Ivan Camilleri's article of April 12 (Malta Still Far Off Education Targets) brings us face to face with reality. Malta is classified at the lower end of the scale on various educational indicators even when compared to the other nine new member states and the three candidate countries.

The four best performing countries, according to a report conducted by the EU, were Finland, Sweden, Denmark and the UK. These countries have a similar educational system, different from ours. They do not have streaming or Junior Lyceum entrance exams.

Finland is a case in point. Children attend compulsory education for a period of 10 years starting in the year of their seventh birthday, ending at the age of 17.

At this point, a staggering 93 per cent choose to continue studying. The options available are general upper secondary education, which prepares students for the matriculation examination, or vocational education, which provides students with vocational programmes. Both of these lead to higher education, which comprises two parallel options: universities or polytechnics.

With its non-selective educational system, Finland has performed well in various international studies. The Pisa Study (March 2005) report stated that a main reason why Finland did so well was due to a comprehensive and non-selective basic education.

It is evident that schools which do away with streaming produce a greater cohort of better-educated students. In Malta, the number of students who do not continue school after the age of 16 is almost five times that of Finland.

When parents resisted a non-selective system during the designing of the National Minimum Curriculum, were they making the right choice? Where they well informed about streaming and all that it entails? Were they aware that their children could be better educated in a non-selective environment? The EU report has yet again confirmed that streaming and a cutthroat examination system from as early as eight years of age affects education adversely.

In Malta, at the age of 11, a lot of students are doomed. Passing or failing the Junior Lyceum exam determines the fate of our children. Is it fair that they must carry this label for the rest of their lives? We claim to be a democratic country. Our National Minimum Curriculum requires that democracy should be promoted in schools. However, our educational system promotes the survival of the fittest. Only few make it to the top.

Through school talks, discussions, propaganda etc., parents should be made aware of the benefits of a non-selective educational system in order for them to be in a better position to decide in the best interests of their children. Teachers, most of whom agree with streaming, also need to be made aware of how a heterogeneous educational system works and be given concrete examples and resources. Even though not an easy task to accomplish, it is by no means unachievable, particularly in a small country like Malta.

The report issued by the European Commission should prompt us to think about how to improve the educational system and take strategic action. One plausible way is to eradicate streaming from within our primary and secondary schools, thereby also eliminating the Junior Lyceum exam.

Such an initiative was attempted in the past, unsuccessfully. Removing streaming will require a very intense transition period, requiring the Maltese educational system to be rebuilt from the roots.

Cosmetic changes will get us nowhere. Cooperation of all the parties involved, including teachers, parents and students, is a crucial factor and thus a nationwide educational campaign on non-selective education is paramount.

This campaign would make it easier for the government to take this challenging and exigent step rather than being afraid of such a radical change in the Maltese educational system.

Our children's concerns should come before other interests. Children are tomorrow's citizens!

Ms Scicluna is a B.Ed (Hons) student.