Social-emotional learning : a solution for peace or a piece of the solution?

(1)

Joshua C. Bullen (11255498)

Masters Candidate in International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences

University of Amsterdam

Social-Emotional Learning: A solution for peace or a piece of the

solution?

(2)

Cover Picture: Children participating in the Child Friendly Centre Programme in Morawewa, Trincomalee. (Source: Author)

Abstract

In post-war contexts adolescent students experience increased barriers to and within education systems which adversely affect their material, relational and subjective wellbeing. The delivery of interventions such as Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) have the potential to alleviate the negative behavioural, emotional and cognitional effects of war felt by students in Sri Lanka. SEL is often termed the ‘missing subject’. There remains however a lack of research conducted to examine and discuss the effects of SEL on adolescent student’s wellbeing and its utilisation within non-formal education (NFE) programmes in post-war and/or developing countries. The objective of this research therefore sought to analyse the interconnection between adolescent student’s wellbeing and the use of social-emotional learning in non-formal educational programmes. Therefore the research question was ‘What impacts can adding Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) practices to non-formal education programmes in Trincomalee have on the wellbeing of adolescents?’ This study used a variation qualitative research methodologies to gather triangulated data including a digital field journal, participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Initially, interviews were conducted with adolescent participants and delivery staff of a NFE programme employing practices of SEL. Meanwhile, additional interviews with ‘educational stakeholders’ working within the fields of SEL, NFE and wellbeing supplemented this data. Empirical findings from this research indicate that NFE programmes in Sri Lanka are inadvertently and unconsciously employing elements of SEL with several positive impacts. Educational stakeholder interviews supplemented empirical findings, adding contextual and theoretical insights which established potential contributions, concurrences and contradictions of SEL programmatic practice with Sri Lankan educational and societal culture. In conclusion therefore it can be argued that social-emotional learning practices are not only suitable and appropriate to a post-war, developing context – in this instance Sri Lanka – but have demonstrable benefits to education programmes and student’s wellbeing. The implications of this research are a widening of SEL theory into developing contexts while informing Sri Lankan NGO policymakers and international scholars.

Keywords: Social-Emotional Learning, Non-Formal Education, Wellbeing, Education, Sri Lanka, Adolescent.

(3)

Word Count: 25, 085

Acknowledgements

This thesis is the culmination of a year-long Masters in International Development Studies at the University of Amsterdam. When I applied to study this degree in Amsterdam I could not have imagined how fulfilling the experience would be, both intellectually and socially. The experience of travelling to and living in Sri Lanka to conduct the field research for this thesis is one which I will never forget and I am thankful for everyone for helped along the way. I want to therefore firstly thank all of the people who supported me during my time in Sri Lanka. Marge and Michiel, two Dutch friends, opened up their home to me, cooked and fed me countless meals while also listening to my endless complaints about working in such heat. Vino, CDFs Head Manager, opened his organisation’s offices and Child Friendly Centre (CFC) programme to me with the positive mentality of improving their pedagogical practices while Mugu, a Project Officer at CDF, advised and supported me in coordinating access to the CFCs. The many facilitators and participants of the CFC programme so generously gave up their time and answered what was probably an unreasonable amount of questions willingly. Finally, the educational stakeholders – Dr. Nirmal Dewasiri, Dr. Rudiger Blumoer, Stefanie Licht, Ramzi Zaindeen, Thevuni Kotigala, Aritha Wickremasinghe and Marsha Cassiere-Daniel – kindly agreed to be interviewed and boldly go on record. I can only hope that given the same opportunity I could follow in all of these people’s footsteps.

Secondly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Jacobijn Olthoff. Throughout the entire process of writing this thesis she has been supportive and given constructive feedback which has developed this thesis and indeed my own understanding immeasurably. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to work with her on this topic.

Thirdly, I want to thank all of my friends and my family for their endless stream of support and inspiration throughout the writing process and during the fieldwork of this thesis. Finally, I want to end with a hope. A hope which I believe social-emotional learning has the potential to realise for children everywhere. The hope for equitable access to quality and

(4)

empathetic education that understands every student for their individual potential and not their preordained privilege.

3.5. Limitations 49 4. Introducing Child Friendly Centres and their Practice of Social-Emotional Learning 52 4.1. Introducing the Child Friendly Centre Programme 53 4.2. The Establishment of CFCs and the Implementation of SEL into their Practice 55 4.3. The Effect of Social-Emotional Learning Practice on Child Friendly Centres 56 4.4. The Impacts of CFCs Utilising SEL Practice on the Wellbeing of 61

Adolescent Participants

5. Sri Lankan Educational and Societal Culture 69

5.1. Sri Lankan Educational Culture 70

5.2. Sri Lankan Societal Culture 76

6. Conclusion, Contributions and Reflections 83

6.1. Conclusions 83

6.2. Empirical Contributions of the Thesis 85

6.3. Theoretical Contributions of the Thesis 87

References 90

(6)

Table of Figures

Figure 1: CASEL’s Integrated Framework 12

Figure 2: SEL Implementation and Sustainability Process 13 Figure 3: Eight elements necessary for academic-social-emotional balance 14 Figure 4: Examples of SEL outcomes related to Success in School and Life 15

Figure 5: SEL Delivery Framework (Source: Author) 16

Figure 6: Schematic representation of a diversified educational field 19 Figure 7: Differences between formal, non-formal and informal learning 21

Figure 8: NFE Dynamic Framework (Source: Author) 22

Figure 9: The three dimensions of wellbeing intersecting 24

Figure 10: Definition of Wellbeing Framework 25

Figure 11: The World Health Organisation’s Quality of Life definition 26

Figure 12: MRS Wellbeing Framework (Source: Author) 27

Figure 13: ‘SEL Impacts’ Framework (Source: Author) 30

Figure 14: Research Location: Trincomalee, Sri Lanka (Source: Google Maps) 41 Figure 15:CFC Locations (Source: Google Earth & Author) 41 Figure 16: Illustration of Masemann’s Critical Ethnography Definition 44 Figure 17: Carspecken’s Five-Stage Critical Qualitative Research Framework 44 Figure 18: Ethnographic Research Strategy (Source: Author) 45

Figure 19: Jaica CFC (Source: Author) 54

Figure 20: Inside Kasim Nagar CFC (Source: Author) 54

(7)

List of Abbreviations

CASEL Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning CDF Child Development Fund

CFC Child Friendly Centre CPO Child Protection Officer CQR Critical Qualitative Research DFJ Digital Field Journal

DS District Secretariat

ERC Education Review Committee ESC Education for Social Cohesion

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

HDI Human Development Index

ICF Informed Consent Form

ILO International Labour Organisation LTTE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam MoE Ministry of Education

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation NFE Non-Formal Education

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation QoL Quality of Life

SEL Social-Emotional Learning

SLA Sri Lankan Army

SLFP Sri Lankan Freedom Party SRA Social Research Association

WeD Wellbeing in Developing Countries WHO World Health Organisation

UN United Nations

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UvA Universiteit van Amsterdam

(8)

Introduction

While there is no internationally agreed upon definition or curriculum for the concept of ‘social-emotional learning’ (SEL), the term is increasingly conceptualised and employed within governmental and private pedagogical practice (Brackett & Rivers 2013). The Collaborative for Academic, Emotional and Social Learning (CASEL), a leading organisation in establishing high-quality and evidence-based SEL defines it as, “the acquisition of skills including self- and social awareness and regulation, responsible decision making and problem solving, and relationship management” (CASEL, 2003). Although SEL is a conceptual framework it is comprised of identifiable practices which address behavioural issues and enhance learning environments.

Society and the lives of young people have changed dramatically globally over the last century as economic and social pressures on families have increased and community institutions have been weakened (Weissberg et al, 2003). Many students in the global north now feel an increasing sense of insecurity, disenfranchisement, disillusionment (Zins et al, 2004). Globally, education also faces new challenges of multiculturalism, multilingualism and widening social and economic disparities between students which create unprecedented demands.

Attempting to address these contemporary demands schools in the U.S. for example utilise an average of 14 simultaneous activities to combat behaviour and enhance their learning environment (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001). Unfortunately however these activities are often implemented in an uncoordinated and piecemeal fashion (Greenberg et al, 2003) with high school students in U.S. demonstrating 40-60% chronic disengagement (Klem & Connell, 2004), 30% engaging in high risk behaviours (Eaton et al, 2008) and many lacking social-emotional competences, acting disruptively and believing their teachers do not care about them (Benson et al, 1999). Although these statistics examine the U.S. it is possible that if research was conducted in different, but comparable contexts similar results would

(9)

Problem Statement

The rights of a child to express their views freely in all matters affecting them is enshrined in the UNCRC (UNCRC, 1989) however the challenge is in presenting them within a neoliberal society with a normative view in which adolescents need to progress through developmental stages before speaking for themselves (Gallacher & Gallagher, 2008; Howell, 2018; Lee, 2001; Qvortrup, 1997). Internationally, researchers have emphasised the need for inclusion of children in educational research to accurately represent their own experiences, perspectives and understandings (Brostrom, 2012; Christensen, 2006). Ethnographic research examining the impacts of SEL on participants in developing countries however remains a knowledge gap within scholarly work. Instead current research examining the impacts of SEL utilises quantitative, longitudinal, meta-analyses conducted in the global north, often in the U.S. (Bierman et al, 2010; Durlack et al, 2011; Jones et al, 2015; Payton et al, 2008). Although these studies provide analysis on the impacts of SEL on participants ethnographic research conducted in developing contexts is required to study the true heterogenous realities.

In the context of Sri Lanka, repeated concern has been expressed regarding the education system’s needed to integrate “student-centred teaching methods” as well as “the promotion of social skills” (ESC, 2014). In a Sri Lankan Education Sector Assessment in 2017 the World Bank Group recommended a modernisation of the school curriculum to “facilitate the acquisition of both cognitive and soft skills, which are both important for students’ personal development and in high demand in the labour market” (WBG, 2017). The public perception of education in Sri Lanka has become so pessimistic that a prevalent ‘tuition culture’ has created an economic industry of private tuition. There are however non-formal education (NFE) programmes managed by NGOs across Sri Lanka which provide free education to supplement the inadequate state education system. These programmes have the license to deliver flexible curricula with innovative pedagogy, frequently practicing elements of SEL inadvertently. The impacts and potential benefits of these programmes and

(10)

their practice of SEL to educational and societal culture within Sri Lanka however is currently inadequately understood. If these NFE programmes which practice elements of SEL within Sri Lanka were understood in greater detail it is possible that normative pedagogical practice would change nationally.

In order to represent the heterogeneous participants and NFE programmes in Sri Lanka there is a ‘SEL Impacts’ framework developed within this study which offers an approach to study the impacts of SEL programmes on the wellbeing of young people. The framework enables the move beyond quantitatively measuring SEL programmatic outcomes towards a comprehensive multidimensional qualitative and ethnographic analysis of their impacts upon participant wellbeing. This thesis illustrates the theoretical development of the ‘SEL Impacts’ framework with its three competencies – self-awareness, social awareness and relationship skills – and multidimensional material, relational and subjective wellbeing conceptualisation. The ‘SEL Impacts’ framework enabled this research to empirically study the impacts of SEL on wellbeing in an NFE programme in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka in a comprehensive manner.

The objective of this thesis is to make two distinctive contributions. Firstly, it aims to make an empirical contribution in offering educational practitioners and scholars a greater understanding of the impacts of NFE programmes utilising SEL practices on the wellbeing of adolescent participants in Sri Lanka. Secondly, this thesis aims to make a theoretical contribution to scholarly understanding of how SEL programmes could impact on the wellbeing of adolescents in other, comparable contexts.

(11)

Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework

Introduction

As outlined in the introduction, this thesis has two main objectives. The first is to make an empirical contribution to a greater understanding of the impacts of SEL programme on the wellbeing of adolescents in Sri Lanka while the second is to make a theoretical contribution to understanding of how SEL programmes could impact on the wellbeing of adolescents in other, comparable contexts. To achieve these two objectives, this thesis starts with a theoretical chapter that develops the ‘SEL Impacts’ framework which allows this research to conduct a comprehensive multidimensional analysis of programmatic impacts. Building toward this framework this chapter starts with a section that critically analyses the theory, implementation, practices and outcomes discourses of SEL before operationalising it. The chapter continues with section that critically analyses the conceptualisation, implementation, diversity and transition discourses of non-formal education (NFE) before operationalising it. The chapter closes with a section that critically analyses the multidimensionality, quality of life, needs and culture discourse of wellbeing before operationalising it too. Finally, the chapter concludes by developing the operationalisation table and ‘SEL Impacts’ framework before presenting the research questions and outlining the chapters to come.

1.1. Social-Emotional Learning 1.1.1. Definition and Theory

Conception of SEL initially began with interested generated in the mid-1990s from Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence (1995) and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (1993). Subsequently the Fetzer Institute hosted a conference in 1994 attended by a range of educators, researchers and advocates to address concerns about the uncoordinated nature of school-based programmes. It was during this conference that the term ‘social-emotional

(12)

learning’ was conceived. Following the conference and series of meetings with attendees the Collaborate for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) was founded later that year.

With a goal to “establish high-quality, evidence-based SEL as an essential part of preschool through high school education” (Elias et al, 1997) CASEL has defined social-emotional learning as, “the acquisition of skills

including self- and social awareness and regulation, responsible decision making and problem solving, and relationship management” (CASEL, 2003). CASEL’s

Integrated Framework seen below contains

five key competencies which it advises be taught, practiced and reinforced within SEL programming (CASEL, 2018).

Adapting the five key competencies within

CASEL’s Integrated Framework three – self-awareness, social awareness and relationship skills – will be utilised within this study’s operationalisation of SEL because of their applicability to the post-war context of Trincomalee, Sri Lanka where the research will be conducted.

Social-emotional learning is often referred

to as ‘the missing piece’ in contemporary education and is an increasingly demanded practice to simultaneously deliver academic achievement and life-skills instruction (Baskin, 2014). As a result of ongoing educational research conducted by CASEL and others it is now understood that effective academic learning is achieved in warm but challenging classroom environments (Elias, 2006) in which students experience a sense of belonging (Osterman, 2000) with supportive, positive and respectful student-teacher interactions (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Significantly, the benefits of SEL programmes are achieved among ethnically and

(13)

Unique and innovative in practice, SEL utilises strategies unlike many equivalent prevention programmes which directly target individual issues. SEL programmes holistically address attitudes, behaviours and academic performance through an indirect intervention strategy of ‘universal prevention and promotion’ (Zins & Elias, 2007: 2) For instance, a strategy SEL interventions employ utilises the intrinsic motivation children develop when classroom topics relate to their own needs, emotions and lives to prevent learning fatigue (Ormrod, 1999).

SEL targets a combination of behaviours, cognitions and emotions. It can be described as a conceptual framework for providing opportunities for young people to acquire the skills necessary for attaining and maintaining personal wellbeing and positive relationships (Elbertson et al, 2009). Despite CASEL’s work however to define SEL a range of terms – character education, service learning, citizenship education, emotional intelligence – are still ambiguously and interchangeably used within the education sector. Furthermore, SEL’s recency as a field of research create issues with its operationalisation (Brody, 2004; Davies et al, 1998). SEL does however have several clearly defined implementational processes, pedagogical practices and desired outcomes discussed below.

1.1.2. Implementation, Pedagogy and Outcomes

Ambiguity and uncertainty within the operationalization of SEL ultimately produce a very complex landscape in terms of its implementation, practices and outcomes. In 2006 however CASEL developed the SEL Implementation Cycle framework shown below in Figure 2. This framework illustrates ten steps of implementation with six accompanying activities encircling to ensure sustainability. Accordingly, SEL implementation should occur in ten steps with three linear phases – readiness, planning and implementation – illustrated through numbering, shading and arrows. Activities to ensure sustainability however appear as six continual and equal practices in a circle with lettering. Finally, the word ‘Leadership’ sits centrally to illustrate the role of the delivery staff – identified in the rubric as the principal, steering committee, trainers or teachers – within the process.

(14)

Fig. 2: SEL Implementation and Sustainability Process (Devaney et al, 2006)

Critically analysing this framework it appears convoluted and imprecise. Staff delivering are positioned centrally appearing as beneficiaries within the process while their diversity and responsibilities are indistinguishable. Detailed steps sit within broader activities, many of which should debatably continue beyond implementation however the next ‘phase’ of continued practice is undiscussed. Altogether the framework does not work answer questions of ambiguity and uncertainty within SEL operationalisation.

Literature regarding SEL implementation does however include several common principles which intersect with CASEL’s Implementation Cycle. First, schools should select evidence-based programmes that align with their needs, resources, policies and practices (Zins & Elias, 2007; Elbertson et al, 2009). Second, programmes selected should be ethno-culturally and socio-economically appropriate to the students, families and schools (Botvin, 2004; Zins et al, 2007). Third, to achieve ownership consensus must be achieved through reviewing areas of fragmentation and conflict (Zins & Elias, 2007; Novick et al, 2002). These three principles – evidentiality, appropriateness and ownership – will be utilised within this researches operationalisation of SEL implementation.

In his paper The Connection Between Academic and Social-Emotional Learning Maurice Elias

(15)

balance that will result in success for students in school and life:

Elias emphasises the equal importance and interrelation between all eight elements before briefly explaining each respectively. Critically analysing Elias’ elements they appear relatively exhaustive and intentionally equivalent however they fail, although perhaps by design, to provide a sequential instruction. The transferability and feasibility of elements such as ‘Use

differentiated instructional procedures’ and ‘Involve parents’ is questionable in developing

contexts with pedagogical and financial constraints. However Elias does acknowledge that teachers may not be able to incorporate every element into their daily routines. Throughout SEL literature teachers are understood as instrumental to both the execution and impact of SEL programming (Martinez, 2016) which is demonstrated in Elias’ seventh element ‘Prepare and support staff well’. Teachers’ role as

facilitators, their relationships with students and skillsets as professionals impact programme implementation, delivery and outcomes.

Throughout SEL practice discourse there are five elements, many of which intersect with Elias’ eight elements, whose importance the authors are in agreement over. First, modernisation and innovation of pedagogical practice (Elias, 2006; Greenberg et al, 2003) and second, the involvement of caregivers and the community (Coryn et al, 2009; Elias, 2006; Greenberg et al, 2003). Third, the constant training and support of staff directly and indirectly involved

(16)

with SEL (Durlack et al, 2011; Greenberg et al, 2003) and fourth, the warmth and supportiveness but also challenging classroom and school environments (Elias, 2006; Zins & Elias, 2007). Fifth, schools and staff must incorporate SEL into their daily routine and practice (Payton et al, 2008; Durlack et al, 2011). These five elements will be utilised within this study’s operationalisation of SEL practice.

In their paper Facilitating Success in School and in Life Through Social and Emotional

Learning Zins et al (2003) summarise the positive outcomes associated with SEL

interventions in a table (Figure 4) under the criteria of attitudes, behaviours and performance. Critically analysing this table we can identify a number of connections with SEL implementation and practice meaning the three processes are interrelated and interdependent. Such dependence however reduces the potential for outcomes such as ‘Higher sense of self-efficacy’, ‘Decreases in sexually

transmitted diseases and suicide’, and ‘Improved nonverbal reasoning’ if implementation and

practice are limited. Significantly, negative outcomes are omitted from this table reflecting wider SEL literature regarding outcomes.

Literature regarding SEL programmatic outcomes commonly describe four positive outcomes which correspond to those in Zins et al’s table. The commonly highlighted positive impacts include; increased academic achievement, decreased problem behaviour, developed interpersonal relationships and improved classroom and school environments (Payton et al, 2008; Elias, 2006; Zins & Elias, 2007). These four outcomes will be utilised within this study’s operationalisation of SEL outcomes.

1.1.3. SEL Operationalisation

The framework seen below illustrates the collection and operationalisation of SEL theory discussed and critically analysed previously.

Fig. 4: Examples of SEL outcomes related to

Success in School and Life (Zins et al, 2003)

Social Values and N

(17)

The ‘SEL Delivery’ Framework above adapts and incorporates aspects of form and elements taken from CASEL’s Integrated Framework and Implementation Cycle as well as several theories discussed previously. The elements are colour-coordinated with social contexts (black), delivery staff (green), competencies (blue), practices and processes (red), and the beneficiary (gold). Analysing the framework it appears as a nested illustration, similar to a bullseye or solar system, in which the beneficiary ‘student’ is centrally placed. These comparisons are equally appropriate as the student is the ultimate objective and the gravitational centre around which SEL operates. Elements are nested in order of their increasing propinquity to the student in the delivery of SEL. Accordingly, practices and processes should occur in four linear, although also continual, stages illustrated with arrows and initiated by implementation. Although presented here as a four-stage approach, SEL delivery should however be interpreted as comprising iterative stages with constant incorporation of analysis which is demonstrated through the ‘Feedback’ element’s dashed square. Delivery staff follow with equal positioning within the framework demonstrating their equal importance and involvement within SEL delivery. The three competencies then sit triangularly encompassing the two aforementioned elements as guiding the delivery process. Finally, the social context encircles all other elements with aspects outside the

Student Implementatio Practice Outcomes Feedback Social Awareness Relationship Teacher Principa Trainer Administrative Staff Communit Famil

Religious Values and

(18)

scope of SEL practice. In the development of the ‘SEL Impacts’ framework, central in this research, the three competencies of SEL will be utilised due to their relevance as a guiding principle.

1.2. Non-Formal Education

1.2.1. What Non-Formal Education isn’t.

Education is contemporarily understood to occur within various models, structures, settings and systems with a range of learning objectives and outcomes. In order to identify and define what comprises non-formal education (NFE) it is essential to first conduct the same process for both of its counterparts; formal education and informal education. It is however important to note that although there are many differences between these three forms of education one is not necessarily the antithesis of the other and no competition should exist between them. After all, in the educational sector there is room enough, and in fact a need, for all.

Formal education can be defined as a systematic and organised educational model, structured and administered according to a given set of laws and norms presented in a rigid curriculum in regards of objectives, content and methodology (Dib, 1988). It often corresponds to the education process normally adopted by schools and universities which confers degrees or diplomas and utilises assessments frequently. Literature extensively emphasises the inadequacies of the formal education system in meeting the needs of individuals and wider society, “Piaget, Freire, Havighurst, Coleman, Brookover and literally hundreds of others have indicated clearly where education should be and here, instead it wallows in inefficiency, crust rigidity and stubbornness” (Ward et al, 1974). The largely punitive character of formal education dictates it obeys a mono-directional pedagogical methodology which fails to stimulate or provide active participation for students while ascribing failures near entirely to them. Overall the inadequacies of formal education relative to the needs of its students and of society at large constitute a source of justification for the proliferation of NFE.

(19)

Hermanson, 1995) who determines their own learning objectives and outcomes. In contrast to formal education it does not utilise an organised and systematic view of education nor necessarily share the objectives or content of traditional curricula. Instead, it is aimed at the general public and students equally, imposes very few obligations or control over activities and does not confer degrees or diplomas. Examples of informal educational activities may include but are not limited to; reading texts in journals or magazines, attending lectures or conferences, watching television or listening to the radio, visiting museums or other exhibitions. Ultimately however informal education is limited to a supplementary role in that due to its spontaneous nature it cannot fulfil the educational needs of society in isolation.

1.2.2. What Non-Formal Education is.

On average 85% of the time children in the U.S are awake is spent outside of the classroom (Medrich et al, 1982) creating an immense opportunity for learning to take place outside of the formal educational system. During the 20th_{century educationalists began to realise} these neglected learning opportunities establishing the premier non-formal education programmes. In examination of their emergence Ward et al (1974) lamented, “A comprehensive and standard definition of non-formal education is not yet available or in common usage”. Remaining a controversial issue to this day.

NFE is often sandwiched between its two counterparts – formal and informal education – in educational literature and seen as the median between the three. It is important however to acknowledge that the relationship between them is not linear but rather, as Fig. 6 illustrates, interdependent, interrelational and multidirectional. Analysis of this model demonstrates the symbiotic relationship between para-formal NFE and the formal system as the former encircles the latter and early childhood care and education (ECCE) cuts across all domains with its largest part in the ‘other NFE’ domain. These three features – interdependence, interrelation and multidirection will be utilised in the operationalisation of NFE relation within this study.

(20)

Execution of NFE is contended between authors with some believing it requires several inputs such as student interest and motivation, quality educational materials and an institutional support scheme (Dib 1988) while others consider NFE achieved if it “only improve[s] children’s attitudes and inculcate[s] them with the passion to know more” (Eshach, 2007).

Although NFE is “not a concrete, one-dimensional concept” (Aitchison, 2007) there is a general consensus throughout the discourse that it can be defined as every form of organised or structured education taking place outside of the state education system to address the learning needs of specific target groups. Critical analysis of NFE programmes conducted during this research reveals the consistent presence of two features; centralisation of the process on the student according to their identified needs, and the immediate usefulness of content for the student’s personal and professional growth. As a result of these features and its highly adaptive manner NFE is better positioned to meet the individual needs of students. These two consistent features – student centralisation and immediate content usefulness – alongside its positionality as external to state education will be utilised within this study’s operationalisation of NFE.

(21)

Literature regarding NFE programme implementation discusses several aspects which must be considered including; the independent learning level of individual students, integration into existing formal institutions endeavouring to obtain political and technical support, and analysis and incorporation of any success, no matter how limited (Dib, 1988). Perhaps most importantly during the NFE implementation phase is the understanding that transference of models and strategies from one country or institution to another must be carefully made (Dib,1980). Several considerations – institutional integration, success incorporation and careful transference – will be utilised within this study’s operationalisation of NFE implementation.

Historically NFE has been used to express the desire to facilitate learning through alternative modes of delivery for children unable to access formal educational opportunities (Thompson, 2001). Within educational literature and common linguistics the term ‘non-formal education’ has come to problematically comprise educational initiatives as diverse as; language classes, computer courses and entrepreneurship development programmes. Indeed, some specialists argue that the very term NFE has lost all meaning and relevance because of the difficulty in defining educational differences with its counterparts and the diversity of its initiatives. Despite such diversity the term NFE is duplicitously accused of homogenising the variety of initiatives and thereby inferring they can be addressed and manipulated in the same manner.

Although important, definitional discussions are largely restricted to educational specialist meetings which could, in part, be due to the actions of those intentionally perpetuating formal education’s dominance seeing NFE as a threat to the status quo. An outcome of fragmented discussions is the tendency of NFE definitions to follow national realities (Carron & Carr-Hill, 1991). Moreover, the descriptor ‘non-formal’ has created negative connotations, equating lack of formality with poor quality provision. In Sub-Saharan Africa these negative associations have generated feelings of revulsion toward NFE, often expressed with derision within formal education domains. The variety of NFE’s definitions and initiatives will be utilised alongside a dynamic relation with formal education within this study’s operationalisation of NFE diversity.

(22)

Education can be categorised as formal, non-formal and informal by the extent to which certain features, illustrated below in Fig. 7, are present or not. NFE is often identified by comparison with formal education whereby the number of formal education features absent proportionally grades NFE systems. Critically analysing this interrelation however it becomes apparent that within this common understanding the relationship is linear from formal to informal rather than multidirectional.

Interrelation and feature identification are important however as they introduce the possibility to transition from one form of education to another one through substituting, eliminating or making more flexible certain features. The process of transition may occur in multiple directions with varying effects. For example going from formal to non-formal education displaces the ‘centre of gravity’ from the school system to the student whereas going from non-formal to formal education institutionalises and hierarchically structures a programme. Gradual incorporation of non-formal elements into formal education could be potentially employed to better meet the needs of individual students and society. The variety of features and multidirectional interrelation will be utilised within this study’s operationalisation of NFE transition.

1.2.4. Operationalisation

(23)

The framework seen below illustrates the collection and operationalisation of NFE theory

discussed and critically

analysed previously.

The ‘NFE Dynamic’ Framework above adapts and incorporates aspects of form and elements taken from Hoppers’ Schematic as well as several theories discussed previously. Perhaps surprisingly central within a framework illustrating NFE, formal education is situated in a red square contrasting other elements to demonstrate its rigidly institutionalised state. Non-formal education is illustrated as three concentrically expanding spheres encircling Non-formal education which demonstrate the multidirectional interrelation. Two arrows, ‘Diversity’ and ‘Formal Education Features’, traverse the framework reflecting a dynamic interrelation in which the diversity and grade of NFE is proportionate to the absence of formal educational features. Ovals illustrating ‘Existing Institutions’, ‘Civil Society’ and ‘Analysis & Incorporation’ which span all varieties of NFE demonstrate their interdependent incorporation. The latter also integrates ‘Careful Transference’ and incorporation of success iteratively, illustrated with arrows.

(24)

1.3. Wellbeing 1.3.1. Background

Wellbeing is simultaneously the most extensively theoretically debated and yet least understood concept within this study. Theoretical perspectives on wellbeing go back to ancient Greek philosophy, in particular Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia which refers to a state of contentment, happiness, healthiness and prosperousness.

In the 20th_{Century Bradburn’s (1969) research on psychological wellbeing, marked a move} away from diagnoses of psychiatric cases towards the study of psychological reactions of ordinary people within their daily lives. Shin and Johnson progressed theory towards a definition of wellbeing while introducing the concept of ‘quality of life’ as they conceived wellbeing as, “a global assessment of a person’s quality of life according to his own chosen criteria” (Shin & Johnson, 1978). Ryff’s (1989) work identified aspects which constitute wellbeing from autonomy to positive relations with others and self-acceptance. Finally, Diener and Shuh’s work in 1997 defined “subjective wellbeing consistent of three interrelated components: life satisfaction, pleasant affect, and unpleasant affect” (Diener & Shuh, 1997).

Towards the end of the century development institutions began to engage with concepts of wellbeing epitomised by the UN’s ‘Declaration on the Right to Development’ (1986). The UNDP also stressed the need for all people to be able to live under conditions which allow them to pursue their wellbeing. In the early 1990s the UN translated rhetoric into action with the design of the Human Development Index (HDI). Inspired by the work of Townsend (1979) and Sen (1985) the HDI was the first measurement tool to use dimensions of wellbeing as indicators of development. Researchers today agree that wellbeing is a multidimensional construct (Diener, 2009; Stiglitz, Sen & Fitoussi, 2009) with those such as Allister McGregor arguing this further by promoting a wellbeing-centred approach to all development research and interventions (McGregor, 2004).

(25)

definitions of wellbeing, calling it “puzzling” (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Seligman later explained that wellbeing “has several measurable elements, each a real thing, each contributing to wellbeing, but none defining wellbeing” (Seligman, 2011). Dodge et al summarised the situation positing, “as interest in the measurement of wellbeing grows, there is a greater necessity to be clear about what is being measured” (Dodge et al, 2014). An illustration of the challenges and increasing significance of wellbeing can be seen in the U.K. government’s attempt to develop measure of national wellbeing. This complex process took over a decade, involved 7,250 people and generated 34,00 responses (UK ONS, 2011).

In 2002 the Wellbeing in Developing Countries (WeD) working group was established by Ian Gough and Allister McGregor at the University of Bath under a multinational, interdisciplinary study. WeD defined wellbeing in the field of development as “a state of being with others, where human needs are met, where one can act meaningfully to pursue one’s goals, and where one enjoys a satisfactory quality of life” (WeD, 2007) This definition is significant because it recognises the objective and subjective generation of a state of wellbeing through intra- and interpersonal relationships. Wellbeing is conceptualised by McGregor as three interacting dimensions; material, relational and subjective. In this conception a person’s wellbeing is understood as a combination of what they have (material), how they are able to use what they have (relational) and the quality of life they perceive from it (subjective) (McGregor, 2007).

In Figure 9 we see a basic Venn diagram taken from McGregor & Pouw’s paper Towards an Economics of Wellbeing (2016) illustrating the interaction and intersection of wellbeing dimensions.

(26)

Critically analysis of this framework demonstrates the dynamics between the three dimensions and how people may pursue and achieve their overall wellbeing either through prioritising (M∩R or M∩S or R∩S), or combining (M∩R∩S) them. Employing this framework the realisation of wellbeing can be assessed in an integrated and comprehensive manner by analysing these intersections (McGregor & Pouw, 2016). The notion of objective and subjective wellbeing will be utilised alongside the multidimensional – material, relational and subjective – conception within this study’s operationalisation of wellbeing.

Wellbeing is a dynamic state in which Reber (1995) posits, “essential qualities are relatively stable”. This notion of stability is further reflected within Herzlich’s (1975) concept of equilibrium – noticeably similar to the WeD working group’s wellbeing conception – as psychological and physical wellbeing and good relations with others. Furthermore, Headey and Wearing (1992) propose that a change in wellbeing occurs when “a person deviates from their equilibrium”. These notions of dynamism, stability and equilibrium are operationalised by Dodge et al (2014) in their framework defining wellbeing seen in Figure 10 below.

The framework illustrates wellbeing a dynamic state in a circular shape positioned centrally. There are also two influences, ‘resources’ and ‘challenges’, comprised of three interacting dimensions, ‘psychological’, ‘social’, and ‘physical’ – resembling McGregor’s conception of wellbeing – in opposition to each other. Critically analysing the framework reveals an

Fig. 10: Definition of Wellbeing Framework (Dodge et al, 2014)

(27)

inevitably overcome. These notions of a dynamic-stability-equilibrium-based wellbeing are essential and will be utilised within this study’s operationalisation of wellbeing.

1.3.3. QoL, Needs & Culture Debate

Within wellbeing discourse there are three key concepts of contention; quality of life, needs and culture. First is the debate regarding use of the term ‘quality of life’ (QoL). Often used interchangeably with ‘wellbeing’ some theorists believe the task of definition has become “conceptually muddy” (Morrow & Mayall, 2009). Critical analysis of the WHO’s conception of QoL – a widely used definition – as seen in Fig. 11 below illustrates how this conceptual perplexity has transpired through linguistical similarity between the WHO’s and McGregor’s understanding of wellbeing is striking. The language such as ‘physical health’, ‘relationships’ and ‘individual perception’ echoes that of McGregor’s material, relational and subjective dimensions respectively.

Second is the debate of what constitutes ‘need’. Need is important within wellbeing as often its fulfilment or lack thereof determines an individual’s wellbeing. In 1991 Doyal and Gough attempted to simply the concept by suggesting the recognition of two basic human needs, health and autonomy. The denial of either of which would result in objectively verifiable harm (Doyal & Gough, 1991). A decade later Gough proposed for extending this theory to better recognise social and psychological dimensions of need (Gough, 2003). This broadened approach demonstrates, as McGregor advocates, the importance of the needs of the whole person within their social context (McGregor, 2007). Finally, the work of Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom (1999) further clarified that the purpose of development is not to meet needs but rather to enable people to achieve the ‘doings’ and ‘beings’ that they value. This emphasis on perceived value is important as it raises questions of subjective dimensions and culture.

Third is the debate regarding the lack of cultural inclusion in wellbeing conceptualisation. A result of the development community’s reluctance to integrate subjective notions of

(28)

wellbeing into theory and practice (Pouw & Gilmore, 2013) culture is often absent from operationalisations. McGregor defines culture as a “complex system of norms, values, and rules developed by particular communities which shape behaviour and which are founded in their relationship to a particular natural environment” (McGregor, 2004). Researchers use cultural interpretations and empirical evidence to build impressions and make meaningful connections during research. Therefore, culture is central to the research process as the ability to interpret data will be contingent upon one’s ability to evaluate culture and present it relative to empirical data (McGregor, 2004). These three concepts – QoL, need and culture – key within wellbeing discourse will therefore be adapted and utilised within this study’s operationalisation of wellbeing.

1.3.4. Operationalisation

The framework seen below illustrates the collection and operationalisation of Wellbeing

theory discussed

and critically

analysed

(29)

The ‘MRS Wellbeing’ Framework above adapts and incorporates aspects of form and elements taken from McGregor and Pouw’s Multidimensional Wellbeing and Dodge et al’s

Wellbeing Framework as well as several theories discussed previously. A multidimensional –

material, relational and subjective – conception of wellbeing is situated centrally atop a seesaw illustrating the dynamic, stability and equilibrium nature of wellbeing. The width of ‘Quality of Life’ connotes its significance and definitional variation while the pivot of ‘Agency’ demonstrates the individual’s ability to affect theirs, and indeed other’s, wellbeing. Two elements sit parallel as ‘Need’ and ‘Ability’, inspired by Sen’s enabling emphasis, are situated facing ‘Culture’, including human and natural environments, as oppositional influences. These elements are directly inspired by the ‘Resources’ and ‘Challenges’ of Dodge et al’s Wellbeing Framework discussed previously. Finally, objective and subjective notions of wellbeing are illustrated through a dashed line traversing the framework which is enclosed within the social context which McGregor advises should be considered. In the development of the ‘SEL Impacts’ framework, central in this research, the three dimensions of wellbeing will be utilised due to their relevance as a central element.

1.4. Operationalisation Table

The variables and indicators, along with their relevance and justification, identified within this operationalisation table are accumulated from the conceptual schemes provided above.

Concept Dimension Variable Indicator

Social-Emotional Learning

Implementation

Evidence-based programmes selected aligning with participant needs

Have evidence-based programmes aligned with participant needs been selected?

Ethno-culturally and socio-economically appropriate programmes selected

Have ethno-culturally and socio-economically appropriate programmes been selected?

Ownership consensus from fragmentation and conflict review

Has ownership consensus been achieved through fragmentation and conflict review?

(30)

Practice

Modernisation and Innovation of pedagogical practice

Is pedagogical practice modern and innovative?

Caregiver and Community Involvement

Are caregivers and the community involved?

Training and Support of Staff Are staff trained and supported? Warm and supportive but also

challenging environments

Is the environment warm and supportive but also challenging? Incorporation of SEL into daily

routine and practice

Is SEL incorporated into daily routine and practice?

Outcomes

Increased academic achievement Has academic achievement increased? Decreased problem behaviour Has problem behaviour decreased? Relationship Skills competence

Do participants have the ability to establish and maintain healthy relationships with diverse individuals? Self-awareness competence

Do participants have the ability to accurately recognise their own emotions, thoughts and values and assess their strengths and limitations? Social Awareness competence

Do participants have the ability to take an empathetic and understanding perspective? Non-Formal Education Programmes Definition and Identity Definitional Diversity

How does the programme define itself and how does this differ from its counterparts?

Number of formal education features present

How many features of formal education are present within the programme?

Implementation

Integration into Civil Society and Existing Institutions

Has the programme been integrated into civil society and existing

institutions?

Careful Transference Have models and strategies taken from elsewhere been carefully transferred?

(31)

Delivery

Dynamic Relation with Formal Education

Does the programme have a dynamic relation with formal education systems?

Analysis and Incorporation of Success

Does the programme analyse and incorporate success?

Wellbeing

Contributions

Culture: Human Environment and Natural Environment

How does the human and natural environment of the participant contribute to their wellbeing? Objective and Subjective notion

How do objective and subjective notions generated by participants contribute to wellbeing?

Individual

Agency What agency does the participant have _{over their and other’s wellbeing?}

Need and Ability

What social and psychological needs does the participant have and what is their ability to meet them?

Effects

Material Wellbeing How does the programme affect what participants have?

Relational Wellbeing

How does the programme affect participant ability to make use of what they have?

Subjective Wellbeing How does the participant perceive their wellbeing to have been affected?

Quality of Life How does the programme affect

participant quality of life?

1.5. SEL Impact Framework

The framework seen below illustrates the amalgamation and operationalisation of the foremost relevant elements of the preceding three concepts; SEL, NFE and wellbeing.

Material

Subjective Relational

(32)

The ‘SEL Impacts’ Framework distils the three concepts encompassed within this research, enabling a study of the impact of NFE programmes which utilise SEL on the wellbeing of adolescents. The framework’s form resembles the architecture of institutions such as banks, libraries and museums reflecting the establishment of SEL impacts prominently within the practice’s objectives. The foundation of the framework is the ‘wider social context’ atop which non-formal educational programmes operate in a structured and controlled fashion. Social-emotional learning consists of three distinct competencies – self-awareness, social awareness and relationship skills – in the form of pillars to illustrate their integral importance. Wellbeing consists of three interacting dimensions – material, relational and subjective – forming the roof and reflecting its position as the culmination of the framework and objective of SEL practice. The ‘SEL Impacts’ Framework illustrates a construct rather than a process comprising dynamic, iterative and interdependent concepts.

1.6. Research Questions

To gain a greater understanding of the impacts of SEL programmes in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka and to develop a framework on how to study the impacts of SEL programmes in different, but comparable contexts, this thesis is centred on the following main research question:

‘What impacts can adding Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) practices to non-formal education

Non-Formal Educational Programmes

Self-Awareness Social Awareness Relationship Skill Social-Emotional Learning

Fig. 13: ‘SEL Impacts’ Framework (Source: Author) Wider Social Context

(33)

This question is then disaggregated into the following, interrelated and interdependent sub-questions:

- How does social-emotional learning affect non-formal education programmes in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka?

- How do non-formal education programmes which utilised social-emotional learning affect the wellbeing of adolescent participants in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka?

- How could non-formal education programmes which utilise social-emotional learning affect the educational and societal culture of Sri Lanka?

- What can social-emotional learning contribute to non-formal education programmes in different, but comparable contexts?

In critically analysing current theoretical perspectives and developing the ‘SEL Impacts’ framework this chapter began answering the final sub-question and achieving the theoretical objective of this thesis. The ‘SEL Impacts’ framework offers an approach to comprehensively study the impacts of NFE programmes which utilise SEL practices on the wellbeing of adolescent participants.

Attempting to meet the empirical objective of this research the ‘SEL Impacts’ framework was applied to the adolescent participants of the Child Friendly Centre (CFC) NFE programme in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka. In the following chapters, the various stages of this empirical study of the CFC programme’s practice of SEL is discussed. Chapter two details the context in which the empirical study of this thesis was conducted through examining Sri Lanka’s education, ethnic conflict, youth and adolescence followed by descriptions of the research locations and the Child Development Fund. Chapter three details the research methodology as the ontological position is discussed, research methods outlined, sampling method explained, ethical considerations examined and limitations presented.

Applying the ‘SEL Impacts’ framework to the context of the CFC programme in Trincomalee, the results of the empirical study with the research participants are presented in chapters four and five. Chapter four introduces the CFC programme and presents the findings of the empirical ethnographic research conducted in order to answer the two initial sub-questions. Chapter five combines and examines findings of the empirical research with supplementary

(34)

educational stakeholder interviews conducted in order to answer the third and fourth sub-questions. The final chapter, Chapter six presents the conclusions of the thesis and answers the research question. This chapter also discusses empirical contributions of the research, followed by recommendations for NGO policymakers in Trincomalee and finally theoretical contributions of this thesis to SEL and NFE literature and recommendations for scholars aiming to examine the impacts of SEL on adolescent wellbeing.

Chapter 2: Research Context

Introduction

This chapter introduces the context surrounding the children who participate in the Child Friendly Centre (CFC) programme in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka. As discussed in the previous chapter a researcher’s ability to interpret data is contingent upon their ability to evaluate culture and present it relative to empirical context (McGregor, 2004). Therefore, in order to interpret data collected during this research and evaluate the culture of social-emotional learning in Sri Lanka an accompanying analytical empirical context is necessary. The chapter opens by placing the study within the socio-cultural, economic and political context of Sri Lanka, critically analysing three relevant topics pertinent to this research; education, ethnic conflict and youth and adolescence. Following this, the chapter describes the research location of Trincomalee and the three CFC case studies. Finally, the chapter ends with a short description of the Child Development Fund, the NGO through which the empirical research was conducted.

2.1. Education

(35)

Despite this emphasis however Sri Lankan education policy has historically been driven by equity rather than economy. This is demonstrable in the country’s free education (since the Free Education Act in 1945), ‘Swabhasha’ (native-tongue) education and gender parity (UNICEF, 2012). Colonial domination of the education continued into the early twentieth century when Buddhist and Hindu native elites began to establish their own denominational schools.

Post-independence Sri Lankan politics began shifting, particularly in the initial two decades, towards reduced international interdependence and increasing communalisation. In 1960 the Sri Lankan Freedom Party were elected on a platform of inwardly-oriented, state-strengthening, nationalist policies. The SLFP adopted an Import Substitute Industrialisation (ISI) economic strategy and two successive acts of parliament (1960 and 1961) vesting almost all assisted schools and their properties under state control. After an interval the SLFP were re-elected in 1970 under a coalition which implemented educational reforms recommended by the Education Review Committee (ERC). These reforms adjudged the education system over-dependent upon examinations and inadequate in developing skills necessary for national economic development. In 1972 reforms introduced a subject named ‘pre-vocational studies’ which taught practical and locally relevant subjects that reflected local economies and oriented students towards livelihoods. These reforms lasted less than five years, accused of discrimination and reinforcing class and caste division they were soon reversed.

At the higher tertiary level educational reforms set a lower qualifying mark for Sinhalese medium candidates in 1970 followed by mark standardisation in 1971 to increase proportionate ethnic representation and district quotas in 1974 to increase proportionate regional representation. These tertiary education reforms are believed to have created unfulfilled expectations and aspirations among the youth, many of whom grew discontented with a system perceived to be against them (Peiris, 2013).

Sri Lankan state domination of education went unchallenged until the election of the United National Party (UNP) in 1977 who replaced inward-oriented policy with export-oriented economic liberalisation. The effects of economic liberalisation have proved to be

(36)

wide-reaching and irrevocable. Occupationally, the number of total persons employed in government, semi-government and private corporate sectors between 1977-1991 increased from 1.32 million to 1.99 million with a private sector share increase of 21% to 34% (CBSL, 1991). Meanwhile the effects of liberalisation on education were both direct and indirect. Directly education increasingly commercialised as foreign-local partnerships were promoted while an affluent social stratum, often termed ‘new rich’, emerged as a result of new private sector business opportunities demanding increased private education, international schools and private tuition. Indirectly, demand increased for alternative skills and qualifications to which educational systems was required to adapted to deliver while the simplification of converting Sri Lankan rupees into foreign companies made foreign educational service payment easier.

Neoliberalism continued to effect educational policy in the form of the 1981 White Paper in which the government devolved its responsibility to the school level, creating provincial ‘clusters’. In spite of such conciliatory, devolutionary efforts to appease ethno-religious minorities’ sovereignty concerns the Sri Lankan war erupted in July 1983 after an Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) carried out an attack killing thirteen Sri Lankan Army (SLA) servicemen. This attack was retaliated with an infamous anti-Tamil pogrom commonly referred to as ‘Black July’.

What followed was a twenty-six-year civil war in which the ethno-religious segregation and minority marginalisation of Sri Lanka’s state educational system played a significant causal role. Educational funding was enormously restricted between the 1980s and 2009 as a result of a public expenditure shift towards civil defence and foreign and domestic debt payment, the effects of which can be observed today in a state tertiary system suffering from a lack of investment and expansion. The effects of Sri Lanka’s chronically insufficiently funded tertiary education system on graduates are chronicled in the findings of Gunawardena’s (1991) study in which employers stated communication, personality, interpersonal, adaptability and decision-making skills lacking in graduates. Two decades on in 2011 a World Bank Skill Needs Assessment echoed these findings in concluding that

(37)

skills such as collaboration, adaptability and trainability in order to be employable (World Bank, 2011).

Sri Lanka’s education system has been impacted by colonial independence, nationalistic politics, economic liberalisation and civil war over the last century irreversibly altering it forever. It is ironic however that the issues of class-based marginalisation and ethno-religious discrimination which characterised pre-independence education policy in the nineteenth century remain equally relevant today. A theory for the lack of educational evolution was hypothesised by Sedere (2000) and termed “conventional classic general education”. According to this theory education will continue to fail in achieving its aims as a means of poverty alleviation and social mobility as its emphasis remains in empowering the elite classes instead of the poor. If Sedere’s theory is accurate then perhaps a revolutionary pedagogical innovation such as social-emotional learning is required in order to contest and address this elitist hegemony.

2.2. Ethnic Conflict

“One misleading tendency seen at the end of the Sri Lankan war was the ascription of the root causes of the conflict to the formation of the Tamil Tigers, as if their popular support had arisen from nowhere.” (Weiss, 2012)

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, as the quote above infers, is not an unpredictable or contemporary issue. On the contrary, it can be historically demonstrated as prevalent for centuries. The Mahavamsa is an epic poem detailing the ancient history of Sri Lanka. Written in the sixth century by a bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) it was lost and forgotten to the world for centuries until it was ‘found’ by British amateur scholars in 1838. It was then translated into English and with minimal analysis used as proof of ancient Sinhalese lineage on the island. Many believe this was the beginning of the Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalist movement and the foundation of ethnic tension in Sri Lanka (Bush, 1990). To many contemporary historians however the Mahavamsa provides evidence that contradicts ideas central to Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism, instead indicating the equally-ancient presence of Tamils in Sri Lanka. British colonial policies of the 19th_{Century further exacerbated ethnic} tension with the economic tea and rubber plantation regime which required the forced

(38)

migration of unwelcome Indian Tamil labour, meanwhile educationally ethno-religious division was reinforced through segregated schooling (Weiner, 1993).

Post-independence, Sri Lanka established a centralised state in which issues of nationalism, ethno-linguistic identity, educational segregation and language grew in significance. The increasing communalisation of politics, particularly in the two decades preceding independence, resulted in a worsened public policy environment for ethnic monitories as a proportional representation of politics favouring the Sinhalese was established. This dominance was demonstrated in the 1956 Sinhala Only Act which replaced English with Sinhalese as the official national language. The effects of this act were the opening of highly desirable employment opportunities in the public sector – previously favourably dominated by Tamils – to Sinhalese-educated people, marginalisation of monolingual Tamils and confinement of English-educated elite to the stagnant private sector. The impacts of ethno-religiously discriminatory educational reforms, such as the mark standardisation and district quotas previously mentioned, also negatively impacted the tertiary education of the Tamil minority. Between 1948 and 1966 Buddhists increased their university student share from 43.2% to 74% while students from the Northern province – a Tamil-majority province – decreased from 14.2% to 8.6% (de Silva, 1974).

Economic liberalisation of Sri Lanka in 1977 had direct economic and social effects which resulted in further inequality and thereby increased ethnic division and tension. The industrialisation of the national economy had employment sector impacts as agriculture decreased from 53% to 35.7% and manufacturing increased from 7.3% to 16.9% between 1963-2004 (Department of Census and Statistics Sri Lanka, 2005) It is however important to clarify that respective decreases and increases in agriculture and manufacturing were not uniform or smooth. Contrarily, the inverse was true for both between 1987/1979 and 1981/1982, significantly the years building up to the Sri Lankan war. Economic liberalisation also disproportionately expanded private sector business opportunities simultaneously creating a ‘new rich’ native elite, widening the rich-poor gap and privileging urban areas consequentially contributing to rural-urban migration.

(39)

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka following the 1977 elections grew increasingly violent. Days after the 21st July 1977 general elections anti-Tamil riots broke out in the cities across Sri Lanka. This conflict killed 128 people and motivated Tamils to withdraw further into the north thereby exacerbating spatial ethnic segregation. In the 1980s however the ethnic violence towards the Tamil minority acquired an official complicity quality. Cyril Mathew was a governmental minister who proposed aggressive colonisation of the Tamil areas and a ‘Buddhist jihad’. In 1981 he burned down the Jaffna library destroying irreplaceable archives in a calculated state act that is regarded by many Tamils to have been a cultural genocide designed to erase records of their history in Sri Lanka (Kumaaran, 2010). In 1983, two weeks before the riots, President Jayawardene stated publicly that he didn’t care if the Tamils of Jaffna starved. Finally and perhaps most incriminatory, mob leaders during the ‘Black July’ pogrom carried voter registration lists indicating the location of Tamil houses only substantiates the belief of official complicity.

Instances of ethnic conflict and violence in Sri Lanka often result in impunity for perpetrators and a lack of state accountability as the events during and after the civil war demonstrate. During the conflict Philip Alston, a UN Special Rapporteur, insisted that the Sri Lankan government investigate the thousands of disappearances which had taken place under the Rajapaksa war-time regime to no avail. Just eight days after the official end of the war on 27th_{May Navanetham Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, called for an} international inquiry from the Human Rights Council in Geneva into the conduct of both parties during the war. A majority of countries on the council rejected this notion out of hand, instead opting to praise the Sri Lankan government for its victory over the LTTE. Many experts however, believe that the SLA’s conduct during the war is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians, an assertion supported by a report conducted by a UN panel of experts on Sri Lanka’s accountability (UN, 2011). With such a lack of consequence for the state it is inevitable that many Sri Lankan’s feel aggrieved and conflict ensues. Ethnic conflict is as potential and therefore relevant an issue in Sri Lanka today as it ever has been. As Gordon Weiss states it would be misleading to argue that the civil war, or indeed any ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, arose from nowhere. The Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism, political communalisation, increasing inequality, official complicity and lack of accountability