The 12-Page Chapter: Correcting a Textbook on Malta's Accession
Form 4 (Year 10) history teachers are reviewing a draft 12-page textbook chapter, 'Malta in Europe, 1987–2004', before it goes to the syllabus panel. The chapter contains three statements. (A) 'Malta joined the European Union on 1 May 2004, ending the division of Europe and completing European unification.' (B) 'Because the Constitutional Treaty was rejected, the Lisbon Treaty was imposed instead; it now lets EU citizens elect the President of the European Commission by direct vote.' (C) 'Malta's 2003 referendum was a close call, with 53.6% voting yes on a turnout of 91%.' A 25-mark essay question asks students to 'assess how joining the EU changed Maltese sovereignty'. The head of department thinks (A) and (B) are 'close enough' and that only (C) needs a footnote. A parent has complained that the chapter is 'pro-EU propaganda'. The panel meets in ten days.
1. Evaluate statements (A) and (B) as history for a 15-year-old. Identify the specific errors and explain why each would cost marks in the 25-mark essay.
Read the worked answer
(A) contains two errors. 'Ending the division of Europe' overstates one accession: the Cold War division ended in 1989–91, and 2004 was the largest enlargement but not the last (2007 and 2013 followed). 'Completing European unification' is teleological - it assumes a single finished destination for a project that remains contested.
(B) contains three errors. The Constitutional Treaty was signed in 2004 and rejected in French and Dutch referendums in 2005; it was not 'imposed'. Lisbon (signed 2007, in force 2009) kept much of its substance but was an amending treaty, ratified by each member state under its own rules, including Ireland's second referendum in 2009. Commission presidents are not directly elected: the European Council proposes a candidate and Parliament elects by majority; the 'Spitzenkandidaten' practice since 2014 is convention, not law.
Why it matters for 25 marks: the question asks students to 'assess', which requires weighing evidence. A student who builds an argument on a false premise cannot reach the evaluation band, however fluent the writing. Misdated causation is the single most expensive error in an essay of this type.
2. Rewrite the framing of Malta's accession and the 2003 referendum so the chapter is accurate and defensible against the parent's complaint, without becoming hostile to the EU. Explain your choices.
Read the worked answer
Frame accession as a contested decision rather than a coronation. Open with the 2003 referendum - 53.6% yes on 91% turnout - and the 1996–2003 freeze, so students see that the outcome was close rather than foreordained. Then present the arguments used by both camps (sovereignty, neutrality, fisheries, structural funds) and ask students to judge which fears materialised and which did not.
Handle sovereignty analytically rather than rhetorically. Distinguish pooled sovereignty (trade, fisheries, competition policy) from retained competence (direct taxation requires unanimity; defence and education remain largely national) and require one concrete example of each. That turns 'changed sovereignty' into a question with criteria instead of a slogan.
Add a short section treating euroscepticism as a legitimate position within European politics, and a source exercise using one pro- and one anti-accession leaflet from the campaign.
This answers the parent: the chapter presents evidence and competing arguments and asks students to evaluate, rather than issuing a verdict. It also prepares them for the 25-mark essay, which rewards precise chronology and balance.