Photo courtesy of FLFN
Social injustice in education refers to the systemic barriers and unequal treatment that prevent individuals or groups from accessing quality learning opportunities based on factors such as income, ethnic group, social class, gender or location. As John Rawls notes in his Theory of Justice, “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.” Applied to education, this principle highlights that inequitable access not only limits individual potential but also perpetuates broader societal disparities, making education a central social aspiration for either the reproduction or the redress of social injustice.
Sri Lanka’s education system was globally renowned for its socially just achievements relative to low national income levels. The foundations of this achievement lie in the Kannangara reforms of the 1940s, which introduced free education from kindergarten to university. The policy emphasized social equity by ensuring that children from poor and rural families would have access to the same opportunities as their urban and wealthy counterparts. This vision of equal opportunity was revolutionary in South Asia and helped Sri Lanka attain near universal literacy and high levels of gender parity. However, whether parity in other aspirations such as ethnicity, regionality and rural-urban-estate divisions, requires careful investigation.
In addition to non-fee levying policy for education, attempts to promote equity in education, particularly for students from rural and disadvantaged backgrounds, have taken multiple forms. At the tertiary level, quota systems reserve university places for students from underrepresented districts while programs such as the Mahapola scholarship provide financial assistance to academically qualified students and interest free loans enable access to private universities for those who cannot afford tuition fees. At the school level, the government implements measures such as free school meals, free uniforms, textbooks and transport allowances, aiming to reduce economic barriers that prevent children from attending school regularly. Additional initiatives include infrastructure development in rural schools, midday meal programs and targeted teacher deployment, all designed to level the playing field and ensure that socioeconomic disadvantage does not permanently restrict educational opportunities.
These interventions reflect a broader policy commitment to mitigate inequality although challenges in resource allocation, awareness and administrative efficiency continue to influence their effectiveness. Most recently, the government has pledged to send the top-performing A’Level students abroad for higher studies. These interventions collectively illustrate how social justice principles can guide policy design yet their effectiveness depends on consistent implementation, careful monitoring, and complementary measures to address persistent structural inequalities, especially as socio-economic conditions evolve such as the current shift from a predominantly free public education system to a mix of public and fee-levying private education.
Although the Kannangara reforms created a strong public education system, the education landscape has gradually shifted towards a mixed model of public and private provision. Initially, nearly all schooling and tertiary education were state funded and tuition free. Over time, limitations in public financing, growing demand for higher education and the inability of public universities to expand rapidly enough led to the growth of private providers. Today, school level education still enjoys universal access but with a shadow system of private tuition. At the tertiary level, private higher education institutions now outnumber public universities in terms of enrollment, creating new questions about equity.
One of the most striking features of the education system is the prevalence of private tuition. Although school education is officially free, parents spend heavily on after school tutoring to prepare children for competitive public. According to household surveys and common social understanding, a majority of students in grades 9-13 attend private tuition and spend exorbitantly. This phenomenon undermines the free education principle and disproportionately burdens low and middle income households. Wealthier families, meanwhile, not only afford extensive tuition but also send their children to elite international schools or overseas universities.
The demand-supply gap in university admissions is another major driver of inequity. Each year, only about 20% of students who qualify at the GCE A’Level gain entry into public universities. The rest are either absorbed by the burgeoning private tertiary sector or drop out of higher education entirely. By 2023, more students were registering in private higher education institutions than in public universities, a dramatic reversal of the Kannangara vision. This shift has allowed wealthier households to purchase higher education while poorer households remain excluded, reinforcing class divisions in educational access.
The education system maintains high enrollment at primary and secondary levels but faces sharp inequalities at higher levels. The gross enrollment rate is near 99% at secondary but falls to around 21% at tertiary. Gender parity has been achieved with women outnumbering men in universities but income disparities persist. Poorer households are more likely to experience dropout and limited access to higher education.
An Engel curve of household education spending illustrates the inequitable burden across income percentiles. The poorest households spend a very small percentage of their income on education, not due to low need but because basic survival takes priority. Middle income households spend the highest proportion, reflecting their aspirations of climbing the socio-economic ladder but also the financial strain. The richest households spend less as a percentage of income although their absolute spending is highest, enabling access to premium education and international opportunities.
Source: Household Income Expenditure Survey (2019)
This pattern has important equity implications. The poor are excluded, the middle are overburdened and the rich enjoy unconstrained access. Such dynamics undermine the egalitarian foundation of the Kannangara policy. Although education is officially free, the burden of hidden costs, tuition and private provision makes access to quality education income dependent.
The Kannangara free education policy was a landmark achievement aimed at equity and equal opportunity. While the country continues to benefit from these reforms in literacy and gender parity, the gradual commercialization of education through tuition fees and private tertiary enrollment has undermined equity. Household income now strongly shapes access to quality education, with poor families excluded and middle income families overburdened. To realign with Kannangara’s vision Sri Lanka needs, in the context of growing private education, carefully targeted policies such as loan schemes for low income students, expanded public university capacity, greater private financing for education and stronger regulation of private educational providers, all guided by a socially sensitive commitment to equity. Without such measures, access to education will remain – and may even worsen – as stratified by income, contrary to the original promise of free education.
The post The Myth and Reality of Free Education first appeared on Groundviews.