The Malta Union of Teachers is up in arms against the government for its refusal to appoint an independent board to investigate claims that the heads of two state secondary schools and a state primary school are harassing teachers.

Addressing a news conference, MUT president John Bencini described the situation as a shame, adding that it was incredible how these things were still happening in Malta in 2007.

When asked, in practical terms, what the alleged harassment consisted of, Mr Bencini mentioned one example: a head of school filled in an appraisal form on one of the teachers which included extra personal and offensive comments about her. Moreover, the teacher was not allowed to take the appraisal form with her in order to reply to the comments made, as every teacher had the right to do.

“The government should be the model employer. If these things are happening and people are not happy, very little cooperation will be forthcoming for the educational reform,” he said.

Mr Bencini mentioned another case where a primary school teacher was not given her increment because she reported a case of harassment by her head of school.

“School principals, heads and assistant heads have to work hand in hand with teachers to make this reform work. We have these cases of harassment by a small number of heads and assistant heads who still treat their teachers as if they are numbers. We had an alarming number of cases and we asked the authorities to launch an independent inquiry into the matter. Now we read that the minister has not accepted and this is unacceptable. We cannot have the Education Division investigating these cases, acting as the judge, the juror and the prosecutor in one. These malpractices have to stop and it worries us that our request for an independent inquiry was turned down,” he said.

Mr Bencini also spoke about what he described as a “human resources crisis” hitting the educational sector, with a drastic decrease in the number of students becoming teachers. Moreover, he said, the teaching profession was not appealing to the male students, and as a result Malta was witnessing “the feminisation of the teaching profession”.

Asked what he thought were the main reasons for this shortage, Mr Bencini said the stress on teachers was on the increase and the university course might be too long.

Asked about teachers’ wages, he said that a new teacher just out of university earned Lm6,135 while a teacher with 16 years’ experience earned Lm8,316. Heads this year were receiving Lm8,988 and this would increase to Lm9,372 in 2008 and again to Lm9,817 and Lm10,272 in 2009 and 2010 respectively.

Commenting on the educational system, Mr Bencini said: “We do not educate in our school. We just give instruction. We cannot have exam-oriented schools any longer because this is humiliating schoolchildren.”

Mr Bencini also spoke about the issue of kindergarten assistants and the activity teachers to assist students who needed extra help.

“Both the MUT and the government described the agreement on the reform as historic but there are problems that have to be addressed in order for this reform to work. Otherwise, what kind of a reform will it be? Absenteeism is another issue which has to be tackled as well as the number of students per classroom,” he said.

Meanwhile, in a statement, the Education Division categorically reiterated its full commitment to combat harassment of any type anywhere.

With regard to the recent allegations of “harassment” of teachers in connection with the annual evaluation of a teacher’s performance as part of the Performance Management Programme which is held in all schools, the Education Division said it would like to clarify certain facts.

The Performance Management Programme (PMP) was a management tool and an organisational approach towards improving performance of employees by identifying objectives and setting goals and targets to be achieved. In the case of teachers these targets were based on the School Development Plan. The PMP was drawn up annually by each teacher at the beginning of the scholastic year after being discussed with the teacher’s head of school.

At the end of the scholastic year, each teacher writes a self-evaluation of his/her performance which is verified by the head who includes an overall performance assessment of the teacher for the work carried out during the year. The teacher has the right to comment on what the head says about him/her. The document is then signed by the head of school and by the teacher. Teachers have the right to request a meeting with the next higher authority if they feel aggrieved by the assessment. All this is done in the strictest confidentiality and privacy. Heads are assisted by the assistant heads in this exercise.

Obviously while in most cases the evaluation of the teacher’s performance is positive there are a few cases that result in a negative assessment. It should be clear to all that a negative assessment is by no means to be considered as ‘harassment’. Heads and the School Senior Management Team are duty bound to be fair and objective and to give their assessment without fear or favour.

While initial reports had stated that the MUT had complaints from six schools, in their letter dated 16 July, 2007 the Union mentioned only three schools, one primary school and two secondary schools. The Education Division immediately replied to the MUT on 17 July saying that it would be looking into the matter but asked for more specific details about the complaints raised since the MUT letter identified only the schools and did not give details about the specific cases which had allegedly taken place in these schools. However it has started its investigations with the College Co-ordinators of the schools involved and the heads of school.

From initial findings the Division has noted that the ‘personal remarks’ that the MUT is alleging were in fact made by a particular teacher in respect of her superiors and not the other way round.

The Education Division believes that the PMP is an important yearly exercise which is essential for quality education. While the Division will not accept situations in which heads or assistant heads abuse their position, neither will it accept an undermining of the process by whoever is assessed negatively going on to make false claims of harassment.