A scathing academic critique reveals how Sri Lanka’s education reforms are being quietly shaped behind closed doors, favoring private interests and bypassing public accountability.
A leading Sri Lankan academic has launched a blistering critique of the government’s education reform agenda, warning that it is hollow, recycled, and riddled with secrecy. Professor Arjuna Parakrama, a respected scholar and human rights advocate, accused Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya’s administration of betraying its promise of change by reusing failed policies from the past. Speaking at a press conference, he said the reform proposals were “dangerously lacking in transparency” and designed to benefit private tuition networks rather than the public.
Professor Parakrama did not mince his words. “There is no transparency in these reforms. Nothing is being done in the open, and no one knows who is making these decisions or why,” he said. “This is not education reform it’s a backroom deal with zero accountability to the people.”
He expressed outrage at the revelation that private tuition masters had been brought in to draft the new education framework. “It’s shocking,” he said. “Instead of engaging qualified teachers, education experts, or school administrators, the Prime Minister turns to tuition providers those who profit off the very system these reforms claim to fix. It’s absurd and deeply troubling.”
Professor Parakrama also called out the government’s leniency toward private international schools. He revealed that 397 such institutions are currently registered in Sri Lanka, with only seven under direct regulatory oversight. The rest, he noted, are free to operate as companies with minimal scrutiny. “They don’t even need to prove their teachers are qualified. An audit report is all that’s required,” he said. “Yet the government is obsessed with reshaping public education as if that’s the root of the crisis.”
He further argued that the new proposals are little more than a rehash of the previous administration’s failed attempts. “It’s the same rhetoric, same blueprint, same blind spots. Only the branding has changed,” he said. “They came to power promising a break from the past, but it’s clear now they’re just continuing the same old logic in a new disguise.”
Using powerful language, Parakrama compared the situation to a political tragedy on loop. “Even Karl Marx would be confused. It’s not farce after tragedy here it’s tragicomedy after tragedy. We fail repeatedly and pretend we’re inventing something new each time.”
His remarks have sparked widespread public concern at a time when the government is portraying the reforms as modern, inclusive, and progressive. Yet Parakrama’s critique pierces through this narrative, drawing attention to the lack of stakeholder engagement, the influence of profit-driven tuition entities, and the opaque policy-making process. It has fueled questions over whose interests are truly being served.
As the state aggressively markets its education reform as a leap forward, voices like Parakrama’s demand the public look beneath the surface not just at what’s being said, but how decisions are made. Without independent oversight, inclusive dialogue, and a real commitment to equitable access, these reforms risk becoming just another act in Sri Lanka’s long-running political theatre masquerading as progress.
