From Mr M. Cutajar

During the last few weeks various bodies have been discussing the New Labour plan for education, including the reception class for pre-

primary years. I have discovered that there are mixed feelings about it.

Once upon a time, when I was a university student following the B.Ed course, lecturers were continuously bombarding us with terms like “holistic education”, “education less exam-

oriented”, “bridging the curriculum”, “giving more weight to non-academic subjects” and so on and so forth. These theories and plans, which sounded really challenging and interesting on paper, were kilometres away from our educational system especially in state schools. I had various arguments with lecturers at the time regarding the broad diversity between theory at university and reality at school.

When I first heard that the Labour Party was holding consultations with individuals and educational entities regarding a new way of implementing educational values in our schools, I went back 14 years and asked myself: “Is something really going to happen?” To be honest, I felt proud and important when Labour leader Alfred Sant mentioned the need to “let children live their age” during the MLP general conference last month.

But on this small island called Malta, once described by a popular Maltese TV presenter as “Il-Pajjiz tal-Mickey Mouse”, ideas that are not coming from the mouth of government are non ideas. The Labour Party idea of a reception class brought the immediate response from Education Minister Louis Galea that a reception class would make our children repeat a year. I was surprised by such an abrupt statement from a lawyer who has never been an educator. For Minister Galea, education probably means only the building of new premises and the cutting of ribbons, attending prize days, posing for photos, etc. Probably the minister, who is a politician and a lawyer, but not an educator, does not find relevant the importance of the objectives of any educational system.

The Maltese situation is at fault. Children are bombarded every day to learn how to read and write, then bombarded to get full marks and obviously a prize, later on forced to study to pass their Junior Lyceum exam or Common Entrance Exam and, in addition, sent to extra lessons in order to pass their “O” and “A”

levels. Nobody realises that this bombardment starts at the age of two and ends at the age of 18: 16 years where the life of a child is kidnapped and the life of a family is assaulted, so that the educational system becomes more a threat than anything else.

Guided by a stagnant National Minimum Curriculum, children are losing the most important years of their lives, their childhood.

The idea of a reception class is just part of a plan that can give a real new direction to our school system. Reception classes can train

children to be more prepared for the first year of primary schooling. It is a system that can give children more self-esteem, a system which, over a number of years, can help introduce more drama, music, social skills and sport in our schools. After all, it is a system that B.Ed students discussed and are discussing on university benches, a system that is used in many countries all over Europe.

I was surprised that very few lecturers from the University of Malta have expressed their agreement with this type of plan. Where are the

others? Why are they silent? Where are the

lecturers who, between 1990 and 1994, lectured me and many others on these issues? Are they scared to express their opinions about an idea that has not come from the Minister’s mouth?

Above all, what about the Malta Union of Teachers? Can they tell us whether, in actual fact, they were consulted or not? Egoistically speaking, I would say that the MUT should be glad because the idea of a reception class opens the door for more teaching jobs and put less stress on primary school teachers.

All these arguments and many more lead us to one conclusion. The reception class is not a class for repeaters, but it is the stale education system, which has not changed over a period of years, which needs to be a repeater. It has failed to change itself throughout the years, thus not reaching its present objectives. As a parent and also a teacher, I urge new plans for a modern local educational system to be implemented. As Dr Sant said, I want my children to live their life. Don’t you?

Mark Cutajar

MARSAXLOKK