News • 19 January 2003

Education and all that...

If you are a frequenter of cafés you are not likely to see Professor Kenneth Wain sipping coffee with Labour Party spokesman Evarist Bartolo KURT SANSONE writes

Professor Kenneth Wain is not your average academic. Unlike most that inhabit the ivory towers he chooses to publicly express his views on topical issues facing the country and it is this trait that put him on a collision course with Opposition Education spokesman Evarist Bartolo.

The story goes back almost two years. In an edition of Xarabank that debated information that was being disseminated by MIC in State schools, Evarist Bartolo shed his sheepish look and spewed vitriol all over Professor Wain.

Evarist Bartolo had accused Prof. Wain of having a conflict of interest in occupying the chairmanship of the newly set up Foundation for Educational Services while at the same time being a prominent pro-EU advocate in the Iva Movement.

The story resurfaced last Sunday in an interview that Mr Bartolo gave MaltaToday. The Labour spokesman told this newspaper that he had no regrets for what he said back then.

"It doesn’t surprise me that Evarist has no regrets for what he said”, Prof. Wain tells me as soon as we settle down in a quaint living room adorned with books.

Despite a heavy head cold Prof. Wain’s determination to set the record straight is unrelenting. He continues: "Evarist has regularly maintained his criticism toward me and there were times when he even called me a political agitator. But what surprised me in his interview were the reasons he gave for attacking me back then."

Prof. Wain explains that he has never written essays on the subject of indoctrination. "It’s a complement that Evarist chose to attribute me with ‘excellent essays on how to avoid indoctrination in schools’ but I have never written any such essays. I admit to having lectured and talked on the subject but I have never written any essays."

Niceties over, Prof. Wain continues: "To my knowledge I have never said anything that can be interpreted as encouraging primary and secondary schools to include teaching on the European Union as Evarist Bartolo accused me of last Sunday."

Prof. Wain maintains that he has often said that primary and secondary school children should be made aware of the European Union, what it is and the whole debate about the subject. "Children cannot be left ignorant of national issues if they are to be educated as participating citizens in a democracy. Children should know what is happening in their country and why there are differences on the issue. This is not indoctrination but education. Indoctrination is the closing of the mind with propaganda."

Prof. Wain cannot hide his disappointment. "Evarist’s criticism was grossly unfair apart from saying things that are not true," the academic retorts.

But the controversy does not stop here. Last Sunday Evarist Bartolo said that Kenneth Wain ‘chose to allow MIC officials in schools to talk about the EU in primary and secondary schools.’

"This is completely untrue," Prof. Wain tells me. He insists that such a matter does not even fall within his competence. "I had absolutely no part in that policy decision, nor was I consulted and I only learnt about it through the media," Prof. Wain explains.

"What I find strange is that the reasons Evarist chose to give last Sunday are completely different from the reasons he had given two years ago when the controversy had erupted. At the time the Labour media accused me of havinga conflict of interest," Prof. Wain says.

He recalls the months ensuing the Xarabank programme when Super One, in particular, attempted, what Prof. Wain describes as character and professional assassination.

"Evarist should recognise that what he said two years ago was wrong and if the real reasons for his attack on me were those mentioned last week then he owes me an apology," Prof. Wain insists.

It is my turn to level the accusation at the education professor. But surely his dual role as FES chairman and Iva spokesman raises a conflict of interest?

"Every individual has the right to express his own personal views. What Evarist accused me of is tantamount to an attack on my freedom of expression. However, after two years nobody, including Evarist Bartolo has criticised the work done by the FES. Nobody has accused the FES of indoctrinating school children on EU matters because there is nothing to accuse us of. The Foundation has worked in perfect synchronisation with the Education Division in promoting after schools programmes to help parents take an active interest in their children’s schooling."

Prof. Wain then challenges Evarist Bartolo to point out one instance when the supposed conflict of interest was in evidence in the past two years.

Given the bad blood that has been created between Wain and Bartolo I ask the academic about the prospect of having the Labour politician as his education minister.

"I will hand in my resignation as FES chairman irrespective of who is education minister. It is only natural for a new minister to appoint his own people. But I wouldn’t want to work under Evarist after all the controversy. I would find it impossible to work with him now. The mutual trust and respect between us has been dented and I cannot work with anybody in such circumstances."

Before I get the chance to ask him another question, Prof. Wain interjects. "This does not mean that I would not want to work with a Labour administration. Ultimately my interest is to promote education."

What will it take for you to have the pleasure of seeing Prof. Wain and Evarist Bartolo sipping coffee together?

"I am not a person who bares grudges. Whenever people who clashed with me showed goodwill I have always buried the hatchet. I don’t even want a public apology. It would suffice if Evarist talked to me personally to clear the whole thing up. I am fed up of the whole episode and it bothers me each time it is brought up in the media."

I shift the discussion to the work of the foundation he heads.

"It has a broad terms of reference," Prof. Wain says. He admits that the terms of reference had made a number of people uneasy including former education minister Bartolo, who had criticised the foundation on the grounds that it would conflict with the work of the Education Division.

"But what people had predicted, has not happened. We work hand in hand with the Education Division and our work would not be effective had it not been for the Division," Prof. Wain says rather proudly.

He highlights a number of programmes undertaken by the Foundation with the aim of enticing parents to get involved in their children’s education. "In line with the national curriculum we visualise education as a partnership between the schools, children, their parents and teachers," Prof. Wain explains, ironically borrowing the phrase used by the Labour Party to describe its foreign policy.

With a Labour Party intent on dismantling the Foundation for Tomorrow’s Schools if elected to government I ask Kenneth Wain whether the FES would meet the same fate.

"I don’t recall that the Labour Party has said the same thing about the Foundation for Educational Services. If they did dismantle the FES it would be a very bad mistake. But I don’t think Evarist as minister for education would remove the FES given the good work it has done."

With all the emphasis on education and information technology a large number of students still leave secondary school not knowing how to read or write.

"We have problems with basic literacy," Prof. Wain says regretfully.

"After 10 years of schooling children should not leave schools without having basic literacy skills. The system is failing in its fundamental aim, but we are doing something about it. There are a number of initiatives going on even though I feel more co-ordination is needed.

"The problem is that the system is exams oriented. We start separating children from an early age in such a way that we concentrate on achievers. The whole drive of primary schools is to get as many children as possible to pass their Junior Lyceum exams.

"Those who fail, unfortunately are abandoned. And the percentage is not small. Their failure becomes a condemnation for life."

These are not new words. They have been repeated ad nauseum by different educational exponents. The problem lies in the solutions.

"We need a change in mentality," Prof. Wain explains. "Unless we follow recommendations by the National Curriculum to individualise learning we are not going to solve the problems. Literacy programmes and the work being done by the FES are simply patching up or rather managing failure. We need a fundamental change to avoid having failures in the first place.

"Parents and teachers both fear change but this is only natural. It will not happen overnight and it should not," Prof. Wain insists.

He explains that the initiatives undertaken by FES, which instil a measure of change without imposing it could serve as an ideal blue print for reforms in the educational system.

"Our programmes have also helped to influence the school culture and teachers come to us with suggestions for improvement. They feel they have to get involved and that is a mentality change brought about without imposition."

The discussion flows to the impending referendum. I ask Prof. Wain whether the proposed question is ideal.

"I believe that the referendum question has to be as simple as possible. Voters should not be confused. The package has been made public and there was a parliamentary debate on it."

Prof. Wain confesses that the EU experiment, as he calls it, excites him. "This is an issue above partisan politics and I think that the decision should be taken by a referendum. Choosing whether to join the EU or not is distinct from choosing the party best suited to administer the country. The EU is a paradigm shift just like Independence."

What happens if the referendum gets a Yes majority but Labour is elected to govern in the election?

"If the Labour Party wins the election and still sustains that a partnership policy is better at that stage we would have to have another referendum. But people would need to know the details of the partnership option, which means waiting for another seven to 10 years.

"But I cannot understand the logic of not recognising the referendum as an instrument of choice when the main issue at stake in both the referendum and the election is going to be the EU just the same."

Prof. Wain is against holding the referendum and the general election on the same day because it would only serve to confuse people.

And when I refer Prof. Wain to the parliamentary speech made by his nemesis Evarist Bartolo this week, a mental bridge between the two is in sight.

In brief, Mr Bartolo’s contribution to the EU parliamentary debate emphasised the point that the EU was sold to the public as a perfect organisation that would solve all Malta’s problems when this wasn’t the case.

"I agree with Evarist on this point. He is right. The EU is still in the making. We expect things that are unfair of the EU. I consider it to be a learning experience and at this crucial point in time we have the opportunity to form part of this experience.

"We need independence. But in a world rife with change and threats we also need reassurance. I think we can have both in the EU. The alternatives we have to that ensure independence but provide us with no reassurance."