EDUCATION AND THE GOVERNMENT

 

In view of the limited time available, I shall list, without elaborating or enlarging upon them, some of the important items that might be considered by such a Council. These items are :

 

The  abolition  of the  kachcheri  system  in  favour  of  local  self-government.  New  Financial and Administrative Regulations – one set of Regulations for nationalized undertakings and industries, and another set for ordinary departments of Government; A unified administrative service with promotion prospects to be equated with ability; A review of the present set-up of the Pubic Service Commission in the light of experience gained in the United Kingdom with reference to the Civil Service Commission, and in the light of experience gained in countries like Australia in respect of their Public Service  Board.  “Constitution  of  Administrative  tribunals  on the lines recommended in England by the Franks Commission.” The other items are :

 

Switching  over  to  the  Official  Language,  having regard to the criticisms offered by Mr. Julius de Lanerolle; Treasury control of expenditure in the light of  the  recommendations  recently  made by the U.K. Select Committee on estimates; A system of a continuous review of cadre belonging to the various departments of the Government; The abolition of the system of assistant secretaries attached to the Ministries and the abolition of the 150-odd heads of departments as at present constituted and the constitution of as many departments as there are Ministries.

 

What I  have  given  is  not  a complete list. I have been trying to demonstrate to the best  of  my  ability that what is urgently needed is a complete review of our whole administrative structure and a review of it in all the three aspects of the legislative, executive and judicial functions of the State.

 

Within  the twelve minutes still available to me, I shall offer a few remarks  on  education.  I  have  patiently  gathered  together  all  the extracts relating to education and educational policy contained in the various speeches from the Throne delivered from 1947 to 1958. For want of time I shall not quote all those extracts. A careful perusal of all these extracts would show that the conclusion cannot be avoided that neither the past Governments nor the present Government, except perhaps with the solitary exception of the present Minister of Education, have appreciated the value of education as an instrument for a nation to transform itself from what it is to what it hopes to be.

 

This is probably one of the causes of the disputes which the present Minister of Education continually seems to have with the Treasury. Perhaps, to the Treasury mind education is another kind of outdoor relief, poor relief or flood relief. The Treasury does not seem to realize that education is not just a social service function.

 

At  this  hour I cannot elaborate this point of view. Let me content myself by reading a small extract from the Year book of  Education 1956 at page XI which tersely sums up the kind of policy I should have liked to dwell on at some length. This is what it says :

 

“Eduction is a costly business for any country that takes it seriously – costly in money and in the intellectual resources of the country. In one form or another every government has to face the questions of the extent of the provision for education it would like to make and the extent it can afford to make. There is always a gap between the answers to the two, and then the further question arises of the ways and means whereby the limited resources available can be used to the best effect. It usually emerges that the scale of the provision for education is such as to make it a major item in the organization of  national  resources,  and it has to stand in competition with economic development, social  service  and defence… The problem would be much simpler if it  were  possible to  regard education as a national luxury and proceed to determine the extent of indulgence we can afford without regard to other forms of national activity. It does not work out in this way, for  it soon becomes apparent that the  maintenance  and development of the national effort in every direction ultimately depends upon education, whether in school or out of it. From this point of view education is the means by which a country organizes its human ability for the purposes of every form of national effort. You cannot have a due supply of engineers, doctors and administrators or meet the personnel needs of industry and commerce unless you have good schools and institutions for higher education. The problem, however, runs to a deeper level. The people of every country have their own private hopes for their national future. If these hopes are realized the tone of the national life twenty five or fifty years ahead will not be a mere reproduction of the present. Education,  in all its manifold forms, is the instrument by which a nation transforms itself from what it is into what it hopes to be. Thus, the nature and intensity of the  national effort for education provide a peculiarly reliable index of the national will for the future. A virile people with great hopes for the future will give  active  care  to  education; the first sign of national pessimism is a neglect of education.”

 

While on the subject of education, I should like to offer a few remarks on the topical and controversial subject of the future of assisted schools. I do not want to go into this problem at length. It is true that there are defects in the present system of assisted schools. It is also true that different countries have evolved their own systems of education. We may be able to categorize the various systems operating in the world today into four types.

 

There is the type operating in the United States of America which does not have our type of assisted schools but which has only public schools and private schools. There the question of the right of the parent to education means that parent has the right to send his child to school at his own expense, whereas the problem we are confronted with is whether the parent has the right to receive a certain measure of assistance from the Government. That is one type.

 

Then  there  is  the  type  found in the U.S.S.R. I speak subject to correction. In the U.S.S.R.I believe there is only one type of school, namely the Government school. I do not think in the U.S.S.R. there is any place for unaided or private schools.

 

Then  there  is the United Kingdom model. There they have a dual system of schools. There are state schools or schools run by local authorities on the one side, and a system of assisted schools and private schools on the other.

 

The fourth category is found in Scandinavian countries, particularly in Norway, where there  is one  Ministry  for  both  Church and Education. In that country  there  is  no  distinction  between Government schools and denominational schools and that is probably because the country is inhabited predominantly by Protestants – I believe over 90 per cent of people there are Protestants.

 

The  point I should like to stress is that when we are tying to plan education for Ceylon  it is  necessary  to remember that we have already inherited a system. It is nothing but correct for us to consider whether that system should be scrapped or reformed. There are, as usual, two extreme views on this subject emanating from what one may term the “school for the status quo” and “the school for State management.” The latter believes that the State should completely take over the schools or, to be more accurate, it does not envisage the existence of assisted schools. The former stands for the preservation of the status quo without much change or with no change.

 

I was  aggreably  surprised  when  I  came across these remarks made by Mr. P. de S. Kularatne, who is well known to all of us. He set out these proposals in a newspaper article in the Sunday Observer of 5th May, 1957 : He said:

 

“There is no doubt that a denominational school well conducted and organised is the best school for a child for the same denomination.”

 

Unless  he has  since  changed  his  mind,  he  is not for the State management of schools. Probably he thinks that the present denominational schools are not well conducted and organised. Therefore the question is whether they cannot be well conducted and organised.

 

Two defects have been pointed out with regard to the assisted school system. The problem of the religious education of those who do not belong to the faith of the management is one of them. This is a very serious problem. After all, the justification for the existence of our assisted school system is the conviction that it is best that a child of a particular denomination should receive a religious training in the correct atmosphere of that denomination. For instance, Hindu or Buddhist children at Zahira College are certainly in a difficulty.

 

The  other   defect   with   regard   to   these    assisted  schools  is  the un-economic employment of specialist teachers. There is already provision in the existing Code to prevent such types of uneconomic employment. Then there is the question of duplication and difficulties of zoning, and so on.

 

These are not insuperable difficulties. There is power even now vested in the department of Education which, of course, they do not seem to exercise satisfactorily. It is my conviction – and I would like to canvass the opinion of this honourable House – that there is room for improvement. What is needed is a comprehensive review by a competent commission or committee to see whether these assisted schools, which we have inherited over the last so many years with their tradition and good points, could not be reformed to meet these valid objections. My conviction is that they can be reformed.

 

I would like to conclude by reading a memorandum that was prepared by a private group of individuals, of which I happened to be a member. I do not know whether it would be proper for me at this stage to mention the entire composition of this group, but it was representative of all denominations. This is the conclusion they arrived at. A spokesman of the group was hoping to  meet the  Hon. Prime Minister and submit this memorandum. But the Emergency  supervened.  The memorandum has not yet received the final signatures. I am not in agreement with every single point of view expressed in this memorandum; I am quoting it because it shows there is the possibility of a reasonable approach, a reasonable solution that will meet the objections levelled by various groups against this system. The memorandum states :

“We urge the continuance of assisted schools along with State schools and with  certain  modifications of the present system. We stress that the religious element in  education  is  indispensable.  The  various religious denominations have emphasised that every child should have education in the atmosphere of his own denomination in addition to instruction in his own religion. We  consider  that  religion  as  provided  for  in  a  government school would  be  inadequate  compared  to  what  would  be  possible  in a denominational school.  It  would  help  our  thinking  if  we devide our considerations into (a) Ultimate objectives (b) Transitional arrangements. In respect  of  these  we  make  the  following  suggestions :-  (a) Ultimate Objectives :  (1)  That   provision  be  made  for :  (i)  Government  schools,(ii) Denominational  Schools  with  State  assistance  (iii) Unaided schools. (2) Each denominational school with State Assistance shall be run mainly for children of that denomination, and shall receive a grant in respect of children belonging  to  its own denomination only. Fees may be charged for other children in attendance as provided in (3) below. (3) When the parent has the choice of  sending his child to a school of his own denomination or to a Government school, but prefers to send the child to a school of another denominatin, the school be permitted to charge fees. But where in a locality the parent has no school of his own denomination or a Government school and is  thereby  compelled  to  send  his  child  to  a  school of another denomination,  the  Government  would  pay  a grant to the school in respect of such a  child. (4)  Unaided  schools  should  be  permitted  to charge fees. (b) Transitional Arrangements : (1) in order to avoid excessive dislocation when passing from the present to the ultimate position and in order not to prejudice the interests of children of other denominations now in various denominatinal schools, suitable transitional measures would have to be adopted. (2) That where a denomination in unable to open schools in an area for its children, the State be requested to open schools in that area. (3) The present provision for granting assistance to a school in respect of children other than those of the denomination of the management be continued in the interests of  children  already in school for such temporary periods as are necessary and agreed to by consultation between the Government and each school. (4)  The need for new denominational schools for children of that denomination should be recognised, and present restrictions regarding the opening of such new schools should be removed.”

 

So, there is a line of approach that meets the valid objections of those who are dissatisfied with the present assisted school system. I have no time to elaborate on the evils of having a hundred per cent State system especially in the realm of education, because I know that there are many hon. Senators waiting to follow me.

 

I thank you for the indulgence.