Ten years since the re-organisation of primary and secondary schools into colleges, the Education Ministry recently rolled out a set of proposals for public consultation to overhaul the system. Keith Micallef spoke to Sandro Spiteri, a former principal who carried out a study on the experience so far and the way forward.
Given his involvement in setting up the college system in 2006 and subsequently serving as Principal of St Margaret College, one might be inclined to believe that the findings of Mr Spiteri’s study would be skewed.
However, the former Director for Quality Assurance points out that his research confirmed the evidence which had already emerged that some aspects of the reform fell short of expectations.
The study was purposely carried out with eight retired heads of school with whom he had never come in close contact. “This ensured that respondents were free to express themselves without any inhibitions,” he says.
One of the findings was heads of school did not receive enough training to adapt to the change.
“Some principals treated their new role as that of a super head, whereas the idea was to have someone like a CEO, whose remit would be to focus exclusively on the administrative aspect and leave teaching matters to heads.
“This idea, however, did not materialise completely.” Having been the teaching profession for a number of years, he is well aware that educators often face a dilemma. “Shall I dedicate my energies to fixing a leaking roof or dedicate more time to oversee the quality of teaching? Such situations may induce heads of school to focus on certain matters at the expense of delegating important decisions.”
Any changes in the pipeline, he says, must address this dilemma.
One of the pitfalls of the 2006 reform which emerged from his research was that the government had pledged more autonomy to schools, even though they already enjoyed it.
“Trusted heads of school used to manage with the mantra: Don’t ask, don’t’ tell. The spirit was that unless you get in trouble, you can decide for yourself with no interference from above”.
The introduction of principals was perceived as stifling heads’ freedom
This was especially the case in secondary schools. “However, the introduction of principals was perceived as stifling heads’ freedom.”
On a positive note, the introduction of colleges was widely acknowledged as having spread the decision-making process, with greater involvement of schools, though it remained hierarchical.
Ten years down the line, the government last July presented a set of amendments to the Education Act for public consultation, which include measures to reform the college system. These changes are based on a document called ‘Education reform strategy 2014-2024’.
“I am yet to be entirely convinced that the reform will implement this vision, which in my opinion was a very good one, as it learnt the lessons of 2006.”
While welcoming the fact that the recommendations seek to build on the positive experience of the existing college system, Mr Spiteri questions the move to have schools as separate legal entities.
“There does need to be a clear demarcation of the role of the school, the college and the central authority with respect to funding, resources and accountability.
“What will the role of the College Principal be? Will they become a regional assistant director, as was the case in the past?”
Another of his concerns is the proposal to give heads of school the responsibility to draft a three-year financial budget.
“This might be a very steep learning curve for some. Putting the onus on the school rather than the college might work, but certain aspects need to be looked into further.”
He says that a good reform must strike a balance between autonomy, accountability and resources.
“For schools to shoulder more responsibility there need to be clear targets, in terms of the national curriculum and the learning outcomes framework which caters for children with different learning styles.”
Mr Spiteri also believes that this could be a good opportunity to address another area where the college reform left much to be desired – parent involvement.
“Parents will trust teachers much more if they feel involved in the education of their children and this in turns improves the quality of learning.”
He reserves another word of caution for the use of IT in schools, saying that in recent years teachers have been “overwhelmed” by the introduction of laptop computers, electronic whiteboards and tablets in the near future.
International studies like those of PISA have already highlighted that a third of all students are still coming out of compulsory schooling without enough literacy and numeracy skills to progress to post-secondary education.
“Throwing money at the problem is not a recipe for success as this needs to be part of a wider strategy whose implementation requires strong political direction,” he says.
Main findings
The study, ‘Communication and Power in the Colleges’ is published as part of the Education Research Monograph Series, Malta University Publishing.
• The majority of respondents declared themselves to be in favour of the college system but said not enough training had been given to principals to adapt to the change.
• In pre-college years, the prevailing management style was “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Experienced heads were allowed to run the schools without central supervision, so long as no grave misdemeanour came to their attention.
• The perception that superiors at the Education Department were distant and hierarchical declined following the introduction of the college system.
• In pre-college years, secondary school heads felt superior to primary ones and thus were more critical of the reform, as they felt it lessened their autonomy.
• The personality of the principal had a strong bearing on the respondents’ opinion of the college system.
The study will be published on October 5 during a seminar at the Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa. The event starts at 8.30am.