Government ministers should be asked why they prefer sending their children to so-called “private schools” instead of public schools

Comments

1. 

   Paul

   September 19, 2024

   The truth is that who ever is taking positions in the Cabinet or the Goverment considers himself/herself better than the rest. It is has become a charade and a parody that instead of serving the people, the people have become a heaving mass of mindless moron to be used to extract more power and resources. It is a country reminiscent of the Batista Cuba.

   Reply
2. 

   Banquo

   September 19, 2024

   I don’t think you are fully accurate when you say that “private schools are better equipped than state schools”. On the contrary, my understanding is that state schools have the resources to offer subjects (such as vocational ones, complete with some professional-looking labs) which private schools cannot currently teach because of lack of equipment and personnel.

   Additionally, state schools provide services such as the Breakfast Club (for free) and wider assistance to pupils with disabilities than do private schools. Teachers at state schools are also less worn out because, when available, the state is willing to hire teachers. Private schools prefer to work their staff to the bone to save money, and parents wear down the teachers further because, as paying customers, they expect extremely high (some would say unrealistic) outcomes.

   The main reason why people still choose to send their children to private schools is, I believe, to control the company their children keep. Middle class (lots of parents of modest means make the effort to pay private-school fees) and elite children whose parents are interested in education get to sit in class with other middle class and elite children whose parents are interested in education.

   This is supposed to prevent disruptions from children who are only there because the law says they should be, and whose parents will not instil in them a love for learning. Basically, parents whose children are sent to private schools do not want their children to be mixing with the lower classes (and maybe adopting bad habits from them). A private school is meant to operate as a safe bubble.

   Other reasons for sending children to private schools are smaller classes, which parents tend to believe are more conducive to learning (although research disputes this); that some of them run both primary and secondary schools, which makes the transition from the former to the latter smoother; and alternative curricula, which may prepare children for foreign universities rather than the Maltese one. Then, there is also the widespread belief that what you pay for is automatically better than what you get for free, as you yourself have evidenced with your statements but which is not necessarily true.

   Apart from the private schools, there are also church schools which are prominent in Malta’s education system. These have always enjoyed a good reputation, because so many nuns and monks have in the past selflessly dedicated their lives to educating pupils (witness the jubilation with which old Lasallians have greeted the 100th birthday of teacher Brother Edward Galea as proof of this). Church schools continued providing education even when the Labour government threatened to close them down in the 1980s. For that, people remained grateful, and Catholics appreciated the religious slant to teaching in these schools.

   Today, the reputation endures even though the teachers are rarely men and women of the cloth, the 1980s are long past, and science beats religion in most classes. Parents (even non-religious ones) send their children to church schools because they view them as similar to private schools, except the fees (technically, ‘donations’) are cheaper.

   To conclude, the reasons why parents decide to send children to private or church schools are varied and more complex than you make them out to be. Some of the reasons are factual and some are based on misconceptions. Although they are far from perfect, it is wrong to campaign against private or church schools outright, because they offer parents a wider variety of options than would state schools alone, and this can better cater to children’s needs and parents’ wishes.

   And although helicopter money which recipients can spend in any way they please is probably less wasteful than subsidies for this and that which often end up giving the already well off a leg up (this is a separate discussion for another time, really), it is probably also in the state’s interest to subsidise such schools to some extent because, by paying some fees, parents who send their children to these schools are reducing the amount of money the government would spend if all the children in the country went to state schools and all parents never paid a cent.

   Of course, for ministers, this discussion is more awkward than for regular citizens. The free state education system, especially for ministers coming from a nominally socialist government, should be considered a national jewel on par with the free national health system. It is indeed somewhat embarrassing for a minister to imply with one’s own actions that the state education system which the government constantly boasts about and which it lavishes so much money on is not the best education system in the country. The reasons for not sending one’s own children to a state school may not be be a straightforward matter of best or worst, but that is how it comes across.

   England has a tension between elite schools and schools which the poor and the common folk inevitably end up in. The former may offer better outcomes but may make the education system seem unfair. In continental European countries like Germany and Switzerland, it is unusual to not go to a state school, and state schools are almost universally seen as the best option, regardless of parents’ income or socioeconomic status.

   In some African countries, private schools which people of very limited means can afford seem to provide better outcomes than completely free schools, often run down and whose teachers rarely turn up for work.

   What works for one country may not work for another, because what led to the current educational system in each country is a number of complex factors. It is important to constantly ask questions about how to improve education in Malta, how to make it more equitable, and whether money on education is being spent in the best way possible, but there is no need to create a sharp dichotomy between one type of school and another.

   State, private and church schools are all part of the current fabric of Malta’s education system, and they are all here to stay. They all have some strong points and all have some blind spots. They all need improving and for public money to be spent on the right things.

   Reply