Taking that bold step

Educators worldwide are constantly trying to bring about quality change and improvement in their educational systems. Malta is no exception. The educational reform journey we have embarked on, characterised by the devolution of authority to the school site, the introduction of the NMC and the initiatives by the National Curriculum Council, are an expression of this government's will to improve the quality of education provision.

The latest proposal was presented first by the President in his address at the first session of parliament, and then by Education Minister Louis Galea, who suggested "grouping primary and secondary schools together by region to form single entities run by a board and a college of heads". (The Times Education, June 6). In other words, the minister is talking of a new governance structure which is aimed at creating continuity from primary to secondary. He goes on to add that we need institutions that:

Would address the individual needs of students throughout the formal system of education; would have more leadership and managerial responsibilities; would develop into learning organisations; would empower school members with the necessary autonomy and authority to determine the way forward for their respective schools.

We particularly like the proposal for three main reasons: The 'bold step' to review current education provision which has a top heavy emphasis on academic performance and examinations as demarcating success or failure; the invitation to "open dialogue"; and the need to empower schools.

Dr Galea emphasises the need for deep discussions to take place between the various stakeholders. The minister realises that it is "a process of evolution" that "would take years" to address and implement. He understands the politics behind any radical move.

Moving beyond the shackles of the 11+ examinations and the system of selectivity which determines who succeeds and fails in our system at so early a stage is no simple task. Yet, as stated by Leonard Grech (The Sunday Times, May 1), the time is ripe "now that...Malta's future is secure within the European Union and the Government has five years in office...to reflect objectively on the significance of this examination particularly in view of its serious implications and consequences".

Convincing the community at large that there are alternatives of schooling worthy of consideration is not going to be easy. The reason being that exams are deemed appropriate for those who have succeeded over the years, and continue to succeed. For many, including ourselves who have passed or survived examination systems, things can remain the same.

However, what about the rest, the high percentage who leave school with a low quality education, with hardly any or no form of meaningful certification, without the motivation to continue or even further their studies? And what about those who make it through the examinations? Does certification in a large number of subjects mean that the students have experienced quality education in their schools? Do we want exam results to remain our exclusive measure of success?

It is a well-known fact that performance on examinations may be attributed to a large extent to shallow learning, that is, the acquisition of principles without deep understanding, and hence good results do not automatically mean that students have acquired the meaningful skills of application, critical thinking and problem solving. These are only brought about by meaningful activities in class, where students interact critically with the content to be learnt. Focusing on the process of learning is to be considered as important as, at least, the performance on the examination. This is the philosophy behind the consolidation of formative assessment in the NMC and the introduction of portfolio assessment - giving credit to evidence which shows growth over time rather than making judgments on a one-off performance only.

The role that teachers will play in this movement is phenomenal. With so many changes taking place, so many demands being placed on teachers, one realises that it is imperative not to expect too much within a short period of time. Given existing scenarios one cannot expect all schools to turn into learning communities just like that. Some teachers have long been involved in school improvement initiatives, mainly in the classroom, always willing to try out things, to address the needs of their children. Many are the efforts, the success stories that have gone unnoticed.

Similarly, there are also growing concerns about certain practices, about particular difficulties that teachers may be facing but with adequate help could be remedied. How will these teachers react to any proposed educational reforms? Will teachers just jump to the call for action, or will they wait for directives, will they wait so as to see what the rest will do, will they carry on moaning and groaning and never do anything to change and develop?

At the same time, we have to work with parents who need to be made aware of the responsibility they have to educate their children. This, unfortunately, remains a major issue. Parents are and will remain major educators. Where this is not the case, we are fully aware that teachers are facing an uphill struggle and this is getting worse as the children get older.

The article makes a number of statements which we need to start debating.

The main proposal focuses on developing new structures for state schools which would help to overcome the "isolation" and "fragmentation" that currently characterises our schools. The minister thus speaks of bringing schools together in clusters based on geographical region. In this way we will see a group of primary schools feeding into secondary schools. This in itself raises the important question: "Will we still have single-sex secondary schools or will they become co-educational?"

What the minister emphasises is that of having a college of heads and one principal to overview a number of schools. This cluster of schools will have a board (of governors) who will be responsible for the group of schools. This implies a minister who is prepared to nurture schools into self-managing institutions with practically full autonomy status. Schools and their management teams will have the authority to effect decisions, many of which in the past were in the hands of central authorities.

In this way schools can develop into learning communities which are characterised by de-privatisation of practice, collective focus on student learning, collaboration and shared norms and values. Thus, a learning community is in place where critical inquiry is practiced by collegial partners who share a common vision and engage in shared decision making. This continuous critical inquiry provides a basis for seamless school improvement.

What the minister is here focusing on is the need to have a strong leadership which sees learning as something to be valued, and who would be personally committed to it. We need people who have the necessary experience and professional qualifications for such a post. While the current qualification for headship is the diploma programme we do believe that it is now time to start considering raising the qualification to a masters level. Internationally, this is now recognised as the professional level required of anyone wishing to become a head.

We also need to review current promotion systems. Sometimes we find that educators, after having spent a lifetime in one sector, are promoted to head a school in another sector. Without adequate support and professional development it will be quite demanding, and that is putting it mildly!

Another key factor is the need for stability. We all know and appreciate the fact that for heads to leave an impact in a school they need to stay there for a number of years. Locally we can observe that in a number of schools, especially some of our more demanding ones, heads tend to move on within just a few years of their appointment. How can our schools develop any sense of meaning, any sense of purpose, if this practice continues?

What are the main issues that we need to address if we intend to develop a new governance structure to boost the level and quality of educational provision? What follows are what we consider to be the main issues. We are sure that readers will add to this list and to the dynamism of this discussion.

Continuity. Linking primary and secondary schools will definitely help create a sense of continuity and should allow the school authorities to create an educational programme which has meaning to teachers and students alike. However, there is a difference between those Church/private schools which already do that and what is here being proposed. As we know, Church/private schools attract students from all over the island, who come from varied educational and social backgrounds and are of different abilities. The proposal to cluster schools according to region needs serious consideration. Where this is already happening one can note particular repercussions. The issue requires further study.

Where students stay in the area where they have been brought up for up to 16 years, this causes stagnation of ideas and limited exposure to educational experiences. This lack of cross-fertilisation can result in complacency. This insularity in outlook can end up hampering progress and must be addressed.

Selectivity or comprehensivity? This will definitely be a bone of contention. Selectivity leads to a system that groups together students that do well, or relatively well, and places the rest together. Do we want these schools to continue to categorise students into the academically inclined and the ones that are not? Already teachers in Junior Lyceum speak of different abilities in JLs. What happens if we were to further mix students? The argument that in Church schools in particular, students of different abilities and backgrounds perform, that the mix is healthy and the environment encourages motivated and able students to help the others work and have high aspirations, is a reality that we live. However, again this comparison is simplistic in the sense that the majority of the parents who send their children to these schools value education in general and want the best their children could get.

At national level, what will the challenges be when the academically inclined students are grouped with those who lack the motivation and drive to concentrate on their studies in the same school? Will past experiences come back to haunt us? What have we learnt from past experiences? How are we going to address the matter now? Are we truly embarking on a learning curve? We know about setting and banding now, but reality tells us that the logistics of working the system in a number of subjects is a challenge. Setting students together for a number of subjects based on their performance in one subject in particular, is not what setting is about. What are the alternatives in reality? Surely, it is time to start considering organising different curricula/educational programmes which are not purely academic in nature and cater for the diverse needs of our society. We can also consider whether all our secondary schools should offer such opportunities or whether we should have schools catering for different specialisations.

Planning for learning. For the first time we have an official legal document through the NMC which promotes continuity through an educational programme that covers compulsory school age (i.e. five to 16). Yet, we all know the problems that schools encounter, even in the Church/independent sector, when children move from one sector to another. While the physical boundaries (i.e. children in different blocks, or even in other towns/villages) do not help, there are other factors that are behind such difficulties. The link between the two sectors tends to be weak for at least three main reasons: the educational programme, the organisational aspects and the current practices determining progression and curriculum coverage. Often, the latter affects and to a large extent can determine what happens in the former.

For school members to develop a relevant curriculum for children aged five to 16 is no common feat. We need educators who are willing and prepared to go beyond the confines of their year group (if teaching at primary level) and of their subject (mainly secondary but also in some of our primary schools). There are many teachers who categorically state "I'm a Year II teacher", "I'm a mathematics teacher". Thanks to the school development processes in which teachers and all school members are being involved, we can see a gradual shift from such a position of isolation. This is a first and crucial step.

We note that a crucial element has been missing in our debate about the curriculum. No one has been interested in discussing the interrelationships of what we call the four C's: the process of change, the culture of schools, the context of classrooms, and the content of the curriculum. A school needs to clarify what students should know and be able to do and the dispositions they should acquire as a result of schooling. We need to focus on the areas that can result in significant school improvement - curriculum, instruction, assessment, and culture. Teachers increase the effectiveness of their schools when they collectively identify and work towards the results they desire, develop collaborative strategies to achieve their goals, and create systems to assess student learning effectively. A professional learning community strives to provide its students with a curriculum that has been developed by the school through a collaborative process and enables the school to foster a results orientation in its most critical area - student learning.

The minister talks about the inherent unfair system that asks teachers to be accountable for results, but provides them with little or no opportunity to make the decisions that affect those results. Where do teachers stand? Do they develop a meaningful education programme to suit the needs of the students or follow the demands of the syllabus in order to ensure coverage for the centralised examination system? In the new system, does it make sense to keep the Form 2 and Form 5 examinations as emerging from a centralised unit if schools will be working on different programmes for their students? Are these examinations the only benchmarks possible for comparability purposes?

Authority structures vs collegial responsibility. Our educational system has nurtured a dependency culture which we are slowly challenging and as a result we are seeing local educators whose level of frustration is escalating. This is natural as we challenge and redress current practices. Norms and practices that have taken generations to develop into what they are today will not just disappear. Like rust, it takes years to corrode. But, with a clear vision, hard work, integrity and a sense of purpose this can come about.

The question that we need to ask is not "Who is in charge?", which is appropriate for the hierarchical model of the past, but rather, "How can we best get results?". The answer to that questions lies in empowering teachers through collaborative processes that provide them with authority that is commensurate to their responsibility. Schools that simply adopt canned curriculum programmes or allow textbooks to dictate the curriculum make a fundamental mistake.

Without collaborative processes that foster ownership in decisions, schools will not generate the shared commitments and results orientation of a learning community. Thus, the process of curriculum development is at least as important as the final product.

This point also emphasises that for schools to become "effective" they need to have not only the responsibility to do things but also given the authority to act on their decisions.

Although this link is not typical in our schools this is the target (or so it seems!) that we are trying to aim at. Hopefully we will be as successful in hitting it as William Tell was in hitting the apples on his son's head!

This issue also calls for the Education Division to adequately prepare itself to take on the role of support and what the President defines as "regulator" of the educational programme. This means a reculturing from current modes of practice to new ones based on collaboration, on developing supportive roles based on new skills, and one harnessed by an attitude change. Only in this way will our schools be better prepared to take on the challenges that society confronts them with.

A final critical question. Within a context of development and change, the increasing demands on education, the pressures coming from all quarters, it is understandable that some educators feel overwhelmed. When confronted with so much to do and so many obstacles to overcome, others find it easy to lose heart and choose to do nothing. Almost every school has members who have surrendered to cynicism and fatalism, but cynics and fatalists are generally incapable of creating a better future. If schools are to improve, they need educators who believe in the possibility of a better future - and in themselves.

Perhaps the most critical question educators must confront as they consider an initiative to create a professional learning community - whether at school or systems level - is this one: "Do we believe in our collective capacity to create a better future for our school?"

While some schools are content to lie at anchor and accept things as they are, and other schools simply drift from fad to fad, the educators of tomorrow will stay the course. They will recognise that they must overcome their history and respond to future problems that they could not possibly anticipate. Yet, they will set forth because, like Oliver Wendell Holmes, they will have concluded that "what lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are insignificant compared to what lies within us". May passion and persistence be the driving force that keep us on course.

Dr Bezzina and Dr Grima are full-time lecturers at the Faculty of Education