The recently updated entry requirements to Junior College have sent a few shockwaves through the system. Many throughout all levels of the education system have been complaining for years of falling standards, and some have suggested that this latest move looks like institutions are intent on precipitating the plunge.

As a lecturer of many first-year students, I was as amazed as the next person to hear of the changes, so I set about combing through the latest wad of legalese in an effort to understand what I might be dealing with, henceforth. These are my reactions.

Firstly, the move is much more measured than the recent spate of reactive commentary splashed across social media first led me to believe: students will still need to present evidence of progression in the same core subjects as before if they want a tertiary level education.

Secondly, this move brings Malta closer towards other education systems more commonly found in other European countries, where the main focus is less on early-stage high-stakes exams and more on ongoing progression.

And finally, perhaps this move will allow us the opportunity to address what many across all levels of our society, have been claiming is an overly exam-driven education system.

Let me explain my interpretation a little more. With these new regulations, students at every level are still required to present evidence of progression, without which, they cannot continue to tertiary education. For example, to progress to Junior College, a student must ideally obtain all the usual SEC exams, but if they don’t manage the full range of qualifications, they still have the chance to continue studying for their core subjects alongside their matriculation subjects, if their aim is university entry.

For university entry, a student will still have to either obtain the usual grades and qualifications as previously to be accepted as a regular student, or be allowed probationary entry of one year, subject to performing to the required standard in order to progress to the next year. As any student with a full timetable will tell you, having to attend extra classes in a weak subject at sixth form or at university is not a very attractive prospect and requires commitment to the weaker subject. Similarly, being a “probationary” student for a year is no joke, when your future choices are hanging in the balance. But it does mean that students get a year’s chance to address the weaker area, while at the same time not interrupting their learning process.

So in fact, students are being given some responsibility for their studies, and their progress. They are being asked to hold themselves accountable in these subjects that are always considered “core”, because it is generally recognised that they are important for life, not just for a high-stakes exam at age 16.

In this, we are moving a little closer to what we see operating throughout other generally successful education systems, worldwide, where students are encouraged to gradually take on the responsibility for their learning in line with their developing maturity, and to actively demonstrate their commitment to learning in ways which more realistically match different stages of development and maturity.

We have long complained about failing standards especially in core subjects, here in Malta. I teach students in two of the core subjects, and I can subscribe to this view. But I also know that exams too, have been failing us for a long time. Our heavy reliance on exams as the primary way to determine a student’s worth in a subject has encouraged us to become a little complacent. An exam can only ever give us a heavily edited snapshot of a student’s knowledge in a subject. That snapshot is carefully filtered and tailored for the sole purpose of passing that specific exam. Ask any student to tell you what they learnt two days after taking an exam and see how much they remember – close to nothing! This is not the kind of learning we want to encourage.

The updated requirements recognise that while institutions need evidence of qualifications obtained, it is important to support students to continue studying while they work towards the required standard in a weaker area. The previous system required straight passes in one exam sitting and its resit. Failure to do so greatly limited the chance to continue studying, or required a complete change of course. This could pile unnecessary pressure on 16 year-olds who cannot have fully developed a clear idea of their future intentions, or may not have the maturity to translate their ambitions into practical terms. So rather than dumbing down, these regulations seem more about trying not to interrupt studies at a relatively young age.

This is my interpretation as an educator at tertiary level. It would be good to learn more from child development and learning experts too.   

Sarah Grech is a senior lecturer in linguistics at the University of Malta and a parent to two children.