Claudia Calleja
Reception class 'would force all pupils to repeat a year'
The Labour Party's proposal to introduce a reception year between kindergarten and primary school meant that all five-year-olds would be forced to repeat a year irrespective of whether they needed to, Education Minister Louis Galea said yesterday.
He was speaking at a press conference called in reaction to the Labour Party's proposal of a reception year which was approved during Sunday's general conference.
"I don't agree that everyone should be held back by a year to ensure that no one falls behind in the first years of education. The (Labour) proposal, which was nicely wrapped in the words 'we'll introduce a new reception year or a transition year between the kindergarten and primary school phase', would have this negative effect. This is a repeating class, and not a reception class...
"Instead of utilising resources to provide educational support to those students who really need it, Labour's proposal does not distinguish between different needs and would be of detriment to the majority of the children who would be held back unnecessarily and forced to repeat a year," the minister insisted.
Dr Galea started by explaining that, following the approval of the proposal, he felt the need to call a press conference as it was his duty to explain to the public, particularly to parents, what would be of benefit and of detriment in the education field. Yesterday's press conference was only aimed at addressing the reception year proposal and other Labour proposals would be addressed in the future, he noted.
The majority of children were ready to move on to primary school after completing kindergarten. It was only the minority who lagged behind and needed special attention for a variety of reasons, he insisted.
On looking at the implications that the proposed reception year would have, Dr Galea said, it emerged that some 220 more classrooms and qualified teachers would be needed when some schools did not have space to host the extra classrooms.
There were also financial implications. The reception year would lead to an extra expense of about €4.2 million (Lm1.8 million) a year in salaries apart from other expenses. Parents who sent their children to private schools would have to fork out another year in tuition fees.
Dr Galea added that when the proposal was first made in Labour's official document Pjan Għal Bidu Ġdid, in July 2007, he reflected and discussed it with various educators. When discussed in Parliament last October he asked the Labour Party several questions about this proposal but did not receive any replies.
He stressed that the Nationalist government worked hard to ensure that children were given the best start in education as early as possible. Educational and social reforms ensured that children were given the educational support according to their individual needs and capabilities and did not try to make them all repeat a year.
He then listed examples of initiatives taken by the government which included the development of child-care centres in government schools, better psycho-social services, implementation of inclusive measures and the introduction of systems of continuous assessment and profiling of children from kindergarten level, among others.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
Updated: Shot migrant in critical...
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Celine Grech
Jan 29th 2008, 17:46
In the UK, the Reception Class accepts children from 4 years of age (therefore equivalent to the second year of Kindergarten in Malta); then pupils start Year 1 at age 5. School age in the UK is taken from Sep to Aug (as per the scholastic year) as opposed to Malta where school admission criteria follow the calendar year. So comparisons with the UK education system are futile. As others have said, facilitators should be employed to help the weaker pupils. That is the role here in the UK of the teaching assistants who are assigned to each and every class "to assist the teacher" with selective reading groups, maths clubs, etc.
Moreover, the extra year would have detrimental effects at post-secondary and tertiary levels. Think of Law and Medical students, especially!
Edward Darmanin
Jan 29th 2008, 15:33
Apart from the financial considerations to the taxpayer and private school users, and logistical problems mentioned already, the attitude reflected is just a worrying. "If a few cannot cope, keep everyone else back!" This mentality really bodes well for the future of a modern country trying to compete on an international and european level.
Wilfred Camilleri
Jan 29th 2008, 14:49
This reception year proporal is not a good idea. If there are children who need special attention then they should get it but not at the detriment of other children. It is grossly unfair to hold back the majority of children who can move on to another year of schooling. The money that this scheme would cost would be better spent giving those children who need help the help they need by providing them with one-on-one attention to bring them up to speed.
Fleur Hili
Jan 29th 2008, 14:37
It is extremely wrong to think that a normal student must attend an extra year before he starts primary schooling. The purpose of Facilitators is exactly that, to help children that are slow or for some reason cannot keep up with their peers. Also Children who fail to pass their examination for Secondary sclooling can stay on an extra year.........so why I ask, is the need for such banal ideas from the opposition? Is it because they lack ideas as simple as that. If Mr Carlo Mifsud thinks that we need to copy the UK system of education, please think again. We have what is know all around Europe as one of the best education systems!
Mark Sammut
Jan 29th 2008, 14:22
Such mistaken 'new' ideas and 'solutions to problems' are expected from Dr. Sant at the eve of every general election, but this one beats them all. What will be the effect of having children finishing secondary school at 17 years? Has any study been carried out to see if this repeated year is really needed? It seems to be just a gimmick, like the idea to halve the surcharge, remove tax on overtime and devaluating the lira.
Carlo Mifsud
Jan 29th 2008, 12:38
For many years we had the PN accusing Labour of scare tactics to win votes and leading by a calculator! Now we have a PN Minister that his only way of criticising a new idea is by scaring parents that their children will have to repeat a year because of other kids, they will need to pay more in fees at private schools and that it is not feasable because the government needs to spend more money!
If its in the interest of the kids then we need to spend more money! If its expensive at private schools why isn't the government controlling the spiralling fees at private schools?
A reception class is a good idea, something that the UK have to introduce children to a new life at school!