Since its inception, the Kummissjoni Interdjoċesana Ambjent (KA) has always considered education as an important tool in achieving its vision, i.e. that Christians live in harmony with creation and each other according to God’s plan, thus discovering their role in creation and their responsibility towards it[1]. Consequently the KA has advocated and supported educational initiatives, at the formal, non-formal and informal levels, aimed at helping citizens of all ages become active participants in the building of a sustainable society. One such initiative is the introduction of Education for Sustainable Development in the National Curriculum Framework. However, before commenting on this introduction, the KA feels that it would be opportune to share some general thoughts on the proposed document[2].

General comments


  • a different kind of document

The KA welcomes the publication of the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) as it feels that it manages to identify and address several pending concerns in the formal education sector. Unlike the two previous editions of the National Curriculum, the current document went a step further by presenting tangible ways how these concerns could be addressed. The flipside of this choice was that in so doing the document acknowledged certain realities, but failed to address others.

However, the KA does not see this as a weakness, but as a continuation of a strategy that sought to use the document to open up a general public debate about crucial educational themes … a strategy evidenced by the extensive consultation period offered that provided an opportunity for interested parties to air their concerns and suggest ways forward. Moreover, the proposals tabled by the NCF were informed by an analysis of contemporary local and foreign educational research as well as a thorough reflection of past policies and decisions and the lessons learnt from them. While proposing supportive infrastructures for certain suggested changes, the document wisely recommends the setting up of working groups that explore a way forward for other more complex issues after consensus is reached about them.

Another important feature of the current document is that it is a framework, i.e. a document that outlines the basic principles and aims of the curriculum thus presenting schools with guidelines on which to structure a curriculum based on their specific realities. The KA finds this point very commendable as it paves the way to a more relevant educational experience. Nevertheless, given past and recent experiences how educational reform occurred, the KA also acknowledges that this ‘framework concept’ implies a radical change in the way our nation conceives education (see comments later on) and hence the successful implementation of the framework would require:

  • support – the provision of educational resources, additional personnel and guidance to help schools and teachers adapt to the proposed changes;
  • ongoing consultation – to involve schools and teachers in the implementation not as mere technicians, but as active participants in curriculum development;
  • consistency – in the policies and messages given to avoid confusion and allay fears of any underhanded plans; and
  • time – to allow schools and teachers to assimilate the proposed changes and their underlying philosophies.

One last comment about the document: while understanding the laborious task that the translation of such a document entails, the KA still feels that not enough attention was devoted to ensuring that the meanings of the source documentation were not changed during the process. This is particularly important to avoid ambiguous meanings for newly introduced concepts, such as Learning Areas and Cross-Curricular Themes.

  • a new way of learning

The greatest change that the NCF is proposing is the shift to a developmental model of education, which is quite different from the (still predominant in practice and mentality) model based on end of cycle examinations at all levels. This change implies a greater focus on the learner hence ensuring a smooth transition from one cycle to another, a greater emphasis on ensuring a relevant curriculum, acknowledging a diversity of learning needs and methods, and a widening of the educational experience to include the non-formal and informal sectors. The NCF document acknowledges and addresses these requirements.

This implies a change in the very heart of how learning and teaching occurs in schools … a change that is not simply mediated by the introduction of guidelines and resources. At the end of the day, teachers are the ultimate implementers of these changes. Consequently they need to be actively involved in the whole process so that they can own it. The wide NCF consultation exercise was a good sign that needs to be followed up by working groups (which should include teachers … as implied in Vol.2, p.48) that develop (against clear deadlines) the different aspects of the curriculum. An example, of such a working group was provided by the NCF itself in the way the 5th document (A Vision for Science Education in Malta) was produced. Unfortunately, the way the current Form 1 syllabi were developed does not augur well. Although the intention and the product might have been good, the exclusion of other stakeholders – particularly teachers – conflicts with the participatory climate in curriculum development that the NCF is proposing.

  • a change of mentality

As previously commented, the NCF proposals imply a radical change in the way we perceive education. Over the years we have grown accustomed to a vision of education that emphasises the product rather than the process of learning with an emphasis on examinations, over-loaded syllabi and an examination oriented pedagogy that reduced the learning process to a rat race. In response several educational policies were tabled each attempting to address some particular shortcoming. However, instead of involving the main stakeholders, these reforms were more often than not the brainchild of individuals who (irrespective of their role in society or their expertise) were not educators and hence oblivious of classroom realities. The end result of this piecemeal approach was policy fragmentation and conflicting guidelines that has left schools and teachers weary, suspicious and disillusioned of change.

The KA believes that by putting the child at the centre of this reform, the NCF is providing our educational community with an opportunity to break this impasse. Nevertheless, the KA feels that while the NCF was bold enough to identify and address certain issues, it tried to avoid hot academic, administrative and trade unionist issues (such as subjects on offer, extending school time and adequate remuneration that reflects the new skills and re-training needed for today’s teachers) by navigating around current curricular practices and agreements. Being flexible requires thinking and acting outside the box. What used to be acceptable in the past may not make sense (hence requiring renegotiation) for today’s needs. Unfortunately, the way forward is usually shackled by the presence of traditional no go areas that unless resolved could jeopardise the whole process.

Education for Sustainable Development


The NCF proposed five cross-curricular themes aimed at “providing connecting strands interwoven with the learning areas … (giving them) coherence, relevance and stability providing a holistic learning experience by highlighting common objectives, content and pedagogies” (Vol 2, p.48). The KA welcomes, in particular, the formal introduction of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) thus recognising – on a political level – the importance of ESD in the child’s educational journey. Malta has thus joined other world governments in a global effort to put ESD at the forefront of its national priorities and provide essential support for its continued efforts to attain sustainable development. What is also significant is that this initiative was proposed during the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005 – 2014).

The KA would like to point out that the promotion of ESD as a cross-curricular theme has important implications and considerations that need to be addressed if the proposal is to be successfully implemented:

  • the adoption of ESD necessitates a whole-school approach that, besides providing educational material related to sustainable development, ensures that schools/colleges adopt sustainable practices that address their environmental, social and economic realities;
  • the provision of clear guidelines for (i) curriculum developers about how to integrate ESD in the design of subject syllabi, and (ii) educational leaders about how to integrate sustainable development principles in school/college policy;
  • the provision of pre/in-service professional development programmes on sustainable development issues and ESD;
  • the facilitation of out-of-class activities that would allow teachers to utilise the environment and the surrounding community as an educational resource; and
  • the training and appointment of qualified persons who would monitor and ensure that ESD is addressed in the curriculum and in school/college policies.

Conclusion


The KA feels that the NCF provides the educational community with an opportunity to look at the curriculum from a new perspective that albeit has its perils, but it is nevertheless worth exploring. The world is changing and we need to ensure that the curriculum prepares children with the knowledge, skills and attitudes required. Putting the child back at the centre of our debates about education – rather than the traditional concerns that we have grown accustomed to – is crucial.

Evolution is a sign that there is life and the continuation of life is a sign that it has adapted to the changing environment that surrounds it. If our educational system needs to remain relevant it needs to adapt to the changing milieu. This might not be a pleasant experience, but it is still a necessary step we need to take … as aptly expressed by our bishops when they were speaking about personal renewal:

“Experience shows us just how true is the old adage which states that “the one who does not renew himself will wither away”. …There are those people who would reason that it is better not to stir stagnant water because it will create an unpleasant odour! But it is precisely because it is stagnant that water smells nasty. Running water, on the other hand, is pure!”[3]

The challenge offered by the NCF is clear: do we want to be a part of the change or do we want to sit on the fence hoping that change will never occur?

[1] Kummissjoni Ambjent (2005). L-Impenn tal-Knisja f’Malta favur l-ambjent: Linji ta’ gwida. Floriana: Media Centre.

[2] Unless otherwise stated, any reference to the “document” refers to The National Curriculum Framework 2011

[3] Pastoral Letter for Advent (2011). The Courage to Renew Oneself.