On the face of it, the introduction of ethics in public schools is good news. Finally, non-Catholic students will no longer be left walking up and down corridors. Ethics classes will be provided as an alternative to the teaching of Catholic religion. Yet, on second thoughts, serious questions arise regarding both the motives and the manner in which the subject is being introduced.

Consider the apparent motive.

The feeling one gets is that the subject has been introduced simply to occupy the students in question; to fill a gap. It surely does not address the issue of equity as prima facie one might think.

While students from a Catholic background will have a choice whether to take classes instructing them about their own religion or to enrol in the subject that has just been introduced, non-Catholic students can only take the latter.

It is also assumed that non-Catholic parents will be less averse to have their children taught a subject where various ideas of the good life are presented without (presumably) one being indicated as beingbetter than the others. The thought that some may be as averse to this as much as they would be contrary to having their children instructed in a faith they do not uphold, or that they might not cherish having teachers instructing their children about what, from one perspective, may appear to be abominable because it contravenes some supposed natural standard , may appear perfectly legitimate. However, this does not seem to have crossed the mind of the Education Division.

Additionally, the choice between ethics and religious studies is unfortunate because, despite some overlapping, both subjects concern different aspects of human existence.

This obviously does not mean that things should have remained as they were.

Not only was the sole offer of Catholic religious instruction discriminatory but, even from a Catholic perspective, the syllabus and the orientation given to its teaching by the Curia left much to be desired.

The solution that has been presented is not felicitous either.

A better solution might have be introducing ethics independently of religious studies and not limiting the latter to Catholic religion. Groups of students belonging to non-Catholic religions may be given religion lessons by someone who is an expert in their faith. Or else, religious studies could be modified drastically.

Instead of instruction in one faith, students might be taught what people who belong to major religions believe and why. This might include a section on unbelief as well (that is, what are the views of atheists and agnostics and why do they uphold these views).

Another solution could have been having ethics replace religious studies altogether. After all, the Catholic doctrine society – Museum – mosques, synagogues and other religious institutions and meeting places exist where religious instruction is already/can be given to children and young adults.

The most startling aspect concerning the new subject, however, concerns those who will be entrusted with teaching it.

The obvious move would have been to give some pedagogy training to students who have graduated in philosophy since, presumably, in their first degree they would have been exposed to ethics classes more than other graduates.

Yet, amazingly, they cannot apply for the newly-set certificate that is required to teach the subject.

The choice between ethics and religious studies is unfortunate

So an anomaly has been created whereby a student with an arts degree in English, Maltese or physics can apply to obtain a certificate to teach the subject in which s/he has specialised whereas a philosophy student cannot. Instead, anyone with a one-year teaching experience and a B.Ed in any subject – be this geography, mathematics, physics or anything else not minimally related to ethics – can apply for a warrant to teach the new subject.

The Education Division apparently assumes that six months will suffice for geography, mathematics and physics teachers to obtain both the content they are expected to teach to their students and the methodology required to teach it.

The logistical odds against the successful training of these teachers are high, not merely because teachers coming from these areas have little time to acquire the necessary content and methodology (three months for each aspect is a ridiculously short period) but also because a good number of these teachers need also to acquire a new forma mentis.

In subjects like geography, mathematics and physics, teachers normally presume that there is a correct answer – one answer – to which one can arrive through different approaches. In ethics, things are markedly different. Here, one has different answers to the same question and, unless the subject is a dogmatic rehash under a secular guise, the teacher is not expected to tilt his/her students to one answer rather than to others.

I hope my fears are ill-founded but I am afraid the Education Division is oblivious to these difficulties.