Phew, the exams are over!

June is over. Along with all the feelings one has regarding summer, the swimming, the barbecues, the long evenings and all the rest that Mediterranean summers bring with them, there is also that inevitable sigh of relief one breathes mainly on our children's behalf: their exams are over. Phew!

Now I am not referring to those parents whose children are sitting for their university finals or, at least, A levels or even O levels. I am referring to parents of children of all ages, even those as young as six or seven. It is absurd, is it not?

My own daughters of 11 and 12 spent a few (five or six) weeks, including weekends, going over material they covered during the last scholastic year.

This exercise took so long mainly because they were, of course, at school during the major part of the day (half days only start in June). By the time they are home from school and have had something to eat, it is 4 p.m. Remember that most children this age have to be up by at least 6.45 a.m. if they are to be in school by 8.

In other words, from dawn until 4 p.m. they have to invest their time in nothing other than academic issues. Hold on a moment, I can hear some of you saying, that is not entirely true, there are PE lessons and breaks and so on.

PE is held twice a week and the breaks total less than an hour in the whole day. So between 4 p.m. and whatever time your kids are in bed, they have to "study" for exams. After an hour or two of homework, that leaves little time even if the energy is there, and believe me, we are far from full throttle by this point.

My question is this: what exactly are we trying to achieve here? Do we really believe that studious kids make intelligent kids? Why are we so obsessed with having our children score top marks in a system that does not reward critical thinking but is only regurgitating notes they have been asked to make?

I have often wondered whether the fault lies with parents (trying to live out their own unfulfilled dreams) or with the school (guaranteeing a high number of top grades) or whether this is just a reflection of our mentality as a nation, a densely populated rock with people living in each others' pockets and with one-upmanship being the order of the day.

Before a number of you start hurling abuse at me and telling me what well-turned-out students we actually have, let me just say that certificates, although necessary, are not an end in themselves but are just a meal-ticket in today's world.

The workplace demands many other skills that will certainly not be acquired by reciting a history time-line (with dates of all the foreign powers who ever occupied Malta since 5000 BC) at 11 years old. There are exams in every subject, even art, which at this age ought to be an expression of a child's character - students should be allowed the creativity to explore their own feelings through various media.

When I look at my children, I see that they have performed well throughout the year, learning new concepts in mathematics, enjoying one or another episode in history and being fascinated by living things in science.

They can read better, can spell longer words and are generally two happy, interested, well-adjusted and bright individuals. So why do we need to go over all the material covered? And why such detail? And why do we not distinguish between things one needs to know (how to add, subtract, multiply and divide) and things one needs to know where to find (accessing information is the trend today)?

Whenever I discuss this subject (and I usually warn people in advance to either stay off the topic or else subject themselves to torment while I spend at least half an hour knocking the system), it appears to me that our system has adopted two methods from other systems, particularly the US and the British system.

Historically our system is a British one with Matsecs replacing the O and A levels that we once sat for. Forward-looking teachers are somehow now trying to adopt the "presentation" system into the classroom.

Children (or their parents) research a particular area at home, paste a couple of pictures on to a cardboard sheet and talk about what they have learnt in front of the class.

This is loosely based on the American "Show and tell". So far so good but, and this is the crux of the argument, the student here must still sit for a test and exam just as s/he must in any other subject. This means that students tend to view this otherwise enjoyable approach to learning as just something extra they have to do.

The same is true right up to university level. The "assignment" method of grading and the "end-of-semester tests" are not mutually exclusive. More often than not, students must perform both with a percentage of the marks reserved for assignment (sometimes this takes the form of a presentation where, in my opinion, most students perform abysmally and this mainly through lack of practice since childhood) and the remainder of marks for a test. Oh... and some lecturers even reserve a percentage of the marks for attendance/participation!

In other words yes, you get marks for sitting on your seat, at university level! Bizarre is too mild a word here.

In my undergraduate days, I recall a particular class where a lecturer was trying to stimulate some discussion in a particularly well-attended class. He threw some thought-provoking ideas around and waited for our reaction. Nothing. He tried again. Nothing. The subject was appealing and he was inviting our opinions.

Finally, he asked why none of us appeared to have any (opinions). "Are you all too shy to speak out?", he probed. Finally, unable to bear the awkwardness any longer, I ventured that this was probably what our system had prepared us for, to sit, to listen (or have an old chin-wag with the neighbour if it got too boring) and take down notes. He agreed with me and then we had a great discussion about our terrible system.

Talking about notes, that's another point. Some students take down every single word uttered by their lecturers. Some even record the full lecture on a tape recorder.

Did you know that it takes approximately three times the length of the tape to transcribe what was on it? So a one-hour lecture would take three hours just to transcribe. You do not need a Ph.D in rocket science to work out how many hours are required to transcribe some 15 hours of lectures per week. Hours that could have been more wisely used on reading and familiarising oneself with different views on a particular subject thus giving students a better advantage and help to hone the critical skills. Unfortunately, our obsession with "right answerism" means that students are out to simply give the lecturer what he gave them to start with.

A change in approach with regard to learning needs to start at a young age. Personally, I really do not feel the system will change, mainly because there are too many people who want to sustain it at all costs.

Recently, on a BBC website on the subject of pre-teens and education, I came across the UK policy guidelines with regard to homework. Apparently children aged up to 11 should be given no more than 30 minutes homework per day and no more than 90 minutes for students aged between 11 and 13.

I do not have any available research regarding guidelines (if any) that exist for Maltese students but I am sure we are nowhere close to such standards.

I am also told that it is worse in Church schools but again I am not sure. Time and again we read letters and articles in the press regarding to the amount of homework given, heavy bags being carried and so forth.

I agree but it's got to go beyond that. We must change our approach to learning. The children need to be allowed to explore and be more creative and analytical.

Let them read and discuss a wide variety of books and let us respect their opinions. Let the afternoons be for sports or meeting friends. Or just to be, to stare and dream and wonder. Let educators be less efficient but more effective. And let's stop killing our kids.

We need to question ourselves as to whether the hours spent studying are leading to our kids becoming better-versed in subjects than we were. In Maltese particularly.

The number of hours required to get through this exam alone is probably half of all other subjects put together. I have often wondered whether, had our kids been attending boarding schools, the system would exist at all. I think not.

Our brand of education demands too large an input from home for it to exist without us parents, every day, but particularly during exam time. All around tempers are rising, nerves are fraying and that's just the mums. What price do we intend to pay in the long run? That's what I would like to know.

The upshot of it all is that we are doing a great disservice to our children, the opposite in fact, of what we would like to achieve.