EDUCATION INEQUALITY &

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Towards a better estimation
University Admission System
Disadvantaged Districts:
1. Ampara
2. Badulla
3. Hambantota
4. Mannar
5. Mullaitivu
6. Anuradhapura
7. Kilinochchi
8. Monaragala
9. Nuwaraeliya
10. Polonnaruwa
11. Trincomalee
12. Vavuniya
13. Jaffna
14. Batticaloa
15.Puttalam
16. Ratnapura
40% on national merit list
55% on standard district quota
5% on disadvantaged district quota
1966
100% merit
1970
Standardization by medium
1974
100% district quota
1976
70% merit, 15% district quota & 15% disadvantaged districts
1977
Standardization by medium removed
1978
Eleventh district added to disadvantaged district list
1979
30% merit, 55% district quota & 15% disadvantaged districts.
1979
Twelfth district added to disadvantaged district list
1980
Thirteenth district added to disadvantaged district list
1985
30% merit, 65% district quota & 5% disadvantaged districts
1985
Disadvantaged district list reduced to five
1990
Seven districts added to disadvantaged district list
1996
Thirteenth district added to disadvantaged district list
1. Ampara
2. Anpura
3. Badulla
4. Hambantota
5. Mannar
6. Monaragala
7. Nuwaraeliya
8. Polonnaruwa
9. Trincomalee
10.Vavuniya
11. Batticaloa
12. Mullaitivu
13. Puttalam
1. Ampara
2. Badulla
3. Mannar
4. Hambantota
5. Mullaitivu
6. Apura
7. Kilinochchi
8. Monaragala
9. Nuwaraeliya
10. Polonnaruwa
11. Trincomalee
12. Vavuniya
13. Jaffna
Affirmative Action
CURRENT STATUS-QUO NOT CHALLENGED
Based on
Districts
Based on
Population
Quality Quantity
Indicators of Education Inequality
Resource allocation
Enrolment
Performance
Atomic
Composite
Grade 5 Scholarship Exam
Not mandatory
Biased by incentive structure
OLevel Exam
A binary indicator
Biased by enrolment rates
ALevel Exam
Biased by OLevel pass rates
Building an Inequality Indicator
Assumptions:
1. Equitable distribution of ability
2. Equivalent student demographics
3. Corresponding interests and choices
Graded Performance Indicator
UNIVERSITY ADMISSION CUT OFF Z-SCORES
Calculating Inequality
STEP 1 : Benchmark at point of no inequality
STEP 2 : Compare actual score against benchmark
Step 1: Benchmark z-score

Step 2: Inequality Indicator

Results
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
J
a
f
f
n
a
M
a
t
a
r
a
C
o
l
o
m
b
o
G
a
l
l
e
H
a
m
b
a
n
t
o
t
a
V
a
v
u
n
i
y
a
K
a
n
d
y
K
u
r
u
n
e
g
a
l
a
A
n
u
r
a
d
h
a
p
u
r
a
G
a
m
p
a
h
a
B
a
d
u
l
l
a
K
e
g
a
l
l
e
R
a
t
n
a
p
u
r
a
K
a
l
u
t
h
a
r
a
M
a
t
a
l
e
P
u
t
t
a
l
a
m
M
a
n
n
a
r
T
r
i
n
c
o
m
a
l
e
e
A
m
p
a
r
a
M
o
n
e
r
a
g
a
l
a
B
a
t
t
i
c
a
l
o
a
N
u
w
a
r
a

E
l
i
y
a
P
o
l
o
n
n
a
r
u
w
a
K
i
l
i
n
o
c
h
c
h
i
M
u
l
a
i
t
i
v
u
Engineering 2010/2011 Intake
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
C
o
l
o
m
b
o
M
a
t
a
r
a
G
a
l
l
e
H
a
m
b
a
n
t
o
t
a
J
a
f
f
n
a
K
a
n
d
y
K
u
r
u
n
e
g
a
l
a
R
a
t
n
a
p
u
r
a
V
a
v
u
n
i
y
a
B
a
d
u
l
l
a
K
e
g
a
l
l
e
K
a
l
u
t
h
a
r
a
M
a
t
a
l
e
G
a
m
p
a
h
a
M
o
n
e
r
a
g
a
l
a
B
a
t
t
i
c
a
l
o
a
A
n
u
r
a
d
h
a
p
u
r
a
A
m
p
a
r
a
P
u
t
t
a
l
a
m
P
o
l
o
n
n
a
r
u
w
a
T
r
i
n
c
o
m
a
l
e
e
K
i
l
i
n
o
c
h
c
h
i
N
u
w
a
r
a

E
l
i
y
a
M
a
n
n
a
r
M
u
l
a
i
t
i
v
u
Medicine 2010/2011 Intake
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
C
o
l
o
m
b
o
G
a
l
l
e
R
a
t
n
a
p
u
r
a
M
a
t
a
r
a
G
a
m
p
a
h
a
K
u
r
u
n
e
g
a
l
a
K
a
l
u
t
h
a
r
a
K
a
n
d
y
H
a
m
b
a
n
t
o
t
a
K
e
g
a
l
l
e
M
o
n
e
r
a
g
a
l
a
A
n
u
r
a
d
h
a
p
u
r
a
M
a
t
a
l
e
P
u
t
t
a
l
a
m
B
a
d
u
l
l
a
J
a
f
f
n
a
V
a
v
u
n
i
y
a
P
o
l
o
n
n
a
r
u
w
a
N
u
w
a
r
a

E
l
i
y
a
A
m
p
a
r
a
B
a
t
t
i
c
a
l
o
a
K
i
l
i
n
o
c
h
c
h
i
T
r
i
n
c
o
m
a
l
e
e
M
a
n
n
a
r
M
u
l
a
i
t
i
v
u
Management 2010/2011 Intake
District Performance
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Consistently Over
Performing
Mostly Over
Performing
Mostly Under
Performing
Consistently
Under
Performing
Colombo Jaffna Ampara Polonnaruwa
Galle Vavuniya Trincomalee Kilinochchi
Matara Anuradhapura Batticaloa Nuwaraeliya
Ratnapura Badulla Mannar Mullaitivu
Gampaha Matale
Kurunegala Puttalam
Kalutara Monaragala
Kandy
Kegalle
Hambantota
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
C
o
l
o
m
b
o
M
a
t
a
r
a
G
a
l
l
e
J
a
f
f
n
a
H
a
m
b
a
n
t
o
t
a
K
a
n
d
y
K
u
r
u
n
e
g
a
l
a
R
a
t
n
a
p
u
r
a
V
a
v
u
n
i
y
a
G
a
m
p
a
h
a
K
a
l
u
t
h
a
r
a
K
e
g
a
l
l
e
A
n
u
r
a
d
h
a
p
u
r
a
B
a
d
u
l
l
a
M
a
t
a
l
e
M
o
n
e
r
a
g
a
l
a
P
u
t
t
a
l
a
m
A
m
p
a
r
a
B
a
t
t
i
c
a
l
o
a
P
o
l
o
n
n
a
r
u
w
a
N
u
w
a
r
a

E
l
i
y
a
T
r
i
n
c
o
m
a
l
e
e
M
a
n
n
a
r
K
i
l
i
n
o
c
h
c
h
i
M
u
l
a
i
t
i
v
u
Total Inequality
Implications
40% merit and 60% district quota
Educationally disadvantaged district list
Progress over time