Once again the classification of children in primary schools has lately been very much in the news. With the introduction of mixed ability classes a couple of years ago and the complete elimination of streaming by ability – a system very often branded with the splendidly evocative word ‘segregation’ – it is now pertinent to ask: is education in our schools to be regarded as a preparation for life or for some dream-like state which exists only in the mind?

I must admit that my reservations against mixed ability classes reveals a change of heart, as in the 1960s I was massively in favour of non-streaming, only to discover that, paradoxically, this method of classification was good in theory but in practice it was leading some primary schools to ruin.

Every parent, teacher and educationist is aware, but some may not admit it, that some children are cleverer than others.

Consequently, if a class includes children of different levels of ability and attainment, that class has to be subdivided into groups for teaching purposes with the result that children are ‘streamed’ within the class. In this way, the teacher’s time and energy have to be focused on three or four homogeneous groups.

In this regard it is highly significant that in some European countries, including the United Kingdom, which for centuries has influenced local educational thought and practice, educational advisers have recently drawn up a blueprint for teachers in primary schools designed to restore old-style teaching, namely whole class teaching where the teacher stands in the middle and gives lessons involving all the pupils.

Successive inspectors of schools (still known by that title) have criticised the predominance of “more progressive” techniques in which pupils are taught in small groups in a class and allowed to work at their own pace.

In the worst cases this has led to chaos in the classroom, declining standards in basic skills, disruptive elements and a complete breakdown of discipline.

It is time to re-assess the present situation in the Maltese islands.

Every parent, teacher and educationist is aware, but some may not admit it, that some children are cleverer than others

I have always stressed that there should be equal educational opportunities for all children but not equal education for all.

Children, whatever their attainment, should be provided with equal opportunities to make the best of themselves irrespective of the stream they are in. Those responsible should ensure that the backward child in the lower stream does not fall further behind.

In the past, teachers in upper streams were older and more experienced. This was confirmed in a random sample in the 1970s when it was standard practice to give the “A stream” to the best teachers with the best conditions and equipment.

In fact the status of a teacher was linked with the level of the stream; it was also shown that lower streams had less favourable accommodation and younger and less experienced teachers. We had not only streaming for children but also for teachers.

I strongly believe that any changes in the organisation of schools which do not take into account the attitudes and beliefs of the teachers, teaching methods and home background of children is very likely to run into difficulties. However, it seems that at the very core of the real problem is a collapse of the understanding of what education is for.

It is evident that in Maltese educational circles, particularly among teachers, there is some disquiet and despondency about the complete elimination of streaming. Perhaps the time has come for a start when each school may be given the chance to adopt the plan of organisation most appropriate to its circumstances based on teachers’ attitudes, size of school, parental aspirations and social milieu.

Homogeneous groupings have several advantages as they give every child the opportunity to excel; otherwise, and I reiterate my previous assertion, we run the risk of depriving the child who is clever and endowed with ability and who is destined to become a leader in his particular field, by bringing him down to the level of his classmates, who although equally deserving of our attention would never achieve in a lifetime of effort what the other could achieve. In the long run the nation would be the loser in this egalitarian heresy.

Lino Bugeja studied at the Institute of Education of the University of London.