Prof. Chandana Jayalath University of Vocational Technology

The controversy surrounding Sri Lanka’s Grade Six English syllabus has intensified, evolving from an embarrassing oversight into a broader national debate on curriculum governance, political accountability, and the responsible use of technology in education. The issue came to light, as we heard, after it was discovered that the syllabus recommended students improve their English language skills by finding a pen-pal” through an online platform that was, in reality, an adult-oriented chat website carrying highly inappropriate content. The syllabus was intended for children transitioning into lower secondary education. While officials have pointed to multiple layers of technical review—including panels of senior educators and university academics—education analysts stress that ultimate responsibility rests with the Minister of Education, under whose authority national curricula are approved, printed, and ultimately released. In public administration, curriculum development is not merely a technical exercise delegated to professionals. It is a policy instrument of the State, and the minister is accountable to Parliament and the public for its integrity. Below the minister lies a chain of responsibility: the NIE leadership, curriculum developers, review panels, editors, and final approving authorities. A failure at multiple levels suggests not an individual lapse but a systemic breakdown.

As a professor of a university, I have to admit the fact that, experts play a critical role in curriculum design, ensuring academic accuracy, pedagogical suitability, and alignment with learning outcomes including its social impact in long run. However, this incident has raised uncomfortable questions about how expert review is conducted in practice. Education specialists note that expert panels often operate under tight timelines, heavy workloads, and assumptions that earlier screening stages have already eliminated obvious risks. This can lead to review fatigue” and overreliance on trust rather than verification—particularly where digital references and AI-assisted content are involved.

Curriculum content therefore does not exist in a vacuum. It intersects with politics, law, culture, and social values. In Sri Lanka, where education remains a deeply politicised and socially sensitive domain, curricula must indeed be closely scrutinised by religious institutions, parent groups, and civil society organisations. The incident has reignited debate over how social norms and legal frameworks influence educational content. While Sri Lanka’s laws on same-sex relations and the broader moral views of influential religious groups are well known, analysts caution that the core issue here is not ideology but child safety, governance failure, and procedural negligence. At the same time, political pressures to modernise education, digitise learning, and demonstrate rapid reform may have contributed to shortcuts in validation and approval processes. This is, in essence, a systemic collapse.

It was heard that officials have admitted that artificial intelligence tools were used in preparing parts of the syllabus. While AI can assist with drafting and language refinement, international best practice is clear: AI-generated or AI-assisted content must undergo rigorous human verification. The use of AI in curriculum development poses no harm in itself. What matters is using it as a tool to streamline and accelerate the process. True management of intellect, insight, and judgment remains entirely a human responsibility—AI can assist, but it cannot replace the human touch. Hence, unchecked AI use carries risks such as inaccurate references, inappropriate examples, and context-insensitive suggestions—risks that become unacceptable when materials are intended for children. Any oversight in this regard is not excusable.

One of the most troubling unanswered questions is why the syllabus reached the printing and distribution stage from January onwards without clearer communication on its approval status. Observers are asking whether established approval timelines were bypassed, whether interim clearances were misused, or whether administrative or political urgency overrode caution. Transparency on this point is seen as critical to restoring public confidence. In the minimum, was there someone from political side pressuring the experts to get it done hurriedly. To my understanding, Sri Lanka is not alone in facing curriculum controversies. Even in the United Kingdom, several schools were forced to withdraw online learning resources after links embedded in teaching materials redirected students to inappropriate content, prompting a nationwide review of digital safeguarding protocols. It was back in 2020. In Australia, a national curriculum review in 2022 led to the withdrawal and revision of draft materials after public backlash over content deemed insufficiently vetted for age appropriateness. In India, repeated textbook revisions have followed incidents where factual errors or insensitive content passed expert review, leading to stricter multi-tier approval systems and public consultation mechanisms. In each case, governments acknowledged that institutional safeguards—not individual blame alone—must be strengthened.

I am of the view that this episode should be treated as a turning point. Beyond resignations and investigations, it calls for a comprehensive review of curriculum approval frameworks, clearer accountability at ministerial and institutional levels, stronger digital content screening, and formal guidelines governing AI use in public education materials. Curricula are more than textbooks or syllabi. They are a reflection of the State’s duty of care to its children. Ensuring their integrity is not only a professional obligation but a political and societal responsibility—one that ultimately rests at the highest levels of government. Given the circumstances, responsibility ultimately lies with the Minister. An initial public apology would help restore confidence, followed by an impartial investigation and the implementation of corrective measures. The Minister cannot distance herself from this responsibility. She must act decisively to identify the culprits and ensure they are brought to justice, rather than allowing accountability to be avoided. At a time when the opposition has already challenged the Minister’s moral standing during the recent parliamentary proceedings on LGBT-related matters, it may be difficult to see how she can present herself as an example of responsible leadership without first addressing this issue transparently.

In my own experience as a curriculum developer in the university setting, I have often faced controversies over course content, pedagogical approaches, cognition levels of the student in the semester in question and inclusion of sensitive topics. For example, while revising modules on ethics in procurement, some stakeholders debated whether traditional practices or modern methods should take precedence. I managed this by facilitating open consultations, inviting expert opinions, and balancing evidence-based research with practical applicability. Similarly, when updating materials on sustainability, I encountered differing views on resource allocation and its relevance to quantity surveying students whose core expertise must be construction costing. In these situations, AI tools helped me organize data, analyze trends, and draft potential solutions quickly—but the final decisions, negotiations, and consensus-building required careful human judgment. In a nutshell, curriculum developers must operate independently and be free from political pressure, since education is about shaping minds and fostering critical thinking, not advancing political agendas. Decisions about what is to be taught and how it is presented must remain guided by academic judgment, evidence, and ethical considerations, not political influence, if any, under whatsoever circumstances. It is a solemn activity.