What cheek! Two consecutive editorials (TMID, 11 and 12 February) were another fantastic example of biased recording of history, typical of a Nationalist fifth column wherever it hides. Over two consecutive editorials (a record in journalism perhaps), the “independent” editor of this newspaper presented a supposed balanced overview of educational development in Malta over the last 20 years. Balanced my foot!
It was evident that the editor was deeply ashamed to go further back in educational history in Malta: balanced historians will vouch for the great educational reforms launched successfully by several Labour governments in the last 60 years or so. One may mention the introduction of compulsory education, the construction of over 30 schools (among them the Lyceum at Hamrun, where fees were abolished) to ensure full-time schooling, the provision to all children of free textbooks, milk and vitamins.
But then, when coming further close to us, after 1971, the “independent” editor of the Independent forgot to refer to the setting up of the kindergarten centres, the trade schools, the founding of the Faculty of Education and the Faculty of Engineering at the Malta University and the benefits of the Student-Worker scheme (which he still denigrates). He also missed the setting up of several technical institutes including the Fellenberg (now all transformed into the MCAST which ironically includes also a sponsorship (or parrinu) scheme which is, as in the past, giving a real headache to the MCAST administration.
More so the “independent” editor of the Independent conveniently skipped the fact that it was under a Labour government that University fees were abolished; that comprehensive schools were considered then, and still are, part of an education system accepted as just and democratic by all objective educators including those within the MUT; then, may I remind this “independent” editor that there was also the opening of the Junior Lyceums starting 1981. These new schools widened opportunities dramatically for students to move forward.
Indeed the success rate of this boosted student cohort resulted in a huge wave of girls (but also boys) flocking into the JLs (preferred to Church and independent schools) to proceed eventually into post-secondary institutions. Indeed, this secondary educational bulge reached the post-secondary level in 1987: the “new” government then found a strong cohort of successful students ready and willing to move into the post-secondary and later into University.
But though the “independent” editor of the Independent is surely very aware of these facts, he only perceived possibly positive changes which occurred during Nationalist administrations. But even then, again, he failed to remember that after 1987, all state schools were left astray and in disarray with different Nationalist ministers (even the Prime Minister himself) adamantly refusing to admit the pitiful state of most of the State schools (Xi tieqa mkissra ‘l hemm u ‘l hawn was recurrent). Concurrently, during those days, school discipline went berserk and serious cases of teacher/student conflicts occurred.
However, the “independent” editor of the Independent preferred to skip this embarrassing period and focussed on the much-clamoured-for changes which actually started in 1995 (with an election day looming) and which then even a Labour government in 1996 supported wholeheartedly, since it never attempted to politicise any bona fide attempt to put things in order (as the PN is doing right now over the reception class reform).
The “independent” editor of the Independent is all praises for the changes being attempted by the present Education Ministry: he sees no flaws or weaknesses there; again this “independent” editor fails to note that the structural changes in our education system were initiated very late in the day of this administration (too little too late); the college system (a truly comprehensive system much criticised and resisted by the PN in the past) is only at its initial stages: only two colleges were actually set up in a holistic way; the other eight (or is it nine?) are virtually virtual. Indeed, it is everybody’s knowledge that the appointment of the principals to run these colleges was only issued four or five days before the dissolution of parliament.
One can also note that the “independent” editor of the Independent, once again, did not have some little more ink to spare for the miserable failure of the National Curriculum exercise. Its focus groups were abruptly dismantled, the relevant reports were shelved and the NMC commission was left stranded with a miserable capital to devolve. No one from the ministry bothered to evaluate what happened, in spite of the millions spent, and the ministry concluded the act by declaring that it was now targeting what the new Education Act (still in abeyance) terms as a new Curriculum Framework. Indeed, after 10 years of bla bla, we are all back to square one and in the face of these realities, the “independent” editor of the Independent concludes that “Labour has still to make an apology to those who wanted to further their education in the 1980s, and found all doors closed”. Some cheek indeed from an “independent” editor or whoever wrote those editorials for him.
Carmelo Abela is opposition spokesman for Education,
Youth and Culture
Editorial note: In his reply, Mr Abela mentions what the Labour Party did in the education sector during its government days. But he completely avoided the subjects that were brought up in the editorials he mentioned, and did not explain why the University was open to only a few hundred students under Labour and that the number of courses was limited. Mr Abela gave no explanation as to why the MLP wanted to close Church schools in 1984. He does not say why Labour introduced the 20-points system (later reduced to 10 points) for students to enter University. He does not spare a line to admit that with its policies, Labour prevented thousands of students from pursuing the careers they wanted in the 1980s. It was no surprise that he did not. What is wrong can never be justified.