Introduction

The Millennium Development Goal 2 is focused on the achievement of universal primary education under which Target 3 strives to ensure that by 2015 children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.

In Sri Lanka the right of all children to education was recognized in the 1940s, many years before International Conventions were introduced, universal goals were set and even meeting 'basic needs' was perceived to be a priority in programme formulation. Policy makers in the years preceding the regaining of political independence established 54 Central Schools in rural locations to provide secondary education, linking them with primary `feeder' schools in the locality through a system of Grade 5 scholarships that provided an avenue of educational opportunity through secondary and university education. The Grade 5 scholarship programme expanded over the years, currently offers 10,000 bursaries and in addition 15,000 additional places in well-equipped post-primary schools on the basis of a scholarship test.

Free primary, secondary and university education was introduced in 1945. The stated objectives of this policy was to ensure the democratic right to education and to provide opportunities for upward socio-economic mobility through education to all strata in the population. Its rationale was the need to reduce the socio-economic inequalities that had been hitherto widened by education policies. Free mid-day meals were provided in different phases of education policy as well as subsidized transport. These incentives were increased in more recent years with the provision of free textbooks from Grades 1 to 11 in 1980 and materials for a school uniform for each child in 1993. The mother tongue was enforced as the medium of instruction in the primary school in 1945 and progressively in the secondary school from 1953 to 1959 in an effort to eliminate privilege through language.

In 1991, the Plan of Action for Children of Sri Lanka which incorporated the different programmes relevant to EFA goals and targets was formulated by the Ministry of Policy Planning and Plan Implementation.

In 1992 the National Education Commission made several proposals to reform primary education. The primary education recommendations directly linked to the above proposals were

• Increasing the participation and retention of children in schooling and enacting compulsory education regulations.

• Improving the quality of schooling that covers Grades 1 to 5 through an appropriate mix of play, activity and desk work with an emphasis on the development of competencies.

• School-based Assessment (SBA) at primary stage to be undertaken in a manner that promotes group work and co-operation among pupils.

 

Compulsory education for the 5-14 age group was introduced in January 1998 and mechanisms were created and programmes were proposed to facilitate their enforcement.

These regulations enjoin parents to enroll children from 5 to 14 years in educational institutions unless they could make adequate and suitable provision for the education of their children.

For monitoring of compulsory attendance, two Committees were to be appointed at local level by the Minister of Education.

1. A School Attendance Committee for each Grama Niladhari Division or two Committees if there are than five schools in a Division, comprising the Grama Niladhari, a Principal of a school, two representatives of School Development Societies, and the Samurdhi Niyamake of the Division.

2. A School Attendance Monitoring Committee for each Divisional Secretariat Division comprising a Divisional Director of Education, Probation Officer of the Division, a Police officer of the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police at least, and a prominent social worker resident in the Division.

The above description shows that in Sri Lanka, the goal has focused beyond the Millennium Goal 2 as the objective is to provide universal access up to the end of junior secondary education and not only primary education. This paper presents the findings of a study that attempted to assess the extent to which the right to education is ensured for children between the ages of 5-14 in a representative sample of communities in Sri Lanka.

The Study

The specific objectives of the present study were to

1. Ascertain the incidence of non-school going in households, particularly in low income families who have been marginalized in the development process,

2. Identify the factors - economic, social, educational, personal - that have contributed to non-schooling or early school leaving

3. Explore the perceptions and demands of parents, children and communities with regard to measures to reduce the incidence of non-schooling

4. Make recommendations for policies and action programmes to promote the access to and participation in education by these children.

The sample was selected from 22 districts in the country from six community types, village (41.6%), low income neighbourhood (26.9%), plantations (15.8%), urban lower middle class (7%), fishing communities (4.7%) and other (displaced) (3.7%). It consisted of 1014 children and 944 parents/caregivers.

The background characteristics of the sample indicated the profile of these children who were either non-schooling or those with irregular attendance. There were more boys, the majority was aged between 10-14 (Table 1), and had parents who are mainly engaged in manual jobs in agriculture and fisheries and from larger families. Representation of Sri Lankan Tamil and Hindu children in the sample was higher than in the country's population even though some of the districts with a predominant population from this ethnic and religious group were not included in the sample. In birth order, the majority were the first or the second and from male-headed households. It is observed that 97.5 per cent of the children in the sample are of the compulsory schooling age group which in Sri Lanka is above the mandatory school-going age stated under MDG 2.

Table 1: Children Classified by Age and Sex

Age Category	Male		Female		Total
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
5-9	128	56.4	99	43.6	227	22.3
10-14	488	64.0	274	36.0	762	75.1
Above 14	15	60.0	10	40.0	25	02.5
Total	631	62.2	383	37.8	1014	100.0

To collect data, two semi-structured interview schedules were designed for (i) the main caregiver and (ii) children in the 5-14 age group in each household.

 

Reasons for Non-enrolment

The analysis of data on non-enrolment, early drop out and high absenteeism among children in the sample indicated that the majority, 60.8 per cent of the children were not attending school - 60.3 % of the boys and 60.8 % of the girls. This amounted to 15.7 per cent of the total sample. There were more children in the 10-14 age group who had never attended school and the highest percentage came from slum communities. The percentage of children who had dropped out before Grade 5 was 41.4, 39.9 per cent of the boys and 44.5 per cent of the girls.

More than forty (44.5) per cent of the children with irregular attendance had been absent from school at least five days within the two weeks immediately preceding the administration of the questionnaire with 9.8 per cent of them being absent for the entire two weeks.

The responses of children and parents regarding non-enrolment, were re-coded under five broad categories of personal, economic, home, school and external factors and were compared (Table 2). The response “Do not have a birth certificate” was merged under school factors as a child could be admitted to a school even though he/she lacks a birth certificate.

 

Table 2: Reasons for Never Attending School (Children's & Parents' Responses)

Reasons	Children's Responses			Parents' Responses
	No.	%	Rank	No.	%	Rank
Personal	37	23.9	2	61	37.4	1
Economic	36	23.2	3	26	16.0	4
Home	65	41.9	1	--	--	5
School	11	7.1	4	33	23.3	2
External	6	3.9	5	33	23.3	2
Total	155	100.0		153	100.0

The above table reveals that the two groups are not in total agreement regarding the relative importance of the factors that lead to children not being enrolled in school. The highest percentage of children cited home factors as responsible for their never enrolling in school followed by economic and personal factors, while parents indicated the major reason to be the economic and the personal factors as the second most important reason.

 

Reasons for Early Drop Out

Twenty-five reasons were given by the children in the sample for early dropout (Table 3).

Table 3: Comparison of Reasons Given by Children and Parents for Early Drop Out

Reasons	Responses			Parents' Responses
	No.	%	Rank	No.	%	Rank
Economic	172	38.2	1	87	22.8	2
Employment	11	2.4	5	9	2.4	5
Home	66	14.7	3	3	0.8	6
Personal	160	35.6	2	166	43.5	1
School	34	7.6	4	38	9.9	4
External	7	1.5	6	79	20.6	3
Total	450	100.0		382	100.0

It is noteworthy that the responses given for different questions appear to be compatible with each other to a certain extent but differ in the case of the home factors. While 14.7 per cent of children cited home factors as responsible for early leaving only 0.8 per cent of parents attributed early leaving to home factors. Both parents and children responded that economic activities make them leave school early. Almost 40 per cent in both groups cited inability to pay school fees or bear educational costs as a major reason. These factors were categorized under economic factors. At the same time a similarity exists in the percentages citing personal factors as responsible for early drop out. School figured as one of the least important factors.

The study shows that the predominant majority of the dropouts appear to have come from families where a parent/parents are working as labourers. It is noteworthy that 52.5 per cent of the 793 parents (total sample) who responded to the question whether they were aware that a child could be admitted to school without a birth certificate on producing an affidavit from the Grama Niladhari, had replied `no'. An identical percentage (52.5) said that there was no one in the family to encourage children's education.

The home factor was cited by 14.6per cent of the children but by only 2.5 per cent of the parents. In the case of the children these included `The house was destroyed by fire', `Parents do not like to send to school' and `Change of residence'. Both groups had mentioned `taking care of the elderly/ younger siblings and helping with household chores/agriculture' as reasons for early drop out.

 

Reasons for High Absenteeism

Table 4 presents the reasons for absence by sex.

Table 4: Reasons for Absence by Sex (Children's Responses)

Reasons	Male		Female		Total
Personal	71	41.0	50	44.6	121	42.5
Economic	30	17.3	23	20.5	53	18.6
Home	50	28.9	33	29.5	83	29.1
School	14	8.1	3	2.7	17	5.9
Other	8	4.6	3	2.7	11	3.9
Total	173	100.0	112	100.0	285	100.0

The significant feature which emerges here is that economic factors appear to affect attendance of girls more than that of boys while more boys than girls have responded that school factors tend to make them absent from school.

With regard to school factors 346 children out of 382 (90.5 %) had responded that they like going to school. There was no significant difference by sex or community in their wish to go to school. The highest percentage of children who said that they do not like to go to school was from `fishing' communities (14.3 %).

The factors relating to reluctance to attend school, originate mostly from the home - poverty, need to help with work, absence of parents and lack of interest of parents. At the same time, peer attitudes, perceived discrimination by the teacher and lack of academic competency also appear to be pushing children out of school.

When asked whether they would like to go to school, if some type of assistance is provided, 28.2 per cent still did not want to do so. Those who responded in the affirmative specified the kind of assistance they would like to get, such as school stationery (73.6 %) and financial support (10.1 %). Lower percentages asked for medical treatment, transport facilities, admission to another school and good and kind teachers in the school.

Finally the children who were working were asked whether they would like to go back to school if some assistance is provided to the family. The predominant majority (71.4 %) said `yes'. The others explained why they would not want to go to school. These reasons were `Don't like to learn' (38.2 %), `disability' (9.8 %) and `Cannot do a job' (24.5 %).

These figures belie the situation reflected in macro data, which has tended to create an aura of complacency regarding educational participation.

 

Suggestions for Improving Participation of Children in Education

Children were asked to present their own suggestions as to what should change in school.

A significant response that merits attention is that the suggestion ranked first (25.9 %) is that `Teachers should be more kind to/more concerned about children'. It points out that notwithstanding deficiencies in the school, or in the home, teachers can contribute immensely towards the motivation of the children to remain in school. Secondly the fact that students have requested more sports facilities to be provided (38 or 22.0 %), that co-curricular activities should be expanded (7 or 4.2 %) and that the syllabus should not be too complicated (1 or 0.6 %) represent, to a certain extent, an appeal to make the school more child-friendly. Improving resources, such as transport and stationery and even teachers has also been articulated.

When children who are engaged in work were requested to suggest changes that should be effected in school to enable them to work while studying, 21 per cent said they did not know. Their responses included the following: `Teachers should not punish children', `children should be promoted to higher classes without having exams', `schools should have advisory programmes to solve student problems'. Others stated `Need more holidays to enable us to work' (54.0 %), `school should be held in the evening' (4.8 %) and ` more practical work' (8.7 %).

While nine per cent of the parents said that there is no need to change anything in the school, the high percentage (34.2 %) felt that teachers should take responsibility for retaining the children to school (Teachers need to teach well and care about the children; Teachers need to pay more attention to weaker children; Teachers should make children more interested about the school). Similarly the expectation that more support should be given in waiving facilities fees and providing basic facilities including food also emerges from these responses.

The crippling factor of poverty and disadvantage emerges strongly in that more than 60 % of children request financial help and others transport facilities. In fact 70.3 % affirmed that they would be sending their children to school if some means of income are provided for them. Those who stated that they would not, gave the reasons of (1) Laziness (38.2 %), (2) Missed school in the past (24.1 %), (3) Sickness (16.2 %), and Economic problems (13.6 %).

Stakeholders identified affirmative action as a needed strategy to enable poorer children and their families to overcome economic difficulties. It was expected to exempt poor children from payment of facilities fees. At the same time self-employment has been mentioned as a necessity, to enhance economic capability of disadvantaged families with inputs expected mainly from community leaders and community organizations. This suggestion merits attention especially as a mechanism of reducing the dependence of poverty-stricken families on state support. Educational authorities were expected to provide special support to under-privileged schools. More inputs were expected from the non-governmental organizations and educational authorities, closely followed by community leaders and school personnel.

 

Implications for Open and Distance Learning

The study showed that the factors that contribute to non-enrollment were multi-faceted. Non-school going children were mainly subject to poverty further aggravated by parental lack of education and awareness even of school admission procedures. Residence in disadvantaged communities that lacked access to basic facilities such as transport, and poorly resourced schools also prevented enrolment in schools.

Parents, children and stakeholders identified the economic factor to be a major reason leading to early school leaving. Personal factors such as disability and illness and lack of a conducive environment for education also emerged as significant factors.

In the case of irregular attendance, both children and parents ranked personal reasons as the most important followed by home and economic factors. Peer attitudes, perceived discrimination by the teachers and lack of academic competency were cited by the children who tend to get absent from school frequently. The friendly and sympathetic attitudes that primary school children yearned for were not often available in their schools. At secondary school level, the academically biased education that was available in these schools did not appear to be appealing to, or attracting the children from the disadvantaged backgrounds.

Our study consistently brought out that these children suffer either from economic deprivation, need to supplement family incomes, disability and lack of parental care and encouragement. In such circumstance, it is necessary to provide affirmative action through (1) exemption from facilities fees, (2) supply of basic needs as food, stationery and other school needs, (3) school/community initiated action such as compensatory education, remedial measures for children with special needs and placed under special circumstances such as orphaned and displaced and school-community linkages to ensure that purposeful action is planned to provide support for such children as well as their families. In addition the implementation of Compulsory Education regulations, and the possibility of reforming the school to be child-friendly should be seriously pursued in view of the special needs of children prone to high absenteeism and early drop-out.

The findings of the above study, however, clearly bring out the difficulties children face in participating in formal schooling and thus how Open and Distance Learning could intervene to support those who are deprived of access to education as a result of non-schooling, early leaving and high absenteeism. The need is to plan interventions that do not need full-time attendance at a formal school, and enable part-time employment to be combined with learning, and ensure collaboration among different stakeholders - teachers, community and ODL institutions.

Especially in the context of Sri Lanka where early leaving occurs mostly at the secondary level, after children have gained essential competencies in literacy and numeracy ODL can be fruitfully utilized to enable students to continue their education. It is possible to make use of community facilities such as community centres, public libraries, non-governmental organizations as the venues for such learning. In addition, in conforming to the current trend of using online learning and e-learning, the possibility of using various types of government-initiated infrastructure facilities such as Nana Salas (knowledge fairs) of the Information and Communications Technology Authority (ICTA), and Vidatha centres (Donating Science and Technology) of the Ministry of Science and Technology, can be explored for extending education to identified groups of children. The Open University of Sri Lanka with twenty-five years of experience can support such initiatives through staff development, course design and development, introduction of novel programmes that combine academic and vocational education to motivate those who lack confidence in enrolling in purely academic courses, and the preparation of learning materials.

 

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the Commonwealth Education Fund of the Save the Children (Sri Lanka) for the study.