Problems of Illiteracy in a Literate Developing Society: Sri Lanka

PROBLEMS OF ILLITERACY IN A LITERATE DEVELOPINGSOCIETY: SRI LANKA

CHANDRA GUNAWARDENA

Abstract – With 87.0% of its population literate, Sri Lanka occupies a high rankingposition among South and South-East Asian nations in educational development. Thehigh percentage of literacy achieved through progressive measures in educationspanning half a century, however, has led to a state of complacency and less prioritybeing given to efforts at eradicating illiteracy.

This paper will focus on a recent study conducted on the incidence of illiteracy inspecific disadvantaged communities in the country which indicated that in the presentera of technological advancement, lack of literacy will continue to affect the life-chances of people in these communities where the rate of literacy remains much lowerthan the national average. The study investigates into the factors associated with illit-eracy, and the attitudes and perceptions of the communities themselves towards literacyprogrammes and regarding the modalities and strategies of providing literacy. Theimplications of the study and the final recommendations drawn up in consultation withthe policy makers at national and provincial levels in governmental and non-govern-mental sectors are also discussed in the paper.

Zusammenfassung – Mit einem alphabetisierten Bevölkerungsanteil von 87 Prozentnimmt Sri Lanka in Bezug auf die Entwicklung des Bildungswesens innerhalbder süd – und südostasiatischen Nationen einen hohen Rang ein. Dieser in einemhalben Jahrhundert durch fortschrittliche Bildungsmaßnahmen erzielte hohe Alpha-betisierungsgrad hat jedoch nicht nur zu einem Zustand von Selbstzufriedenheitgeführt, sondern auch dazu, daß den Bemühungen, das Analphabetentum gänzlich zubeseitigen, weniger Priorität eingeräumt wird.

Dieser Aufsatz stellt eine kürzlich durchgeführte Studie zum Auftreten vonAnalphabetentum in spezifischen benachteiligten Gemeinden auf dem Lande in denMittelpunkt, woraus hervorgeht, daß im gegenwärtigen Zeitalter technologischenFortschritts das Fehlen von Bildung die Lebensperspektiven und Chancen der in diesenGemeinschaften lebenden Menschen, in denen die Alphabetisierungsrate im Gegensatzzum nationalen Durchschnitt weitaus geringer bleibt, auch weiterhin beeinflussenwird. Die Studie untersucht die mit dem Analphabetentum verbundenen Faktorensowie Meinungen und Auffassungen, die den Gemeinden selbst hinsichtlich derAlphabetisierungsprogramme bestehen. Im weiteren werden in diesem Aufsatz dieImplikationen der Studie sowie die abschließenden Empfehlungen diskutiert, die inBeratung mit den politischen Kräften auf nationaler und lokaler Ebene in Regierungs-und Nichtregierungssektoren ausgearbeitet worden sind.

Résumé – Comptant 87,0% d’alphabétisés parmi sa population, le Sri Lanka occupeune place de premier rang parmi les nations d’Asie du sud et du sud-est en termes dedéveloppement de l’éducation. Ce taux élevé d’alphabétisation, atteint grâce à desmesures éducatives échelonnées sur un demi-siècle, a cependant instauré un climatde contentement passif et affaibli la priorité de la lutte contre l’analphabétisme.L’article présente une étude récente sur les conséquences de l’analphabétisme pourcertaines communautés défavorisées du pays, qui signale qu’à l’ère actuelle du progrès

International Review of Education – Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft –Revue Internationale de l’Education 43(5–6): 595–609, 1997. 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

technologique, le manque d’alphabétisation continuera à influencer les chances desmembres de ces communautés, dont le taux d’alphabétisation demeure bien inférieurà la moyenne nationale. L’étude analyse les facteurs liés à l’analphabétisme, ainsique les comportements et perceptions des communautés elles-mêmes envers les pro-grammes d’alphabétisation, les modalités et stratégies de ces programmes. L’articleentame d’autre part une discussion sur les répercussions de cette étude et sur les recom-mandations finales qui en ont été tirées, en consultation avec les décideurs politiquesdes niveaux national, provincial, gouvernemental et non gouvernemental.

Resumen – Con un 87,0 por ciento de la población capaz de leer y escribir, Sri Lankaocupa un puesto destacado entre las naciones del sur y del sudeste asiático en cuantoa desarrollo educativo. No obstante, el alto porcentaje de alfabetización conseguidoa través de medidas progresivas en la educación a lo largo de medio siglo ha causadoun estado de complacencia y una reducción de la prioridad que se está dando a losesfuerzos por erradicar el analfabetismo.

Este trabajo se concentra en un estudio reciente realizado sobre la incidencia delanalfabetismo en unas comunidades especialmente desaventajadas en el país, que haindicado que en la actual era de los avances tecnológicos, la incapacidad de leer yescribir seguirá afectando a las oportunidades de vida de las personas en aquellascomunidades en las que la tasa de alfabetización permanece muy por debajo delpromedio nacional. El estudio investiga los factores asociados con el analfabetismoy las actitudes y percepciones de las comunidades mismas en cuanto a los programasde alfabetización y a las modalidades y estrategias de alfabetización. En este trabajotambién se someten a discusión las consecuencias del estudio y las recomendacionesfinales que se delinearon en consultas con quienes hacen la política, en los nivelesnacionales y provinciales, y en los sectores gubernamentales y no gubernamentales.

Literacy is accepted as an educational tool of crucial importance to life in aliterate society and an indispensable instrument for access to further learningand training opportunities. The statement of the UNESCO that “A person isfunctionally illiterate who cannot engage in all those activities in whichliteracy is required for effective functioning of his group and community andalso for enabling him to continue to use reading, writing, and calculation for

596

his own and the country’s development” (Lestage 1981) underscores theimportance of literacy for life.

Moreover, illiteracy is more likely to affect the underprivileged than theprivileged; the poor, the female, ethnic, cultural or linguistic minorities and thehandicapped are particularly at risk. “Illiteracy is not merely an inability toread and write but a complete, socio-economic phenomenon rooted in povertyand deprivation and requiring a comprehensive approach” (Ryan 1985). Evenwhen illiteracy exists on a limited scale, in small pockets of economic or socialdeprivation, it cannot be disregarded as of minor consequence, for in the lifeof the illiterate individual it extends beyond education; it affects his/her socialstatus, economic possibilities and access to many forms of culture.

The Constitution of Sri Lanka has among its goals, “the complete eradi-cation of illiteracy and assurance to all persons of the right to universal andequal access to education at all levels” (Article 27 (2) h), and “to promotewith special care the interests of children and youth so as to ensure their fulldevelopment, physical, mental, moral, religious, social and to protect themfrom exploitation and discrimination” (Article 23 (13)).

Literacy represents the core of the development spelled out in Article 23(13). Notwithstanding the importance given to the provision of the right toeducation in the Constitution, Sri Lanka initiated legal provision for com-pulsory education only in 1995. It is possible that the picture painted byofficial statistics regarding literacy is rosier than warranted and that thepositive achievements in education Sri Lanka has gained relative to her South-East Asian neighbors have lulled her into a state of complacency.

In Sri Lanka, the policy of democratization of education led to a rise in ofthe level of literacy from 57.8% in 1946 to 86.5% in 1981. A mild reversalin literacy rates observed between 1978/79 and 1981/82 has been describedby Jayaweera (1989) as disquieting. The gradual reduction of literacy attain-ment in the last decade has been identified as a vital problem that may negatethe achievements of the three preceding decades, in which a progressive edu-cational policy was implemented. This problem prevails in certain pockets ofdeprivation and continues to affect the lives of a small proportion of thecountry’s population. Literacy rates for the last census held in 1981 were91.1% for males, 83.2% for females and 87.2% overall (Sri Lanka 1994).The limited magnitude of incidence of illiteracy does not warrant that it bepushed aside as an unimportant issue. The imperative before us is to givepriority to illiteracy as a critical impediment to the total development of anindividual and to devise ways and means to combat it on all fronts – educa-tional, social, economic and political.

The present research studied the persisting incidence of illiteracy in aselected sample of communities in Sri Lanka to suggest interventions whichwould not merely attempt to give a training in reading the word but also inperceiving and understanding socio-economic realities and acting to transformthese realities (Freier and Macedo 1988; Lankshear and Lawler 1987;Freebody and Welch 1993).

597

Research methodology

The major sample survey was undertaken for the purpose of collecting dataon literacy levels and factors associated with literacy of people living indeprived communities. Sampling consisted of several stages. The first stagewas the selection of two communities, purposively from each of the followingsix types of deprived communities identified for purposes of this survey. Thesix types of communities were:

1. Rural peasant2. Rural working class3. Urban slum4. Urban working class5. Fishing6. Plantation.

The twelve communities were selected in such a manner that they were moreor less representative of the six major community types. Each of the com-munities so selected extended over an area termed Grama Niladhari Division,the smallest administrative division in the country. The second stage ofsampling consisted of selecting 50 households randomly from the total numberof households in each community. The lists of households in each commu-nity were obtained from the respective Grama Niladharis. In one of the 12communities selected, there were only 40 households in all and hence all ofthem were included in the sample. Another community dropped out of thestudy. All persons of age 10 years and above in the selected households, num-bering 2133, constituted the total sample of the major survey.

When classified by gender, 48.1% were male and 51.9% female. Seventyfour per cent had Sinhalese as the mother tongue, and the remaining 26%had Tamil as their mother tongue. In age, 56.4% were between 20–54 yearsand a considerable proportion, 36.7% were less than 20 years of age. In all,54.7% claimed to have completed primary education or more, while elevenper cent of the respondents had never attended school. Another 34.4% haddropped out of school before completing their primary education. Forty-sevenper cent, according to the information given, received a monthly income ofless than Rs. 1000/= (approximately US$ 20); while 28.4% did not respondto this question.

Four instruments were developed and used for collection of required data:

1. General information on persons living in selected households.2. Interview schedule3. Test of literacy.4. Test of numerical ability.

598

Literacy in deprived communities

The term “literacy” in the present study generally refers to reading and writingability and the term “numeracy” to arithmetical or numerical ability. Thepresent study employed two methods to assess the literacy rate. One was toobtain people’s own subjective judgement about their ability to read and write.The difference between those who claimed the ability to read and ability towrite was negligible, the latter being a little less than the former. Hence theliteracy rates on the basis of people’s claim (hereafter referred to as claimedliteracy rate) were calculated on the basis of people’s claim about their abilityto read.

The other method used to test people’s ability to read and write and tocalculate the literacy rate (hereafter referred to as actual literacy rate) on thebasis of the test score, where only those who scored 100% were consideredliterate.

Table 1 reports claimed and actual literacy rates by community type. Theclaimed rate ranges from 92.5% (rural peasant) to 67.6% (urban slum). Theactual rate ranges between 66% (urban working class) and 31.1 (urban slum).The overall claimed literacy rate in deprived communities is 82.9% while theactual rate is only 59.7%, indicating that the real status of literacy in deprivedcommunities is far from what is usually reported.

The rank order positions of different community types in terms of both theirclaimed and actual rate are similar in some cases. Urban slum communitiesoccupy the lowest position followed by plantation or estate communities. Thediscrepancy in claimed and actual rates was greatest in the urban slum com-munities (36.5%) and was followed by rural peasant (32%), fishing (21.0%),urban working class, rural working class and plantation (all three being15.8%). For the total sample, the discrepancy in rates was 23.2.

Table 2 reports literacy status by community type and gender. It can benoted that both claimed and actual rates are lower for females than for malesin all community types. The most marked gender discrepancy in both claimed

599

Table 1. Literacy Rates: Claimed and by Test Performance.

Community Number Percentage Number Percentage Discrepancy Total no. ofType Claimed Actually in Rates Respondents

to be LiterateLiterate

Rural Peasant 0372 92.5 0241 60.0 32.5 0402Rural WC 0245 80.3 0197 64.5 15.8 0305Urban Slum 0217 67.6 0100 31.1 36.5 0321Urban WC 0380 81.8 0306 66.0 15.8 0464Fishing 0420 92.0 0324 71.0 21.0 0457Plantation 0135 73.4 0106 57.6 15.8 0184

Total 1769 82.9 1274 59.7 23.2 2133

and actual rates are reported for urban slum and plantation communities. Inthe urban slum, actual rates for males and females are 50.0% and 12.4%respectively, while in the plantation they are 79.3% and 38.1% respectively.In the urban slum community, claimed rates for males and females are 75.6%and 59.6% respectively, while in the plantation they are 91.8% and 51.7%respectively. For the deprived communities as a whole, the actual literacy ratesfor males and females are reported to be 69.0% and 51.3% respectively. Itappears that the females in the urban slum and plantation communities areeven more disadvantaged than their counterparts in other deprived commu-nities.

Table 3 presents data on literacy by community type and mother tongue.It can be observed that, in all communities for which data are available,literacy rates, both claimed and actual, are higher for those subjects whosemother tongue is Sinhala compared to those whose mother tongue is Tamil.Subjects whose mother tongue is Tamil belong to two ethnic groups, Tamilsand Muslims. Subjects in the rural peasant community type were almost exclu-

600

Table 2. Literacy rates: Claimed and Actual by Gender.

Community Type Claimed Actual

Male Female Male Female

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Rural Peasant 183 96.3 189 89.1 130 68.4 114 53.7Rural WC 119 80.7 126 79.8 104 69.7 093 59.6Urban Slum 121 75.6 096 59.6 080 50.0 020 12.4Urban WC 177 82.3 203 81.5 155 72.0 151 60.0Fishing 206 91.9 214 90.8 170 75.8 154 66.0Plantation 079 91.8 056 57.7 069 79.3 037 38.1

Total 885 86.3 884 79.7 708 69.0 569 51.3

Table 3. Literacy Rates: Claimed and Actual by Mother Tongue.


Sinhala Tamil Sinhala Tamil

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Rural Peasant 0190 95.4 182 89.6 0129 64.8 112 55.1Rural WC 0245 80.3 000 0– 0197 64.5 000 0–Urban Slum 0163 70.8 053 58.2 0093 40.4 006 05.5Urban WC 0327 86.0 053 63.0 0266 70.0 040 41.6Fishing 0420 91.9 000 0– 0324 70.8 000 0–Plantation 0010 91.0 125 72.2 0010 91.0 096 55.5

Total 1355 85.6 413 74.9 1019 64.4 254 46.1

sively Muslims while the subjects in plantation community type were almostexclusively Indian Tamils. Urban slum and urban working class communitiesconsisted of both Sinhala and Muslim subjects. These residential patterns haveled to the fact that the literacy rates, claimed as well as actual, are higher forSinhalese than for Muslims and Tamils.

Another important fact that emerges is the wide disparity in actual literacyrates between the Sinhala and Tamil mother tongue subjects in the urban slumand plantation communities. The disparity is most marked in these two typesof communities. Moreover, the overall actual literacy rate of Tamil mothertongue subjects in deprived communities is 46.1%, which is one of the lowestfor any group of subjects. The comparative rate for Sinhala mother tonguesubjects is 64.4%.

Tables 4 and 5 report literacy rates for age specific groups according tocommunity types. It may be observed that both claimed and actual literacyrates are lower with increasing age, in all types of communities. The highestrates are reported for the age group 10–14 years, followed by the age group15–19 years and 20–54 years. Although the observed decline is not very sharp,the trend towards gradual decline up to the 20–54 years age group appearsto be consistent across all types of communities. This trend, however, is not

601

Table 4. Literacy Rates: Claimed by Age Group.

Community 10–14 Yrs. 15–19 Yrs. 20–54 Yrs. 55 & above TotalType No.

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Rural Peasant 087 97.7 077 96.2 202 88.9 006 100.0 0372Rural WC 033 86.8 043 86.0 151 78.6 018 072.0 0245Urban Slum 050 83.3 040 80.0 112 60.2 015 060.0 0217Urban WC 081 83.5 072 85.7 204 82.9 023 062.1 0380Fishing 076 96.2 079 94.0 232 91.0 033 082.5 0420Plantation 026 72.2 024 75.0 080 72.7 005 083.3 0135

Total 353 88.4 335 88.1 981 80.7 100 071.9 1769

Table 5. Literacy Rates: Actual by Age Group.


No. % No. % No. % No. %


Total 315 78.9 273 71.8 597 49.1 90 64.7 1275

continued in the 55 year and over age group in the case of actual rates. Here,one can observe a reversal in the trend, with the actual literacy rates begin-ning to rise again in all types of communities. The reason for higher literacyrates among the age groups of 10–14 years and 15–20 years seems obviousas most subjects within these age groups would have been attending schoolat the time of survey. Some of those within the older age group of 20–54 yearsmay not have been to school. Some of those who attended school may haverelapsed into a state of illiteracy due to non-use of literacy skills in their day-to-day life.

Numeracy in deprived communities

For the purposes of this study, two methods were used to assess the numeracyrate. One was to ask for people’s subjective judgement about their ability toengage in simple numerical tasks. The numeracy rate (hereafter referred toas claimed numeracy rate) was calculated on the basis of these subjectiveclaims of people. The other method used was to test subjects’ ability to engagein simple functionally relevant numerical tasks and to calculate the numeracyrate (hereafter referred to as actual numeracy rate) on the basis of the testscore, where only those who scored 100% were considered numerate.

Table 6 reports claimed and actual numeracy rates for different types ofcommunities. The claimed rates range between 95.0% (rural peasant) and74.0% (plantation), and actual rates range between 71.5% (urban workingclass) and 50.7% (urban slum). As with literacy rates, it can be seen that thelowest numeracy rates are associated with urban slum and plantation com-munities. The overall claimed numeracy rate in deprived communities is86.3%, and the actual rate is 64.9%. As with literacy, the actual numeracy rateis very much lower than the claimed rate. However one important featureabout numeracy rates when compared to literacy rates is that the numeracy

602

Table 6. Numeracy Rates: Claimed and by Test Performance.

Community Number Percentage Number Percentage Discrepancy Total No. ofType Claimed Actually in Rates Respondents

to be NumerateNumerate

Rural Peasant 0382 95.0 0269 66.9 28.1 0402Rural WC 0250 81.9 0192 62.9 19.0 0305Urban Slum 0263 81.0 0163 50.7 30.3 0321Urban WC 0395 85.1 0326 71.5 14.4 0464Fishing 0416 91.0 0327 70.2 20.8 0457Plantation 0136 74.0 0109 59.2 14.8 0184

Total 1842 86.3 1386 64.9 21.4 2133

rates in different community types, as well as the overall numeracy rate, arerelatively higher than the literacy rates.

Table 7 presents numeracy rates in different community types by gender.As with the case of literacy, it may be observed that both claimed and actualnumeracy rates are relatively lower for females, in all community types. Themost marked gender disparities in both claimed and actual rates are reportedfor urban slum and plantation communities. In the urban slum, actual ratesfor males and females are 66.8% and 34.7% respectively, while in the plan-tation they are 77.0% and 43.2% respectively. For deprived communities asa whole, the actual numeracy rates for males and females are reported to be72.2% and 58.2% respectively. (The greatest discrepancy in rates are in ruralpeasant and urban slum communities, similar to the discrepancies for literacyrates.)

Table 8 reports numeracy rates by community types and mother tongue. Itshows that, in all community types for which comparable data are available,

603

Table 7. Numeracy Rates: Claimed and Actual by Gender.


Male Female Male Female

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Rural Peasant 184 96.8 198 093.4 130 68.4 139 65.5Rural WC 124 83.2 126 080.7 102 68.4 090 57.6Urban Slum 138 86.2 125 077.6 107 66.8 056 34.7Urban WC 184 85.5 211 084.7 162 75.3 164 65.8Fishing 205 91.5 211 090.5 173 77.2 154 66.0Plantation 076 87.3 060 061.8 067 77.0 042 43.2

Total 911 88.8 931 084.0 741 72.2 645 58.2

Table 8. Numeracy Rates: Claimed and Actual by Mother Tongue.


Sinhala Tamil Sinhala Tamil

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Rural Peasant 0186 094.1 196 92.4 0124 62.3 145 58.9Rural WC 0250 081.9 000 0– 0192 62.9 000 0–Urban Slum 0194 084.3 068 74.7 0143 62.1 019 20.8Urban WC 0336 088.4 059 70.2 0279 73.4 047 55.9Fishing 0420 091.9 000 0– 0331 72.4 000 0–Plantation 0011 100.0 125 72.2 0010 91.0 099 57.2

Total 1397 088.3 448 81.3 1079 68.2 310 56.2

numeracy rates, both claimed and actual, are higher for subjects whose mothertongue is Sinhala, in comparison to those whose mother tongue is Tamil. Asindicated earlier, the second group comprised Muslims and Indian Tamils. Thediscrepancy in numeracy rates between the two groups is once again foundto be most marked in urban slum and plantation communities. Specific factorswhich lead to this discrepancy are difficult to identify. In the case of planta-tion communities which mainly comprise Indian Tamils, the quality of edu-cation provided is lower due to insufficient resources and absence of qualifiedteachers. Their rate of drop-out is also quite high. In the case of urban slumdwellers of Muslim origin too, the high rate of drop-out could have been acontributing factor.

Tables 9 and 10 report age-specific numeracy rates for different commu-nity types. It can be noted that claimed numeracy rates decline with increasingage with a few exceptions. The highest claimed rates are found to be in the10 to 14 years and 15 to 19 years age groups. Although the decline in claimedrates with increasing age is not very sharp, there seems to be a general trendin this direction, with a few exceptions. In the case of actual numeracy rates,too there is a general decline up to the age group 20–54 years, after whichthere is a reversal in the above trend with the exception of one community

604

Table 9. Numeracy Rates: Claimed by Age Group.


No. % No. % No. % No. %


Total 356 89.2 346 91.0 1041 85.6 99 71.2 1842

Table 10. Numeracy Rates: Actual by Age Group.


No. % No. % No. % No. %


Total 322 80.7 296 77.8 674 52.4 93 66.9 1385

type. This community type had only one subject belonging to this age groupand hence it may not be safe to conclude that it was in fact an exception tothe general trend that was observed.

It is relevant at this point to compare the literacy rates obtained throughour study (Tables 1 and 2) with the official statistics on literacy. The literacyrate among the population of 10 years and over in Sri Lanka according to thelast national census (1981) was 87.2%, the male and female rates being 91.1%and 83.2% respectively (Sri Lanka 1994). Comparison of these statistics showthat achieved literacy rates in deprived communities are relatively lower thannational rates and the claimed rates for the sample studied, both of which arederived on the basis of respondents’ subjective judgments.

This study has thus clearly demonstrated the existence of pockets of illit-eracy within even the most developed districts in the country, in the areasidentified as urban slum particularly.

Literacy and numeracy in relation to socio-economic conditions

An effort was made to identify relationships between literacy and numeracyrates on the one hand, and socio-economic status on the other, through a rankcorrelation analysis of the data on the above two sets of variables obtainedfor the six community types. The results are reported in Table 11. It revealsfairly high correlations between percentages of literates in each community

605

Table 11. Relationship between Actual Literacy/Numeracy Rates and SelectedIndicators of Socio-Economic Status.

Variable 1 Variable 2 Spearman CorrelationCoefficient

Percentages of literates in Percentages of thoseeach type of community a) Who have been to school 0.60

b) Who are employed 0.71c) Who completed primary cycle 0.20d) With monthly income over 0.26

Rs. 1000/=e) Who read books other than texts 0.37f ) Who read newspapers daily 0.77

Percentages of numerates in Percentages of thoseeach type of community a) Who have been to school 0.48

b) Who are employed 0.88c) Who completed primary cycle 0.10d) With monthly income over 0.14

Rs. 1000/=e) Who read books other than texts 0.37f ) Who read newspapers daily 0.60

type with percentages of those who have been to school (0.60) as well aswith percentages of those employed (0.71). An exactly similar finding emergesin relation to numeracy rates and percentages of those who have been to schooland percentages of those employed. Thus the above findings seem to suggestthat literacy and numeracy rates in deprived communities are closely relatedto the level of schooling and economic status.

Implications of the study

The main factor that emerges from the research is that Sri Lanka’s claim touniversal literacy levels leaves much room for concern and that complacencycertainly cannot be encouraged. The literacy rates of 90% and above beingcirculated in official circles are far from being realistic. Improvement inliteracy rates all round cannot be taken for granted. It is a goal to be takenseriously and pursued with determination and vigour at every level of policyplanning, management and implementation.

That a single national rate is meaningless has also been shown by thisresearch. The level of literacy attained by an individual has been shown tobe highly correlated with schooling and economic condition, employmentstatus being an important contributor to economic condition. These twofactors, schooling and economic condition, differ widely across the nation andlead to divergent literacy rates for different communities. It has been estab-lished that while the disadvantaged communities represented in this researchdiffered from each other as regards the level of literacy achieved, their ratesof literacy differed severally and collectively from the national rate even asregards claimed literacy.

The considerable differences between claimed literacy and actual literacypoint to the necessity of using reliable objective measures to assess literacyand numeracy as has been used in the current research and the NationalAssociation for Total Education (NATE) research previously. At present, therate of literacy is arrived at by collecting the spoken responses obtained atcensus time to queries as to whether one can read and write or whether onecan write one’s own name.

There appears to be an overwhelming case for the expansion of adult edu-cation and non-formal education both of which, sad to say, are receiving onlyscant attention at present. The formal school structure receives greater atten-tion, although 100% Universal Primary Education (UPE) is still a consider-able distance away. Harsh economic conditions prevent around 15% of thechildren of school-going age from even attending school or completing eventhe primary cycle. They are forced to work under grueling conditions, andthe parents find even their meager earnings a very valuable contribution tothe family income. Child labour has risen to the position of a necessary eviland persists in spite of various social security measures like Janasaviya(People’s Strength) and Samurdhi (Prosperity) intended to provide relief to

606

the poor. Until economic conditions improve all round, a proportion of eachage cohort will escape into the pool of illiteracy, and adequate measures haveto be taken to lead them to literacy. The proposal to establish an Open Schoolmay be taken as a step in the right direction.

It follows from the above that more resources should be diverted to thearea of literacy training. For obvious reasons, the national exchequer is unableto furnish all the money required and in any case the politically more popularservicing of the formal education structures will take precedence. It is herethat friendly and understanding foreign governments and local and foreignNGOs can lend a helping hand for which their intervention may be activelysought.

The majority of prospective clients are of the opinion that the central gov-ernment as well as the Provincial Councils should take the lead in providingliteracy training, playing a more important role than at present. The stateshould be responsible for curricular design and content. A considerablenumber of prospective clients preferred that the principal and teachers of theformal school be put in charge of organization at the periphery and curriculumtransaction.

Despite the faith expressed by our respondents regarding formal education,we believe Non-Formal Education to have greater potential in impartingliteracy. A large proportion of the illiterates in the country are early drop-outs who have been pushed out of school due to sheer economic need to earna wage or by the unattractive instruction available at school. Comprehensiveprogrammes in which literacy is integrated as one of the components couldbetter motivate the target groups to make use of the opportunities provided.As pointed out by Stromquist (1992) “. . . non-formal education is increas-ingly seen by both government and non-government organizations as a criticalresource that will allow marginal and destitute population to acquire skills andknowledge to become more effective members of their societies”. If NGOsare permitted to play a part, there should be proper supervision and moni-toring of these activities for greater efficiency and conformity with the idealsto be achieved. The Non-Formal Education Unit of the Central Ministry ofEducation in consultation with the National Institute of Education (NIE) andUniversity Departments of Education should develop the programme to beimplemented by the Provincial Ministries of Education. Training of literacyinstructors should also be given high priority.

Note

This article is based on A study of the Incidence of Illiteracy in Selected DeprivedCommunities and Identification of Interventions to Improve Literacy by ChandraQunawardena, W. A. de Silva nad N. G. Kularatne, sponsored by the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre and the Asian Development Bank.

607

References

Amatyakul, Kiatiwan and Jones, Charles O. 1988. Survey of the Implementation ofa Literacy Programme in Thailand. Prospects 18(2): 389–394.

Bannerji, Sushmita. 1981. Adult Education in India: A Village Level Experience.Prospects 11(3).

Bhola, H. S. 1990. Evaluating Literacy for Development: Projects Programmes andCampaigns. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.

Burnet, Mary. 1965. The ABC of Literacy. Paris: UNESCO.

Dave, R. H., Ovane, A. and Perera, D. A. 1988. Learning Strategies for Post-Literacyand Continuing Education: A Cross-National Perspective. Hamburg: UNESCOInstitute for Education, 23.

Freebody, P. and Welch, A., eds. 1993. Knowledge, Culture and Power. InternationalPerspectives on Literacy Policies and Practices. New York: Falmer Press.

Freire, P. and Macedo, D. 1988. Reading the Word, Reading the World. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hall, Budd L. 1989. New Perspectives in Literacy: Role of Non-GovernmentalOrganizations. Prospects 19(4): 573–578.

Lankshear, C. and Lawler. 1987. Literacy, Schooling and Revolution. Sussex: FalmerPress.

Lauglo, J. 1995. Forms of Decentralization and Their Implications for Education.Comparative Education 31(1): 5–29.

Le Grand, J. 1983. Privatization and the Social Services. In: G. John, ed., Socialismin a Cold Climate. London: Allen and Unwin.

Lestage, Andre. 1981. Literacy and Illiteracy. Paris: UNESCO, Educational Studiesand Documents No. 42.

Lind, A. and Johnston, A. Adult Literacy in the Third World – A View of Objectivesand Strategies. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Authority.

Mathur, R. S. 1984. Non-Formal Education Programme in Sri Lanka – Proposals forMonitoring the Literacy Component. Colombo.

Muller, Josef. 1984. Illiteracy: No Field for Fast Results. Convergence 17(3): 43–46.

National Association for Total Education. 1990. Adult Literacy in Sri Lanka: A Surveyof Literacy Among the Adult Population in Eight Districts of Sri Lanka. Colombo:NATE.

Perera, D. A. 1990. Towards Universal Literacy – Role of the NGOs in Sri Lanka:Challenges for the 1990. Paper presented at the ASPBAE-NATE Workshop, Colombo,16–17 August.

Rogers, Alan. 1993. The World Crisis in Adult Education: A Case Study from Literacy.Compare 23: 2.

Ryan, John. 1985. Some Key Problems in Adult Literacy. Prospects 25 (3): 375–383.

Sri Lanka. Department of Census and Statistics. 1994. Statistical Pocket Book of theDemocratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Colombo.

608

Stromquist, N. 1992. Empowering Women Through Knowledge: InternationalSupport for Non-Formal Education. In: R. Burns and A. Welch, eds., ContemporaryPerspectives in Comparative Education (265–294). New York: Garland Publishing.

UNESCO. 1979. Research and Training in Literacy in Asia and Ocenia: A Report ofa Regional Panel of Experts. New Delhi, 19–25 September, 1978, UNESCO, Bangkok.

UNESCO. Regional Field Operational Seminar on the Application of FunctionalLiteracy-Lembang. Indonesia: Ministry of Education Culture.

UNESCO. 1992. New Guidebook for Development and Production of LiteracyMaterials. Bangkok: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 1982. Standard-Setting Instruments, Sp. 4.

609