The school network reform: a critique

It is by now absolutely clear that the schooling system in Malta, including its present directorate, is in for an overhaul. The proposed changes are amply described in a document issued by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Employment: For All Children to Succeed - a new network organization for quality education in Malta.

In essence, the reform will bring about two major changes. Firstly, it will establish two distinct directorates: (a) the Malta Education Directorate, which will act as a "central policy maker and regulator for the whole Maltese educational network", and (b) the Educational Services Directorate that will co-ordinate "the operation of educational services and schools".

Secondly, it will restructure the entire school set-up in a way that will see regional primary and secondary schools networked together and united into different colleges across the island. It is about this second change that clarifications shall be sought further down the present contribution.

Before that, however, I find myself compelled to question the extraordinary air of confidence in which the entire reform has been shrouded. The extreme optimism with which it has been announced is epitomised by the very choice of slogan - For All Children to Succeed. Truly, a runner for 'most ambitious slogan ever'! I say this because there is probably no place on earth where all children succeed at school and the reasons for that are fairly straightforward.

School success stems from a complex web of good schooling, personal motivation, ambition, home support, emotional stability and a plethora of other factors over which the state, or the school regulator, can have little or no control. The school network reform is too many steps short of being that panacea that will heal all the sore wounds within our educational system and I am quite sure that all the minister's advisers are utterly conscious of this. Why they promise what is not realistically attainable is quite hard to understand.

In the same vein, I am somewhat amused by the tone of conviction with which the authors decide to couch the "benefits of networking" on page 41. Just listen to them:

"This reform will create an environment where children and students benefit from increased self-confidence... This same environment will provide teachers with greater job satisfaction.. The coming together of schools... will improve the quality of students' education" (my italics)

The deliberate use of will, as against aims to, unveils an astonishing degree of self-assurance on the part of the authors. The possibility of anything going astray, or not really quite as planned, is dismissed right from the beginning. The benefits are guaranteed! They will come about! Naturally, I would very sure hope so - as a parent, having children at school, I obviously hold that interest at heart - but yet, when I assess the unequivocal realities of the education sector, particularly the shocking home backgrounds of not-so-few of our school children, my sense of expectation just fails to lift off to the same heights that are being suggested.

To turn to the reform per se, the document considers seven different models for the new network organisation. Models 6 and 7 are quite particular - they do not really affect the mainstream schooling sector and should not prove controversial in the final analysis. Model 3 proposes a comprehensive system, which I'm against in principle, and which the minister has wisely written off right from the start. Model 1 retains much of the present structure and is one model that is in for piloting, in the Cottonera region, this coming scholastic year.

Now here is one thing I cannot really understand. For, at the same time that a pilot project along the lines of Model 1 is being run in the Cottonera region, we learn that a new secondary school, presently under construction in Kirkop, will take shape along the proposals of Model 4. For me, something just does not square properly. If we are still in the phase of testing whether Model 1 works or not, how can we commit ourselves to building a school that suits an entirely different model?

True, Minister Galea has already hinted that "different models are likely to be introduced in different areas" (p. xii) but have we examined the entire implications of such a strategy? For instance, are parents really aware that some junior lyceums will carry on as distinct entities (as per Model 1) while others will be housed with an area secondary school on a common campus (as per Model 4)? What if some parents object to the network model as practised in their specific region? Will their right to opt for another school, in a different region, be upheld?

Once we've broached the subject of 'piloting', I must again express my sense of incredulity at the manner in which this is to be carried out. The Cottonera pilot project, we have learnt, will be running for a mere scholastic year. Now this is indeed odd! Can you imagine assessing an entirely new system of school organisation and management in a single year?

As outlined in the document itself, one of the aims of this whole network business is that of "lessening one of the challenging problems of the existing system - that of a difficult transition from primary to secondary schooling" (p. 42). Exactly how the transition will be rendered smoother remains to be seen but the point is: will we really be in a position to observe improvements in this single year? What are the exact elements of the new system that will be investigated? And, once at it, can anybody show us the studies that have already been carried out? I mean, if reliable comparisons between 'before' and 'after' are to be made, such studies must surely be in existence.

What about the other benefits of networking - the increase in self-confidence, the greater job satisfaction, the improved quality of education etc.? Are these to be assessed during this single year as well? Boy, the Cottonera schools shall be one extraordinary hive of activity this year!

There is yet another facet of the reform that raises doubts and questions. According to the document, we are heading towards "an education system with personalised learning at its heart, a system where every child matters, where careful attention is paid to individual learning styles, motivations and needs" (p. 62). Nice words indeed, but my honest feeling - with all due respect - is that this is a classical example of easier said than done.

For heaven's sake, a normal teacher at a secondary school caters for well over 100 students in a given year - for some teachers, this number is significantly higher. What is being claimed here is that our typical Mr Borg (or Mrs Borg) will need to know each child's "learning styles, motivation and needs" and plan and teach accordingly. Quite a mammoth task, by any standard, especially when one considers that our typical Mr Borg would normally take weeks (if not months) to learn to link a name to a face in the classroom.

Personalised learning is not about one-to-one tuition, granted, but clearly numbers do matter in this regard. The document itself acknowledges that the concept of personalised learning is "truer of Malta and Gozo where small can be so smart and feasible" (p. 62). Now this gets interesting. Yes, small is indeed beautiful. Many research papers, for instance, have concluded that small schools offer a number of benefits over larger ones e.g. a better rapport between teachers and children is established, the academic performance of disadvantaged children is boosted, children experience a greater 'sense of belonging' and bullying and vandalism are more easily controlled. Their recommended school size for an elementary school is 300-400 rising to 400-800 for a secondary school.

That is what the research suggests. But what is the document exactly meaning by "small"? Is it perhaps referring to newly built schools that promise to house a junior lyceum and an area secondary school under one roof? Or is it perchance dealing with the amalgamation of primary 'A' and 'B' schools into one larger 'C' school (p. 44)? Yes, with a new school-building programme in the pipeline, I would have favoured a shift towards smaller schools, where the face in the crowd turns into a known individual, but clearly we seem to have embarked on an entirely different course altogether.

It is indeed a pity that a reform, rich in so many good elements, is being pushed through with so many unanswered questions still hanging around us. As a reform that pledges to accomplish the most desired aim in education - success for all children - we do need that little bit of extra effort and care in the way we do our things. I do of course acknowledge the lot of hard work that's been put through - no doubt about that - and let me make it clear that I am not directing my criticism to anybody in particular. I also appreciate the minister's genuine commitment to improving the schooling sector - I do not hesitate in stating this. That said, the big question that looms over us is: will schooling be as good as promised in say five or ten years' time?

We'll wait and see.