There is no doubt that children deserve our best - but are they receiving it? The words of the renowned Swiss educationalist quoted above, which are hundreds of years old, still hold water today.

For decades, as an educator, I was guided by the maxim "Given enough time and the right method, one can teach anybody anything". And I do not regret it, even though I have been subject to many a raised eyebrow. The catch is in finding "the right method".

Back in the 60s, educational and psychlogical research was still limited compared to the number of studies that take place today, but educators also had fewer labels to apply to children. On the contrary, they were expected to find the right method or right approach to facilitate learning. Research today makes this task easier, although keeping up with the research itself is not that easy.

There was a time when human intelligence was summed up in a number. Gone are those days. Today intelligence is defined as a potential that needs to be triggered. Howard Gardner (1983) defined intelligence as a "neural mechanism or computational system which is genetically programmed to be activated or triggered by certain kinds of internal or external information".

So the important question is not "what do children learn?" but "how do they learn?" In his studies Gardner identified seven different intelligences - linguistic, logical, musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal. They became eight in 1999 when he added the naturalistic intelligence. Yet most schools concentrate only on the first two.

Other researchers like Kagan and Lazear expanded on these studies, and tried to come up with ways of increasing awareness and identification of the different intelligences.

What is little acknowledged is that these ideas were pioneered much earlier by Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler, who expounded on his theory of individual psychology in 1920.

Lazear (2003) states that "to work deeply with intelligence you must fully understand and be able to utilise its unique 'patterns of thinking'. Once we have some measure of comprehension of what is involved in understanding the unique way each intelligence thinks, perceives and understands the world, we can work with students to help them access the full congnitive potentials of the eight intelligences toward their mastery of the curriculum."

In Adlerian psychology, the existence of this unique individual thinking is not only acknowledged but the whole Adlerian approach is geared towards the identification of the individual's "private logic", his or her perception and interpretation of the world, others and self. Adlerian 'life-style analysis' provides a way of bringing about the awareness of a person's pattern of thinking, respecting the uniqueness of every individual, their social context or environment and without putting them into pigeon holes.

It is proved that once this knowledge is achieved progress follows.

Adler also pointed out that this 'blueprint' for life is formed in early childhood and very often contains misconceptions that might last a lifetime. Thus, the importance of early childhood education, and teachers' training, cannot be overemphasised.

Another researcher, Thomas Armstrong (1988), confirmed Gardner's studies and went further by coming up with the concept of 'learning differences, not learning disabilities'.

His studies show how many children are not strong in linguistic and logical intelligences but are more gifted in the other six. Research also shows that basic academic progress in linguistics and logical intelligences can be achieved through the use of the other intelligences.

"All too often such children (not gifted in linguistics and logical intelligencs) are at the risk of being unjustly labelled 'learning disabled.' The abilities these kids possess never get a chance to be displayed in the classroom... for such students we created the six-hour disabled child, who functions below grade level during school hours, but learns much better away from school." (Armstrong, 1988)

Once again Adler was a pioneer in pointing this out. A basic Adlerian concept is that we are all born with inherent potential but this needs to be nurtured and developed in a social context in early childhood. Adler's medical background and specialisation in ophthalmology helped him understand how children learn through sensing and how each child develops certain senses more than others. This led to his organ inferiority theory. So it is understandable that if a school's learning approach is biased then many children will not be able to relate to it or make use of it.

Adler stressed the importance of encouragement, focusing on strengths, mutual respect, a democratic environment, high self-esteem, responsibility and cooperation as empowerment that facilitates learning. He also spoke of competition as being highly non-educational unless it is competition with the self.

All this makes me think twice before answering my initial question.

Armstrong expresses another concern, what he terms "dysteachia". Dysteachia threatens to banish many children to a barren future in special education classrooms. The only way to combat dysteachia is for educators to reconceptualise learning disabilities to include the strengths of millions of children who will otherwise languish in remedial programmes. Are we ready to at last let learning-different kids shine in their own way?

The National Minimum Curriculum was a step, perhaps the first, in this direction. The growth and success of the Malta College for Arts, Science and Technology is another and teacher education programmes based on these lines are yet another.

I must end by saying that I feel strongly encouraged by all the official talk about reform in our educational system. If it is a move in the right direction we will go a long way. In this case our small size is one of our blessings.

Joyce Callus is a counsellor and trainer of teachers and parents.