The deafening silence that met the educational reform is cause for concern. A reform that promised to bring about unprecedented changes is said to be unfolding with the introduction of the so-called benchmarking assessment. Unfortunately, key stakeholders, including the Faculty of Education and the educational community, are silent and little critical debate is taking place in the public arena. This is a dangerous situation that allows for changes to take place without the voice of critics that review both the process and the content of this reform.

In this contribution I would like to take a critical stance on its process and content. In one of my first meetings with the Directorate responsible for this reform, I pointed out that the reform document is a study that had as its aim the evaluation of the Junior Lyceum examinations. I remember that I had pointed out that such a document, due to its limited remit, does not give a complete vision for a reform which should bring about changes in teaching methodology and learning. Unfortunately, this limited vision is the result as we see it now. The reform has simply resulted in nothing more than a change in the examination regime. From the out-dated JL exams to more learner-friendly, better designed examinations. My concern is not whether these new benchmarking assessments are an improvement on the previous examinations – I have no doubt that they are. My concern lies in the fact that this reform promised much more than this.

The promoters of this reform are insisting that a change in assessment should lead to a change in pedagogy. Unfortunately, this is an unfounded assumption. Research cautions us against such assumptions; if anything a change in methodology should move hand in hand with a change in assessment. The danger as things stand is that teachers still continue teaching for the exam and the methodology will not change and remain stagnant. From my contact with teachers and educational leaders, I‘ve learnt that while they welcome improvements in the educational provision, they want to be prepared, they want time to understand what is required of them and they ask for support. They feel that while changes are necessary, such changes should respect the pace of those who are expected to bring about these changes – the teachers.

One other issue that is of concern is that this reform is led by a limited vision. A vision that was expounded in the document “Transition from Primary to Secondary Schools in Malta”, a document that, as I explained above, was originally written as a review document of the Junior Lyceum examinations. What is of further concern is that no strategic plan followed and thus, while from time to time we read and hear about certain changes, we don’t know where these changes are leading us. We lack a time-line which guides us and clearly shows us wahere we are in the process of the reform. Another weak ‘vertebra’ in the backbone of this reform is that the so called ‘wide consultation meetings’ with parents, teachers and other stakeholders are nothing more than information sessions. Consultation requires willingness to change and it is hard to change once everything is done and planned for. Unfortunately, the educational community is being invited to participate in meetings after the work has been completed with little, if any, time for changes.

The next point of my critique moves to the content of this reform. The reform introduces a benchmarking exercise. Students in their last year of primary are expected to sit for three sets of assessments, namely English, Maltese and Maths. The samples of these assessments seem to be a big improvement on what we were used to before but my concern lies in the budding question: What are these assessments going to be used for? We were informed that in secondary schools students will be Set into groups in Maltese, English and Maths but they remain mixed in other lessons. What research teaches us, including recent studies such as the Cambridge 2008 report on Primary Education in England and the recently published extensive reports from the International P.I.S.A benchmarking exercise, is that setting amounts to selection and selection discriminates against the least advantaged, pupils from ethnic minorities and children from poor socio-economic areas of the country. Research shows us that setting is difficult to control in schools with a high student population and the danger of tracking and remaining in such track is very real. Sets work by having different outcomes for different groups of students, thus limiting the possibility of movement from one set to the next. Even more dangerous is the fact that we were not given the assurance that the St Benedict College experiment, of setting students within tracks is not going to be repeated. At St Benedict and other colleges we have witnessed the practice of dividing students into three tracks and within each track, students are further set for the three core subjects.

Two final comments, which I would like to have explained by the architects of this reform, are: What about science? Science in primary schools is hardly taught. We’ve heard that a science policy is in the offing but there seems to be no mention of it in this reform. This again goes against the present trend in education to give science literacy a key role in the education of our young generation.

Finally, a comment on a provision in this benchmarking assessment is the decision to give extra time to all students. This provision in my opinion discriminates against those who are challenged. Those that do not need the extra time will have more time to check their work and refine their response, while those who need the extra time will just have enough to finish their work. Here again we see a provision led by administrative concerns rather than by educational consideration.

I hope that these comments are read in the same spirit that they were written. I have no doubt that all those working on this reform are doing so with the right intentions and because they have the good of our young generation at heart. These comments are written because I strongly believe that the general public needs to have other voices that analyse and explain their point of view on such an important issue with the hope that these are heard and reflected upon. Such a critical discussion will hopefully result in better educational provision.