Balancing Quality Assurance with Educational Access
Sri Lanka’s higher education system has long sought to balance two equally important national objectives: maintaining academic quality while expanding access to university education. Open and Distance Learning (ODL) has been one of the country’s most successful mechanisms for achieving this balance, particularly for working adults, teachers, government officers, rural communities, and thousands of students who were unable to enter conventional degree programmes. In addition to undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, sub-degree qualifications such as Certificate, Diploma, and Higher Diploma programmes have gained remarkable momentum over the past two decades. These programmes have become increasingly popular by providing flexible, affordable, and employment-oriented learning opportunities for school leavers, working professionals, and aspiring entrepreneurs.
With the introduction of the new UGC regulatory framework, these sub-degree programmes also come under a more comprehensive system of oversight. Strengthening quality assurance and protecting academic standards are legitimate policy objectives that can enhance the credibility and recognition of university qualifications. However, the expansion of centralised regulation also raises important questions regarding institutional autonomy, flexibility, and the future growth of Open and Distance Learning.
Globally, higher education is increasingly moving towards greater institutional autonomy, decentralised decision-making, flexible programme delivery, and innovation supported by robust quality assurance mechanisms. Sri Lanka, however, appears to be adopting a more centralised regulatory approach. While greater oversight may improve accountability and consistency, excessive centralization risks reducing institutional flexibility, slowing innovation, increasing administrative burdens, and limiting the ability of universities to respond quickly to emerging educational and labour market needs. The challenge, therefore, is not whether regulation is necessary, but whether it achieves an appropriate balance between ensuring quality and preserving the autonomy and adaptability that have been central to the success of Open and Distance Learning.
Greatest Concern
The greatest concern is whether the new regulatory framework may unintentionally reduce access to higher education, particularly in regional universities that have historically served disadvantaged communities. Universities such as Sabaragamuwa, Uva Wellassa, Rajarata, Wayamba, South Eastern, Eastern and several others were established not only to decentralize higher education but also to stimulate regional development. Their external degree and distance learning programmes have become an important bridge connecting universities with rural populations.
These programmes have enabled thousands of school teachers, public servants, private-sector employees, farmers, entrepreneurs, and young adults from economically disadvantaged families to obtain university qualifications without relocating to major cities. For many families, Open and Distance Learning is not simply another educational option, but also it is the only realistic pathway to higher education.
The sustainability of many Open and Distance Learning (ODL) programmes has faced challenges for several years. Some programmes have struggled to demonstrate strong labour market outcomes, particularly where curricula have not evolved in line with changing industry needs. However, this is only part of the picture. In many disciplines, especially agriculture, agribusiness, community development, media and vocationally oriented fields, diploma and certificate holders have become successful entrepreneurs, agricultural extension workers, and local development leaders. Therefore, the value of external education should not be assessed solely by graduate employment statistics but also by its contribution to entrepreneurship, lifelong learning, rural development, and community empowerment.
Less Discussed Challenge
Another, less discussed challenge is the institutional attitude towards external education. Over the years, Open and Distance Learning programmes have sometimes faced resistance from sections of the university community, including internal student groups, some academics, administrators, and policymakers. Concerns over resource allocation, workload, infrastructure, and institutional priorities have occasionally created tensions between internal and external programmes. Rather than viewing these programmes as complementary components of a university’s mission, they have sometimes been perceived as competing for limited resources. Such perspectives can discourage collaboration and prevent universities from making the most effective use of shared academic expertise, facilities, and infrastructure. As publicly funded institutions, universities have a responsibility to maximise the use of their academic resources for the benefit of society. The challenge is not to choose between internal and external education, but to develop policies that promote equitable resource sharing, mutual respect, and efficient utilization of facilities while maintaining high academic standards for all learners.
Academic staff engaged in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) programmes frequently receive relatively modest remuneration considering the substantial additional responsibilities involved, including course design, online and face-to-face teaching, travel, student mentoring, assessment, and quality assurance activities. In recent years, higher personal income tax rates on additional earnings have further reduced the financial attractiveness of external teaching for many academics. Consequently, some experienced lecturers are becoming increasingly reluctant to participate in ODL programmes, creating a growing challenge for universities in recruiting and retaining qualified teaching staff. If this trend continues without appropriate policy interventions, it may adversely affect the long-term sustainability, quality, and expansion of external education.
There are also concerns that the implementation of the new UGC circular with its additional regulatory requirements and financial ceilings on programme operations and staff remuneration, where applicable may further reduce institutional flexibility and academic participation. If these concerns are not carefully addressed through consultation and periodic policy review, the combined effects of increasing regulatory constraints, financial disincentives, and declining academic participation could undermine the future growth and sustainability of Sri Lanka’s Open and Distance Learning sector. At the same time, programme operating costs have increased substantially due to inflation, technology investments, administrative expenses, and taxation. Consequently, tuition fees have risen, making university education increasingly difficult for lower-income students.
If additional regulatory requirements significantly increase administrative complexity or operating costs without corresponding institutional support, there is a legitimate concern that some programmes may become financially unsustainable. The result could be a gradual reduction in course offerings, fewer academic staff willing to participate, declining student enrolments, and ultimately the closure of programmes that have served rural Sri Lanka for decades. Such an outcome would conflict with one of the fundamental purposes of public universities that to expand educational opportunities beyond urban centres. Quality assurance should never be compromised. Students deserve programmes with qualified academic staff, robust assessment systems, modern learning technologies, and effective student support services. Public confidence in university qualifications depends upon maintaining high academic standards. Nevertheless, quality assurance should function as an enabling framework rather than becoming an administrative barrier. Policies should encourage innovation, flexibility, and accessibility while ensuring accountability. The challenge is therefore not whether regulation is necessary, it certainly is, but whether regulation has been designed with sufficient consideration of institutional diversity. Regional universities operate under financial and human resource constraints that differ considerably from those of larger metropolitan institutions. A uniform regulatory framework may therefore produce unequal consequences across the university system.
Broader socioeconomic impact
Another important consideration is the broader socioeconomic impact. Open and Distance Learning contributes not only to education but also to local economies. Regional study centres create employment opportunities, stimulate local businesses, generate demand for accommodation and transport, and support digital infrastructure development. More importantly, they allow educated professionals to remain within their communities while upgrading their qualifications. In an era where governments emphasize lifelong learning, digital education, workforce reskilling, and inclusive development, policies should strengthen but not unintentionally weaken the national Open and Distance Learning ecosystem.
The University Grants Commission should therefore consider establishing a comprehensive consultative review involving universities, academic staff, students, employers, quality assurance experts, and regional stakeholders before full implementation of major regulatory reforms. Such a review could identify practical adjustments that preserve academic quality while ensuring that regulations remain realistic, affordable, and supportive of institutional sustainability.
Higher education policy should not only regulate universities; it should also empower them to fulfil their national mission. Sri Lanka cannot afford to reduce educational opportunities for those who have the fewest alternatives. For thousands of working adults and rural students, Open and Distance Learning represents hope, opportunity, and social mobility. Any reform affecting that opportunity deserves careful consultation, thoughtful implementation, and continuous evaluation.
The ultimate objective should be clear: to improve quality without sacrificing accessibility, to strengthen accountability without reducing opportunity, and to ensure that Sri Lanka’s universities remain engines of inclusive national development rather than becoming institutions accessible only to those who can afford conventional education.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, presented to encourage constructive discussion on higher education policy reforms, and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any institution or organization with which the author is affiliated.
About the Writer:
Prof. M. P. S. Magamage is a senior academic at the Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka and a distinguished scholar with extensive international experience. He is a Fulbright Scholar, Indian Science Research Fellow, and Australian Endeavour Fellow, and has served as a Visiting Professor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, USA. Beyond his academic achievements, Prof. Magamage has played significant roles in national policy and disaster-related governance, higher education policy development. He can be contacted at magamage@agri.sab.ac.lk.
by Prof. M. P. S. Magamage
from The Island https://ift.tt/zrLg7xK
