For all our children to succeed

The MLP's proposal to introduce a reception class in our primary schools has met with mixed reactions over the past days, including my own reported in The Times of February 6. I think some clarification is required on my side, if only to put my thoughts on the subject and on primary schooling in general on record.

Let me begin with what I agree with.

I agree that a successful transition from home to school is crucial for children, that it is not an easy one for most of them, and that it doesn't happen naturally; it needs to be planned for. For many it is more difficult than others because there is little if any congruence of their home culture with the culture of the school; they come to their schooling without the necessary cultural capital to succeed. If this lacuna is unattended, the school will remain an alien place for them, a place they will find it hard to identify with. Much school failure can be attributed to this cause. I agree also that it must be corrected early and that the school has the responsibility to do this and to create a suitable mechanism for the purpose. I am, therefore, sympathetic with the concern that lies behind the MLP proposal, especially when viewed within a more general concern to give our children their childhood back.

I disagree, however, that this is the way to do it. I disagree first with the idea of adding a year of primary schooling to the six we already have.

Second, I disagree that specialist teachers are required for the business of helping pupils in their transition from kindergarten to primary schooling

Third, I disagree that introducing a reception class will, by itself, unless other radical reforms are introduced to the system, solve the problem of a schooling system that deprives children of their childhood and still performs so abysmally in the Eurostat ratings.

Let me begin with my second objection.

It is well within the capability, indeed it should be the task, of teachers trained in Early Years education to do the job a reception class would be designed to perform. Seeing to the smooth transition from kindergarten to more formal learning in the primary classroom should be the job of the classroom teachers and the object of the primary curriculum in Years 1 and 2. Whether this is actually happening is another matter. The presence of specialists teachers in primary schools would encourage classroom teachers to think that the job has been done by others and that they can dedicate their time to "what matters": cramming their pupils with the skills and content to pass examinations, notably those famous, or should I say infamous, Junior Lyceum or common entrance exams.

What lies at the heart of the problem with our primary education and is the main cause depriving our children of their childhood is the fact that our schools are not schools but examination machines, sausage factories. And this will remain the case for as long as the 11+ exams are retained.

The argument that reception classes exist in some of the most advanced countries in Europe, Finland for instance, a country that classifies top of the education league tables, and the Scandinavian countries holds no water. The comparison would be relevant if our system compared with theirs, which it doesn't because the idea of early selection is repellant to them. The Scandinavian countries do not work with a brutal and highly-selective system like ours.

One cannot pick and choose selectively. The fact that a reception class works in Finland or Great Britain, or wherever, does not mean it will work in Malta where our sytem is not just different but radically different. Predictably, in our system the good work done by a reception class will (as is happening now with our present arrangements) be virtually wiped out by what happens afterwards in the rat race of selectivity that starts even before streaming is introduced in Year 4; by the culture of failure the 11+ brings with it, the tensions, the pressures, the heartbreak, the loss of self-esteem suffered by a sizable percentage of the age cohort. I do not think another year of this madness is worthwhile at all. The MLP is not proposing any measures to change this culture, just adding on another class, so I cannot subscribe to its proposal at all.

The answer, I think, is not to add a reception class to what we have but to abolish the 11+ system once and for all and to re-devise the scope of pre-school, primary, and secondary education; because we need to think through the equally important and difficult transition children make from primary into secondary schooling.

We need a curriculum that ensures continuity and smooth transitions for all our children through all the stages of schooling. This is, I believe, one of the things the introduction of the college system is intended to achieve. But retaining the 11+ examination necessarily blights its success in this respect. My own recommendation for the colleges was that they should be, in their entirety, comprehensive, inclusive, and co-educational, and I still think that this should be the target, not simply because it is the best for our children but also because it is more economic and efficient.

On the matter of reception I believe that it should not be a special class, one year, matter. Induction into the school culture should be gradual not a blitzkrieg. It should occur gradually over a well-planned three-year period negotiated between the second year of kindergarten and Years 1 and 2 of the primary and involving the teachers of these classes. This is especially possible in schools where kindergarten and primary school are housed under one roof and are the responsibility of the same head of school.

Our primary education in general requires the scaling down and revision of content (information giving) and the boosting of skills that our children require to live and work successfully in a post-modern globalised world. Primary among these are the skills of life-long independent, or self-directed, learning. All our children need this to succeed in the world that will be theirs; a uncertain world of rapid change and flux. These skills need to obtained at primary level. Besides, if we want all our children to succeed our school culture needs to be radically changed. It needs to emphasise their successes rather than their failures. It needs to promote the value and relevance of learning today among them. It needs to boost their confidence and self-esteem. It needs to show them, all of them, that they can succeed. It cannot give the contrary message that most of them cannot possibly succeed. No additional financial investment is needed for this. What is needed is enlightened thinking all around, good leadership and professional teachers doing their duty.