What was the drawbacks in the system followed by srilanka
Answers
Answer:
Some of the problems can be listed as the high dropout rates, low participation in education and the poor attendance, especially in the secondary and tertiary levels, poor performance in mathematics and science, unequal distribution of resources among schools – mainly rural and urban, over-loaded curriculum.
Plz mark brainliest and follow me back ❤❤❤☺️☺️☺️✌✌
Explanation:
Answer:
Explanation:
hanges are necessary in education systems in keeping with the demands of the job market, argue advocates of the change. But others say changes create confusion while teachers and parents take several years to come to terms with them. When the system at last begins to work somewhat smoothly, the government feels it is time for reforms again.
Sri Lanka may be economically sliding towards a basket case and politically a murky mess where politicians put self before the country and its people. But on the social index, it has made tremendous advances, especially in literacy, which stands at 90 per cent. The statesman behind the achievement of near universal literacy level was CWW Kannangara. In 1945, that is, three years before Sri Lanka was granted Independence, he successfully presented a case for free education.
Kannangara, fondly remembered as father of Sri Lanka’s free education, argued that education should be recognised as a basic right of every child and cleared the path to make education the heritage of the poor.
It is largely because of Kannangara’s free education policy, I am what I am today, as far as my education — also my career — is concerned. Sri Lanka is one of the few developing countries where education is free from grade one to university.
Education has become a hot topic in Sri Lankan politics today in the wake of a controversial Supreme Court ruling on a fundamental rights petition challenging the government policy on admission for grade one in schools.
In some quarters, the ruling which spelt out a set of guidelines for school admission was seen as judicial activism. But others protested, saying the judiciary should not interfere in what is exclusively a matter for the executive and the legislative branches of the government. Supporters of the judgment argued that if the government is not administering, somebody has to.
The opposition was furious: Not only because the Supreme Court is seen to be violating the time-honoured democratic tradition of separation of powers, but also because the content of the ruling is preposterous, to say the least.