University stipends - a thorny subject

There is no doubt that stipends are a very thorny subject here in Malta, and frankly, given  the public reaction this week when I went on the record on television saying that I did not agree with the way stipends are currently being administered, I am not surprised that politicians will not touch the topic with a barge pole.

At the moment we have approximately 19,000 students receiving a stipend, with a total projected cost for 2012 of €23 million. This is a hefty sum and one would expect it to have a major positive impact on our educational system, however unfortunately I do not believe that the investment is giving the desired return.

In Malta we have the highest school dropout rate in Europe. 37% of students do not progress from secondary school to a tertiary education - a figure that is very significant, particularly when taken in the context of the 14% average dropout rate in the EU.

The stipend system has been in place for around 20 years now, so students who are currently in secondary school have known about this financial support all their academic life. We are told that the stipend encourages students to continue studying as opposed to stopping at 15 or 16 in order to work and earn money - and yet our dropout rate is in some cases eighteen times that of countries who offer their students no financial support whatsoever.

If the stipend is so important to keep our children in school, why is it that countries that have no stipend are doing so much better than us when it comes to preventing early school dropouts?

Comparisons are odious but in this case they need to be made - why is it that in the UK where students do not get a stipend and actually have to pay for their degrees through the nose the early school leaving rate is 15%, whereas in Malta we have more than double that amount dropping out even though we PAY kids to stay in school?

I have heard people argue that were it not for the stipend half of the students who continue studying after reaching sixteen would give up. In other words according to them half of the 63% who currently do not drop out would opt to quit, bringing the total percentage of kids quitting school at 16 to a whopping 68.5%.

If it is true that removing the stipend will raise the dropout rate to 68.5% then we have a serious problem and we are clearly raising a generation of children who do not enjoy learning. In countries such as Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland and the Czech Republic only 5% of kids drop out - and in these countries stipends are unheard of.

So what does the current scenario say about our educational system and our children? We are paying our kids to stay in school and yet they are dropping out in their thousands! Clearly the time has come to consider the possibility that there is a problem and that the stipend is not the cure.

So as you can see I am not impressed by the efficacy of the stipend system and the so-called results of our hefty investment. Even more worrying, however, is the fact that somehow there is no serious debate regarding alternative uses for the 23 million euros (which are projected to grow to 30 million euros per annum by 2020). When one plans an investment it is normal to consider different options and to choose the one that gives the best return. Well, we have invested in stipends for 20 years and let's face it, the results are not that great. Is it not time to sit back and reconsider our options?

Is it not possible that it would be wiser to invest that money in our primary and secondary education system, in an effort to make learning more fun and rewarding, instilling a love of education in our children? This could possibly have a bigger impact on our early school leaving rate.

Or perhaps we should look at improving social welfare, reaching out to children from difficult backgrounds, who all too often drop out of school early. Maybe we should invest in homework clubs and supplementary tuition for children who could really benefit from some extra help in those all-important early years at school.

Another option would be to invest the money in research programmes at University. After all, as the University Rector Juanito Camilleri stated publicly a short while ago, stipends are not actually an investment in the educational infrastructure. He was very clear that University needs more funds in order to continue improving its degree programmes and that if these funds are not forthcoming the quality of education would slowly but surely erode. As he put it - we will end up paying our students to get a mediocre education.

In essence I conclude that there is much to be discussed about the stipend system and it is indeed a pity that our politicians have painted themselves into a corner, turning the topic into a total taboo.