The creation of college secondary schools to replace junior lyceums has delivered its first group of fifth formers. Malta Union of Teachers president Kevin Bonello tells Kurt Sansone why he is not too pleased with the results – and defends teachers against any suggestion they are not flexible enough in their methods.
The Matsec O level results came out last week. These are the results of the first group of students to have joined the new system that did away with the secondary school divide between area secondaries and junior lyceums. The MUT was not pleased with the results, going so far as to say ‘we told you so’. Why?
The MUT had always been in favour of removing streaming and aiming for more inclusivity. But when the reform was unveiled some six years ago, we felt it had been hurried. People were not trained. Take, for example, boys’ Church schools, which had been accustomed to taking in the top achievers, who passed the Common Entrance exam. That changed to a ballot system and the result was a greater mixture of students that teachers were unprepared for. The academic results today are no better than what they used to be.
Your focus is solely on academic achievement. Could the new system have delivered less social segregation?
This is debatable because over the years we realised that certain things were not working, and various support programmes for students who could not keep up with the rest were created. The recent introduction of banding (a less stringent form of streaming) in the core subjects helped mitigate the difficulty. Teachers were experiencing difficulties delivering the syllabus to a classroom of 20 students with a wide range of abilities. Teachers have to deliver the syllabus in its entirety because of the annual exams. Unless they do so, teachers would appear as if they are failing.
Some argue the syllabus does allow teachers the flexibility to adopt different methods of teaching to cater for a wider range of student abilities. Is it teachers who are not flexible?
There is a level of flexibility in the methods a teacher can use to deliver a lesson. But the teacher has no control over the content of the syllabus. If the teacher departs from the content, s/he will have problems with parents, who will be comparing their children to those in other classes, and school management, who have to ensure the syllabus is delivered. Flexibility is very minimal. The only flexibility a teacher has today is whether to use an interactive whiteboard, create a PowerPoint presentation, produce a handout…
But there is flexibility in the teaching methods that can be adopted. Let us take maths: the long division can be taught in various ways, catering for the different learning abilities.
Teachers have to deliver the syllabus in its entirety because of the annual exams. Unless they do so, teachers would appear as if they are failing
The ideal situation is what you are saying. But we have had instances when teachers were instructed to penalise certain methods in exams. Flexibility is very limited.
Teachers often complain of the curriculum’s rigidity and the resultant emphasis on exams as an assessment method. Should we do away with exams?
No, but there has to be a multi-level approach. According to the curriculum we are metaphorically teaching tonnes of content in various subjects. In reality, some of this content does not interest teachers and students and has little utility to society. Instead, we should teach children the skills to carry out research rather than spoon-feed them all this content for the exam. There are other useful soft skills such as the ability to debate and perform critical thinking, for which there is no space in our schools. The assessment should not only be based on the exam. A student may have worked hard throughout the year but is then judged on the two-hour Matsec exam. We are discussing a system with the government and the University that will allow space for assessing the work done throughout the year.
Does the MUT agree with the removal of streaming?
The MUT had agreed with replacing the split system we had before at secondary school level with one where all pupils are under one roof. But we went from one extreme to another. We went from an extreme form of segregation to a melting pot that disregarded the different abilities. We later introduced banding to mitigate the problem. Inclusion is important but a one-size-fits-all system is not suitable.
Let us take the Pythagoras theorem in maths. Some students will grasp it quickly through theory but others will only understand it if it is explained in a concrete way using models. The end result would be the same and this is why the MUT is calling for more flexibility in schools and classrooms. The teacher should be able to adapt to the classroom in front of her.
What is there that holds back teachers from doing this?
The syllabus does not allow this.
Even if streaming were to be retained no teacher can presume that the 20 children in class, despite being the best, will all learn at the same pace and in the same way. The need to adapt has always been necessary. So what is holding teachers back from teaching both theory and practice?
Teachers today have mixed ability classes – with less pronounced differences as a result of banding – and are adapting the curriculum to suit their students. But if they have to teach five theories, irrespective of whether the class can grasp them all well or some of them, the teacher is bound to deliver the five of them.
Going back to the Pythagoras theorem; the teacher can ask students to bring wooden sticks and undertake the exercise in a practical way but, apart from a lack of time, the curriculum dictates how things have to be taught. In some subjects the lesson plans are also dictated by the curriculum. A purely academic system does not work well for everybody and we have to diversify. It is not right to expect every child to use the same road to reach the destination.
I feel there are two different planets: some university academics argue that the curriculum caters for flexibility while teachers decry its rigidity. Is this a question of interpretation?
I imagine that the education theories promoted by the university allow space for flexibility but there is a sea of difference between theory and practice. This distance is not being addressed enough. As a union we have argued in favour of these educational theories but it is useless teaching them in a vacuum.
How prepared are educators to teach mixed ability classes?
At primary level, the vast majority of teachers have been working with mixed ability classes for years. In secondary school those teachers who experienced the junior lyceum-area secondary split, may have been less prepared for the change. I know many teachers who found it difficult to adapt to the new reality.
Apart from having a more flexible curriculum, what are the resources required to ensure mixed ability classes succeed?
Big classrooms are not ideal to enable teachers to reach everybody. This obviously requires more teachers and learning support assistants, more physical space, more computers and more resources generally. Secondly, resources such as the interactive whiteboard, and in the future, tablets, require programmes that enable teachers to reach out to as many students as possible. Advances have been made in this regard but more has to be done. A more practical approach to teaching will also require more workspace in the classrooms and the tools to create the models.
Many times, teachers, LSAs and kindergarten assistants are spending hundreds of euros in resources from their own money to teach their students because nobody provides them with the tools and materials. Church schools have until now not provided LSAs and kindergarten assistants with a laptop to prepare resources for their students. These are obvious investments for us as a union but employers do not see it like we do.
But will these resources be used or will the interactive whiteboard simply serve as a traditional whiteboard?
They will be used. When interactive whiteboards were introduced, I had many teachers approaching the union with their concerns. Today, five years or so down the line, the concerns revolve around the time it takes to have a bulb replaced. The vast majority are using these tools in a positive way. Change takes its time but people adapt.
It is not uncommon to have a classroom with five of the 20 children unable to read and write properly. How is this possible?
We will continue to have that problem because until now we are only offering these children the academic route, which works for some but not for others. The minister has spoken of adopting three different routes and we are in talks to determine what these will be. But we have to start by knowing what we expect children to have achieved at the end of compulsory schooling.
Are educators happy with the wage they are paid?
Educators would like to see their work appreciated more through better pay. But this is not only about money. They would also like to be respected. Our members feel hurt whenever somebody brings up the holidays issue to hit out at them. These critics should come and spend a day in the classroom. During the summer, educators also prepare for the new scholastic year.
Is lack of discipline a growing problem?
We passed through a period when the lack of respect from parents towards teachers was at its lowest but things have improved. Even the fact that the Education Minister constantly affords educators respect whenever he speaks has made a difference. But we continue to insist that every school should have at least one person trained on security. This person would know how to deal with a situation that may crop up.
Has it become more difficult for schools to discipline children?
It is important for parents to work hand-in-hand with the school. Unfortunately, we have some parents who take a confrontational attitude and this makes discipline harder to maintain. In some cases the problem stems from acrimonious separations wherein the parents go out of their way to satisfy all their child’s whims to try and compensate for the uncertainty caused by their personal difficulties. It is no surprise that these children come to school exhibiting difficult behaviour. Such cases should be decided as quickly as possible by the courts to avoid prolonged battles between parents. Discipline works when educators win the children’s respect. To do this, society at large must have greater respect for teachers, LSAs and kindergarten assistants.