Labour's repeating class

There's a particular proposal being put forward by Labour which deserves particular attention. It concerns introducing an extra year between kinder and primary levels for all students. The claimed objective is "to give more importance to primary education".

Educators and those well versed with education will quickly blow the whole idea out of the water with no effort at all. What, one asks, is the validity of this proposal, the reasoning behind it and the objectives it aims to achieve.

An extra year, it is being suggested, will be introduced between kinder and primary in all schools, state, Church and those privately owned. It would also apply to all students - irrespective of whether they need it or not.

We already have in place a good system of educational support scheduled to be strengthened and improved in the coming years as the current educational reform takes shape. Is Labour up to speed on what is happening in the education sector? Does Labour know what the measures in the agreement with the MUT will bring in their wake?

The changes that are being put in place at this very moment will bring about a considerable amount of development particularly in the kinder and primary levels. We want to ensure that our children enjoy their childhood, take naturally and gradually to the learning process, without unnecessary hassle and tension. This is why we want teachers and kindergarten assistants to be better trained in early childhood education and care. Continuous assessment will be introduced - a tool which enables teachers assess better students' learning not simply and exclusively on the basis of exams. We are also improving our inclusive education services according to recommendations made in the published Spiteri Report. We have also set in motion a process that will improve our 11+ exam. As a result our schools provide more of a tailor-made education according to the individual needs of the child.

The Foundation for Educational Services already provides educational support programmes for many students and their families and this should continue to increase in years to come. Students can make use of complementary education and the additional Year 7 for consolidation before moving on to secondary schooling. The new college system is designed to further help students along their educational voyage primarily by smoothening out the transitions between levels. The college is now responsible for the child from the first year at kindergarten till the end of Form 5. They can provide educational services that better suit their students' needs.

Is this proposal by Labour being put forward as the panacea for all ills at primary level? Is it being suggested that with this extra year one would be helping children who fall by the wayside during their educational voyage?

Every educator worth his spurs knows that the reasons behind educational difficulties are complex and not necessarily the result of a bad or weak start in one's education. Some students encounter difficulties following a death in the family, parents separating, some as a result of bullying at school, some simply find it difficult to follow the traditional educational pattern, others have learning difficulties that take time to be identified. There could be myriad reasons for not coping. An extra year at school imposed at this stage of a child's educational development will, in most cases, do nothing for these children. We are proposing a reform full of measures to level up all our children to succeed, Labour's proposal smacks of a levelling down, as children and students in Malta experienced with previous Labour governments.

Let me first deal with more mundane and practical, though not the more important, arguments.

The measure Labour are proposing would mean an increase of another 250 classes with at least 250 additional teachers. What concrete measures are Labour going to implement in order to attract these additional teachers into the profession? What discussions have Labour had with the Faculty of Education about what resources are needed, educational, human and financial, in order to increase the next B.Ed Primary cohort by another 250 students who will graduate in four years' time? Is there the physical space at the University for this increase? Which teachers are Labour going to use until these 250 teachers graduate? Are Labour going to employ 250 supply teachers? What are Labour's measures going to be if these 250 supply teachers are not found? Will Labour resort to measures implemented in the 1980s when teachers who were on strike were replaced by whoever was willing to take over a class?

Physical space is another measure that Labour does not seem to have considered. The great majority of our schools are fully occupied. What building plans do Labour have regarding school building to create these 250 classes that are needed nationally? If Labour are going to build, what time frames do they have?

If we are going to spend an additional €4.2 million in education, the major question to be asked is: Is this measure the priority we should be giving to education? Educators think not. Let us spend wisely and surely in education. Let us invest in resources, in teacher training, in induction, in mentoring, in assessment tools, in support services and in leadership training.

Have Labour considered the impact on Church and independent schools? Have they considered the impact on families who send their children to independent schools who will have to pay an extra year's fees for the additional year? It does not appear they have.

The government is already investing heavily in education and we have more investment in the pipeline to sustain the impetus of the education reform. We would have gladly forked out another €4.2 million were we to be convinced that this proposal is truly for the good of our children. But when one carries out a simple cost-benefit analysis Labour would have quickly come to the conclusion that this proposal amounts to another hill of beans. Yes, we are already encouraging our students to stay longer in education and training. 70 per cent of 18-year-olds already continue in their post secondary, vocational or tertiary education. But adding this year in this manner will prove to be more of a sham than a proper remedy.

This proposal is another example of the lack of foresight Labour display in this sphere. The cost of funding such a proposal is not justified by the prospective benefits that would accrue. A responsible government not only ensures that every euro spent in education is justified but must also consider the alternatives available to achieve these aims. Over the past few years the government has created a network of structures and services aimed at supporting in a special manner students who are at risk without risking the natural progress of other children who do not need to be kept back. It is now in the process of implementing an educational reform programme which will continue to improve services offered to all students at all levels - that includes a wide range of different programmes that address particular needs. Fickle frameworks are not enough. Generic statements that sound good and pretty are not enough. Plans need to have strategies, plans that are doable and sustainable and plans need to be concrete and based on our school reality not just taken out of somebody else's plan! Labour's plans are nowhere good enough.

Dr Galea is Minister of Education, Youth and Employment.