only through facilities to schools but also by developing Information Centres throughout the country. Public Libraries should be upgraded, and facilities could also for instance be provided at the Cultural Centres that have been set up throughout the country but have no readily identifiable functions. At the same time private ventures in these respects should also be encouraged – incentives to publishers or booksellers, for instance, to set up Information Centres, would surely provide a service in semi-urban areas that would be beyond the reach of many people otherwise, but which would also allow a healthy profit to the providers.

Then we should also develop motivation to make use of these skills. For this the curriculum has to be revised, and interactive teaching methodologies followed. These have I believe been prescribed, but even the training for these reinforces traditional methods that depend on teachers, or rather on outdated notes which current teachers took down themselves many decades back. The system of evaluation too must be modified, to limit credit for rote learning and regurgitation. In this regard the Multiple Book Option that the World Bank encouraged some years ago was a step in the right direction, but it has been almost destroyed by ignorance and a lack of flexibility on the part of the Bank and inefficiency on the part of the Ministry, together with a shrewd eye for profiteering through entrenching monopolies in a different fashion.

The content of courses too should ensure the capacity to think and make connections. Some general knowledge needs to be given, and to be seen as essential. Apart from that, in formulating syllabuses, care should be taken to include the concepts that are to be introduced in addition to content. Understanding of chronology, of cause and effect, of purpose and results, of necessary and sufficient conditions, should be developed, so that at tertiary level at least students should be aware of differences in the criteria for judging these.

Finally – or, rather, finally in this list though I am sure there are other aspects that could be addressed, education should inculcate problem solving and decision making skills. A step in the right direction was taken when a Common General Test was introduced at the Advanced Level, but its proponents were put on the defensive and in defending the concept they have not been permitted to take it further as they should. In particular, the production of texts that teach and test thinking skills should have been expedited, and some aspects could perhaps have been included in the Advanced Level General English component, to emphasize the connection between the two subjects and ensure greater attention to this latter.

To return then to our topic, we have to recognize that, in a globalized context, when we talk about Free Education in terms of the Right to Education, we should stress not only the word Free, which means the opportunity should be available for all regardless of their means, but also the word Education, which means a high quality product that ensures competitiveness in the modern world. If we limit education, provision and syllabuses and evaluation, to the state, either with ruthless efficiency or, as here, with selective regulations, we will fall into the mess that Hayek diagnosed when he pointed out the far-reaching damage caused by monopolies when mistakes are made. Given that the state itself has admitted, with the radical changes that have taken place every so many years, that it has been unusually prone to mistakes in the field of education, it is just plain silly to assume that the next panacea will be universally effective.

But, at the same time, the primary duty of the state, as John Rawls, the other great liberal thinker of the last century put it, is to ensure a level playing field, and in the context of education this cannot be left to the private sector by itself. The Maxi-Min principle Rawls outlined, of providing maximum assistance to the worst off, comes into play here, whereby the state has an obligation to permit those who can to get on with the business on their own so that resources can be carefully targeted to reach those who need them most.

Kannangara understood this when he started English Medium Central Schools in every district. Unfortunately his sucessors did not understand Kannangara, and began with the utterly pernicious principle that equity is not possible until all comparative advantages are destroyed and absolute equality established. The result was Animal Farm, with many of our middle aged middle class intellectuals still, like Boxer, drawing their cartful of absolutes while their own children, totally at home in English, occasionally drop in to Sri Lanka from their homes in the more advanced Western segments of this globalized world.

Rajiva Wijesinha