Shenali D Waduge

This is not a debate about technology. It is a record of decisions taken without consent. Sri Lanka’s digital education reforms are being presented to parents as inevitable, progressive, and already approved. They are not. This document traces — in strict chronological order — what was approved, what was not approved, what was implemented anyway, and what parents were never told. It separates policy from practice, planning from permission, and authority from accountability. What emerges is not reform — but a governance failure, where silence replaced consent and planning was misrepresented as mandate.

Chronological Record of Decisions, Approvals — and what has not been disclosed to Parents & the Public

I. BEFORE FORMAL CABINET APPROVAL

(Policy Direction Without Public Mandate)

Pre-2024 – Early 2025: Internal Curriculum & Digital Shifts

NIE had already begun:

·      Developing modular learning concepts

·      Exploring digital-first delivery

·      Redesigning curriculum structures (credits, competencies, reduced subject load)

What parents were not told:

·      That textbook-centric education was being reconsidered

·      That digital delivery could become primary, not supplementary

·      That content restructuring (history, civics, values, CSE) was being embedded into modules before Cabinet policy approval

Accountability gap:

Who authorized NIE to redesign content before a nationally approved digital education policy existed?

II. JUNE 2025 — CABINET APPROVAL (LIMITED & SPECIFIC)

2 June 2025: Cabinet Decision to Establish Digital Transformation Task Force

What Cabinet approved:

·      Establishment of a Digital Transformation Task Force for Education

·      Mandate: prepare a policy framework to be submitted to Cabinet by March 2026

https://edu.dailymirror.lk/home/schoolnews/1721/30-member-task-force-to-drive-digital-transformation-in-education

What Cabinet did NOT approve:

·      Removal of textbooks

·      Digital-only learning for Grades 1 & 6

·      Curriculum content changes (history, religion, new CSE)

·      No Exams (reforms)

·      Vocational tracking or subject reduction

What parents were not told:

That only a task force was approved — not the reforms themselves

That implementation activities would begin before Cabinet approval of policy

Collective responsibility question:

Why did implementation begin when Cabinet had approved planning, not execution?

III. MID-2025 — PARLIAMENT INFORMED, NOT CONSULTED

July 2025: Parliament Briefed

Parliament was informed of:

·      Appointment of a 30-member task force

·      Digital transformation objectives

What Parliament did NOT approve:

·      No vote on curriculum changes

·      No debate on textbook removal

·      No discussion on CSE inclusion

·      No scrutiny of child-impact assessments

What parents were not told:

·      That Parliament did not approve the substance of reforms

·      That MPs were not given content drafts or impact studies

IV. THE 30-MEMBER DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION TASK FORCE — AUTHORITY WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY

Who comprises this 30 Member-Digital Transformation Committee

Leadership & Core Government Representatives

1.    Chairperson: Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr. Pradeep Saputhanthri — appointed as the head of the Task Force overseeing education digital transformation.

2.    Ministry of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education- Secretary to the Ministry of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Mr. Nalaka Kaluwawa — member.

3.    Ministry of Digital Economy – Secretary to the Ministry of Digital Economy, Mr. Varuna Dhanapala — member.

Political / Ministerial Members Present at Appointment

(Engaged in task force discussions, indicating involvement in oversight and potential participation)

4.    Prime Minister & Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education — Dr. Harini Amarasuriya (Chair of Education Ministry and publicly leading the initiative)

5.    Deputy Minister of Vocational Education — Nalin Hewage

6.    Deputy Minister of Education and Higher Education — Dr. Madhura Seneviratne

Sector & Stakeholder Representation (According to government reporting):

7.    Other senior officials from relevant ministries and government bodies — representatives of multi-sector stakeholders were included alongside the above secretaries.

8.    Education sector stakeholders, including:

·      Officials from the National Institute of Education (NIE)

·      Officials from the National Education Commission

·      Officials from the Department of Examinations

·      Officials from the Department of Educational Publications

·      Provincial education authorities

These sectors are described in implementation arrangements for education reforms and task force structure documents, but individual names have not been publicly released.

9.    Private sector and civil society representatives

The task force mandate explicitly includes engagement with development partners, private sector, and civil society, indicating that some members come from outside direct government service, though names and organizational affiliations are not yet published.

What Is Not Publicly Available

Despite the official count of 30 members, there is no publicly released list of all names and institutions represented, including:

·      The identities of private sector representatives

·      The academic, civil society, or industry members

Whether specific curriculum, child development, or safeguarding experts are included

Whether subject content specialists (e.g., history, religion, ethics, child protection, sexuality education) are officially on the task force

This information has not been published or disclosed in Parliament or in government press releases as of early 2026 — meaning parents, educators, and the public currently cannot see the full roster or expertise mix of the Task Force that is shaping major education reforms.

What is also not made publicly available is if the members of the Committee liaise or are partners of any UN-agencies and have been strategically selected to quietly introduce CSE once reforms are accepted without giving full content of the global CSE curriculum.

V. LATE 2025 — IMPLEMENTATION SIGNALS WITHOUT POLICY APPROVAL

Grades 1 & 6 Rollout Announced

What the Ministry/NIE stated:

·      Modules and guidebooks prepared

·      Digital platforms (Channel NIE) to support learning

·      Printed textbooks not issued for Grades 1 & 6

What was NOT clarified:

·      Whether this is a pilot or permanent shift

·      Whether textbooks for all grades will be removed

·      How national exams will function without textbooks

What parents were not told:

·      That removal of textbooks for Grades 1 & 6 signals possible removal across all grades

·      That children may be required to learn digitally without guaranteed access

V. DIGITAL ACCESS & EQUITY — NEVER DISCLOSED

Infrastructure Claims vs Reality

What the Ministry says:

·      All schools to be connected by end-2025

What is not disclosed:

·      School-wise readiness data

·      Household access statistics

·      Electricity stability

·      Device availability

What parents are not told:

·      What happens if a child cannot access digital learning

·      Whether printed alternatives are guaranteed by right

VI. SUBJECT CONTROVERSIES & CONTENT SILENCE

History, Religion & Global Citizen” Framing

What the Ministry claims:

·      Subjects not removed, only restructured

What is not disclosed:

·      Who defines narratives

·      How national history is safeguarded

·      Whether global citizenship” overrides constitutional and cultural priorities

VII. CSE — DECISION WITHOUT DISCLOSURE

CSE Inclusion

Health Sector & UN-Linked Policy Pathway)

A. What Is NOT Disclosed to Parents

·      CSE content appearing in education modules does not originate solely from the Ministry of Education or NIE.

·      It is linked to a long-standing policy and program stream led by the Health sector, in collaboration with UN agencies, particularly UNFPA.

B. The Health Bureau-UNFPA Track

What is known from public records and prior government programmes:

The Family Health Bureau (FHB) under the Ministry of Health has for years implemented:

·      Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health (ASRH) programmes

·      Life skills and sexuality-related awareness initiatives

·      These programmes have been financially and technically supported by UNFPA

·      Content frameworks used by UNFPA align with Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) standards promoted internationally

What parents were not told:

That education-sector CSE content mirrors health-sector UNFPA-supported frameworks

·      That education content may be cross-fed from health policy documents, not approved education policy

·      That international agency-linked content pathways exist outside Cabinet-approved education reform

C. The Cross-Ministry Accountability Gap

What has NOT been disclosed:

·      Whether the Ministry of Education formally adopted Health Ministry / FHB / UNFPA-developed content

·      Whether NIE curriculum committees relied on UNFPA-linked materials or guidance

·      Whether Cabinet approved any cross-sector transfer of CSE frameworks into school curricula

·      Whether Parliament was informed that internationally promoted CSE standards were being introduced via education reform

D. The Consent Problem

Parents were never informed:

·      That CSE content may originate from health-sector programmes designed for adolescents, not school curricula

·      That international agencies involved in health policy may influence classroom content

·      That no formal parental consultation or consent process exists for such content transfer

E. Legal & Policy Implications

This raises serious questions:

·      Can health-sector programmes, supported by UN agencies, be embedded into school curricula without Cabinet and Parliamentary approval?

·      Does the Task Force or NIE have authority to import externally developed CSE frameworks into education modules?

Who bears responsibility if content contradicts:

·      National education policy

·      Cultural and religious safeguards

·      Child protection principles

·      Parental rights

Critical Accountability Question 

·      Which authority decided CSE should be taught –

·      the Ministry of Education, the Health Bureau, the Digital Task Force, or an external UN-linked policy framework – and on whose mandate?

What is NOT disclosed:

·      Who requested CSE inclusion

·      Whether Cabinet approved it

·      Whether Parliament debated it

·      Whether parents consented

Critical accountability question:

Which authority decided CSE should be taught — and on whose mandate?

VIII. DISCIPLINARY ACTION & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

Who Is Accountable?

Despite public concern:

·      No disciplinary inquiry

·      No independent review

·      No named decision-makers

Yet decisions involve:

1.    Minister of Education

2.    Ministry Secretaries

3.    NIE leadership

4.    Curriculum committees

5.    Digital Task Force

Unanswered questions:

If harm arises, who is responsible?

Does collective responsibility mean no one is accountable?

Why has the Minister not clarified who approved what?

IX. DROP-OUT RISK & TEACHER IMPACT — IGNORED

Not disclosed:

·      Studies on dropout risk

·      Impact on children with slower learning ability

·      Whether digital education reduces need for schools/teachers

X. PRESENT STATUS (EARLY 2026)

What is factually true

·      Task force approved (June 2025)

·      Policy framework still pending Cabinet approval

·      Implementation signals already active

What parents are not being told

·      This reform is proceeding without full Cabinet-approved policy

·      Textbooks may be phased out entirely

·      Content decisions (including CSE) lack transparent authority

·      No guarantees exist for access, equity, or accountability

CORE POLICY ISSUE

Parents were never given the truth in sequence.

Planning approval was presented as policy approval.

Pilots were presented as inevitabilities.

Silence replaced consent.

Key Transparency Questions Parents & Public Should Ask

To ensure accountability and rightful authority, the following questions remain unanswered:

·      Who are the remaining members of the Task Force by name, qualification, and representing institution?

·      Which members are subject-matter experts in child development, curriculum design, assessment, and education equity?

·      Who on the Task Force recommended the inclusion of CSE & reviewed or contributed to decisions about controversial content areas in CSE (Comprehensive Sexuality Education)?

·      Are any members external consultants or international advisers — and if so, who appointed them and on what terms?

·      What mechanisms exist to hold Task Force members individually accountable for outputs used in policy decisions?

This reform was never approved in full.
Textbooks were never abolished by Cabinet.
CSE was never approved by Parliament.
Parents were never consulted.

Yet implementation has begun.

When planning is presented as policy,
when pilots are treated as inevitabilities,
and when responsibility is spread so thin that no one is accountable —
governance collapses.

This is not opposition to reform.
This is a demand for truth, authority, and consent — in the right order.

Until that happens, this reform lacks legitimacy.

And parents cannot be ignored.

Silence is not approval. Silencing is definitely not approval. Funded protests hide the truth that eventually hits the segments of society that current lack & need proper reforms before digital learning.

Shenali D Waduge