Recent reports of Government intentions to promote English teaching deserve commendation. According to the Coordinator of the Project (‘Taking English to the Masses’ - Business Today, March 2009) this has been conceptualized based on the necessity of English for communication. It will focus on ‘taking English to rural Sri Lanka as a Life Skill’, facilitate English teacher training with Indian assistance and strengthen spoken English in the school curriculum. Additional efforts like promoting English for communication using electronic media are praiseworthy.

However, it has not taken on board the significant demand by students to study subjects in English and the interest of a large number to convert to English medium instruction in the primary and secondary school. This is evidenced firstly, by the rapid multiplication of International Schools (where most subjects are taught in English) and secondly, the results of surveys that have clearly shown the demand for English medium instruction across all districts.

Additionally, at examinations students attending Government schools wishing to offer subjects of their choice in English are denied the opportunity. Those studying for the SL O’level cannot offer Chemistry, Physics or Biology-an important subject combination of the O’level curriculum in most parts of the world. These subjects are particularly helpful to those wishing to pursue careers in Medicine, Engineering and other Sciences. In fact some students’ decision to shift from Government schools to International Schools at O’level is purely this lack of opportunity.

The history of English teaching can be traced to many decades. Since 1944 in most schools the medium of instruction in primary classes (Grades 1-5) was Sinhala or Tamil. Senior classes offered English medium instruction. In early 1950 this policy was extended to Grades 6,7,8 and by 1956 the medium of instruction in Grades 1-8 Sinhala or Tamil. Senior classes continued instruction in English. In 1960 the policy of using the mother tongue as medium of instruction was extended up to Grade 10 (O’Level classes). Initially this applied only to Arts subjects, but eventually it was extended to Science subjects. By 1964 the Sinhala/Tamil medium of instruction policy was extended to A’Level Science classes. This had been due to intense lobby by Science text book writers in Sinhala. Burghers and Tamils were allowed to use English medium in certain schools. The 1981 Government White Paper on Education did not alter this policy, but required students to pass a special English test when seeking University entry.

In November 2000, the Ministry of Education (MoE) and the National Education Commission (NEC) conducted a survey to ascertain student/teacher interest in English Medium instruction in A’ level Science classes. At that time only 540 A’level schools offered Science subjects out of 2500 schools with A’level grades. Students in about 100 of those schools (rural and urban) expressed interest in English medium teaching while over 50% of Science teachers evaluated wanted to be trained in English medium instruction.

The results of this survey and plans prepared by the NEC and MoE for re-introducing optional English Medium instruction preceded by teacher training, were presented to Cabinet in December 2000. A’level Science teachers were Science graduates who had studied in English and therefore and were easier to train. A’level Science books were not given by the State free of charge and students had been using English Science books that were available in the market. Since University teaching in Medicine, Engineering and other Sciences was in English, this initiative provided Science students an added advantage. They also had the option of sitting the A’level exam in English or Sinhala/Tamil.

The Cabinet approved the program despite opposition expressed by the majority of Ministers, including the Minister in charge of the subject. Certain political groups, tuition masters, Science book writers and some from the university sector criticized this initiative. Opposition even came from academics and politicians who already had children receiving English medium education at private and international schools. The silent majority of parents and students supported the move and the President’s resolve to continue with English medium education greatly encouraged the NEC and the MoE.

In 2001 the MoE proposed that English medium instruction be introduced in Grade 6 for selected subjects (Maths, Science, Health Science and Environment) in certain districts. Initially this idea was introduced with the Amity Schools program where children from all communities were encouraged to study in the same class using English as the link medium. Cabinet approved this project and text book publishing with English medium teacher training commenced. Although administrations changed in November 2001, the new team at the MoE continued the program and it grew to be very popular.

Teacher training was extensive and the training institute in Penideniya was redesigned for English medium training in 2004. Coupled with the Multiple Book Option that was being implemented at that time students were able to access enriching books in English. These initiatives were linked to several others (e.g. introducing General English in the A’level, Activity Based Oral English at primary level) that had been launched by the Presidential Task Force on Education in 1997 to strengthen English in the education system. Simultaneously curricula were prepared and plans were made for introducing Chemistry, Physics and Biology at O’level as optional subjects in English from 2007.

Today over 400 schools in several districts continue English medium classes. Even remote schools (eg Elakaka Vidyalaya - Galle, Dorawaka Siriniwasa Vidyalaya -Warakapola, Rajavella Tamil school –Digana) are able to enjoy a facility that was once available only in fee-levying, urban international schools. These initiatives were a distinct departure from the tradition of only teaching English as a language for communication – a pattern that had been adopted for several decades with suboptimal results. This was also a response to the demands that were visible in society – the demand for English medium teaching. But the inability to legislate such change led to the discontinuity of several policies when the administrations changed.

Amongst developing countries Sri Lanka stands unique. It is a country which has had universal free education for over four decades; free books, uniforms, meals and subsidized transport for over two decades and budgetary allocations for education between 2.0 – 3.0% GDP and 8-12% of public expenditure devoted to education for nearly three decades. National levels of literacy and net enrolment are >90% and there is a teaching cadre of nearly 220,000 servicing about 4.3 million children in > 9500 schools.

Despite these endowments its report card is poor. It continues to spend over 90% of the Education budget on wages, procurements and transportation, with less than 10% on quality. The disaggregated data on literacy and enrolments in several districts are far below national figures (National Literacy 92, Nuwara Eliya 83, Badulla 85, Moneragala 86. National Net Enrolment Rate 96, Polonnaruwa 74 Moneragala 71).

For nearly two decades >50% have been failing in Maths, Science and English and >50% fail the O’level examination. More than 60% of those sitting the A’level qualify to enter university but only about 15% of those qualified get placements. It is also unique because it is perhaps the only country in the world where >1500 A’level students who obtain A & B grades at A’level don’t get a place in University.

True, there have been improvements in the traditional quality indicators, enrolment/survival rates and learning outcomes. But the figures are not commensurate with the investments (financial and other) made in education. Also, the increasing demand for quality education has led to greater numbers competing for limited opportunities provided by the system. And the increasing numbers every year seeking international school admission and overseas tertiary education amply underscores this fact.

This prompts us to examine the role of Government in Education provision. Should Government respond to demand, provide access and opportunity to high quality education both in the public and private sectors, and simply be the standard-setter that monitors and regulates quality? Or should Government continue to be the sole prescriber of policy and provider of facility, interfering and deciding on all aspects of education that children should receive?

This also questions the efficacy and efficiency of Government in delivery, financing and managing education. Has devolution of powers to the provinces created excessive bureaucratization with multiple layers of red tape, hampering progress and breeding corruption? Should models of decentralization at school level, i.e., school-based funding and school based principal & teacher recruitment/training and management replace the archaic centralized models in existence today? Excellent management styles of certain private schools managed by Sri Lankan principals bear testimony to the benefits of decentralized school governance. And it may well serve current policy makers to study and emulate such innovations.

If the existing Education Act is to be amended it should include providing choice and education opportunity. Land-mark changes like extensive school-based decentralization, choice of English Medium instruction and opportunity for private education at all levels are long overdue and must be legislated. If not, we will continue to deny choice and opportunity and continue to be unfair and unjust by the large majority of students of this country.