by Eric J. de Silva
Current education reforms propose to reorganise and restructure the Sri Lankan school system on a two-tier basis comprising junior schools (grades 1-9) and senior schools (grades 10-13). The National Education Commission (NEC) has put forward three arguments in support of this restructuring in document entitled Reforms in General Education, 1997. These are as follows:

(a) it will help to provide the compulsory span of schooling (grades 1-9) in the same school, thus minimising school dropouts.

(b) it will help to develop a school culture more appropriate to the different age levels of pupils.

(c) senior schools will be able to provide specialised courses and better facilities for senior secondary education.

Unplanned Growth
Sri Lankan schools are classified at present into the following categories:

Type 1AB schools - These provide classes from grade 1 or grade 6 upwards to GCE A/L (grade 13) in Science, Arts and Commerce

Type 1C schools - These provide classes from grade 1 or grade 6 upwards to GCE A/L in Arts and Commerce only.

Type 2 schools - These have classes from grade 1 or grade 6 upwards to GCE O/L (grade 11)

Type 3 schools - These are mainly primary schools (grade 1-5), with some going upto grade 6, 7, 8, or 9 due to additional grades being added to primary schools year by year.

School Census data for 1996 (provisional) show that there are 583, 1827, 3668 and 4029 schools respectively in these four categories, making a total of 10107. According to the same census data, the grade-wise picture of the school system is as follows:

The following picture emerges when these schools are classified in terms of pupil numbers.

There is no doubt that the Sri Lankan school system has grown in an unplanned manner and that some rationalisation is long overdue. The purpose of this article is to examine to what extent the restructuring proposed by NEC, and accepted by the Government for implementation, would meet this need.

Major Overhaul
The proposed restructuring, which is to be based on an island-wide school mapping exercise, will result in converting -

(1) Type 3 schools into junior schools (grades 1-9). Those which do not meet a real need or are not sufficiently viable to be continued will be closed down or amalgamated with other schools, while grade 1-5 schools in remote locations will be retained as feeder schools.

(2) Type 2 schools also into junior schools, while retaining a few as grade 1-11 schools if special reasons warrant their continuance for the present.

(3) 1AB and 1C schools which currently have classes from grades 6 to 13 into junior schools (grades 1-9) or senior schools (grades 10-13).

(4) 1AB or 1C schools which currently have classes from grades 1 to 13 into (a) junior schools or (b) senior schools or (c) two such schools functioning in the same location under two separate managements, which will require a division of the current physical infrastructure and facilities between the two.

This would, indeed, be a major overhaul of the school system, of a magnitude never attempted previously. It would also be an enormously costly exercise with over 2000 primary schools having to be upgraded to junior schools, and additional buildings having to be provided at these locations. Even if funds are freely available, which in fact is not the case, it would be an absolute waste to invest in school buildings willy nilly at a time when demographic changes have set in motion a trend which will see the pupil population in the school system decreasing substantially over the next few years. The World Bank has estimated that, given the declining birth rate, the number of children starting grade 1 will have fallen significantly by the year 2000, and that there will be 280,000 fewer pupils in primary school and nearly 50,000 fewer in lower secondary in the year 2000 as compared with the figures in 1991. As this trend gathers momentum existing spaces in schools will be either redundant or under-utilised, and it would be extremely unwise to add to the existing stock of school buildings, except after examining each case on its merits.

In addition to the cost factor, the proposed restructuring will make it necessary to move large numbers of children between schools. For instance, pupils in grades 10 and 11 in the present Type 2 schools (3668 in number) will have to be moved elsewhere when these are converted into junior schools. Unless the benefits far outweigh the trauma that will be caused to the children and their parents, would the exercise be worth the effort?

School Dropouts
Let us now turn our attention to the arguments adduced by NEC in support of the proposed restructuring. Argument (a) is based on Government's decision to introduce compulsory education for the age span of 5-14, which has already been given legal effect to by promulgating the Compulsory Education Regulations early this year. The NEC seems to believe that if the school system is restructured on a two-tier basis, it would help to minimise school dropouts within the above age span.

School drop-outs in this age group are, in any case, remarkably low in Sri Lanka. Figures appearing in Educational Statistic of Sri Lanka, 1992 published by the Ministry of Education and Higher Education show that only 4.5% of children dropout of school between grades 1 and 9. The drop-out rate would be less if not for the fact that a few districts (Jaffna 7.56%, Mannar 37.15%, Vavuniya 34.22%, Trincomalee 7.18%) have pushed up the national figure. The World Bank has acknowledged that Sri Lanka has extremely high participation in primary and lower secondary education with more than 90 per cent of the 5 to 9 age group participating in primary education, and nearly 86 per cent of 10 to 14 year olds participating in lower secondary education.

According to UNDP's Human Development Report for 1994, Sri Lanka which is categorised as a medium human development country, has one of the highest transition rates (92%) from the primary to the secondary level. Not only is this considerably higher than the average for medium human development countries which stands at 65%, it is also higher than the rate some countries which come in the high human development category, and have a much higher per capita income, have been able to achieve. It would, therefore, make no sense to argue that children who transit from a primary school in one location to another school in a different location at the end of grade 5 have to be provided with junior schools covering the compulsory span of education to prevent them from dropping out thereafter!

There are more substantial reasons for school dropouts at the junior secondary level, and these are only too well-known. The NEC itself stated in 1992 that "the general education system of primary or secondary education is highly accessible" and attributed dropouts to "the socio-economic development level" and "the needs of labour of the child in the farm or the house". (The First Report of the National Education Commission). What, then, is the justification for the present recommendation that junior schools be established to minimise school dropouts? On what new research or studies is it based?

School Culture
The second argument put forward by NEC for the proposed restructuring is that it will help to develop a school culture more appropriate to the different age levels of pupils. If this is a valid argument, there appears to be a much stronger case for developing a school culture associated with the primary school. After all, the primary school caters to pupils in a more tender age group, requiring a more caring type of teacher especially trained to handle such children. Infact the Bogoda Premaratne Committee on Education argued that "the primary school should be a separate entity, not attached to a secondary or collegiate school" and that "it is desirable that the age group of 5-11 be kept apart from the children of 12-14" (Towards Relevance In Education, 1981). When one considers the fact that on account of grade repetition many children remain beyond the age of 14 years at the junior secondary level, there seems to be a lot of merit in the recommendation made by the said Committee.

If we are to look at the curriculum reforms proposed by the NEC, it will be seen that the primary curriculum has characteristics which make it very different from the junior secondary curriculum. The two are so markedly different from each other that grade 6 is intended to be a bridging year between the integrated, activity-based, primary curriculum and the subject-based junior secondary curriculum. Infact, the latter has much more in common with the senior secondary curriculum leading to GCE O/L. Thus from a curriculum standpoint too, the more appropriate line of demarcation appears to be at the end of the primary stage rather than at the end of the junior secondary stage.

There is also the all-important question of the optimum utilisation of teacher resources. Since teachers are trained either for the primary cycle or for the secondary cycle, primary teachers are not competent to teach at junior secondary level and secondary trained teachers are not competent to teach at the primary level. Bifurcating the secondary stage physically (two locations) or managerially (two managements) is bound to result in the under-utilisation of secondary trained teachers at school level, and also cause problems for teacher deployment. Many schools will, infact, not be able to provide a full time-table to their secondary trained teachers unless they are made to teach in primary schools in the GCE A/L classes for which they are neither trained nor equipped.

Specialised Courses
The third argument in support of the proposed restructuring is that senior schools will be able to provide specialised courses and better facilities for senior secondary education. In order to see what weight this argument carries, one needs to look at the curriculum proposed by NEC for the senior secondary stage. This stage is divided into two segments, namely, O/L and A/L.

The curriculum proposed for the O/L segment consists of seven compulsory subjects, namely Religion, First Language, English, Mathematics, Science and Technology, Social Studies and History, and an Aesthetic Subject. The only difference from what obtains at present is the introduction of Science and Technology in place of Science, and Social Studies and History in place of Social Studies, and the relegation of the Technical Subject to the optional group.

Although a number of optional subjects are listed as part of the O/L curriculum, pupils are not required to select any of the optionals. The choice is left to them to select up to three of these subjects or none at all! It would be only too obvious that the vast majority of pupils will opt for the latter as the more preferred alternative in their eagerness to concentrate on the seven compulsories. Thus one does not see much scope for specialised courses at this level. In any case, apart from the Technical Subjects, the subjects listed under optional subjects are Sinhala? Tamil as a second language, History, Geography, Health and Physical Education, Literature/Sinhala/Tamil/English) and Modern or Classical Languages.

In the GCE A/L segment of the senior secondary stage, however, a new technology stream has been proposed. The new stream is bound to take a long time to reach a reasonable number of schools, considering the fact that even the Science stream is available in less than 600 schools yet. In any case, it does not provide an adequate justification by itself for the two -tier system.

An exercise in futility
It would thus be seen that the arguments put forward by NEC for the proposed restructuring do not hold much water. If, as stated, the whole purpose of the exercise is to minimise school dropouts, develop a school culture appropriate to the different age levels, and provide specialised courses and better facilities for senior secondary education, it would be a veritable exercise in futility.

Irrationalities in Sri Lanka's school system are the cumulative result of unplanned growth over the years and ad hoc decisions taken in the management of the school system, particularly in regard to the opening and upgrading of schools.

The proposed restructuring has unfortunately not gone to the root of the problem as would be evident from the tenuous arguments adduced in support of it. When the diagnosis is not correct, one cannot expect the prescription to bring about the desired results. It is more likely to result in a dissipation of energies, and a waste of scarce resources which the country can ill afford.

There is cause for concern as to whether the proposed restructuring will disrupt the existing scheme of things without replacing it with something better. What would be the fate of schools in different parts of the country which function well at present, with a substantial claim to excellence? It would not be possible to fit most of these schools into the two-tier straight-jacket without truncating them and, in the process, destroying their very character and individuality. We should, surely, guard against throwing the baby with the bath-water, an all too familiar phenomenon in our country whenever we try our hand at reforms!

As pointed out earlier in this article, the need for some rationalisation of the school system is not in dispute. What form that rationalisation should take is really the issue. An exercise of this magnitude and national importance requires the widest possible consultations with the different stake holders, which unfortunately has not taken place. The government should consider providing an opportunity for closer examination, debate and discussion of the proposed restructuring before proceeding to its implementation.

The writer is a former Secretary of the Ministry of Education, and was until recently Director-General of Education Reforms Implementation. He has served UNESCO as Chief Technical Adviser, Life Skills Education and ESCAP as Senior Technical Adviser, Human Resources Development. He also served as a member of the international team of consultants appointed by UNDP, New York in 1996 to evaluate the impact of its global, inter-regional and regional programmes.