It is indeed worrying that at a time when many educators are debating such important issues as selective versus non-selective education, examinations and continuous assessment, streamed and non-streamed classes, etc., several contributors to the debate are using as their point of reference the 1972-81 Comprehensive schooling reform in Malta and are, unfortunately, presenting an incorrect interpretation of this reform and its outcome. This can be very dangerous in the present context because it could mean basing crucial educational decisions on faulty assumptions.
Let me start by stating that the aim of the 1972-81 educational reform was aimed at removing the segregation of schoolchildren on the basis of their academic ability and, instead of having them educated in different secondary schools, have them all educated under one roof in the same secondary school, i.e. a Comprehensive School.
Malta’s educational system in 1972 was very similar to that of today. There were State Schools alongside Church/Independent Schools. When “Secondary Education For All” was introduced in 1970, the secondary schools were organized on a selective basis. Students went to either a Grammar School, a Secondary Technical School or a Secondary Modern School. However, it was envisaged that this selective system would eventually be replaced by a non-selective one.
Research shows that some cardinal mistakes were committed in the planning and implementation of the 1972 reform. There was too much secrecy surrounding the introduction of the reform. To leave most people uninformed right up to some months before its introduction is not the way to set about educational reform. Educators, parents and students were not prepared for the vast changes and the culture shock that would accompany the reform. There was no adequate planning for such logistic problems as the lack of space in some schools which would eventually lead to a serious problem of over-crowding of students in certain schools.
On the eve of the reform, the Guidance Unit of the Education Department was abolished. To this day, nobody knows the exact reasons behind this controversial decision. This meant that when the reform started and the social mixing of students brought about new and never-encountered disciplinary problems, the crucial guidance and counselling services were lacking. A colossal blunder.
The implementation of the Comprehensive schooling reform in 1972 was also defective at a macro-level. Church and Independent schools were left out of the reform. This meant that when serious problems started cropping up in the newly-established secondary Comprehensive schools, disappointed and alarmed parents could start withdrawing their children from State Schools and enrolling them in non-State Schools. This eventually led to quite an exodus of students from State Schools to Church and Independent schools, especially in the case of boys where non-State educational provision was greater than that for girls.
The Mid-Year and Annual Examinations were now replaced by continuous assessment. Henceforth, students would proceed from Primary Schools to Secondary Schools without a selective examination. All secondary schools now became “Area Secondary Schools” and all students followed the same curriculum but only in Forms 1 and 2. Mixed-ability classes were now the order of the day and streaming was officially abolished.
Then serious problems arose. Several teachers could not cope with the mixed-ability classes and were overwhelmed with disciplinary problems. These problems were exacerbated by the 1974 Education Act which raised the school-leaving age to fifteen and, later, sixteen which meant that unmotivated children waiting to leave would now have to remain in school. This multiplied disciplinary problems.
Financial problems led to some much-needed “Remedial Classes” being closed down. Industrial actions by the Malta Union of Teachers further complicated an already complicated situation. Much more important, teaching methodology remained the traditional “chalk and talk” and there were no adequate funds for educational resources without which Comprehensive education cannot succeed.
The exodus of the brightest students to the Church/Independent schools and the newly-opened State trade schools meant that many State secondary schools finished up with a disproportionate number of academically weak students.
It came to a point where many educators, parents and even students were unhappy with the reform. The Nationalist Opposition had a field day attacking the Labour Government. Little by little, the Comprehensive secondary education reform was dismantled and, then, completely abandoned in 1981 with the setting up of the Junior Lyceums.
So, taking all the above facts into consideration, the crucial question is “Did the 1972-81 Comprehensive secondary schooling reform fail because such an educational system is difficult to work, given our educational culture, or did it fail because of the many mistakes committed?” This has serious implications for today because everybody agrees that educational reform is needed but what kind and how we implement it is the crux of the argument.
(This article by Desmond Zammit Marmara has been published in The Times of Malta on the 21st October 2008).
Let me start by stating that the aim of the 1972-81 educational reform was aimed at removing the segregation of schoolchildren on the basis of their academic ability and, instead of having them educated in different secondary schools, have them all educated under one roof in the same secondary school, i.e. a Comprehensive School.
Malta’s educational system in 1972 was very similar to that of today. There were State Schools alongside Church/Independent Schools. When “Secondary Education For All” was introduced in 1970, the secondary schools were organized on a selective basis. Students went to either a Grammar School, a Secondary Technical School or a Secondary Modern School. However, it was envisaged that this selective system would eventually be replaced by a non-selective one.
Research shows that some cardinal mistakes were committed in the planning and implementation of the 1972 reform. There was too much secrecy surrounding the introduction of the reform. To leave most people uninformed right up to some months before its introduction is not the way to set about educational reform. Educators, parents and students were not prepared for the vast changes and the culture shock that would accompany the reform. There was no adequate planning for such logistic problems as the lack of space in some schools which would eventually lead to a serious problem of over-crowding of students in certain schools.
On the eve of the reform, the Guidance Unit of the Education Department was abolished. To this day, nobody knows the exact reasons behind this controversial decision. This meant that when the reform started and the social mixing of students brought about new and never-encountered disciplinary problems, the crucial guidance and counselling services were lacking. A colossal blunder.
The implementation of the Comprehensive schooling reform in 1972 was also defective at a macro-level. Church and Independent schools were left out of the reform. This meant that when serious problems started cropping up in the newly-established secondary Comprehensive schools, disappointed and alarmed parents could start withdrawing their children from State Schools and enrolling them in non-State Schools. This eventually led to quite an exodus of students from State Schools to Church and Independent schools, especially in the case of boys where non-State educational provision was greater than that for girls.
The Mid-Year and Annual Examinations were now replaced by continuous assessment. Henceforth, students would proceed from Primary Schools to Secondary Schools without a selective examination. All secondary schools now became “Area Secondary Schools” and all students followed the same curriculum but only in Forms 1 and 2. Mixed-ability classes were now the order of the day and streaming was officially abolished.
Then serious problems arose. Several teachers could not cope with the mixed-ability classes and were overwhelmed with disciplinary problems. These problems were exacerbated by the 1974 Education Act which raised the school-leaving age to fifteen and, later, sixteen which meant that unmotivated children waiting to leave would now have to remain in school. This multiplied disciplinary problems.
Financial problems led to some much-needed “Remedial Classes” being closed down. Industrial actions by the Malta Union of Teachers further complicated an already complicated situation. Much more important, teaching methodology remained the traditional “chalk and talk” and there were no adequate funds for educational resources without which Comprehensive education cannot succeed.
The exodus of the brightest students to the Church/Independent schools and the newly-opened State trade schools meant that many State secondary schools finished up with a disproportionate number of academically weak students.
It came to a point where many educators, parents and even students were unhappy with the reform. The Nationalist Opposition had a field day attacking the Labour Government. Little by little, the Comprehensive secondary education reform was dismantled and, then, completely abandoned in 1981 with the setting up of the Junior Lyceums.
So, taking all the above facts into consideration, the crucial question is “Did the 1972-81 Comprehensive secondary schooling reform fail because such an educational system is difficult to work, given our educational culture, or did it fail because of the many mistakes committed?” This has serious implications for today because everybody agrees that educational reform is needed but what kind and how we implement it is the crux of the argument.
(This article by Desmond Zammit Marmara has been published in The Times of Malta on the 21st October 2008).