RET PREFERENCIAL VERSUS RET G ENERAL (CBT)

As policy guidelines, the three most recent (1998, 1999, 2011) versions of the Nation- al Minimum Curriculum articulate positions regarding difference, diversity, social justice and multiculturalism. However, they do this in markedly different ways. The 1998 Draft National Curriculum (Vella, 1998) produced during the short term of a Malta Labour Party led government was authored after a vast consultation process with over 300 organisations or individuals. It involved two main discourses regarding difference, including ethnic difference, which entered the policy field for the first time ever with this document. These were a very strong social equality and democratic process discourse as well as a ‘diversity’ discourse regarding the respect and recog- nition to be accorded by right to different cultures and individuals. The emphasis on democratic process, fundamental human rights and values such as “social justice, loyalty, love, solidarity, democracy, respect, responsibility and tolerance” (Vella,

1998:9) permeated the vision. Democratic participation in a school of parents and pupils, and the school as a community school, were viewed as tools leading toward the development of a “democratic culture in the country” (Vella, 1998:48). The vision not only encompassed the needs of minority groups, for example, their language needs, or their representation in curricula texts, but also envisioned a change in the attitudes of majority pupils.

In a society that is increasingly multicultural, the education system has to prepare students in the arts of respect, cooperation, tolerance and solidarity between cultures (Vella, 1998: 9). Global, regional and local peace and stability was seen to depend “on how much people are ready to live convivially in spite of differences” (Vella, 1998:10). The concept of inclusion was introduced not only “to affirm and celebrate the concept of difference” but to ensure, through a social justice perspective, the entitlement of all children to an education that attended to their particular needs.

… not only children with disability, but also children of refugees, the particular needs of children of emigrants, and the needs of children whose development is not progressing within the norms established by the education system (Vella, 1998:17).

Remarking that children of non-Maltese parents may know neither Maltese nor

English23 upon entering school, the 1998 draft document recommended that schools

assess the different linguistic competencies of their intake and provide for their needs. It was suggested that complementary teachers could become “linguistic experts” who would support children in language learning.

Most significantly, however, this draft abandoned the religious-nationalistic dis- course seen in previous National Curricular documents. It did not discuss the teaching of religion. Borg and Mayo (2001) recognise the significance of such a discursive shift taking place in what they call “a nonsecular environment”.

When a political crisis in the summer of 1998 led to the re-election of a nationalist government, the incoming Minister of Education set up a second round of consulta- tions during which time the powerful Church lobby raised objections to the lack of a denominational discourse, as well as to a specific reference to the Roman Catholic religion in the 1998 draft. Directly intervening in the drafting process, the Minister of Education significantly changed the text of the 1998 draft in a number of ways, as discussed in Borg and Mayo (2001, 2006). These changes led to the insertion of a hegemonic Catholic discourse permeating the whole NMC. Borg and Mayo (2006:49) refer to the October 1999 parliamentary debate during which the Minister of Education criticised the 1998 White Paper for failing “to include anything about the teaching of religion”. He added:

[T]he majority of Maltese are practising Catholics and there are constitutional and contrac- tual obligations on the government to respect Malta’s Catholic identity. Anyone who wants

to get to know Malta’s identity must also understand that the Catholic faith is an essential component of this (cited in Borg and Mayo, 2006:49)

In the final document (Ministry of Education, 1999), Religious Education is amongst the educational “objectives” listed. The “Maltese identity” is seen to rest on both re- ligion and family. The section on “Values in Socialisation”, whilst paying lip-service to a “multi-cultural” society, and the need for students to develop “a sense of respect, co-operation, and solidarity among cultures”, is rigidly mono-cultural.

Several studies have shown that the family is a key feature of the Maltese identity. From its early stages, education should affirm the value of the Maltese family that is adapting itself to different ways of life... The family lies at the heart of the process of solidarity. One of the important aims of education should be the preparation and sound formation for marriage and family life. This National Minimum Curriculum recognises that knowledge of Religion is in itself essential for the moral and spiritual development of a society around values that lie at the heart of social conviviality and understanding.

Here a discursive shift has occurred whereby the ‘social conviviality and understand- ing’ seen in the 1998 draft to be matters of a global dimension regarding the peaceful co-existence of peoples of different cultures, which would also require a move away from a Catholic monopoly culture, now allow for a reassertion of Catholic RE and values. In this 1999 NMC, the knowledge that students are expected to acquire through the curricular experience includes:

[T]heir rights and responsibilities in relation to the Creator (for those who believe), to others, themselves, the community, the country, the natural environment and animals (Ministry of Education, 1999: 48).

The insertion of this ‘strong’ Catholic perspective is justified by reference to the fact that education in the Catholic faith is stipulated in the agreements between the Holy See and the Republic of Malta (1989, 2003, below).

In the 1999 text (Ministry of Education, 1999:30 passim) the section on diversity talks about pupils from “different social contexts”, “students who learn differently” or who “develop at a different rate”. There is no mention of different ethnic, religious or cultural groups. Similarly, a section on inclusive education mentions children who “sign”, those at risk of failure and the need to develop bilingualism in schools. Whilst there is a repetition of some of the goals and values expressed in the 1998 draft, the 1999 (Ministry of Education, 1999:24) version’s call for a system that “should enable students to develop a sense of respect, cooperation and solidarity amongst cultures” sounds hollow or, as Borg and Mayo (2006: 43) put it, in contradiction with other sections of the same document, especially with its overtly Roman Catholic vision of the Maltese people “conceived as an undifferentiated mass, a unitary subject, with one belief system”.

The latest National Curriculum Framework [NCF] “Towards a quality education for all” (Ministry of Education, Employment and the Family, 2011a) has moved further away from the recognition of group rights and cultures toward an individualising discourse of individualised learning, learning areas, quality and others. At the centre of the project is the individual/individualised “child”. Supporting principles such as “entitlement” and “diversity” are articulated through this individualising discourse, in which the cultures or rights of groups are washed away. Differences are considered to be “individual”:

The NCF acknowledges Malta’s growing cultural diversity, and values the history and tra- ditions of its people. It recognises the heterogeneous nature of the community of learners, thereby acknowledging and respecting individual differences of age, gender, beliefs, personal development, socio-cultural background and geographical location [sic] (Ministry of Edu- cation, Employment and the Family, 2011a:22).

Previous discourses which emphasised recognition where difference was “to be cele- brated” (Ministry of Education, 1999:30) are absent from this document. The “Diver- sity” principle groups together children from different ethnic backgrounds with those with learning difficulties. Other principles such as those regarding “learner-centred learning” shift away from a recognition of the needs of groups of pupils qua their group membership to their needs as “individuals”. Regarding diversity and difference, “respect” is to be achieved by treating individual learners as atomised individuals, that is, “irrespective” of their group characteristics and, it could be argued, group claims.

The inclusive school should cater for every child irrespective of gender, religion, race, ability and beliefs, but should set as one of its aims the promotion of the potential of each learner through individualised attention and support (Ministry of Education, Employment and the Family, 2011a:31).

A section on bilingualism and multilingualism is remarkable in that it does not even refer to the learning needs of immigrants. It is only in the fourth volume on “The way forward” that the recommendation appears, suggesting “a focus on mastery of English in the language learning of young immigrants or refugees” (Ministry of Education, Employment and the Family, 2011b:15).

Calleja et al. (2010) remark that the most common form of support is that given by the Complementary or Language Support teacher who is also there to support the learning of Maltese pupils; however, “as a general rule support is still the exception” (Calleja et al., 2010:24). In her in-depth study of one state college of six primary and two secondary schools, Valentino (2011) found that the College Principal does not “believe in a policy for minority children as they should not be different from us”. Neither at college nor at school level was there in place a policy for the language learning of immigrants. The current situation is ad hoc in the extreme where some principals may, if they tend toward toleration or better still respect recognition and

accommodation, labour to acquire some human and other resources to support language learning, as did one of the school principals in the REMC study reported below. Valentino (2010:77) finds, however, that in her case study college “funds and resources that are available are not used for non-Maltese children” unless a class teacher is pushy enough so that some are diverted to these pupils.

In the 2011 NCF so taken for granted is it that RE will be Roman Catholic RE that it is referred to as “Catholic Religious Education (CRE)”. For those “opting out” of CRE it is suggested that they follow an “Ethical Education programme”, which is “preferred over a Comparative Religious Education” (Ministry of Education, Employment and the Family, 2011:43). This implies that the NCF Curriculum Committee felt that those who are not Catholic need an ethical education which the majority Catholic children do not. A Comparative Religious Education has not been ‘preferred’; this could limit the power of the Episcopal Conference over RE, as well as attracting majority children of more liberal parents to it.

A critique of the 2011 NCF from the Department of Education Studies, Faculty of

Education24 _{commented about the “social de-contextualisation of the concept of an ide-}

al-type ‘child’”. It argued that the proposals regarding CRE and the alternative Ethical Education programme contradict other sections of the same document. The 2011 NCF lacks a “critical reappraisal of notions of diversity”, especially regarding a culturally responsive education and a distributive justice and entitlement curriculum. Finally, it was argued that “we should avoid categorising ethnically diverse students and migrant children as children with learning disabilities”. This point is also made by Calleja et al. (2010: 17) who find that since the type of language and learning “help” currently provided to immigrants is the same as that provided to those with learning difficulties it

[M]ight reinforce the perceptions that children of migrant background suffer from a form of unfitness due to their ethnic origin, family, socio-economic background or another reason.