Through this post, I, as a student who will be starting post-secondary education in 2020, will be giving my holistic feedback on some of MATSEC’s and the Ministry of Education’s recent reforms as well as give my thoughts on what a true reform in our educational system should include.
First and foremost, I believe that for a reform to be fully effective it should be discussed with us, the students. At the end of the day, the reform will be affecting us and no one else.
Before focusing on the parts where I disagree with these reforms, I would like to praise the following proposals listed in the recent Matriculation Certificate Reform:
- The “Enhancement of communication and cultural skills” proposal;
- The “Recognition of co-curricular activities” proposal;
- The “Talented athlete scheme” proposal, and;
- The “Assessment” proposal.
Hence, I mostly disagree with the “Consolidation of knowledge and proficiency in a foreign language” proposal in the reform.
I, as well as many fellow students, believe that throughout our five years in secondary school, we have learned very little of the foreign language or languages we study. This could be because of the approach taken towards the way these languages are taught. Perhaps a more effective way can be introduced to teach these subjects, which, in all honesty, are not the type of subjects that are fully taught in five or two years. It is bad enough that some schools do not have any choice in their subjects. This can be seen in schools were Italian and French are compulsory, for example. I do agree that this reform will enhance our European identity and build a bridge between us and other countries. Yet it does not make sense that a less lingual student is forced into studying a foreign language, which might not even be needed for his or her career.
Again, it is a very good initiative. But a language takes more than two years to perfect. I believe that languages can be learned properly in one way – through exposure. Many of my generation’s parents and grandparents learned Italian, for example, through watching Italian television. Most of them never studied it in school, yet they grasped the language very well just from watching television. It is therefore not the idea which is bad but rather the approach. To learn a language, one must be exposed to it. Nowadays, this can be done through exchange programmes for example, where students of different nationalities get to meet one another and learn together. Therefore, I emphasise that unless the way a language is taught and assessed changes, it would be rather unfair to force students to take a foreign language, especially when it is unwanted by some students.
Many argue that post-secondary life is already stressful enough and that imposing a foreign language is disrespectful towards the students. Although this may be true, it should not be the main argument. Stress is part of life. If we do not learn to cope with it from that age, we never will. But think of those who have a keener interest in science, for example. Why should a student who wants to work in Malta be forbidden to choose a subject he or she likes, including Maltese or English, to take up a foreign language which he or she will never use? I think that before we start promoting foreign languages, it would be much better to perfect our own languages, especially Maltese. It is very saddening to see that some students do not even know basic Maltese. How are students expected to study a foreign language when they do not even know their native one? Also, English can be used in most countries all around the globe. I personally know Maltese individuals who have travelled all around the globe and have always managed to communicate in English. With that argument, how are most foreigners working in Malta not forced to study Maltese? It is because most foreigners are able to speak in English and are therefore able to communicate with most Maltese people.
With that being said, I do not agree with having a compulsory science either. Why should someone who wishes to pursue law, for example, be forced to study a science when it is not what they wish to pursue? I think that at that point in life, students should be given a greater opportunity to choose the subjects they truly want to study and subjects which will really aid their career. I do understand that certain aspects of certain subjects are important both for university life and life in general, but can’t these aspects be part of another compulsory subject?
Regarding the removal of mid-year examinations and Benchmarks, I do not think that these examinations should be omitted. Mid-year examinations are a refresher for students. Through studying for them, students are refreshing what they have learned in class throughout that half of the year. It also decreases the amount of material which needs to be studied for subsequent examinations. The same goes for Benchmarks. They are an indication of how much knowledge students entering secondary school have in Mathematics, Maltese and English. Perhaps the solution is not the removal of the exams but rather a change in attitude.
Unfortunately, many students memorise things by heart for exams only to forget them the day after the exam. That should not be the case. Education should be second-nature. Studying should not be burying ourselves in books and staying up late at night. When revising our notes, it should not feel like what we are reading is completely new information. I am sure there are various psychological studies which focus on how an individual remembers information. I therefore suggest that the Ministry of Education, along with some experts, look into these studies to help students learn and study in an effective manner. A solution could perhaps also be a more interactive approach when teachers are teaching in class. Having assessments throughout the year is also, as I believe, a good solution as it helps refresh the students’ memory every now and then. Hence, I believe that students should still sit for mid-yearly and Benchmark examinations.
A subject which I believe should be truly compulsory in both secondary and post-secondary education is civics. This should not be an examined subject but rather something similar to Personal, Social and Career Development (PSCD). It could even be part of the PSCD syllabus. This will encourage the well-needed active citizenship our country needs, without bias towards any political party. The students will be encouraged to become informed voters, who choose appropriate leaders and even become capable leaders themselves.
Basic knowledge and skills, such as the aforementioned civic education, survival skills, personal finance, sustainable living, human rights and nutrition, can come as great help throughout one’s life and should therefore be taught to all children. This will prevent the students from having personal, social and financial problems later on.
I have also recently been reading about different education systems around the globe. I found out that the Finnish educational system is described as one of the best educational systems not just in the European Union but also around the world. Their levels of performance have been described as “amazing”. My question is, has the Ministry of Education ever looked into their system or similar ones, in order to introduce their concepts into our system?
The reforms made should not only be a change in the syllabi but also, as mentioned previously, a change in the students’ attitude towards learning. This attitude can change by creating stronger student-teacher relationships and having more hands-on activities. As I have witnessed myself, the students of an outgoing yet disciplinary teacher perform much better in that subject than in a subject where they are taught by a teacher who is not as outgoing. The gap between students and teachers should not be too large, yet some authority must obviously be sustained by the teachers.
A version of this has been sent to MATSEC and The Ministry of Education & Employment. To view it, click here.
Bradley Cachia 