Education at the heart of it all

A central theme at the heart of the general election campaign has been education. That is as it should be. For education has to be at the heart of Malta's economic development. No country can advance well and at the required pace without placing education at the forefront of its policies. That is not to say that the subject is being treated as it should be by the politicians.

Political debate should be about what policies should be adopted and how best to adopt them. The clash and contrast of ideas on both counts should serve as the principal dynamic to make the debate relevant to a country's social and economic requirements. Unfortunately that has not been the case with the way the main political parties have been dealing with education. Both have been more intent on scaremongering than on wrapping the subject and each other's proposals in objective analysis.

The scaremongering has been on three points. From the Nationalist side there is a fierce attack on a specific Labour proposal. The MLP is proposing, if elected, to work towards the introduction of a reception class between the kindergarten and primary levels. The express intention is to allow for a smoother transition in order to ease pressure on children who, Labour spokesmen say, demonstrate resulting weaknesses years later as they prepare to leave the primary level. Labour also justifies its plans by the fact that the illiteracy rate is still high, at 7.2 per cent.

The Nationalist side adopts a two-pronged reaction. The first one is technical. PN spokesmen say the reception year is unnecessary, because it is already incorporated in the kindergarten level. They claim that the kindergarten classes, especially the second year, prepare children as effectively as can be to move on to the first primary year. They hold that all that is given to children in countries where a reception class does exist is given here at kindergarten level.

The Nationalists say it is wrong to compare the model to that prevailing in England, as the Labour Party is doing; the English model starts with nursery - and not kindergarten - classes.

So far, why not? It is reasonable and necessary for parties to discuss, in an informed manner, the technical content and implications of their proposals. But Nationalist propagandists go a huge step further. They say the proposal will in effect introduce a repeat year, classifying all children as failures, and raising the school leaving age by one year to 17. They then proceed to label the idea as nothing less than dangerous.

Some educationalists, such as Kenneth Wain and Peter Mayo, have been drawn into the discussion, largely making the point that root and branch reform is required, rather than focus on one particular aspect or level of education. They also make a strong point which has been totally ignored by the politicians. Specifically, that the prevailing system of streaming starting from Year 4 in State schools ought to be radically reviewed.

Not only has the point not been picked up by politicians but streaming has become further embedded as a concept, no matter its implications. Countering the Nationalist's scaremongering over the reception class the MLP came up with some fear-banging of its own. It claimed that the Government intends to abolish the examination for entry to the Lyceum level and also to abolish the Lyceums. The Government passionately insists that is not so.

Accusations of lying have been flying about like sand in a desert storm. The outcome will be that, if Labour is elected, the new Government will start to work on an extensive policy, to be implanted gradually, but surely. Should the Nationalists be re-elected they will keep the 11+ examination and the Lyceum model.

Neither shade of government will have sought a mandate to review the streaming system, though many educationalists, not least those with a left wing bent, see streaming as one of the major weaknesses of an education system based on them.

It is better that education is being focused upon in the electoral campaign, rather than for it to be ignored. But what is required is an extensive plan to make education more meaningful to economic development.

A manpower study and plan is long overdue to try to forecast the country's requirements for the next 15 to 20 years. There is loose political talk that the Smart City project should provide jobs for Maltese personnel, and not for expatriates.

Little allowance is made for the brutal fact that employers will tap into available resources, and that if there are not enough of them in Malta, and of the right quality, they will not hesitate to import qualified labour, in a context of increasing global mobility.

Not enough emphasis is made on the fact that there exist clear shortages of accountants and qualified IT personnel.

Nor is there informed discussion going on whether the subjects being taught at a secondary level and the contents of key degrees at the University that should prepare human resources for tomorrow's economy are adequate enough, or require a thorough overhaul.

Scaremongering and political rhetoric shorn of meaningful content will not revolutionise our education system in the manner required to make it deliver what is - and more and more will be - expected of it.