The English language is of critical importance to Malta. When the Constitution assigned English the status of an official language it gave us the tool to communicate globally, the tool to go beyond our own insularity. English is our main commercial and financial lifeline to the rest of the world.
It complements our competence in Maltese, our national language, which underpins our social and cultural identity. We need to have excellent comprehension, speaking, writing and reading skills in both.
The Opposition is in favour of any measure to improve competence in English, which is why I was looking forward to the public release a few days ago of the study by Cambridge English commissioned by the Ministry of Education in 2015. This report investigated the level of English competence in Maltese schools in Year 4 and Form 4. In its covering note, the ministry was at pains to try to reassure the public that “the expectations for English attainment are much higher than for attainment in foreign languages”.
We were told the data and results from this study were to be interpreted keeping this in mind.
Why the need for this reassurance? Well, because the technical study comes up with some strange conclusions.
It states that for Year 4 students “a large proportion of learners are at the B1/B2 levels and can be considered independent users of English, which is a very positive finding”.
B1/B2 is roughly equivalent to a SEC level of a foreign language.
For the Form 4 students, the results suggest “readiness for independent functioning in a variety of contexts for a large percentage of Secondary learners”, again at the SEC level of a foreign language.
We need to set our standards of English competence higher, not lower
Yet, these results clash with parents’, educators’ and employers’ everyday experience of actual English competence. They will tell you that the level of English competence, even at tertiary level, was not good and is only getting worse.
At the same time, these results do not match the outcomes of two major international studies that involved Maltese students published just a few years ago.
In the 2010 PISA study for 15-year-olds, Maltese students’ results were below the EU average. Over 36 per cent of students did not have an acceptable level of reading competence.
In the 2011 PIRLS reading and writing literacy study for 10-year-old pupils, Malta had ranked 35th out of 45 participating countries. In 2013, Education Minister Evarist Bartolo had said he was not happy with the results and described the study as “eye-opening”.
My reading of the overly optimistic conclusions of the Cambridge English study is that the level of English proficiency was being benchmarked against a foreign language, which is, after all, this company’s expertise.
The English Department of the University of Malta has already expressed its concern that the report’s recommendations imply demoting the teaching of English to that of a foreign language.
Does Bartolo agree with the report’s upbeat assessment of English competence in schools and its recommendations? If yes, it would be yet another quick-fix with serious long-term implications.
The technology and engineering industries, accountancy firms, financial services, creative industries and other sectors, to mention but a few, are already severely strained because of the lack of sufficient competence in English by Maltese students.
We need to set our standards of English competence higher, not lower. Admittedly, this is not a new challenge and one that requires significant resources and concerted effort. But, most of all, it requires an ambitious policy goal and a clear strategy.
Will the minister be dumbing down Maltese students’ expected English competence or will he aim to reverse the current trend? The Opposition would support all efforts to reverse the trend.
Therese Comodini Cachia is shadow minister for education and employment.