Malta’s new homework policy prioritises quality over quantity, but concerns over standards persist
Malta’s newly-launched National Homework Policy aims to fundamentally reshape how students engage with learning beyond the classroom, shifting the emphasis from volume to purpose while safeguarding student wellbeing.
In an interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday, director general and project lead Jude Zammit defended the reform against mounting concerns from educators and parents that reducing homework could risk weakening academic standards.
Unveiled this week by Education Minister Clifton Grima, the policy introduced a national framework designed to ensure that every homework task serves a clear educational purpose. It forms part of a broader strategy to modernise Malta’s education system and better prepare students for an evolving global landscape.
At its core, the policy rejects what officials described as a system driven by “quantity over quality” and “compliance over learning”. Instead, it promotes meaningful, targeted tasks, and a stronger focus on critical thinking and student engagement.
Zammit told The Malta Independent on Sunday that the reform is grounded in extensive research and feedback from across the education sector. “Academic rigour doesn’t come with quantity,” he said. “The fact says that quantity is not a priority; the priority is the quality.”
Despite these arguments, the policy has sparked widespread debate, particularly among educators who fear that reducing workload may inadvertently lower standards and expectations.
During the interview, Zammit was challenged on whether limiting homework risks making schoolwork too easy, especially in primary education where concerns have been raised about declining academic challenge. Drawing on these observations from learning support educators, it was pointed out that some teachers are already noticing a pattern of work becoming less demanding, potentially leaving students underprepared for the transition of secondary school and beyond.
Zammit rejected the suggestion that the policy promotes easier work, insisting that “quality doesn’t mean easier”. Instead, he said, it means “more engaging, more relevant to the student, something that enhances their ability”. He stressed that the goal is not to reduce expectations but to improve effectiveness, arguing that repetitive tasks do not necessarily build deeper understanding. According to Zammit, meaningful assignments that require thought and application, even if shorter in length, are more likely to stimulate curiosity and critical thinking than large quantities of repetitive exercises.
Questions over discipline and consistency have also emerged as a central concern in the debate. Zammit was asked whether limiting homework risks removing one of the few structured habits that prepare students for adult working life, particularly in terms of deadlines, responsibility and time management.
He maintained that the new policy does not eliminate these elements. “A commitment is a commitment, and a deadline is a deadline,” he said, emphasising that structured expectations remain in place, particularly at secondary level where students are expected to take on greater responsibility for independent learning.
At the same time, Zammit acknowledged that strict deadlines may be less appropriate for younger children, arguing that in such cases the pressure oftens shifts onto parents rather than students themselves. “If we’re talking about six- or seven-year-olds, the pressure of the deadline is not on the student, it’s on the parent,” he said.
When asked whether delaying exposure to structure could make it harder for students to adapt later on, he responded that responsibility is introduced gradually in line with a child’s development, rather than imposed uniformly across all age groups. He repeatedly returned to the concept of balance, describing the policy as an attempt to avoid both excessive workload and insufficient challenge.
Concerns over declining academic standards formed another key part of the discussion. Zammit was asked why, in light of reports of declining literacy levels, the policy does not place greater emphasis on more academic or practice-based tasks rather than reducing workload.
He argued that increasing volume alone is not an effective solution, particularly for students who are already struggling. Using literacy as an example, he explained that asking a child, who has difficulty with reading to simply read more, does not address the underlying issue. “The remedy is not reading more,” he said. “You have to go back to the original problem and build step by step.”
When pressed on whether this approach effectively lowers the level of work, Zammit rejected this interpretation, saying it is “not making it easier, but making it different”. He emphasised the importance of identifying the root cause of a student’s difficulty and adapting tasks accordingly, describing this as a process of scaffolding where learning is gradually built up over time.
The role of repetition in learning also became a point of contention. Asked whether the policy’s emphasis on creativity and engagement risks undermining the importance of practice, particularly in subjects such as mathematics and languages where repetition is often seen as essential, Zammit said that practice remains a recognised and important type of homework within the policy. “We are not against practice,” he said, noting that it is one of several approaches encouraged within the framework.
However, he argued that relying solely on repetition can be ineffective, particularly for students who do not fully understand the material. Drawing on his own experience as a mathematics teacher, he described how different students respond to the same workload in different ways. Some, he said, can complete large sets of problems quickly and even request more, while others struggle to complete even a small number of questions. “What’s the use of giving someone loads of homework knowing they will return an empty copybook?” he asked.
Zammit said that comprehension is a key factor but maintained that excessive workload can contribute to discouragement and disengagement, particularly when students feel overwhelmed.
The policy’s approach to early education has also drawn scrutiny, particularly its decision to remove written homework in kindergarten and limit it in early primary years. Asked whether this could delay the development of essential skills such as writing, independence and time management, Zammit pointed to research suggesting that early literacy is primarily developed through reading and conversation rather than repetitive writing exercises.
He noted that many high-performing European countries delay formal writing instruction until later stages, arguing that early exposure to language through interaction is more effective.
Zammit admitted that disparities in home environments present a significant challenge. He argued that the solution lies in earlier intervention and stronger support systems for families, rather than increasing homework. Initiatives aimed at strengthening links between schools and communities are intended to provide support to families and address gaps before they widen. Zammit agreed that such inequalities are difficult to eliminate entirely, meaning differences in attainment may persist regardless of policy changes. He emphasised that the broader education strategy aims to mitigate these disparities as early as possible.
The policy encourages parental support but emphasises that students should complete their work independently, increasing the likelihood that parents step in to help their children in the more creative tasks. Zammit acknowledged this issue but argued that it is not new and was already present under the pervious system. He suggested that simply maintaining the existing system would not resolve the problem.
Asked how standards will be maintained across schools and not vary standards depending on individual teachers, Zammit acknowledged that the policy relies heavily on professional judgment but said it will be supported through training, monitoring and ongoing feedback. He said that the policy will continue to be refined based on input from educators, students and parents. Existing quality assurance mechanisms, including school reviews, will also play a role in monitoring implementation.
Zammit framed the policy within a broader shift in education, arguing that traditional approaches to homework may no longer align with the demands of a rapidly changing world.
“Many of the skills you learn today will become obsolete,” he said, highlighting the importance of equipping students with adaptable, transferable skills such as critical thinking and independent learning. Asked whether this shift risks neglecting the academic rigour required for higher education, where workloads are often intensive and less flexible, Zammit maintained that the policy does not abandon these expectations but introduces them progressively, ensuring that students develop the necessary skills over time.
While the National Homework Policy has been welcomed by some as a step towards improving student wellbeing and engagement, it has also sparked significant debate across Malta’s education sector. Supporters argue that it addresses long-standing concerns about stress, inefficiency and inequality, while critics warn that it may unintentionally lower standards and leave students underprepared for future academic and professional demands.
Zammit said he remains confident that the reform will achieve its intended outcomes if implemented effectively. “We want homework to be valued,” he said. “It has to carry a purpose.”
RSS Feed Source: Independent Malta Malta’s new homework policy prioritises quality over quantity, but concerns over standards persist