Transformational reform in education

One would be forgiven for taking Alfred Sant's word for it when he says that the government is making a spectacular U-turn on the stipends issue (October 5)! He should know. He is an expert in that area.

However, he is wrong on this issue as he is wrong in stating that students' cost of living has increased by 50 per cent over and above the 18 per cent VAT on books. He is also wrong in thinking that this is a cost-cutting exercise - on the contrary the government will be spending more on the whole package of grants made available under the new scheme.

The present government is consistent with its electoral proposals. Both the 1999 student maintenance grant scheme and the scheme launched this year are proof of the government's commitment in maintaining free access to post-secondary and tertiary education and supporting those students from families having limited financial resources.

The mandate of the 1998-2003 government was to increase stipends after the short-lived Labour government, which, with almost no consultation whatsoever, decided on a reduction of university stipends of at least 64 per cent. Dr Sant's government went through with these reductions even though, in the run- up to the election, through an official press release (April 15, 1996), Labour spokesman Evarist Bartolo had said that stipends would remain untouched. The reason for the students' reactions back then was the lack of integrity and dialogue with which the government conducted reforms, in absolute contrast to its declared principles.

What this government should be attributed with is the massive increases in stipends introduced in 1999 in order to reverse the Labour government's drastic cuts.

In fact, the 1999 scheme resulted in increases of between 87 per cent and 207 per cent. These changes were made after proper analysis and consultation by the Galdes working group. The same group recommended that the government should review the system five years from its introduction. This review was carried out last year by the Chalmers group.

The Chalmers report, in fact, stated that the maintenance grant schemes the government offered were one of the determining factors in the policy success of attracting large numbers of students to the post-secondary, vocational and tertiary sector. As one can see, the government has been true to its promises.

The present government's 2003 electoral manifesto says the following on the post-secondary and tertiary education sector: "A commission will be created for the tertiary sector to evaluate the financial needs and the projects of the university and the Malta College for Arts Science and Technology (MCAST) as the number of students in these institutions is expected to continue to increase in their thousands in the years to come. The principle of free access to education at all levels, without financial burden but rather with government support according to age, will remain".

How Dr Sant sees this to be in contrast with what the government is doing today is baffling.

It is important to note that the new schemes are by far more generous than the schemes offered under a Labour government and one of the most generous schemes available to students all over the world. In fact, those students entering a four-year course this year will benefit from Lm2,440 in the case of standard grants, Lm5,570 in the case of supplementary grants, Lm4,020 in the case of special grants to students following particular courses and Lm5,820 in the case of supplementary grants for special courses.

Gozitan students, on the other hand, receive Lm4,240, Lm7,370, Lm5,820 and Lm7,620 respectively over the same four-year course.

When one compares this with the Lm1,800 students were given under a Labour government one is again astonished at Dr Sant's misleading assertion that the reductions go "well beyond changes introduced by the Labour administration".

Apart from the above, university students continue to benefit from free tuition, something that (then) Education Minister Evarist Bartolo on October 3, 1997 was not too convinced about because one of the options he presented then was to remove stipends, introduce fees and only give students a subsidised loan.

As part of the reform in this sector, the government has also committed itself to creating a scholarship fund and to extend the present youth specialisation studies scheme (subsidised loans) to help students continue their studies at higher levels including masters' degrees and doctorates.

Another fund is also being created to cater for those students who have exceptional circumstances which cannot be addressed by the normal grants.

Dr Sant implies that this is merely a cost-cutting exercise and that money saved from the stipends reform should be re-invested in the institutions. Such an observation is based on a very poor understanding of what the government is trying to do in the post-secondary and tertiary education sector by way of reform.

As stated in the Chalmers report, over the past years the population in post-secondary and tertiary education has increased radically. The government wants to sustain this expansion particularly in the vocational and the tertiary sector, where our country needs to improve participation rates to reach European levels. Apart from the new and improved schemes, which will mean an increase in government spending, expenditure will continue to increase as more students join the sector.

On the other hand, as stated from the very outset following the Chalmers report, the government is committed to continue to finance the institutions to ensure growth, quality and sustainability. The government has given proof of this commitment in the last budget when, as a first reaction to the Chalmers report, it had increased funds for the institutions by almost Lm2 million.

The other very important issues raised by the Chalmers report with regard to the strengthening and quality assurance of post-secondary and higher education institutions and programmes are already being tackled by the government as will be seen in the near future.

Students at the university already recognise that the schemes introduced are fair and that the consultations and negotiations they had with the government were genuine and fruitful.

It is up to readers to decide whether the government is doing the right thing or not and whether it is performing some U-turn or continuing in the right direction. Dr Sant should take this exercise as an example of good practice in terms of analysis, consultation, consensus-building and fulfilment of transformational reform in education.

Mr Sciberras is communications coordinator at the Ministry of Education, Youth and Employment.