I have a good idea why Mr Evarist Bartolo tried to provoke me in The Sunday Times of January 23. Foolishly, I had thought that we had buried the hatchet, but it seems not. In his article he chose to implicate me in his complaint about political bullying in schools. I shall be brief to set the record straight.
First a correction: the Foundation for Educational Services (FES) was not "set up to take over from the Education Division the running and management of schools". This was never its mandate and if it were I wouldn't have accepted the job. Second, his predictions when it was set up have been proved wrong by the excellent relationship the Foundation enjoys with the Education Division with which it works as a strategic partner. Third, the Foundation was never involved in any "Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC) pro-EU membership" crusade to "indoctrinate" children in schools, in case any of The Sunday Times readers may received that impression from Mr Bartolo.
Fourth, after only a few years in existence the FES's record speaks for itself and its sterling work in our schools had been acknowledged several times publicly by the present Labour education spokesman Carmelo Abela who is briefed about its activities, and is always welcome to visit its HQ and any of its programmes he likes, or to any of our regular evaluation reports.
This work has been focused mainly on combating illiteracy and school failure, teacher professional development in specific areas, and empowering parents, and will soon be involved, thanks to EU funding, in an ambitious project to introduce lifelong learning centres into the local communities.
Fifth, despite Mr Bartolo's predictions at the time he called for my resignation as chairman, the FES was never a Trojan horse for the pro-EU movement. Moreover, at no time during the referendum run-up or since has he or his party found occasion to complain politically or otherwise about my behaviour as chairman.
Finally about this business of indoctrination. First I was accused of being involved in the MIC EU information campaign in the schools, then I was accused of supporting it, now I am accused of not speaking out against it.
The fact is that the first and only occasion I had to speak about it publicly was that famous Xarabank discussion. Mr Bartolo wasn't interested in my argument and chose not to let me speak. His was not a 'scathing criticism' but a full-scale diatribe. So let me take this occasion to state myself publicly on the matter once and for all.
Indoctrination, as I understand it, is the closing off of the mind, while education should be about opening it. The loyalty of indoctrinators is to their doctrine, the loyalty of educators to their students. Accusing an educator of indoctrinating, or of supporting indoctrination, is, therefore, among the most serious charges one can make against him; it amounts to accusing him of misuse of his power. So naturally I am against indoctrination.
This does not mean, however, that I am against raising controversial political issues in schools, especially with the older students. To the contrary, I believe that students have a right to be fairly and correctly informed of such issues and to debate them maturely with the help of their teachers. I think it wrong to deny them this right to information and discussion when these issues have a direct bearing on their future lives as members of society and as citizens.
No doubt, the EU was such an issue. Would the intended MIC campaign in the schools have been objective and non-partisan? I have no idea what was intended since I was not consulted about it nor informed, not even on that day when I attended that ill-fated Xarabank programme, but I would certainly have been against any attempt to brainwash students or their families.
To close, one question, to the The Sunday Times editor, not to Mr Bartolo. Why is Mr Bartolo's column being advertised as one that 'reviews parliamentary questions', thus concealing its real intent: doing partisan politics? Don't people like him have enough voice and exposure already?