Last Monday, parliament approved the budget estimates, including those for education.
Over the past year, the debate surrounding education was most of the time disheartening, with discourse focusing on achievement (or rather underachievement) and teachers’ poor conditions of work, which undoubtedly deserve to be improved.
There was little consideration to initiate a real discussion on a vision for education and on the state of our educational system. To simply focus on the downside of the state of affairs in education is to ignore the progress and the myriad of positive elements that need to be celebrated.
While little progress has been made in children’s achievement in international examinations and in MATSEC, over the past years, the number of early school leavers has gone down, the number of specialised services with the aim of assisting students who may be at a disadvantage or are experiencing difficulties have increased, while the number of teachers who continue to specialise by obtaining an academic master’s degree or even a doctorate has increased.
As teacher educators, we can testify to the high quality of most educators in schools. Through our research and contacts in schools, we know of many individual initiatives and can vouch for the unwavering commitment of many who, with perseverance, strive for the best interest of children and young people under their responsibility.
Yet, while our country has been consistently at par with other developed nations (and at times even better) in the percentage of GDP that it spends on education, it seems we are not getting the results that one would expect.
The problem is not so much ‘how much’ we are spending but how the funds allocated to education are being spent, and more importantly, whether they are being used effectively.
While we welcome the education minister’s declaration during his budget speech that the person is at the centre of the government’s vision for education, we feel the need to ask how this government (and previous governments too) values the person and the role of each and every educator and learner in our society.
At par with the centrality of the person, the minister also identified achievement as being central.
Without minimising the importance of achievement, lawmakers and policymakers sometimes focus too much on an education that can produce measurable results, mainly in economic and labour-market terms. This can hinder educational efforts and undermine the person.
The €13 million expenditure on childcare centres, Skolasajf, Klabb 3-16 and Breakfast Club are a case in point.
The problem is not so much ‘how much’ we are spending but how the funds allocated to education are being spent
These services have been introduced not with the child/learner in mind, but in view of the needs of the labour market. The minister’s assurances during his speech on November 14 that Klabb 3-16 is not a baby-sitting exercise but an “essential part of children’s educational programme” is not convincing at all, especially when one takes into consideration that a candidate with no Level 3 qualifications in English, Maltese or Mathematics may apply for the posts of play-worker and child-support worker.
Shouldn’t the educational journey of young children be catered for by suitably qualified educators? When this is not the case, it is not the person who is at the centre of the learning process but the provision that guarantees that adults are not disturbed from their work commitments.
Investment in education needs time, but most of all quality. Education is not about quick fixes. Yet, there are several sectors in education which at face value seem to be satisfying the European Commission’s ticking exercise of the Education and Training Monitor, but which require more leadership and investment.
The situation of early childhood education, foreign languages, the arts and humanities, the sciences, the quality of a number of higher education and tertiary education providers, and the education and recruitment of some educators are clear cases in point.
Specifically in relation to early childhood education, the state seems happy to engage workers who possess limited qualifications and, in most cases, unsuitable training.
Likewise, merely employing two education officers to monitor childcare centres (state and private), kindergartens, as well as to give direction to all Year 1 and 2 state schoolteachers does not suffice. Does the state prefer having a child-minding service, rather than investing in holistic quality education of its youngest citizens?
In his speech, the minister also mentioned that work is currently underway on 10 educational policies. These are all welcome, yet we are worried that among the list of policies, some areas are conspicuous by their absence, namely science education and the inclusion of the arts and humanities in education.
Likewise, we wish to voice our concern that there has been little effort to evaluate the impact of previous policies and strategies. What has happened, might we ask, to recent policies and educational documents which were presented with much pomp and circumstance such as the ‘Framework for the Education Strategy for Malta 2014-24’ and ‘My journey: Achieving through different paths?’ Have these ever been evaluated and improved upon?
Even though our contribution is not always welcome, our role and duty as scholars is to ask (uncomfortable) questions and to share the research that we conduct with the aim of helping society and individuals to attain their full potential. It is in this spirit that we hope for more goodwill dialogue and fruitful partnerships.
This opinion piece was prepared by Michelle Attard Tonna, Colin Calleja, Carmel Borg, Jonathan Borg, Leonard Busuttil, Sandro Caruana, Louise Chircop and Adrian-Mario Gellel, the Core Group of the Conversations in Education initiative following a conversation with academics within the Faculty Education at the University of Malta. The Conversations in Education brings together academics and educators to reflect and discuss issues impacting education in Malta.