Malta’s
education
system
EDS3207: Families, Communities, and the
Educational System
Ronald G. Sultana
Main points
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The development of Malta’s education system
Key struggles over education
Main features of education in Malta
Other education systems
What shapes education systems
What can be shaped
The PISA report
2
The specificity of Malta
3
Malta timeline
218 BC
3600 BC
870AD
1090 AD
1964
1800
1530
1798
4
Educational development
in Malta: a background
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1592: Collegium Melitense set up by Jesuits
1796: first proposal for basic education for all
1798: Napoleon’s reforms
1850: Beginning of an education system
1880: Keenan report–the language question
1890’s: movement for VET
1930’s: first technical school
1946: compulsory education Ordinance
1966: setting up of MCAST 1
1970: secondary education for all
1972: setting up of trade schools
1986: massification of higher education
2000: setting up of MCAST 2
2005: College network
5
Struggles over education
6
Struggles over…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is education?
Who is education for?
What curriculum to teach?
How to teach that curriculum?
Where to teach?
Who can teach?
How to pay for education?
Gender
Class
Ethnicity
Race
Religion
Dis/ability
Orientation
Region
7
Some are good with their hands…
…others with their mind!
8
Systems can bring
people together…
9
…or pull them apart
10
Shaping the colonial mind
11
Learning to be girls
12
Politics and the Church
13
Malta in/and Europe
14
Components of a system
Informal
education
Non-formal
education
Formal
education
15
Key features of Malta’s
education system
Selective
Exam-oriented
Coverage vs mastery
Centralised
Non-state sector
Transferability
Academic drift
Post-16 sector
Drop-out rates
Certification
16
Malta’s newest institution:
• Art and Design
• Building & Construction
Engineering
• Business and Commerce
• Community Services
• Electrical & Electronics
Engineering
• Information &
Communication Technology
• Maritime
• Mechanical Engineering
17
Other institutions
18
19
20
21
New National Curriculum
An attempt in
bringing abut
a paradigm
shift in
defining and
attaining
quality
provision
22
A College Network
23
What shapes
education systems?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
History…
Culture…
Ideas / Trends…
The economy…
Politicians…
Churches
Unions…
Inspirational leaders
• Supra-national
organisations- IMF, EU
• Success and failure
• Policy networks
• Social Movements…
• Organised lobby
groups…
• Parents?
• Students?
24
What can be shaped?
Outputs and Policy Levers Antecedents
That shape
that contextualise
Outcomes
Impact of
Learning
Country or
system
Overall outcomes
of education
Schools and
other
institutions
Output of
institutions and
institutional
performance
Instructional
settings
Quality of
instructional
delivery
Individual
learner
Quality and
distribution of
knowledge and
skills
1
2
3
4
Outcomes
or constrain policy
National
System-wide
educational,
structures,
social and
resources and
economic context
policies
5
The learning
environment at
school
6
9
Community
and school
characteristics
10
Teaching and Student learning
learning practices conditions and
and classroom teacher working
climate
conditions
7
11
Individual
attitudes,
engagement and
behaviour
Background of
the learners
8
12
25
High
Performance
550
High performanceNew Zealand
530
Finland
Canada
Australia Ireland
Korea
Low social equity
United Kingdom
Japan

UK
Belgium
United States
Switzerland
Czech Republik
490
Low performance
Low social equity
High social equity
Sweden
510
Low
Social equity
High performance
Germany
Hungary
470
Austria
Iceland
France
Norway
High
Social equity
Denmark
Spain
Italy
Poland
Greece
Portugal

Italy
Low performance
High social equity
450
-25
Luxembourg 0Low
Performance
25
26
High
Performance
550
Finland
Canada
New530
Zealand
High performance
Australia
Ireland
Low social equity
High social equity
United Kingdom
High performance
Korea
Japan
Sweden
Belgium 510 Austria
France
Norway
United States
Denmark
Switzerland
Czech Republik
490
Low
Social equity
Germany
Hungary
Low performance
470
Low social equity
Iceland
High
Social equity
Spain
Italy
Poland
Low performance
Greece
Portugal
High social equity
450
-25
-20
-15
-10
Luxembourg
Low
0
-5
Performance
5
10
15
.
20
25
27
High
Performance
Early selection and institutional
stratification
550
Finland
Low degree of stratification
High degree of stratification
Canada
New530
Zealand
Australia
Ireland
United Kingdom
Korea
Japan
Sweden
Belgium 510 Austria
France
Norway
United States
Denmark
Switzerland
Czech Republik
490
Low
Social equity
Germany
Hungary
470
Iceland
High
Social equity
Spain
Italy
Poland
Greece
Portugal
450
-25
-20
-15
-10
Luxembourg
Low
0
-5
Performance
5
10
15
.
20
25
28
High
Performance
E.g. Learning environment and
course offering
550
High degree of autonomy
Low degree of autonomy
% Variance between schools
Finland
11%
Canada
New530
Zealand
Australia
Ireland
United Kingdom
20%
Korea
Japan
9% Sweden
76%
Low
Social equity
75%
Germany
71%
Belgium 510 Austria
France
Norway
United States
Denmark
Switzerland
Czech Republik
490
Hungary
470
Iceland
7%
High
Social equity
Spain
Italy
Poland
Greece
Portugal
r=.51
450
-25
-20
-15
-10
Luxembourg
Low
0
-5
Performance
5
10
15
.
20
25
29
High
Performance
Student engagement in reading
550
Highest engagement
Finland
Lowest engagement
Canada
New530
Zealand
Australia
Ireland
United Kingdom
Korea
Japan
Sweden
Belgium 510 Austria
France
Norway
United States
Denmark
Switzerland
Czech Republik
490
Low
Social equity
Germany
Hungary
470
Iceland
High
Social equity
Spain
Italy
Poland
Greece
Portugal
450
-25
-20
-15
-10
Luxembourg
Low
0
-5
Performance
5
10
15
.
20
25
30
What difference will
YOU
make?
31