Sri Lanka’s private education crisis and Govt. impact

Research shows that students from upper-class families often secure permanent residency in countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK, contributing to brain drain 

• Dr. Amarasuriya’s announcement to review education degrees from private universities should be approached with caution. While ensuring quality is crucial, her past writings reveal deep-seated opposition to privatisation in education. In her article “The Many Faces of Privatisation and Its Impact on Education,” she argues that privatisation reduces education to a commodity
• The exodus of students from Sri Lanka leaves middle-class families trapped, facing reduced educational and economic prospects
• The JVP-led administration, closely tied to unions like IUSF and GMOA, has historically opposed private education

For middle-class Sri Lankan parents, small businesses, teachers, and other professionals, education is not just a right, but a lifeline to a better future for their children. They work tirelessly to save for college degrees that promise good jobs and social mobility. However, access is severely limited; only 17% of students who pass A/Ls gain admission to state universities, leaving many reliant on private institutions like KDU, ACBT, or SLIIT.

The middle-class dream under threat

Recent government policies pose unprecedented threats to this pathway. On May 22, 2025, the JVP-led government, responding to pressure from the Inter-University Students’ Federation (IUSF), restricted Kotelawala Defence University’s (KDU) medical faculty admissions, allowing only cadet officers and  international students, thereby slashing potential revenue streams. Dr. Harini Amarasuriya’s recent announcement to review education degrees from private universities, while ostensibly ensuring quality, risks undermining these vital educational opportunities.

This threat is particularly acute for middle- to lower-class families, unlike wealthier families, who cannot afford to send their children abroad for education. Research shows that students from upper-class families often secure permanent residency in countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK, contributing to brain drain. The Institute for Policy Studies estimates that 12,000 Sri Lankan students study abroad annually, costing $300 million in foreign exchange during our economic recovery, with many not returning and depleting our talent pool. This exodus, driven by limited domestic opportunities, leaves middle-class families trapped, facing reduced educational and economic prospects.

Historical Context: SAITM and the Struggle for Private Medical Education

KDU’s current crisis echoes the struggles of the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM), which exemplifies the challenges private education faces in Sri Lanka. Founded by Dr. Neville Fernando to provide medical degrees for a fee, SAITM received degree-awarding status and approvals but faced fierce opposition from the Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA), which claimed its graduates were substandard, due to malpractices during the Rajapakse regime. 

In 2017, Dr. Harsha de Silva, then Deputy Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs, chaired a Presidential Committee tasked with resolving the SAITM issue. The committee proposed a transformative solution: converting SAITM from a for-profit entity into a not-for-profit institution with broad-based ownership, aligning with global standards for non-state medical education.

The comprehensive plan involved phasing out SAITM and establishing a new entity under the Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (SLIIT), which would take over SAITM’s assets and liabilities. The Neville Fernando Teaching Hospital (NFTH) was to be transferred to the government for clinical training, and scholarships were included to ensure access for diverse students, thus securing 900 students’ futures. The solution, detailed in a 2017 report, was financially viable and included a Rs. 600 million scholarship program.

However, political interference, particularly from President Maithripala Sirisena in February 2018, led to SAITM’s absorption by KDU, ending fee-levying medical education. Dr. de Silva’s gruelling negotiations involved stakeholders like the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC), academics, and unions. He met with GMOA separately despite their refusal to attend committee meetings and secured an MOU with Dr. Fernando, who, despite his frustration (once wishing Dr. de Silva “death by lightning” in anger and later apologising), agreed to sign. The plan’s derailment, driven by vested interests and union pressure, left students stranded and highlighted the deep ideological resistance to private education.

KDU’s Current Crisis: Financial Strain and Taxpayer Burden

The KDU now faces a similar dire fate. Following the May 22, 2025 restrictions, KDU’s teaching hospital, built with a Rs. 33.9 billion treasury-guaranteed loan from the National Savings Bank, requires Rs. 369.4 million monthly for repayments but generates only Rs. 54.2 million from operations, leaving a Rs. 315.2 million shortfall each month. This gap directly burdens taxpayers, echoing losses from state-owned enterprises like SriLankan Airlines and Ceylon Electricity Board.

Government’s Broader Attack: Ideological Resistance and Union Influence

Dr. Amarasuriya’s announcement to review education degrees from private universities should be approached with caution. While ensuring quality is crucial, her past writings reveal deep-seated opposition to privatisation in education. In her article “The Many Faces of Privatisation and Its Impact on Education,” she argues that privatisation reduces education to a commodity, stripping it of its social and collective value, and calls for education to be seen as a public good essential for social transformation. This ideological stance aligns with the current government’s actions, which appear aimed at limiting private universities rather than fostering a balanced education system.

The JVP-led administration, closely tied to unions like IUSF and GMOA, has historically opposed private education, often prioritising political agendas over educational access. This connection is evident in SAITM’s closure, driven by GMOA strikes, and KDU’s restrictions, influenced by IUSF protests, reflecting a coordinated effort to suppress private institutions despite their vital role in providing access and quality education.

Impact on families: 

A dream denied

For middle-class families, private universities are not a luxury but a necessity. With public universities admitting only 17% of qualified students annually, private institutions provide essential alternatives. However, government restrictions threaten to deny these opportunities, trapping families in economic hardship and denying their children chances at upward mobility. As one parent shared, “We save every rupee for our son’s private degree—why does the government block his future when public universities can’t take everyone?” This sentiment is shared across several households that view education as the only path to a better life.

Economic and Global Stakes: The Cost of Suppression

Suppressing private education has broader implications for Sri Lanka’s economy and global standing. Private universities attract top academics and foster innovation in critical fields like AI and biotechnology. They also draw international students from regional countries like the Maldives, India, Bangladesh, and Nepal, who contribute to revenue and enhance Sri Lanka’s reputation as an education hub. Historically, Sri Lanka has successfully attracted students from neighbouring countries, with its strategic location and a growing higher education sector, it can position itself as a competitive education destination in Asia. However, restrictive policies risk reversing this potential, driving students abroad and reducing Sri Lanka’s appeal as an education hub. Sri Lanka’s 21% tertiary enrollment rate significantly lags behind Malaysia’s 45%, underscoring the critical need for private education to boost access and competitiveness [World Bank, 2024]. Current restrictions drive both talent and foreign exchange abroad, weakening our potential as a regional education hub.

Solutions: Balancing Quality and Opportunity

The solution lies in balanced regulation that ensures quality without stifling innovation and access. An independent regulatory body, modeled on Singapore’s Private Education Act, could complement the UGC’s focus on public universities by enforcing transparent standards for accreditation, faculty qualifications, and student outcomes specifically for private institutions. Additionally, attracting regional students through competitive pricing and quality programs can generate revenue and enhance Sri Lanka’s global reputation as an education destination.

Conclusion: 

A call for change

The government’s systematic restrictions on private education, specifically private medical education, betray middle-class families and jeopardise Sri Lanka’s future. By limiting access and imposing financial burdens, current policies risk creating a generation unable to compete globally. We must demand policies that honour parents’ sacrifices, empower every student, and position Sri Lanka as a leader not only in education but in producing top talent for the global economy.

Our children’s dreams—and our nation’s prosperity—depend on it.