Lino Bugeja"s article making a case for streamed classes in our schools (July 31) is off the mark with his remarks on education and "social justice". On the other hand his remarks about what is happening in the world of education today are pretty dated. Finally I would, together with contemporary experts, want to take issue with his understanding of effective pedagogy (the art and science of teaching) and his politics of the classroom.

Let me begin with the first, social justice. Mr Bugeja states that he is "puzzled how those blessed with a sense of social justice, traditionally boasting of standing up for the downtrodden", rarely take up the cudgel to defend "selection by ability". I am puzzled that he is so puzzled because the answer is obvious; because "the downtrodden" are not those who make it in education but those judged to have no "ability". Those who make it have no need for defenders; it's the masses who don't who need standing up for.

Justice by ability is not democratic, otherwise we would have tests for citizens before giving them the right to vote. Nor is it social; it is not based on solidarity. It is meritocratic and elitist, and therefore discriminatory, while social justice is inclusive. The motto of meritocratic justice in education is "to each according to his or her ability", the motto of social justice "to each according to his or her needs". Social justice is consistent not with a politics of selection but with a politics of inclusion.

This is the politics of every single policy document issued by Maltese governments since 1995 and the publication of Tomorrow's Schools. It is a core value of our National Curriculum 1999 supported in principle by all our political parties and by Parliament through its Social Affairs Committee. Sadly it is constantly betrayed by the state itself through its outdated schooling system. The government should be setting the example and abiding by the National Curriculum while the opposition should be taking it to task for not doing so. Instead we have this strange situation where both are playing blind or stupid and thousands of children are betrayed by the state school system every year.

Mr Bugeja claims that were it not for the selective system many high profile professionals, administrators and parliamentarians from the working class would not have been produced. This is a gratuitous statement. The implication is that where the state operates with an open system (i.e., in practically all the developed countries of the Western world) the working class is less present in these sectors than in Malta. This is plainly false. He puts the superior results obtained by Church and private school students (where there is no streaming policy) in all manner of public exams, down to parental influence. Why doesn't he consider the same explanation for working class children in state schools who succeed? Why doesn't he put it down to the parents also instead of the system?

Everybody knows that parental influence is a key to a successful education in whichever syatem. The statistics show that the state system is keeping out a huge number of working class children because the vast majority of children who are penalised by its streaming and selection policies (i.e. denied the possibility "to progress in life") come from working class backgrounds - in Malta we know where they are concentrated demographically. Look at the 11+ figures. A lot of the failures are children who lack parental support - and they are penalised for it! They are paying with their lives for the elite which Mr Bugeja says that the selective system produces. Where is the social justice? Where is the Commissioner for Children?

Family background and parental motivation count, and the two are closely linked. Together with learning difficulties (how is applying the criterion of ability just with them?) which are nobody's fault and certainly not the child nor his/her family's, they constitute the conditions that create the "disadvantaged" Mr Bugeja mentions. But I detect not a speck of sympathy for their condition in his article, nor for the ordeal these children and their families, from all social classes, pass through year in year out thanks to the psychologically and emotionally stressful ordeal of sitting the 11+ exams. Mr Bugeja is cavalier about the damage done by our selective system to the self-esteem and confidence of those who fail, when he must know full well, as a former ex-educator, that self-esteem and confidence in one's ability are the necessary ingredients of educational success - destroy them, as our system does for many of those whom it fails, and you destroy their interest in learning for the rest of their lives.

This is more grave today than it has ever been. Which brings me to what he says "we require in the 21st century". I suggest that he goes to the EU education and training websites. He should begin by looking up the statistics on how we are performing on the various criteria that define "what we require in the 21st century", and see how our selective system is performing. Then he should look up the policy papers to see what we should be doing. The statistics (frequently reproduced in our local media) will show him the measure of the system's underperformance on virtually all the criteria (and not just against the more advanced countries), except on expenditure. This is the extent of "success" of our selective system by 21st century requirements. Retaining it is not only socially unjust but economically suicidal. He may also care to compare our performance with that of the Scandinavian systems that are the most open and non-selective in Europe and consistently top the charts.

The policy documents will tell him that 21st century policy in education and training, not just in Europe but worldwide, is driven by strategies of lifelong learning (which is not, as most think, about adult learning only). The reason is obvious: in an age of rapid change, driven by rapid developments in science and technology, knowledge is fast outdated, innovation is the battlecry, and learning for life is mandatory for all. Not for the select few, but for all, at the risk of their economic and cultural survival. Lifelong learning strategies lie at the heart of Europe's ambition to be up there and competitive in the global economy. It requires economies based on knowledge and societies that are knowledge societies. In this scenario the policy in the developed world today is to keep as many young people as possible in the educational system for as long as possible, creating supportive policies for ongoing education and training for adults, and creating a society that learns.

Where is Malta's national stretegy for lifelong learning? Why don't we have it yet? How are our schooling system and curriculum affected by a strategy that puts lifelong learning at its heart? These are the questions we should be asking.

Selective systems are antithetical to social justice and to our economic aspirations. Early selection is discriminatory and socially unjust, creates a culture of failure and demotivation for those who fail, is economically wasteful, and contrary to the policy of mobilising learning that is the heart of education and training for today's world. My experience with ministers is that what has kept it in place over the years is the fear of a strong teachers and parents lobby - of course the thousands who are its victims have no such lobby. They are the voiceless ones Mr Bugeja should be taking up the cudgel for in the name of social justice. I suggest that it is time the political parties come together and declare a common and concrete commitment for inclusion in state schools - I cannot see how the Labour Party, in particular, with its roots in the working class, can commit itself to anything different.

Finally, what Mr Bugeja says about the virtues of front-of-class teaching would fail any student-teacher on teaching practice today. Today's pedagogy is interactive, it is activity based, it is about handing the initiative as much as possible to the learner - otherwise how is s/he going to be capable of taking charge of his/her learning when s/he leaves school and goes out into the wide world where s/he will be required to learn for life? It is varied, involves group-work and peer-teaching, requires small and dynamic classrooms hosting learners with different abilities, teachers who work in teams, and the assistance of computer-driven technologies. Its politics are participative and democratic. Teachers who are incapable of teaching in this way and who teach (preach!) from the front are best retrained or encouraged to leave the profession, rather than encouraged. Here's a job for the new Teachers Council!