Has early school leaving (ESL) become a political issue that attracts attention or is there really political will to reduce it? Malta has undertaken the obligation of reducing the ESL rate to 10% so as to reach the EU2020 target. Between 2000 and 2010 the ESL rate was almost halved mainly due to the setting up of MCAST 20 years after it was shut down by a Labour administration, and a statistical recalibration in agreement with Eurostat.
From then till 2013 the ESL rate decreased consistently by an average of one per cent.
But the remaining, stubborn portion of ESL can only be won over by addressing the quality of teaching, learning and assessment in primary and secondary schools, and the quality of the links between societies, families and schools.
At the beginning of his appointment as Minister for Education, Evarist Bartolo made himself out to be a champion for reducing the ESL rate.
But Eurostat indicates that the rate of early school leaving between 2013 and 2014 has decreased only by 0.1 per cent. Does this reflect the outcome a champion would wish for? Certainly not.
What could be the reason for this disappointing result? The national ESL strategy that was launched in mid-2014 rightly covered prevention, intervention and compensation, from early childhood to post-compulsory education.
It was coherent with the Framework for the Education Strategy 2014 -2024 and like it built and expanded on the way forward set forth by the National Curriculum Framework 2012, which this government agreed to retain, at least on paper.
These initiatives attack the symptoms, not the cause
But as with the 2014-2024 Strategy and the Curriculum Framework, the ESL strategy has been implemented superficially. It is true that a number of important remedial initiatives have been made such as the alternative learning programme for potential ESLs, and the GEM-16 programme for those with only one SEC.
But these initiatives attack the symptoms, not the cause.
Although they should make a difference for the students involved, and I salute the educators involved for their sterling work, they will not impact the real issues.
These are: the link between poverty, social exclusion, marginalisation and ESL; the quality of the process of teaching and learning in primary schools; and to a lesser extent what happens in secondary schools.
Although some initiatives have been taken with respect to the first point, such as an increase in childcare and the breakfast clubs, I am hearing increasing concerns about the quality of the childcare being provided.
There is certainly need of a much more coordinated effort between the local, communities, families, school and government’s health, welfare and housing services to really break the cycle of poverty and exclusion. I am not seeing any such coordinated action happening now, three years into this Labour administration.
And how can Bartolo speak about inclusion, which is one of the strategic actions of the ESL strategy for the primary sector, when he has allowed the reintroduction of segregation into state primary schools?
After the enormous efforts to introduce differentiated teaching and learning in the previous 10 years, the minister went back to dividing classes by student age and examination results, against the best technical advice and the public condemnation of many University academics.
We are not seeing solid and coherent political leadership in educational policy that will grasp the bull by the horns. Change is not happening where itreally matters.
Action needs to focus on the complex causes of early school leaving, so that it makes a meaningful and positive change in the lifes of our youths. This is the tangible result I want to see.
Therese Comodini Cachia is a Nationalist Party member of the European Parliament.