Labour's more-pain-than-gain proposal

In the UK at the moment there is an ongoing debate about a suggestion calling for the addition of an extra compulsory year at the end of secondary schooling for those who do not make it to higher or further education. Meanwhile in Malta one of the Labour Party's few concrete proposals in the promised 'new beginning' is the addition of an extra 'transition' year between kindergarten and the start of primary schooling.

It is worth pointing out that whereas in most of its proposed policies, Labour have indicated that once in government they will be studying certain suggestions and ideas, in this case the die seems to have been cast and Labour is presenting this proposal as a fait accompli. It is legitimate to ask, therefore, what research has been carried out - and by whom - to justify the proposed extra transitional year.

I would have expected that the proposal would have matured after a thorough examination of what is wrong with the current system. It is true that our educational system had evolved to a situation whereby children who fall behind in reading and writing skills during the early primary years were considered as having 'missed the bus' and action to cater for these problems was taken only recently. Yet the proposed additional year smacks of trying to solve the problem of those who 'miss the bus' by delaying the bus for everybody. In other words, should the majority have an added year to compulsory education, possibly because of the needs of a very small percentage of children?

It is well known that currently - in state schools - pupils with special educational needs are given additional support, sometimes even on a one-to-one basis. In fact, the recent collective agreement reached between the Government and the Malta Union of Teachers adequately deals with further strengthening the primary education sector by, among other things, providing for better qualified kindergarten assistants and envisaging the recruitment of B.Educ. (Hons) students to teach at kindergarten level.

The MLP proposal raises several questions. How will the additional transitional year facilitate the transition from kindergarten to primary that cannot be facilitated according to the current system? What will the curriculum be during this year? Should the current kindergarten to primary curriculum content change? Has it been found inadequate, by whom, and how? Doesn't the curriculum of the second half of Year 2 Kindergarten and the first term of Year 1 Primary already cater for the transition? What is wrong with the current provision that cannot be adapted to the needs that may be experienced by certain pupils who may need additional support?

Unfortunately, it seems that the MLP has rushed to reach a conclusion that should only have been reached after arriving at adequate answers to these questions.

Although Year 6 is generally the final year of primary school, currently pupils may continue in Year 7 in order to have a second attempt if they fail the Junior Lyceum admission examination. This is considered to be adequate to consolidate primary education for pupils who need an additional year because of differences in intellectual, emotional, psychological development. But, perhaps the MLP policymakers know something the Education Division does not.

With seven years of primary education plus two years of kindergarten - not to mention nursery education and care - Malta would probably have the longest primary education period in Europe. With an additional year at the primary education level, students will be completing compulsory education at the age of 17. This will mean that students will end what is considered as lower secondary education according to EU 'standards' at the age of 17. Incidentally, this will further exacerbate the current situation and educational statistics where Malta lags behind in the number of students in higher secondary or vocational education.

In other words, all students would be starting higher secondary or vocational education a year later than the current norm - a very costly waste if applied across the board.

Indeed, the proposal is a very expensive one. Government would have to fund the additional year for both State and Church schools and parents sending their children to independent private schools would have to pay for the additional year whether the children need it or not.

I wonder whether parents are fully aware of the implications of the Labour Party proposal for an additional transition year between kindergarten and primary levels and whether any parents have been consulted by the Labour Party before taking such a decision.

This proposal also means that all schools will have to find the necessary resources - both in terms of physical space and in terms of teaching staff - to cater for the additional transition year. Moreover, it ignores the reality that currently there is a shortage of primary education teachers. And the number of students joining the course with primary education as their subject at the Faculty of Education is already too small to cover future requirements of the current system. In other words, the proposal cannot be cost-effective and the gain - if any - does not justify the pain. It is a waste of resources when the few children who fall behind can be given adequate support in other ways. Currently, children with special needs are supported by the Learning Support Assistants as well as by the educational service provided by the peripatetic teachers to slow learners. If the Labour Party is saying that this support is not adequate, it should propose other methods to beef it up rather than impose an across the board - one cap fits all - solution.

Messing with the educational system is not a new thing for the MLP. People of my age recall the way the reforms abolishing grammar schools and abolishing exams were introduced without any consultation with the stakeholders - parents and the teachers.

Are we in for a bout of history repeating itself?

micfal@maltanet.net