Ignorance is qualified because it occurs in various degrees and under different circumstances. So there is wilful ignorance, when one refuses to learn; there exists circumstantial ignorance because of the lack of opportunity to come to know; there is also ignorance because one is mentally incapable of internalising. Then there is ignorance where one has learned but one refuses to accept what one has learned. Finally, there is ignorance where one refuses or rejects learning because one thinks that one knows everything.

When one applies these few kinds of ignorance to literacy, one would be in a better position to analyse the problems of literacy, numeracy and their antonyms. I am in a position to empirically identify certain perspectives regarding illiteracy which are, I suspect, deliberately being left unmentioned. This is because they would definitely place the baby outside the appropriate doorways, rather than at that of the education system.

I would like to pose a recurring question: Why is it that an unacceptably great number of children end their primary school years unable to read and write? This includes children that end their three infant years with sound foundations in literacy and numeracy.

There are of course an acceptably small number of them who are lame ducks. But then, after Year 6, the amount becomes dramatic. It is definitely not the fault of the teachers of the senior years (4, 5, and 6) in 'B' schools. This is simply because the problem is identical in 'C' schools that cater for children from the infant years through to the senior years. After Year 3, especially between years Four and Five, a lot of children start falling back at the most alarming rate. Even children who have come over from the infant classes showing good achievement seem to suddenly start losing their momentum and drive. Not-learning is extremely contagious. This would seem to be one of the best reasons against streaming. It would only need one or two wilful non-learners in a class of low achievers to mutate the low achievers into a hoard of wilful non-learners.

The child develops intellectually at a remarkable pace after the age of eight. This is of course more evident in the average achievers. This is something which parents themselves can perceive when they watch and observe closely the words and actions of their own children. Between ages nine and 12, the child's perception has developed to the extent that it is now more able and confident of forming its own opinion and making decisions. Its perception is also extremely susceptible to its peers and to its star, its role model. That is where the real trouble begins.

No matter what schemes or methodologies we introduce, illiteracy will never ever decrease unless the child is motivated to learn. The professionals are not to blame if the child is unmotivated. My older colleagues used to state that very often what we do at school is demolished at home. In most cases, everything is, starting with that kind of environment which is conducive to learning and teaching. This is something that contemporary education theorists and practitioners alike promote. We follow the maxim "a happy child is a child that learns". Apply that to the home and social environments the child is exposed to outside the school. How is that for a demolishing machine?

When one considers that the rate of illiteracy is also unacceptably high in countries such as the UK, Italy (particularly in the south), France etc., one will have to realise that Malta's problem is not unique but similar. And similar too, even congruent is the reason: lack of motivation in our clients, the children.

This comes about particularly when they start perceiving that in our country, as in the others mentioned, illiteracy is amply rewarded and exalted. At one stage, yesteryear, it was still possible for an illiterate who was willing to work and be registered as working to find a decent job. So, a lot of our children could not be motivated to learn just to be able to find work. One had to look elsewhere for a way to try and motivate children, frequently without success. The children, at 10 or 11, were wont to retort that their illiterate father earns much more than us teachers and they will follow his path. Well, then, there was work and they had to work. But suddenly, things changed.

It is most disturbing, disheartening for us professionals, when we hear a 10-year old state that he does not want to learn, he does not want to work at all and all he wants is to live on the fat of the land: "The government will care for me".

The reforms in education started contemporaneously with the inception of the welfare state. In fact one could state that these reforms, aimed at raising the standard of education, formed part of the welfare state, wherein the state provided free and compulsory schooling to one and all. This measure had a long-term aim, namely that of providing everyone with the tools required to find a reasonably paid job. This would alleviate the unemployment problem, raise the standard of living and, besides providing more revenue to the state coffers, it would help decrease the financial hemorrhage in the payment of unemployment benefits. Those were a few of the aims of the war against illiteracy then as they are still now.

The inceptors of the welfare state, though, have condoned, and, in particular areas of the island encouraged and rewarded the abuse of the welfare state. The results of this were beneficial to the politicians who started it all, because it provided them with the votes that kept them in power, and detrimental to the tax-payer who has always been the one to foot the bill.

What kind of motivation is it when a child perceives around him people, lots of people, who get money for not working, working (if they want to) and evading taxes, earning salaries from rigged-up unnecessary yet secure jobs created on the eve of the election, receiving full social benefits? These facts even eliminate motivations like intrinsic motivation or learning for the sake of learning itself.

If any politician or other leader of society really wants to be effective rather than theoretic in an authentic and genuine war against illiteracy, one must first start by holding an in-depth study of the statistics regarding illiteracy. That, and a serious clamp-down on the black economy. One ought to put questions like: Which areas have the highest illiteracy rates? Which age groups? What are their family backgrounds? The answers to these questions will serve to identify what motivating factors might keep the child learning throughout the school years.

I am quite certain what the answers will be, because I have been in the thick of it for four decades, experiencing and perceiving further than is normally conceded by the powers that be.

The second step is to start, at long last, effectively discouraging illiteracy. We have recently learned that in a few years' time it will be difficult in Malta to find a job without post-secondary education. What a discovery! It is already like that in most of Europe! Locally as elsewhere, who cares when one can live like a king on unemployment benefits and a clandestine job?

What to teach and how will come later and this is part of the professionals' job and certainly not that of politicians.

Keep the child and his guardians motivated in education and then illiteracy will slowly decline to possibly acceptable levels. After that we shall cater for the rest.