This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 20 November 2014, At: 19:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compare: A Journal of Comparativeand International EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20

Partners for Change: the MaltaexperienceJoseph Mifsud aa University of MaltaPublished online: 02 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Joseph Mifsud (1994) Partners for Change: the Malta experience,Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 24:2, 157-169, DOI:10.1080/0305792940240205

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305792940240205

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Compare, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1994

Partners for Change: the Malta experience

JOSEPH MIFSUD, University of Malta

Introduction

Historical Perspectives to Educational Research

Since 1964, the year in which Malta officially obtained its independence from the BritishCrown, successive Maltese Governments have always looked to the 'foreign' expert foradvice on national education policies (as part of their colonial 'hangover'). More oftenthan not, fact-finding missions were sent (or invited) to the Mediterranean island toproduce reports which were tied to the economic agenda of the political party in power."The Lewis report (1967) for example, is a direct translation of the economic ambitionsof a newly independent State into an educational agenda" (Darmanin, 1991, p. 64). Thisneo-colonial legacy or "cultural vulnerability" (Bray & Packer, 1993, p. 42) in educationstems from a tradition of reports drawn up by outside expertise on how Malteseeducation should be organised (Keenan, 1878; Bruce, 1921; Ellis, 1942; Evans, 1946;Crichton-Miller 1958) and gives concrete evidence of how local education has been'penetrated' over the years. Since the beginning of the 1980's there was a marked shiftfrom this strategy to what could be termed as an indigenous process of investigatinglocal problems for local solutions. Reports on Remedial Education, Special Needs andStreaming (DOE, 1982a, b; 1988) can be considered as the first attempts in locallysponsored research conducted by Maltese DOE field officers. All three areas were partlyre-organised on the basis of suggestions and recommendations stemming from the finalreports submitted to the Ministry of Education.

Educational Research in Malta

For many years research in the Maltese educational system has been conducted by thetwo main educational institutions on the island: the Department of Education and theUniversity of Malta (mainly through its Faculty of Education) This research was rarelycoordinated, each agency putting forward its own agenda and surveys. Results remainedobscure to the "rival" establishment. Fenech (1992) gives examples of this distinctiveand insular research. The Department of Education (DOE) [1] in Malta administers theeducational system in the island state and conducts policy directed research as part of itsbrief. However, Farrugia and Fenech (1989, p. 7) observe that often the quality of thisresearch leaves much to be desired: "The managerial problems have engaged the main

157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

158 J. Mifsud

energies of officials in the department and scanty attention has been given to thedevelopment of systematic educational research". This is true of many small states wherepressure on the multi-functional administrator to pursue a broad range of duties oftenlands the individual the unenviable role of being all things to all men (Brock, 1984;Farrugia & Attard, 1989).

The Faculty of Education (FOE) has different orientations in its research. Fenech(1992, p. 16) refers to research conducted in this institution as "curiosity oriented" (i.e.satisfying the intellectual interests of academics) in contrast to the "policy-oriented"research embraced by the DOE. A brief outline of this "curiosity research" reveals thedepth and quality of current educational research on an Island state with a population of350,000. Farrugia (1985) investigated the 'professional' status of teachers in Malta. Thiswork was followed by in-depth studies of educational administration in small states(Farrugia, 1991, 1992). Darmanin (1990, 1991) continued with this trend of investiga-tions on the local educational scene at macro-level. She used ethnographic studies topursue her research in "Maltese Primary School teachers' experience of centralisedpolicy" (1990) and gender issues in education (1991, 1992). Other important areas [2]which have been extensively researched in the field of educational psychology are thoserelated to streaming (Borg & Falzon, 1991) and stress (including administrator stress)(Borg et al. 1991; Borg & Riding, 1993). The philosophical trends in the (FOE) havebeen contextualised mainly through the work of Wain (1991) with his philosophicalcritique vis-a-vis the introduction of a centralised national curriculum in Malta. The FOEthen published its own research on various aspects of education management, policy andpractice in Malta, which did away with one of the "borrowed" texts for its initial teachertraining courses and tackled local problems such as "streaming", "assessment", curricu-lum development and second language teaching (Sultana, 1991). This was followed byother research by Sultana (1992) on Education and National Development. Sultana isalso the main architect behind the Moviment Edukazzjoni Umana (Movement for aHumanistic Education), an association of individuals, mainly students from the Facultyof Education, ex-students (now teachers in State and Private schools in Malta), adminis-trators from the Department of Education and academics from the University, whothrough their meetings, seminars and discussions provide a forum for reflection (andaction) on the various aspects of curriculum policy, management and centralisedstructures of education in Malta. The publication of their students' charter whichoutlines pupils' duties and rights is one of their educational 'conquests'.

The National Minimum Curriculum: a pretext for reform?

The main legislation dates in the recent Maltese educational diary [3] would include the1946 Education Ordinance (and Compulsory Education Ordinance, 1946) which obligedall parents to send their children (6-14) to school throughout the whole school year. Tenyears after independence from Britain, the Labour Government of Dom Mintoffformulated the 1974 Education Act which radically updated the legislation enacted in1946. In 1988, the Maltese parliament (Nationalist Party in power) enacted the newEducation Act which 'citizen charters' the obligations, duties and the rights of allindividuals concerned with education in Malta. The main right of the State in the 1988Education Act is to "establish a national minimum curriculum of studies as well asnational minimum conditions for all schools and to ensure that all schools comply withthem" (Xerri, 1992). As seen previously, the research in these last few years has beenmainly directed towards the introduction and implementation of a national minimum

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Partners for Change 159

curriculum (NMC) (Education Act, 1988). The argument here is that the introduction ofthe NMC with all its pros and cons and all the controversy that it has attracted in thelocal press [4] has served as a catalyst for change and a pretext to redesign educationprovision in Malta. It has also undoubtedly served to bring together the two main agentsof curriculum change and educational reform in Malta (DOE and FOE) to concentrateon the issues and concerns arising from having a centralised national curriculum. Manyunsettled questions had to be confronted. Is Malta prepared to have a national minimumcurriculum? Are there enough support services to cater for the needs of the individualscurrently involved in any one of the educational tiers? Has enough planning gone intothe philosophy and the policy-making process of submitting a 'city state' to one nationalcurricular identity? Is there a political project underpinning the adoption of a nationalminimum curriculum? and most important of all, the major query remains:

Has the NMC effectively changed education (especially management of education) inMalta and has it incorporated Farrugia's suggestions (1988) of (i) working alongsideteachers and educationalists (ii) relaxing administrative over-control?

These were and remain the basic questions which both 'parties' across the educationaldivide (i.e. FOE and DOE) are finally trying to answer by acting together. The firstattempt to answer these questions came before the publication of the National MinimumCurriculum in 1988, with a National Workshop on Education in Malta—a look to thefuture organised with the assistance of Unesco by the Foundation for InternationalStudies and the Faculty of Education in collaboration with the Department of Education.The themes discussed in this forum centred around:

(a) the Maltese educational system;(b) the impact of examinations and certification;(c) the curriculum;(d) teacher education;(e) educational support services;(f) administration and management.

The main objective of the workshop was "to evaluate the educational system of Maltaand to make proposals for its improvement through the best possible combination ofcentralized and decentralized approaches" (Farrugia, 1988, p. 179). The above themesprovided the educational authorities with coherent suggestions in which way Malteseeducation should be reconstructed. However, in my opinion, the major contribution tothis conference came from Bezzina (1988) who suggested that "with little reservation,the type of educational administration we are familiar with in Malta has been more orless "maintenance administration" (Farrugia, p. 159). Bezzina pinpoints the malaisewhich is at the heart of the Maltese educational system, when in his 'real' examples ofMaltese primary principals, he unveils the pitfalls which primary principals have toavoid, if the centralized policies in education are to be negotiated. He seeks to find arational explanation of why the DOE 'dictates' and the schools 'execute', He alsocontends that there is low morale, apathy, lack of professional status and lack ofprofessionalism. Also, competition for resources is in operation and a relative scarcity ofresources for education is evident. In examining the characteristics of an efficientorganizational form of change, Bezzina (then an educational planner with the DOE)focuses on the "challenge facing the Principal" (1988, p. 165) who is in a unique pivotalposition as an agent of reform. He views leadership as critical practice, with negotiation,delegation and time management skills imbued in the profession. In determining thismuch-needed reform, Bezzina feels that principals need to find time to reflect on their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

160 /. Mifsud

own performance and that of their staff and warns that the major traditional attitudestowards education in Malta need to be confronted and re-assessed.

The 'Great Debate'

The 'great debate' about education in Malta has been conducted on partisan lines in thepolitical scene. Maltese politics have a tendency of being either black or white (or ratherlabour-red and nationalist-blue) and there are few grey areas of shared commonideology. The publication of the Education Act (1988), which was a statutory documenthelped to exacerbate the division between the two political poles of Maltese society. TheMinister of Education was accused in the local press of having published 'a royal edict'[5] and that the NMC will lead to the erosion of democratic education. The most tellingevidence of this opposition to the NMC and the manner in which educational resourcesare allocated, has been the plethora of educational and non-educational arguments putforward from the classroom to the national parliament. One consequence of its enforce-ment was that it was attacked by many: academics, teachers and politicians; anddefended by few: mainly one sector in the public opinion (including the Malta Union ofTeachers (MUT)) and those, who discovered that although the NMC had been hastily putforward, without any real consultation with the educational grass-roots, it could stillignite the fuse of reform. Whether real benefits will accrue from the introduction andimplementation of the NMC largely depends on the schools' freedom which is currentlynon-existent. Schools need to be given the opportunity to identify their own prioritiesand to concentrate on development plans they feel able to take forward in any onescholastic year. What one can be certain of is that the Education Act (1988) legislation,which includes the NMC, has had an unintended effect on educational research in Malta.

A picture is beginning to emerge whereby the DOE and the FOE are joining forcesin monitoring schools' performances, promoting school improvement and providingaccess to the agents of change (namely the headteachers) to a platform where theinnovations warranted by the NMC could be discussed. Being a principal in Malta fitsShaw's (1987) pre-sixties description that "Headship was often personalized in conse-quence, often idiosyncratic, occasionally to the point of eccentricity, not until recently,closely accountable.... and was much governed by tradition and individual style" (1987,p. 209). Traditionally, the head's job description would have included the followingpre-requisites: character, not training ... general experience and potential, not grasp ofspecific administrative skills (1987, p. 209). The training of heads was mostly conjured'on the hoof. It is undeniable that since the establishment of the NMC, principals havebeen directly targetted for training as key innovators. Both the DOE (who has usedprimary heads in a cascade model to achieve change in the teaching/learning styles ofprimary English through the Primary English Project) and the FOE (with the running ofsuccessful professional courses for newly appointed heads; the diploma in educationalmanagement and the introduction of the Mentoring Scheme) have reviewed their trainingpolicies vis-a-vis school leaders.

Collaborative Projects

This section of the paper is intended to focus on the projects which are the results of aDOE-FOE sponsored research, coordinated to arrive at answering some if not all thequestions raised in the late 1980's. The two main projects which are being shared andseem to command widespread support in the Maltese educational community are the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Partners for Change 161

Mentoring Scheme and the action research project in conjunction with Queen's Univer-sity of Belfast and the Department of Education in Northern Ireland.

For many years educational administrators working at the DOE and at the Ministry ofEducation have looked at the 'curiosity research' emanating from the 'ivory tower' withscepticism. A recent example which backs this statement is the fact that for the BritishCouncil-backed programme called "Primary English Project" [6], the Department ofEducation in Malta commissioned the School of Education, University of Leeds to runthis programme. The FOE, were later called in as observers and lately as facilitators onsome of the courses. On the other hand, the Mentoring Scheme has involved as equalpartners, both the DOE and the FOE together with 'imported' foreign expertise [7]. Thisproject is trying to provide training opportunities for Primary headteachers to be moreinvolved in initial teacher-training programmes, filling in the double role of in-schooltutor and professional mentor to the student-teacher on teaching practice. So far,attendance of headteachers to courses organised by the coordinator of the MentoringScheme has highlighted the problems facing primary education in Malta and hascertainly improved relations between Heads and FOE staff members. It has also servedto confirm Darmanin's theory that "since teachers find their own solutions to practicalcurricular and pedagogical constraints in the classroom more effective than thosesuggested by segments higher up in the implementation staircase, it is posited thatpolicy-making would be more effective if teachers had a larger part in the process thanis possible in a centralised system" (Darmanin, 1990, p. 275). 1993 has heralded a newera in initial teacher training in Malta, with heads actively involved in the monitoringand evaluation of B.Ed, students on teaching practice.

Partners for Change: the primary principal

Bezzina (1988) followed up on his work in educational planning at the DOE with anobservational study on the role of primary principals in Malta. Using the Prebble &Stewart (1984) rationale for school development, he looked mainly into time manage-ment, decision making and role-empowerment [8] in the primary school. On the basis ofhis survey, Bezzina concludes that some fundamental issues need to be addressed:

How much say do headteachers and teachers have on the aims of education (inMalta)?

—are they solely centralised?—can schools set certain goals? Are they encouraged to do so?—are goals explicit or vague?What sort of policy making exists?—are they centralised or decentralised?—what type of leadership qualities are encouraged?—what sort of responsibilities are delegated?—what sort of accountability is sought?" (Bezzina, 1988, p. 64).

These questions were re-echoed in a conference [9] organised by the DOE and theFOE to revitalize the implementation of the NMC. During this conference, Fenech(1991) reiterated the concerns and issues which Bezzina emphasized in his research. Inreality, their common fear of curriculum prescription and added centralisation in theimplementation process finds unequivocal confirmation with the publication, in Decem-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

162 J. Mifsud

ber of 1990, of a detailed syllabus to cover all areas of the primary school. The goodintentions behind the NMC were therefore wrecked "against the traditional culture (inMalta) that sees to hold on to administrative and bureaucratic power" (Farrugia, 1992,p. 165). In an MUT forum held in February 1991 to discuss the NMC, Bezzina reviewsthe "The Policy-Practice Dilemma facing reform in Malta" [10] in retrospect of threeyears of NMC. Once again, he points an accusing finger at the real obstacle to changein Maltese education: 'school management'. The introduction of the NMC had ignoredthe innovations required to modernize the vehicle of reform. Through its outdated,bureaucratic and archaic structure, the local school has no hope of being "a placecharacterized by dialogue, critical thinking, decision making, action, analysis andevaluation, which in the end determine educational change" (Bezzina, 1991, p. 10). Flask(1991) exposed this problem when in his "Sundry reflections on children, teachers,parents and schools", he advocates a policy in education based on quality service. Morequestions that require urgent reflection and action are advanced: "surely, the professionaldevelopment of teachers must be the path to improvement of quality. Does professional-ism consist only in the warrant [II] given by the Minister? or does it come byconcentrating on training and re-training people to be effective in the classroom?Certainly, other dimensions of professional development are essential to any plans forimproving the quality of the educational service. Just another question: are thoseresponsible for the administration of education trained in management skills?" (1991,p. 5).

Drawing attention to published findings usually depends on the extent to whichquestions arising from practice (such as the ones suggested previously) are matched byanswers from research. It is my belief that change is not often brought about on the basisof these findings but during the process of the research itself. Most of the researchmentioned in the first section of the paper (Bezzina, 1991; Fenech, 1992, etc) havehighlighted the major challenges which Maltese education has to face to improve its'quality' and provision. They have investigated the system as it operates and narrowedtheir focus on the Principal (primary) who is traditionally accessible and can be reliedon as an active agent of change. But, it is a case of the researcher disseminating his/herinformation and his/her own interpretation of the data derived from the research to the'researched'.

One of the dominant obstacles to a possible collaboration between the DOE and theFOE was, that the DOE always felt that it was under a microscopic lens: where all itsdefects were going to be enlarged and no real solutions ever offered except in the usuallines of recommendations and suggestions at the end of reports and 'discussiondocuments'. Another problem which has been a major issue in any educational researchundertaken in Malta, concerns the transfer of research findings into realizable educational(school) practice, which is difficult to bring about. At this point, it is important to notethat the only official channel of communication between the FOE and the DOE hasremained for a number of years, a Liaison Committee made up from the upper echelonsof the DOE and FOE. Real contact between the schools and the FOE has remainedsteady only at a purely personal contact level. Major complaints from the schoolsconfirm the belief that news, from (and on) current research, only reaches them throughFOE student-teachers who are sent out on teaching practice or when, school staff areasked to fill in questionnaires, be observed or interviewed. It is certain that theseproblems are not exclusive to the educational system in operation on the Maltese Islands(Orizio, 1988) though they do not justify the neglect and the way in which the DOE hasbeen kept at arm's length in real action-based research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Partners for Change 163

There has been an urgent need for research in Malta to adopt a rationale that aims atchange rather than at production of 'curiosity' research. It is my belief that the researchproject involving Malta and Northern Ireland was one of the first attempts to achievethese objectives. During this project, change has been intended as part of a movementwhich itself is an integral part of the research. The person in the field is given ownershipover the research and is closely associated with the investigations in his field. He/she isat the same time researcher and 'researched' (McKernan, 1991). The benefit of thisstrategy is two-pronged: firstly to the research itself and secondly to the participants intheir practice, as they are given the opportunity to address critically the emergingchanges taking place in their work place and to seek optimum plausible solutions withinthe constraints of the local educational context. Small states (like Malta) are faced witha dilemma in conducting most of their research, primarily due to the neo-colonial attitudewhich still lingers in its administrators (Farrugia, 1990; Fenech 1992, Baldacchino, 1993;Bray & Packer, 1993), and secondly to what Farrugia (1991, p. 589) describes as socialissues "in a small transparent community".

With its mainly bi-polar political system, partisan polarization has an immediate effecton any results acquired from 'traditional' research. Farrugia (1991) advises that "in ahostile scenario, such rivalry leads to three negative outcomes. It results in declared orsubtle boycotts of any ideas or projects emanating from the rival group, with the resultthat only a fraction of the available talent is utilized. It causes duplication of efforts andcosts, in areas where the community can least afford it, thus wasting the island'sintellectual capital. The third negative outcome is even more pervasive, as it undermineslocal initiatives and self-confidence and perpetuates Malta's dependence on foreign ideasand products" (1991, p. 589). Although Farrugia was referring to the political arena, thisscenario is equally valid to the FOE-DOE positions. It was with this in mind that the ideaof a joint collaborative exercise of action-research involving both local educationalinstitutions came into fruition.

International Cooperation

Members from the FOE have been cooperating with research staff at the Queen'sUniversity of Belfast, Northern Ireland on a project funded by the Department ofEducation (Northern Ireland)—DENI since 1991. The project was planned to monitor theintroduction and implementation of the Education Reform Order (Northern Ireland) 1989which in most important respects mirrored the Reform Act in England and Wales. Thiscollaboration was utilised to construct a management profile log (Ferris et ai, 1993) forprimary principals in Northern Ireland, who were coping with the onslaught of majorreform in the province. In spite of the diversity in socio-economic fields and the differenteducational structures (Fenech 1992; Osborne et al. 1992), both Malta and NorthernIreland support similar priorities in educational achievement. The major concern for bothentities lies in their human resources and although there are no 'troubles' in the Maltesesociety, political polarisation is rampant. Malta and Northern Ireland similarly adopt apolicy of 'segregation' in education. Malta has around 35% of its primary schoolpopulation educated in private schools (either Church-owned or privately managed). Therest are catered for in the state system (Xerri, 1992) Northern Ireland has separateprovisions for its 'divided' community with a controlled state sector (mainly Protestant)and a maintained (voluntary) sector (of which the vast majority are schools embracingthe Catholic ethos).

The Management Profile Log (MPL) was devised to help primary headteachers reflect

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

164 J. Mifsud

on their management of change in primary schools. The philosophy behind the MPLenhances the work on performance review of primary principals (Johnstone, 1992) andthat of Blease & Leaver (1992) who tackle the perceptions of the primary head's rolefrom the point of view of teachers, parents, governors, LEA officers and headteachersthemselves. It has a certain affinity in content and procedure with the findings andaction-research techniques reported by Southworth (1993) in so far as it is a qualitativeresearch which aims to induce self-reflection in primary school heads and to develop thisreflection into action for school development. Two sets of primary heads from the twosectors of primary education in Malta and in Northern Ireland (Private and State inMalta; Controlled and Maintained in Northern Ireland) kept the MPL over a four weekperiod. The MPL which is event driven (not a time log in the tradition of Leithwood &Montgomery, 1986) helps principals to scrutinize the daily events [12] in a period ofcurricular change. The comparative study has concentrated on previous research carriedout in Malta (Bezzina 1991; Fenech 1992) and in Northern Ireland (Ferris, 1989) whichconcur that the distinctive character and ethos of the school is more important thanformal management structures in generating commitment amongst staff to implementingreform and indirectly in the two contexts, to attain high levels of pupil achievement.Both cohorts of primary principals found the MPL extremely useful [13] and informationgleaned from the MPL has helped individual principals to re-organise their day and sortout their priorities. Each of the participants (31 in Northern Ireland and 16 in Malta) wasprovided with an MPL personal report which profiled each individual on a his/hermanagement record covering a four week period.

Reflecting and Shadowing

The DOE (who had been supportive for the use of the MPL with state primaryprincipals) were approached with a plan to open up the research to internationalconsideration. The partnership which existed in the development of the MPL and itspractical use was given an added dimension, when the DOE/DENI agreed to sponsorexchange research visits. The DOE were part of the planning team and were the mainsponsors for the organisation of the project on the Maltese soil. The research team(which now included members from the University of Malta (FOE), the DOE, theQueen's University of Belfast and DENI) then organised a period of reflection for eachparticipant. After intensive consultation, planning and negotiation, the FOE, DOE, DENIand the School of Education, Queen's University of Belfast decided on the format forthe exchange research visits. Two groups were recruited from each cohort (representingprivate-state/maintained-controlled; rural/urban/suburban; small schools, male/female)for shadowing visits. The two groups of ten principals together with the researchcoordinators [14] 'shadowed' each other for a period of 2 weeks—i.e. each participantwas paired with a shadow principal who spent the day in the host school, familiarizinghimself/herself with the problems, issues and achievements of that school. The twogroups were also given the opportunity to visit other Maltese and Northern Irish schoolsboth within the project and outside the exchange format of the MPL research. Thoseissues, which on completion of the MPL were found to be similar to heads from Maltaand Northern Ireland, were tackled in satellite conferences held during the shadowingperiod (for example, a workshop on stress [15] was organised in Malta with the presenceof both sets of principals). A research diary for the shadow visits was constructed withthe help of both sets of principals prior to the first shadowing period. The diary was keptby all principals, and cluster groups were organised within each national formation to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Partners for Change 165

discuss the main issues and compare the difficulties their hosts were encountering inimplementing change. This diary focused mainly on:

(i) Structures and management styles in respective educational systems;(ii) Comparative issues arising from situations of change and national reform;(iii) Classroom organisation and teaching styles; •(iv) The introduction of Local Management of Schools in N. Ireland and the

Appointment of Assistant Heads (off timetable) in Malta;(v) Second Language Teaching;(vi) Mixed ability vs streaming;(vii) 11+ (Northern Ireland)/Junior Lyceum Examinations (Malta);(viii) Stress management;(ix) Cross-Cultural Links;(x) Nursery Provision.

End of visit conferences were held in Valletta and Belfast and both sets of headteach-ers had input in courses organised in their host country by the research co-ordinators(e.g. principals from Northern Ireland and their Maltese 'shadows' ran a workshop fornewly appointed primary heads during their visit to Malta). Apart from the personal andmanagerial enrichment to both sets of principals (which will be recorded elsewhere), theDOE and DENI are in the process of receiving copies of extensive reports on thisinternational project which will provide (i) the Minister of Education in Malta, withsome answers to his request (Malta Government, Ministry for Education and HumanResources, 1992) for proposals to improve the implementation and management ofprimary education in Malta and (ii) DENI with a comparative document on its "Toomuch too quickly" [16] policy of curriculum reform in Northern Ireland. The keyfindings from this comparative research seem to demonstrate that:

(1) centralised curricula provoke similar tensions at management and implemen-tation levels;

(2) administrative help is so meagre (in both Malta and Northern Ireland), that mostof the mundane low level tasks (based on the principals' perceptions) have tobe undertaken by headteachers, thus leaving less time for curricular and other'high' value tasks;

(3) all the participants in the shadowing exercise claimed that national reforms hadcaused their burden of work (and stress) to increase substantially and to furtheralienate them from the classrooms;

(4) full partnership in educational research (e.g. DOE/FOE) can be enhancedthrough international cooperation.

Conclusion

This exchange project has indeed helped both sets of principals to reflect on theirmanagement and to change or reinforce some of their ideas in school leadership. But thereal success of the project can be measured in the way the DOE and the FOE cooperatedto answer some of those questions which need an immediate answer if Maltese educationis to be renovated. It has certainly helped the FOE to review its perceptions of the DOE'sconcerns which are often governed by lack of resources. On the other hand, the DOE,which is innately more traditional in its approach, was given the opportunity to feel the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

166 /. Mifsud

pulse of reform in other countries and to start asking questions on its own handling ofprimary education in Malta. The DOE participants (during the various conferences heldwith their shadows and in filling their diaries) have demonstrated the will to adopt a newvision for their schools which includes the sacrifice, of what one principal calls 'thecherished things'. The real partnership in this project is yet to bear its 'policy' fruit whenthe various reports and recommendations go to the central authorities in Malta, but theactive substance of this partnership has been to attract the two educational poles(DOE-FOE) for a project which was not aimed at 'policy' or 'curiosity' but at forginga common vision of what a renovated primary education should look like in Malta in thenineties. Or as Farrugia (1990) augurs:

Finally, an improved primary curriculum in Malta has to reflect and incorpor-ate the pedagogical developments that are taking place in the field. These aremore likely to materialize through closer collaboration between educationalresearchers, who have the instruments, educational officers, who possess theadministrative know-how, and classroom practitioners who live the teachingexperience. Attempts by any one group to dominate or dictate will generateconsternation among the rest, while genuine understanding of each other'sproblems and cooperation will more likely to produce a curriculum that isindigenous and relevant to local needs. (1990, p. 100)

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to Dr Alexander McEwen, School of Education, Queen's University of

Belfast, for his valuable feedback on the manuscript.

Correspondence: Joseph Mifsud, Faculty of Education, University of Malta, Msida,Malta.

NOTES

[1] The Department of Education (DOE) is in charge of the daily running of all levels of education exceptfor the University. The DOE has a hierarchical structure with the Director of Education on top, assistedby a number of assistant directors, who are in charge of different sections and levels of education on theisland of Malta and its sister island of Gozo. One of the Assistant Directors is responsible for the PrimarySection within the Department, i.e. all pre-secondary state schooling, including nursery education (whichis provided free to all three year olds). The field officers in the DOE are the Education officers whomonitor and advise schools on regional basis. They are also effectively in charge of curricula, syllabi andassessment procedures adopted in schools. Primary schools are 'managed' by a primary headteacher,helped by an off-timetable assistant head. There are no composite classes in Malta and Gozo, and smallschools still maintain principals who do not have teaching responsibilities.

[2] The emphasis here is being restricted to FOE research which is directly linked to the development of anational curriculum. It is not an exhaustive summary, as K. Wain's work on 'Lifelong Education', R.Sultana's research on the vocational aspect in education, F. Ventura's projects in environmentaleducation, and P. Mayo's investigations in adult education, have all reached the international academiccommunity.

[3] See ZAMMIT MANGION, J. (1992) Education in Malta (Valletta, MAS) for more details.[4] The following are a sample of the titles taken from articles published in the Maltese newspapers:

Kurrikulu minimu nazzjonali (NMC), In-Nazzjon Taghna, 14/6/89; School curriculum, The Times,20/6/89; II-kurrikulu minimu Nazzjonali, L-Orrizont, 8/8/89*; Some reflections on the NMC, SundayTimes, 2/6/91; National minimum curriculum an outdated and irrelevant exercise, The Times 111191;Educating the whole person, Sunday Times, 14/7/91; A healthy process of educational reform, Sunday

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Partners for Change 167

Times, 4/8/91; Idealism in educational policy, Sunday Times, 7/2/93. George Bonnici (FOE) writing inThe Malta Independent (20/12/93), elucidates with graphic precision the problems of educational reformin Malta, by listing the 'excuses' put forward by the DOE or the Ministry of Education (who areultimately responsible for Education in Malta). When hard-pressed for a political or administrativeexplanation, the two state authorities reply with: "... lack of money 'as we had to spend it elsewhere',lack of staff 'because the previous administration was weak in planning for recruitment', lack ofaccommodation 'because the number of students have doubled', the need for patience 'because this isonly a transition period', 'we need to retrain' and the litany goes on". His plea: "Lets work together.Let's create a permanent collaborative mechanism for educational change" goes some way to encourageresearchers in Malta to take up the challenge of overcoming these obstacles.

[5] ibid.[6] The Primary English Project is funded by the DOE and the British Council. It aims to regenerate interest

in the teaching of English at primary level through a number of courses run in Malta and in the UK.Both Maltese and English are spoken and used as medium for instruction in Maltese primary schools.Headteachers were trained and then utilised in a cascade model to develop new teaching/learningstrategies with their staff.

[7] Professor John Furlong, University College, Swansea.[8] Primary Headteachers are centrally employed and their headship can be routinely transferred. Heads

complain that this procedure does not help them to negotiate and implement a vision for their schools.Primary Heads do not have the power of hiring and firing of staff (which is done centrally through theDOE) and therefore get teachers on their staff who might not share the same vision and abilities requiredby the school.

[9] This conference on the National Minimum Curriculum was organised by the DOE/FOE and gatheredthe views of researchers, practitioners and administrators on the first stages of implementation of theNMC.

[10] The MUT (Malta Union of Teachers) is the major teachers' union in Malta. In 1989, it signed are-organisation agreement for teachers in state schools.

[11] The major issue in the agreement between the MUT and the Ministry of Education was the granting offormal recognition to the teaching profession. This recognition is found in a warrant given to eachrecognised teacher to practise his profession.

[12] The results were presented in a paper and workshop session at the BEMAS Annual Conference inSeptember 1992. entitled: "Analysis of the work profiles of a group of Headteachers: a reflectivepractitioner's approach to educational management in a period of change".

[13] ibid.[14] The research team for the exchange visits included field officers from the DOE and the principal

education officer of the DOE together with FOE staff from the Department of Primary Education andthe Department of Psychology.

[15] Stress was one issue which prior to the groups coming together was felt as a shared concern. Thesessions were held in Malta by Dr Mark Borg, University of Malta (who has investigated local teacherand headteacher stress). Dr Borg has also accompanied both groups to conduct comparative research.

[16] A summary of the findings of the action-research involving primary principals in Northern Ireland isfound in the paper published in Management in Education, 7, pp. 10-14.

REFERENCES

BALDACCHINO, G. (1993) Bursting the bubble: the pseudo-development strategies of microstates, Developmentand Change, 24, pp. 29-51.

BEZZINA, C. (1988a) School Development (Malta, MUT Publications).BEZZINA, C. (1988b) Educational administration at the centre of change, in: C. J. FARRUGIA (Ed.) Education in

Malta: a look to the future (Valletta, UNESCO).BEZZINA, C. (1991) The policy-practice dilemma facing reform in Malta, paper presented at the MUT Forum

on the Primary School Curriculum, Valletta, Malta.BLEASE, D. & LEVER, D. (1992) What do primary headteachers really do?, Educational Studies, 18,

pp. 185-199.BORG, M. & FALZON J. (1991) Streaming in Maltese primary schools, Research in Education, 45, pp. 1-12.BORG, M., FALZON, J. & RIDING, R. (1991) Stress in teaching; a study of occupational stress and its

determinants, job satisfaction and career commitments among primary school teachers, EducationalPsychology (11), pp. 59-75.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

168 J. Mifsud

BORG, M. & RIDING, R. (1993) Occupational stress and job satisfaction among school administrators, Journalof Educational Administration, 31, pp. 4—21.

BRAY, M. & PACKER, S. (1993) Education in Small States: concepts, challenges and strategies (Oxford,Pergamon Press).

BROCK, C. (1984) Scale, Isolation, and Dependence: educational development in island developing and otherspecially disadvantaged states (London, Commonwealth Secretariat).

BRUCE, W.E. (1921) Report on the Organisation in Malta (Malta, Government Printing Press).CRICHTON-MILLER, J. (1958) Report on the Education of Malta (Malta, Government Printing Office).DARMANIN, M. (1990) Maltese primary school teachers' experience of centralized policies, British Journal of

Sociology of Education, 11, pp. 275-308.DARMANIN, M. (1991) National interests and private interests in policy making, International Studies in

Sociology of Education, 1, pp. 59-85.DARMANIN, M. (1992) The labour market of schooling: Maltese girls in education and economic planning,

Gender and Education, 4, pp. 105-126.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (1982a) Children Requiring Remedial Education: a report (Malta, Department of

Education).DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (1982b) An Investigation into the Incidence of Year 3-6 Primary School Children

Referred to as ESN (Malta, Department of Education).DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (1988) Survey on Streaming in the Primary Schools (Malta, Department of

Education).ELLIS, C. (1942) Report on Education in Malta (Malta, Government Printing Press).EVANS, I. (1946) Report on Higher Education in Malta (Malta, Government Printing Press).FARRUGIA, C.J. (1985) The status of school teachers in Malta, unpublished PhD, University of London.FARRUGIA, C.J. (Ed.) (1988) Education in Malta: a look to the future (Valletta, UNESCO).FARRUGIA, C.J. (1990) Malta, in: L. Puscio (Ed.) Primary Education in Europe (Frascati, CEDE).FARRUGIA, C.J. (1991) Malta: educational development in a small island state, Prospects, XXI, pp.

584-594.FARRUGIA, C.J. (1992) Authority and control in the Maltese educational system, International Review of

Education, 38, pp. 155-171.FARRUGIA, C.J. & ATTARD, P.A. (1989) The Multi-Functional Administrator (London, Commonwealth Secretar-

iat).FARRUGIA, C.J. & FENECH, J. (1989) Evaluation of new curricula in primary education, unpublished mimeo,

Faculty of Education, University of Malta.FENECH, J. (1991) Curriculum development and evaluation in Malta: the current situation, in C. FARRUGIA (Ed.)

A National Curriculum for Malta (Valletta, DOE).FENECH, J. (1992) Primary schooling in Malta, unpublished PhD, University of London.FERRIS, R.W. (1989) The implementation of the curriculum guidelines for primary schools in Northern Ireland,

unpublished MA (ED), Queen's University of Belfast.FERRIS, R., MIFSUD, J. & MCEWEN, A. (1993) Too much too quickly: primary curriculum reform, Management

in Education, 7, pp. 10-14.FLASK, J. (1991) Sundry reflections on children, teachers, parents and schools, Society No. 12 (Malta, Marsa

Press).JOHNSTONE, J. (1992) Primary headship and the issue of performance review, School Organisation, 12,

pp. 127-143.KEENAN, P.J. (1879) Report on the Educational System of Malta (Dublin, Alexander Thorn).LEITHWOOD, K.A. & MONTGOMERY, D.J. (1986) Improving Principal Effectiveness (Ontario, OISE).LEWIS, L.J. (1967) Malta, Educational Planning: preparatory mission (Paris, UNESCO).MALTA GOVERNMENT (1988) An Act to Consolidate and Reform the Law Related to Education in Malta Act,

No. XXIV (Valletta, Department of Information).MALTA GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY for EDUCATION and HUMAN RESOURCES (1992) Circular on the Implementation

of the National Minimum Curriculum (Valletta, Ministry for Education and Human Resources).MCKERNAN, J. (1991) Curriculum Action Research (London, Kogan Page).ORIZIO, B. (Ed.) (1988) Comparative Education Today (Rome, CEDE).OSBORNE, R.D., GALLAGHER, A.M. & CORMACK, R.J. (1992/3) The funding of Northern Ireland's segregated

education system, Administration, 40, pp. 316-332.PREBBLE, T.K. & STEWART, D.J. (1984) School Development: strategies for effective management (Palmerston

North, Dunmore Press).SHAW, K. (1987) Curriculum, management and the improvement of education: forging a practical alliance,

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, pp. 203-217.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Partners for Change 169

SOUTHWORTH, G. (1993) School leadership and school development: reflections from research, SchoolOrganisation, 13, pp. 73-87.

SULTANA, R. (1992) Education and National Development (Malta, Mireva).SULTANA, R. (Ed.) (1991) Themes in Education—a Maltese reader (Malta, Mireva).WAIN, K. (1991) The Maltese National Curriculum: a critical evaluation (Malta, Mireva).XERRI, J. (1992) Early education in the Maltese islands, in: G. A. WOODHILL et al. (Eds) International

Handbook of Early Childhood Education (New York, Garland).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:26

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14