Dear All,
I find this post very interesting because it critiques the question "what is the agenda of edu-factory".
Hierarchies have always been an integral part of non Western societies but the Western world in the last 400 years has had very specific agendas in categorizing non Western societies, for political and business purposes.
This extends to non Western education, non Western values, non Western cultural mores, non Western elites and non Western society at large.
Western universities, education models and education institutions of the Oxbridge variety have played along with that agenda and portrayed themselves as physical / virtual sites and locations for a "disinterested search for knowledge and rational critique", riding on the back of what are self defined as "Western cultural values" of freedom, discussion, open debate, sound models of higher education, vis a vis, non Western hierarchies in knowledge and education.
Globalization is now seeing the business models of many such educational institutions clutching for ways and means to retain their global influence. So often, the Western educational fringe raises the questions of corporatism, wage rates, exclusion etc.
This whole model of discussing cleavages in education is suspect, because it presumes the continued domination of Western cultural values and educational institutions.
I sometimes feel, 400 years of domination over the world is enough, is it not. Let others also talk.
So when one raises the issue in terms that Xiang Biao has raised, it immediately strikes some forgotten chords in people like me - brown from the outside, white from the inside.
Xiang Bao - "Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical"
That it need not be so, is a purely Western idea of the last 400 years.
So I feel it would be good to see the numbers of people who have traditionally been in higher education in previous times and the numbers who are now seeking entry into so called "democratic / liberal institutes of Westernized higher education".
-- However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. --
As Xiang Bao goes on to discuss the numbers entering education in Asia, maybe we need some comparative analysis with the numbers in Europe and America and how these scale up in comparison with overall population. He has suggested the numbers from Far East.
I would be very interested in similar data regarding other Asian countries.
But somehow the colonial agendas would never make this a fashionable topic for study, and Indian TV shows are well known for advertising one or two scholarships to Oxbridge.
Imagine, Indian media gets British professors to conduct third rate quiz shows and millions of students go through rounds and rounds of elimination to emerge as victors.
What for ? For a one or two seats in Oxbridge !! From a pool of millions of aspirants.
Needless to say, among the millions other who are left out, a few thousands force their skeptical middle class parents to shelve out money and foreign currency for "paid education and degrees", convincing their sceptical parents that after their education they will be given residence / work permits in EU and America and will not be thrown back to native countries.
So, the competition for marketing and corporate funds for attracting this few thousands of Chinese and Indian students becomes an industry by itself.
Native students in Western countries, who see themselves as disinterested pristine academics, feel, suddenly shortchanged by the struggle for Chinese and Indian students, by the managers and corporate staff, marketeers and racketeers, of Western universities, which they think are "their own" by definition and by birth.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
------------------
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about it : Notes from Asia
Here is Xiang Biao scheduled contribution.
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about
it: Notes from Asia
XIANG Biao
Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical. One is supposed to progress from a “lower” level of learning to the “higher”; “average” kids study in mediocre schools, and the “outstanding” go to top colleges; and finally, “degree” is by definition hierarchical. Recent discussions on higher education have focused on the
governmentalization /corporatization (roughly meaning tightened administrative management in order to make university managerially accountable) and the marketization of universities. This essay explores the logic of hierarchy making in a larger, societal context. It is beyond dispute
that established institutions have deeply vested interest in maintaining exclusive and hierarchical systems, and it is also true that hierarchy, particularly in the form of the
ranking tally, is imposed top down by the establishment.
However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. Nor should we reduce the public acceptance to merely an example of false consciousness. Most people know much better than us (university nerds) how to deal with the world. There are ethnical and moral dimensions to the socially produced
hierarchy. Instead of aiming to eradicate hierarchy altogether (which cannot be a feasible agenda despite the ideological appeal), this post wishes to explore room in the social process of hierarchy making which may enable realistic action agendas.
Precarious Hierarchy and the Ethnics of Hierarchy :
In the modern time in general, higher education become less exclusive, and educational hierarchy become much less absolute. In colonial Asia, for example, formal English education had such a magic power that it directly contributed to the creation of the institution of modern
dowry in India. It is also safe to say that, in Asia at least, higher education become less hierarchical in the so-called neoliberal era. (I use neoliberal era with some reluctance. By this term I am referring to the period starting at the end of 1970s for China, the beginning of
1990s for India, the early 1990s for Japan, and the late 1990s for South Korea).
China launched a new, unprecedented round of university expansion in 1998. The number of newly admitted students jumped from 1.08 million in 1998 to 2.5 million in 2001. By 2007, the planed intake reached 5.67 million!
Similar to Japan and South Korea, entering universities is no longer a crucial life event—it is not difficult to get in, and furthermore getting in does not guarantee good job prospects. Students have more freedom in choosing universities according to location, subject or campus “culture” instead of a single system of hierarchical evaluation.
But hierarchy certainly does not go away. Universities become ever more concerned about hierarchical ranking.
Shanghai Jiaotong University produces one of the best known tallies in the world. This reflects the fact that previously fixed hierarchy is replaced by more dynamic and unstable
differentiation. Hierarchy is in struggle. This also suggests that the process of hierarchy making becomes more public, or social, than before when it was declared by the state or established by tradition.
Underlying the new project of hierarchy making in the higher education is a unmistakable capitalist logic. The higher rank a university secures, the higher tuition fees it
charges. But the opposite is untrue. In general, students cannot enter a high-rank university simply by paying more fees. There is a limit to capitalism.
A curious example is the mushrooming MBA courses in China. On the one hand, no other institutions are more conscious than the MBA programs about hierarchical ranking which directly determine the fees they charge. On the other hand, most of the MBA students, particularly those enrolled in the elite institutes in China, had work experiences and many are self employed, and thus the ranking does not mean much for them in the material sense (say, compared to other students who may need a strong university brand for looking for jobs).
When I asked an entrepreneur (incidentally, a Taiwanese) why he applied for an expensive MBA course in Shanghai, he gave me three reasons: good teachers, the reputation of the course (“it sounds good”), and the opportunity to prove that, after
working for many years, he is still able to pass tough examinations. The Chinese capitalist class in the making need symbolic capital, but they need “solid” symbolic capital, i.e., not cheap parody ready for sale.
The hierarchical ranking of universities undoubtedly facilitates exchange between financial and cultural capital.
But at the very same time as different types of capital are exchangeable, each capital must maintain minimum autonomy. Thus, in order to be acceptable to the general public,
hierarchy must be based on “merit” to some extent.
Universities also have to maintain a balance. For example elite universities in the US charge high fees but also provide generous scholarships. Scholarships attract good students to keep its ranking high which in turn justifies high fees.
In China at least until the very recent time, socially produced hierarchy in higher education has significant moral connotations. For example, lecturers and students from top universities are expected to be more vocal in criticizing the status quo, and the state have to be more careful in
dealing with professors from these institutions. In a largely authoritarian and politically conservative system, this status provide the institutions with special clout to be more independent, critical, daring in thinking alternatives, and sometimes more eccentric in behavior.
People rank the universities high to counteract the state power and private economic interest, no matter how symbolically.
New Battles :
Hierarchy itself may not be a problem. The issue is what kind of hierarchy prevails. Our goals should be, apart from continuing the historical progress of destabilizing and “softening” hierarchy in general, making the hegemonic hierarchy more ethical.
In Asia as well as elsewhere, states have been active in domesticating and incorporating the institutions that are high in hierarchy. The corporate world may have similar desires, although their efforts are less orchestrated and their relations to universities less clear. But, both the
state and the economic establishment need seemingly independent universities for the purpose of legitimation.
(Say, the state occasionally needs some “independent scholars” to back their views, and financial institutes also like donating money to “independent” learning institutes.) The contradictions internal to the project of legitimation provide important space for actions.
Furthermore, the interests of the state and of the capital do not always fit well, and playing one against the other can be another strategy.
I cannot quite imagine autonomous universities in practical sense. As Mao Zedong repeatedly reminded us, intellectuals are a piece of feather who cannot exist without someone else’s skin. We need others for our material survival. But perhaps we can fight for a more “autonomous” evaluation system with strong moral and ethical concerns.
Another important battle field is pre-university education. I am not too worried about the corporatization or privatization of universities as I believe that that will not go too far. Even state bureaucrats and diehard capitalists would frown upon universities that have no
intellectual or ideological teeth at all.
What is much more dangerous, for China, is the on-going process of privatization and hierarchization in secondary education.
As it is less easy for money to infiltrate into higher education, well-off families start the race early. Parents spend thousands of US dollars to send children to good primary and high schools and even kindergartens. (In Beijing, top kindergartens literally charge thousands of US
dollars for a seat.)
In Japan, elite private universities such as Keio and Waseda set up their own so-called “escalator” system including kindergartens, primary and secondary schools. Children from wealthy families buy the expensive ticket to enter the escalator on the ground floor,
which take them to the top universities in the future with certain “merits.” Thus social inequality is produced and reproduced without upsetting the “merit”-based hierarchy
of universities. In China, except those who are desperate to consolidate their newly acquired financial assets into firm class status, most people want to escape from the frenzied
competition in which children became the main victims. Thus there is social base for mobilization to fight against this trend. Among other things, top universities may be able to do something, even symbolically, to counteract the education industry.
_______________________________________________
edufactory mailing list
edufactory@listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/edufactory_listcultures.org
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
Higher Education - Speech of Sri Lankan Minister
We need a more global-oriented higher education policy :
Professor Wiswa Warnapala,
Minister of Higher Education of Sri Lanka
The purpose of this meeting is to enter into an active dialogue with the Vice Chancellors of the Universities of Sri Lanka, and the primary aim of the dialogue is to make use of the experience of the distinguished Vice Chancellors in formulating a new Higher Education policy for the country.
The objectives of Higher Education, due to a wide variety of reasons, have undergone a change, and the University system, which came into existence in 1921 with the establishment of a University college which was later elevated to the status of a fully fledged University in 1942, fulfilled its tasks and the system expanded to such an extent that Sri Lanka has a fairly developed University system which has had a considerable influence on the intellectual life of the country. With this expansion and the nature of its contribution, no proper policy perspectives have been advanced to bring about changes in the system to make it more meaningful and relevant.
In other words, the system did not expand in relation to the social and economic development needs in the country and the guiding factor in the expansion was the need to provide access to higher education, which became an immediate need as a result of the impact of the Free Education Scheme. Today we are living in a new millennium, and the 21st century is the most advanced period in the history of mankind, most advanced period in terms of knowledge as well.
In a rapidly changing world dominated and driven by knowledge, we need to give preference to the important objectives of Higher Education. In other words, the Higher Education institutions must give consideration to both relevance and quality, and it is on this basis that the Higher Education institutions in Sri Lanka can become real partners in the social and economic choices of a society. The greatest challenge in the 21st century for higher Education is the
recognition of relevance. By relevance, we mean the need to adapt to the immediate needs of the job market. This, in other words, means that the Universities should produce an employable graduate. Through the universities, we need to prepare individuals to contribute to the
social and economic development and this could be fruitfully achieved if the undergraduates are provided with the relevant skills and the knowledge. It is in this context that Higher Education needs to be defined as a public service. Higher Education can also be defined as one, which contributes to cultural, economic and social development within the context of pluralism and cultural diversity. It is accepted that Higher Education, in any given society, developed or
developing, has to play a role in the production and transmission of knowledge. Knowledge is universal and it has become the heritage of mankind. How can we convert Universities into knowledge institutions?
The institutions in the sphere of Higher Education need to be encouraged to perform an active, creative and innovative role to help the society to change. In other words, Universities should function as development institutions - institutions which promote and encourage development; this means that Universities have a development role in a country. Can we say this in respect of the Universities in Sri Lanka? Have they contributed to the process of development? In the last, fifty years, they, undoubtedly, made a noteworthy contribution in producing an educated labour force and advanced human capital. In addition, they helped in the establishment of an active intellectual enterprise as well. In order to ensure full recognition of the role of Higher Education for social and economic development, certain vital considerations are necessary; two of the
basic considerations are :
(1) the need for institutional autonomy and
(2) academic freedom.
Sri Lankan Universities, from their inception, enjoyed these things and they came to be institutionalised as a result of the influence of the British academic tradition. Next important thing was the revision of study programmes in the Universities; the modernisation and the diversification of academic programmes was yet another vital requirement.
It is here in this context that we need to look at the relevance of interdisciplinary studies and multi-disciplinary studies. This is very much of a fashionable thing in the modern University whereas compartmentalization was made in the 190' and 20th century. Sri Lankan Universities, due to the dominance of the traditional disciplines, still believe in compartmentalization of
subjects, and this academic culture must undergo a transformation.
In my view, international partnerships and international cooperation could bring about a change and the introduction of inter-disciplinary courses could also enhance quality.
I would like to draw your attention to the need to promote more and more research in the Universities. Universities should have a research mission, and it needs to be re-stated from the perspective of contributing to development. Yet another fact is that research must focus on local and global needs and issues, social and economic issues, and the universities, through this kind of research, could enter the international sphere.
No need to do research for the sake of doing research; research should be done with a relevance and it could be social relevance and developmental relevance. Research should also focus towards preparing students for Higher Education; in other words, students also should benefit from research. In the developing countries, research need to be made relevant to the needs of the country. The Government also must promote education systems and institutions that are capable of efficiently adapting to changes in the social and economic environment. Today there is a strong need for a clear definition of the overall priorities and development policies. Steps need to be taken to improve the capacity of the Higher Education institutions, which must show their readiness to accept the national priorities.
There is yet another sector to which we need to pay attention, and it is the responsibility of Higher Education institutions towards other education levels. This relationship is lacking in Sri Lanka, and the Universities hesitate to promote links with other sectors.
Such a tradition does not exist, and it, in fact, was due to the isolationist attitude of the colonial University. The relationship with the schools sector is very limited and it is confined to some of the services rendered for the Advanced Level Examination. An active relationship with the schools sector would ensure that students are better prepared for Higher Education. Such a relationship, in my
view, could be developed by the provision of resources and expertise, teacher-training programmes, socico-economic research and educational policy alternatives and such things would help to improve education at all levels. Access to Higher Education, in terms of the rates in developed countries is still insufficient, and the Government, therefore, must take measures to expand and diversity the opportunities for every citizen to benefit from higher-level skills
and qualifications - with which they can enter the world of work.
The concept of employability needs to be advocated and articulated. Still the participation rates in Higher Education are poor, and this despite the country's achievements in equality of opportunity, universal primary education and near gender equality. Participation rates need to be increased, for which appropriate policies are necessary.
In the area of traditional Higher Education, not much attention is paid to productive public sectors. Higher Education institutions should promote continuous partnerships with productive sectors in the country; they must help shape the labour market, and this demands the introduction of entrepreneurial skills and the creation of self-employment opportunities. This is where the curricula demands, diversification. Universities could think in terms of introducing more and more Diploma and Certificate courses; work
experience could be regarded as a part of a Diploma course and this kind of a system is well established in developed countries. Such innovations are immediately necessary in our Universities. In the current international context, changes are necessary and they could
embody the following :
1. The development of an entrepreneurial culture in the Universities;
2. a policy on intellectual property;
3. industrial research;
4. revision of personnel policies.
5. systematic staff re-appraisal;
6. development of professional administrators;
7. removable contracts and permanent tenure;
8. attractive salary packages;
9. curriculum reforms;
On the basis of such changes, the modern University should become more responsive to the varying needs of the society. It needs to be emphasised that relevance cannot be achieved at the expense of quality. The Government, in its role as the major player of the system, should try to establish policies of continual search for improvement and innovation. An innovative approach is necessary if the Universities are to be made more modern and relevant for the process of development.
In Sri Lanka, the system and modes of university administration have remained unchanged for a long period of time. Influence of the colonial legacy still remains and they are an impediment for modernisation. For instance, any attempt to reform is certain to be perceived as an attempt to disrupt the system. Adaptation and acceptance for change are immediately necessary. In Sri Lanka, there is not much of a relationship between the University and non - University sectors whereas this relationship is a vital combination in other parts of the world.
Non-University Higher Education institutions should be encouraged to provide more access. In all developed countries, these are two well- established sectors - University and Non-University sectors. Most countries tend to treat both as one, and it serves a useful purpose in terms of academic attainments and qualifications. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka, for some strange reason, does not encourage this combination and it is vitally necessary if we intend to provide the citizen with quality education.
The recognition of this strategy would result in (1) greater social demand for higher education,
(2) the need to cater to the diverse needs of students;
(3) emergence of new professional fields and
(4) the expansion of knowledge, based on inter- disciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches.
Yet another important aspect is the State control of Higher Education. State as the major player, has to look at three issues in promoting Higher Education and the issues are quality, efficiency and equity.
Sri Lanka, for instance, has a traditional State control model, and the World Development Report of 1997, making a general comment, stated that Government rules are not enough to bring about reforms in the sector. It is here in this context, that we need to examine the relationship between the State and Higher Education institutions. Two features dominate the system - the degree of centralised control and the great deal of institutional autonomy.
These things have come to stay and they are legacies of the system, which we inherited at independence.
In the Sri Lankan experience, the traditional predominant role of the State in the provision of Higher Education is rooted in the political culture based on the Free Education scheme of 1944. The system remains well established and what needs to be done in the given context is the introduction of innovative changes so that the system can be made more functional and efficient. Adjustments, therefore, are necessary for the efficient functioning of the modern University.
What the country needs is a coherent higher education policy framework and the formation of a vision for the long- term development of a comprehensive and diversified Higher Education system, which can contribute to national growth.
With thanks to © THE ISLAND. 2007.
Professor Wiswa Warnapala,
Minister of Higher Education of Sri Lanka
The purpose of this meeting is to enter into an active dialogue with the Vice Chancellors of the Universities of Sri Lanka, and the primary aim of the dialogue is to make use of the experience of the distinguished Vice Chancellors in formulating a new Higher Education policy for the country.
The objectives of Higher Education, due to a wide variety of reasons, have undergone a change, and the University system, which came into existence in 1921 with the establishment of a University college which was later elevated to the status of a fully fledged University in 1942, fulfilled its tasks and the system expanded to such an extent that Sri Lanka has a fairly developed University system which has had a considerable influence on the intellectual life of the country. With this expansion and the nature of its contribution, no proper policy perspectives have been advanced to bring about changes in the system to make it more meaningful and relevant.
In other words, the system did not expand in relation to the social and economic development needs in the country and the guiding factor in the expansion was the need to provide access to higher education, which became an immediate need as a result of the impact of the Free Education Scheme. Today we are living in a new millennium, and the 21st century is the most advanced period in the history of mankind, most advanced period in terms of knowledge as well.
In a rapidly changing world dominated and driven by knowledge, we need to give preference to the important objectives of Higher Education. In other words, the Higher Education institutions must give consideration to both relevance and quality, and it is on this basis that the Higher Education institutions in Sri Lanka can become real partners in the social and economic choices of a society. The greatest challenge in the 21st century for higher Education is the
recognition of relevance. By relevance, we mean the need to adapt to the immediate needs of the job market. This, in other words, means that the Universities should produce an employable graduate. Through the universities, we need to prepare individuals to contribute to the
social and economic development and this could be fruitfully achieved if the undergraduates are provided with the relevant skills and the knowledge. It is in this context that Higher Education needs to be defined as a public service. Higher Education can also be defined as one, which contributes to cultural, economic and social development within the context of pluralism and cultural diversity. It is accepted that Higher Education, in any given society, developed or
developing, has to play a role in the production and transmission of knowledge. Knowledge is universal and it has become the heritage of mankind. How can we convert Universities into knowledge institutions?
The institutions in the sphere of Higher Education need to be encouraged to perform an active, creative and innovative role to help the society to change. In other words, Universities should function as development institutions - institutions which promote and encourage development; this means that Universities have a development role in a country. Can we say this in respect of the Universities in Sri Lanka? Have they contributed to the process of development? In the last, fifty years, they, undoubtedly, made a noteworthy contribution in producing an educated labour force and advanced human capital. In addition, they helped in the establishment of an active intellectual enterprise as well. In order to ensure full recognition of the role of Higher Education for social and economic development, certain vital considerations are necessary; two of the
basic considerations are :
(1) the need for institutional autonomy and
(2) academic freedom.
Sri Lankan Universities, from their inception, enjoyed these things and they came to be institutionalised as a result of the influence of the British academic tradition. Next important thing was the revision of study programmes in the Universities; the modernisation and the diversification of academic programmes was yet another vital requirement.
It is here in this context that we need to look at the relevance of interdisciplinary studies and multi-disciplinary studies. This is very much of a fashionable thing in the modern University whereas compartmentalization was made in the 190' and 20th century. Sri Lankan Universities, due to the dominance of the traditional disciplines, still believe in compartmentalization of
subjects, and this academic culture must undergo a transformation.
In my view, international partnerships and international cooperation could bring about a change and the introduction of inter-disciplinary courses could also enhance quality.
I would like to draw your attention to the need to promote more and more research in the Universities. Universities should have a research mission, and it needs to be re-stated from the perspective of contributing to development. Yet another fact is that research must focus on local and global needs and issues, social and economic issues, and the universities, through this kind of research, could enter the international sphere.
No need to do research for the sake of doing research; research should be done with a relevance and it could be social relevance and developmental relevance. Research should also focus towards preparing students for Higher Education; in other words, students also should benefit from research. In the developing countries, research need to be made relevant to the needs of the country. The Government also must promote education systems and institutions that are capable of efficiently adapting to changes in the social and economic environment. Today there is a strong need for a clear definition of the overall priorities and development policies. Steps need to be taken to improve the capacity of the Higher Education institutions, which must show their readiness to accept the national priorities.
There is yet another sector to which we need to pay attention, and it is the responsibility of Higher Education institutions towards other education levels. This relationship is lacking in Sri Lanka, and the Universities hesitate to promote links with other sectors.
Such a tradition does not exist, and it, in fact, was due to the isolationist attitude of the colonial University. The relationship with the schools sector is very limited and it is confined to some of the services rendered for the Advanced Level Examination. An active relationship with the schools sector would ensure that students are better prepared for Higher Education. Such a relationship, in my
view, could be developed by the provision of resources and expertise, teacher-training programmes, socico-economic research and educational policy alternatives and such things would help to improve education at all levels. Access to Higher Education, in terms of the rates in developed countries is still insufficient, and the Government, therefore, must take measures to expand and diversity the opportunities for every citizen to benefit from higher-level skills
and qualifications - with which they can enter the world of work.
The concept of employability needs to be advocated and articulated. Still the participation rates in Higher Education are poor, and this despite the country's achievements in equality of opportunity, universal primary education and near gender equality. Participation rates need to be increased, for which appropriate policies are necessary.
In the area of traditional Higher Education, not much attention is paid to productive public sectors. Higher Education institutions should promote continuous partnerships with productive sectors in the country; they must help shape the labour market, and this demands the introduction of entrepreneurial skills and the creation of self-employment opportunities. This is where the curricula demands, diversification. Universities could think in terms of introducing more and more Diploma and Certificate courses; work
experience could be regarded as a part of a Diploma course and this kind of a system is well established in developed countries. Such innovations are immediately necessary in our Universities. In the current international context, changes are necessary and they could
embody the following :
1. The development of an entrepreneurial culture in the Universities;
2. a policy on intellectual property;
3. industrial research;
4. revision of personnel policies.
5. systematic staff re-appraisal;
6. development of professional administrators;
7. removable contracts and permanent tenure;
8. attractive salary packages;
9. curriculum reforms;
On the basis of such changes, the modern University should become more responsive to the varying needs of the society. It needs to be emphasised that relevance cannot be achieved at the expense of quality. The Government, in its role as the major player of the system, should try to establish policies of continual search for improvement and innovation. An innovative approach is necessary if the Universities are to be made more modern and relevant for the process of development.
In Sri Lanka, the system and modes of university administration have remained unchanged for a long period of time. Influence of the colonial legacy still remains and they are an impediment for modernisation. For instance, any attempt to reform is certain to be perceived as an attempt to disrupt the system. Adaptation and acceptance for change are immediately necessary. In Sri Lanka, there is not much of a relationship between the University and non - University sectors whereas this relationship is a vital combination in other parts of the world.
Non-University Higher Education institutions should be encouraged to provide more access. In all developed countries, these are two well- established sectors - University and Non-University sectors. Most countries tend to treat both as one, and it serves a useful purpose in terms of academic attainments and qualifications. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka, for some strange reason, does not encourage this combination and it is vitally necessary if we intend to provide the citizen with quality education.
The recognition of this strategy would result in (1) greater social demand for higher education,
(2) the need to cater to the diverse needs of students;
(3) emergence of new professional fields and
(4) the expansion of knowledge, based on inter- disciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches.
Yet another important aspect is the State control of Higher Education. State as the major player, has to look at three issues in promoting Higher Education and the issues are quality, efficiency and equity.
Sri Lanka, for instance, has a traditional State control model, and the World Development Report of 1997, making a general comment, stated that Government rules are not enough to bring about reforms in the sector. It is here in this context, that we need to examine the relationship between the State and Higher Education institutions. Two features dominate the system - the degree of centralised control and the great deal of institutional autonomy.
These things have come to stay and they are legacies of the system, which we inherited at independence.
In the Sri Lankan experience, the traditional predominant role of the State in the provision of Higher Education is rooted in the political culture based on the Free Education scheme of 1944. The system remains well established and what needs to be done in the given context is the introduction of innovative changes so that the system can be made more functional and efficient. Adjustments, therefore, are necessary for the efficient functioning of the modern University.
What the country needs is a coherent higher education policy framework and the formation of a vision for the long- term development of a comprehensive and diversified Higher Education system, which can contribute to national growth.
With thanks to © THE ISLAND. 2007.
Tuesday, 3 April 2007
Can Education Create Peaceful Citizens ?
The concept and philosophy of education have seen many contributions from Western world. It is only recently that Buddhist concepts of education and purpose of education philosophy are beginning to come to the fore.
Among the most important of these are the concept of education and pedagogy as used by Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, a Japanese thinker who was imprisoned by the Japanese government in the World War years.
Among the most important of these are the concept of education and pedagogy as used by Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, a Japanese thinker who was imprisoned by the Japanese government in the World War years.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)