Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
MONDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2005
MR DONAL
FLANAGAN, MR
JIM CLARKE
AND MS
MARGARET MARTIN
Q80 Chairman: And presumably the
rigour of the tests that they apply?
Ms Martin: I am not talking about
testing in terms of choice here. I am talking about young people
in the first three years of their post-primary education being
schooled to enable them to begin to see a general direction in
which their life might go.
Q81 Chairman: But there has to be
some form of testing of ability presumably, however you do it.
Ms Martin: That currently happens
at the end of Key Stage 3 in any case. I do not necessarily see
that as the most important factor in determining the choices that
the young people will make. I think we have to look much more
closely at the kind of diet that our schools make available post-14.
That is why I would be supporting the whole notion of the vocational
courses having parity of esteem with our current perhaps more
traditional courses.
Sammy Wilson: Donal, I am glad to hear
that your representatives have talked about not changing particular
schools or types of school systems. We would be interested at
some other stage to hear their response to RPA which I think contradicts
that statement on the changes under the administration and the
role for CCMS, but we will come to that maybe another day with
the representatives from CCMS. Can I come back to your test of
a good system, one of the things I would have assumed must have
the confidence of the people it is going to serve? All of the
indications so far, both in the actions which you have taken in
CCMS and in the surveys done by the Government, a survey which
over a quarter of a million people responded to, are that 66%
of parents and teachers have opposed the Costello changes. Indeed,
we heard from Mr Young this morning that many Catholic parents
are opting, because they want a grammar school education, to go
to Methody, Inst, BRA, all of which have got over 30% of their
school population as Catholics even though they are perceived
as Protestant schools. Indeed, I noticed that when you talked
about the amalgamation in Armagh you did not amalgamate the grammar
school with the secondary school; you amalgamated the secondary
school with the grammar school, which may well explain why people
did not feel short-changed by the amalgamation, by the way. You
have talked about choice and you have talked about the sovereignty
of parents. How do you answer that?
Q82 Chairman: Let us give him a chance
to answer.
Mr Flanagan: There are very few
parents in Armagh who would be critical of the system. The only
people who are critical of the system in Armagh are those parents
of boys who have not got the same privilege for their boys as
they have for their girls. That is a fact. Similarly, in other
areas, such as St Patrick's, Keady, in south Armagh, where there
is no selection, very few parents in that particular area leave
that area to have their children educated. When we undertook a
major reorganisation in Strabane we met with everybody in that
town over a period of four days. We had 31 objections out of a
total population of over 2,000 children to that particular proposal.
Q83 Sammy Wilson: You are keeping
a grammar school element in the Strabane amalgamation of schools.
Mr Flanagan: We did not ever say
that we would not. We have never ever said within CCMS that we
wanted to get rid of grammar schools. We want to build on the
very best of schools. Our grammar schools have done an excellent
job. Our post-primary secondary schools in a amore difficult situation
have done an outstanding job, and our primary schools overall
have done an extraordinary job. We have a very good system of
education in Northern Ireland where parents buy in very highly
to that particular system of schools. In any area where we have
been involved in reorganisation there has been a high level of
parental support and commitment to that particular project. Our
process in terms of finding the way forward in relation to post-primary
reform is first and foremost to address communities. We have not
sought and we will not seek to go out with answers to everyone.
We will find the answers which local people will support.
Q84 Sammy Wilson: All of them to
date have either included, in the case of Armagh, amalgamating
the secondary school with the grammar school so the grammar school
is kept or, as in Strabane, having a grammar school element.
Mr Flanagan: Is there something
wrong with that?
Q85 Sammy Wilson: No, but the Costello
proposals are designed to destroy any element of selection. Can
you tell me then how you keep the ethos of a school which has
got an academic thrust to it if you do not in some way have some
indicator of a person's academic ability?
Mr Clarke: Every school has an
academic ethos. What we are saying is that how we interpret that
needs to be broadened for the 21st century. What we do not need
is a narrowness based on what was good in the past and I think
we have to recognise that the grammar school system was good at
its time. It did create opportunities but it has now created further
social differentiation in Northern Ireland. Some people would
claim that the latter has been pulled up and some communities
have lost out in that process. You personally have spoken to us
about the opportunity that the transfer gave to some children
in areas that you know well, and we accept that, but we ask the
question: what about those for whom the transfer did not provide
that opportunity? What are they left with? What we are saying
is that everyone has abilities. What we have to do is harness
those abilities and build on the strengths. There is nothing in
Costello, nor is there anything in any proposal that CCMS have
made, to diminish the academic. What we are saying is that we
should expand and include and allow some of those children deemed
to be academic to extend and have options the same as everyone
else to areas that are vocational, which will be motivating to
them as individuals. I think it is worth noting that research
carried out by NFER (the National Foundation for Educational Research)
on behalf of the Council for Curriculum and Assessment, which
was a cohort study following children in all sectors of education
through their time at school and asking them what the experience
they had was, found that it was a very negative experience in
the majority of cases. They talked about a curriculum which was
overloaded with knowledge and content and very little on practical
learning. They talked about subjects which motivated and interested
them not being supported because they were not deemed to be academic
in certain schools. They talked about the fact that the learning
experience was limiting in many respects. To be fair, some of
them, on reflection, once they had seen the benefits of their
education system, were slightly more positive about it, but that
was the experience at the time and I think we have to recognise
that.
Ms Martin: Sammy, just to respond
to you, this is not about the death knell of the grammar system
in the north of Ireland; this is about focusing on the 21st century
and providing schools which meet the needs of the 21st century.
From all the research that we have, and we can all quote research
until the cows come home, it is clear that our education system
does not meet the needs of the 21st century. We have got to make
changes. That is the first point. The second point is that we
have to value all of our young people equally. The history of
our education system over the last 50 years has shown that, sadly,
we have not done that. The challenge for us is to find a way forward
to enable all of our young people to be valued equally in schools
which are focused on high levels of attainment for everyone.
Chairman: You were trying to get my eye.
Dr McDonnell: I am generally happy enough.
The point I was trying to make earlier was to probe the question
of grammar schools. Your intention is not to damage grammar schools.
I think that has been clarified.
Chairman: Can you tell us, therefore,
if that is your intention, how you can carry that intention into
effect on the basis of Costello?
Q86 Dr McDonnell: And the second
point I might address to Margaret is the other side of Sammy's
question, Chairman, about amalgamating the secondary school into
the grammar school, with maybe some reference to St Patrick's
in Keady, which was a secondary school but which now is excelling.
Ms Martin: We can all bandy words
around, Sammy. St Catherine's College was created from two schools.
One was not grafted on to the other. It was a new entity which
had as its earlier antecedents a convent grammar school and a
convent intermediate school. It was a new entity and there was
no sense that one was grafted on to the other. New entity, new
uniform, new ethos and meeting the needs of all the girls in the
Armagh area. It was not a crafty move to gain friends because
St Catherine's College had very few friends in the 1970s, both
within the Catholic sector and without. That has been a long hard
road.
Mr Flanagan: Part and parcel of
our consultation and the basic principle that we are building
into all the consultations is that we seem to copper fasten for
every parent a pathway that they wish for their children through
the education system, be that academic, be it vocational, be it
technical or be it a number of those. What we want to do is provide
the range of choice and access to all young people to achieve
that, and I think we can accommodate that.
Q87 Chairman: So you wish to keep
the grammar schools but you just wish to change slightly the way
they get into them? Is that right?
Mr Clarke: We are using language
here which is imposed. We are talking about grammar schools and
I think we need a definition of what a grammar school is. If we
are talking about schools which select pupils on the basis of
academic ability we are not wishing to retain that system. We
want to remove selection. We want to build schools which are inclusive
and which are high quality in every aspect and which will cater
for the needs of all kinds of children. We need to bear in mind
that there has been significant research over the last 15 years
which has taught all of us in education an awful lot more about
how individuals learn and that is something we need to reflect
in our education system, not just structurally but very specifically
within classrooms.
Mr Flanagan: One of the most distinguishing
features of our grammar schools is the level of autonomy they
hold. Some of our grammar schools would say that that principle
of autonomy is much more important to them than the principle
of academic ability. In our proposals we will bring forward schools'
situations which have the same levels of autonomy as the voluntary
grammar sector.
Q88 Rosie Cooper: Returning to your
method of selection, or not selection in your case, in schools—
Ms Martin: Our intake.
Q89 Rosie Cooper:— you talked
about banding and you said you did that based on the Pupil Profile.
Is the Pupil Profile that Costello talks about exactly the system
you use?
Ms Martin: No. It would be similar.
I think the proposed Pupil Profile will expand what we currently
do. It is the notion that education is a continuum from five through,
in most instances now, to 18. For far too long in our system we
closed a door at 11 and said that whatever you did in those seven
years no longer mattered. It is building the whole notion of the
continuum, building on their strengths, building on their interests,
so that when the boy or girl arrives with us we have a sense of
their strengths, we have a sense of the areas where we need to
concentrate, so that we have a picture of their needs and are
better placed to meet those needs.
Q90 Rosie Cooper: Will that profile
be available in total to the secondary school and will there be
any great impact on the primary schools in the production of it?
Ms Martin: Yes. I think we are
going to have to build much more on the notion of trust and partnership
between the primary and the post-primary in the sense that under
the old system primary schools were quite reluctant to be seen
as making the decision as to where a young person was going to
go for their post-primary education. If we have schools which
are deemed to be equal then I think the notion of the transfer
of information will be easier.
Q91 Chairman: Do you see a place
for the computerised testing that Dr Morrison talked about? You
did not answer the question earlier.
Ms Martin: The answer is no.
Q92 Chairman: You do not like it?
Ms Martin: No, I do not like it.
I think it is cumbersome. I think it will add to work and I see
no place for it. I think this is about dialogue, this is about
transfer of information. It is not about putting in any other
kind of a test which is going in some way to hinder the learning
which takes place in the primary sector.
Mr Clarke: Can I make a comment
on this? I saw it in the presentation, that there is a fair degree
of misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the Pupil Profile.
First of all, it was not created by Costello. It was something
that the Department of Education had asked the Exams Council to
work on alongside Costello. The second thing is that the Pupil
Profile will be with the child throughout their education. It
was not specifically intended to be an instrument to replace transfer
at 11. It was there to assist the process in a non-selective environment.
Much of Dr Morrison's work seems to be about high stakes testing.
I have no difficulty with all of his assumptions and assertions
about reliability and all the rest of it. We are into a situation
where we are not into high stakes testing. The focus through the
Pupil Profile is assessment for learning as opposed to assessment
of learning. The intention was that it should guide both the pupil
(in so far as in primary school the pupil can be guided), the
parent and the teacher. It was very much a diagnostic element.
I believe that the Pupil Profile can contain evidence based on
a range of testing regimes, including computer-based testing which,
as Mr Young acknowledged, is a diagnostic. In the context of learning
for assessment the diagnostic test has a role but it is not a
summative test. It is information that can be used by teachers
and by parents to plot the educational direction of the child
to identify those areas which can be improved upon and to identify
those areas of strength which can be built upon. We need to be
clear as to the purpose of the Pupil Profile.
Q93 Lady Hermon: Would you not accept
that in fact pupil profiling will expose teachers to influence
from angry parents and put a lot of pressure on teachers? How
do they feel about that sort of pressure?
Mr Clarke: First of all, I think
it is important to recognise that any good teacher assesses and
in my experience teachers are very good at assessing. However,
if we introduce a high stakes element to it where parents' pressures
impose themselves upon children for the purpose of getting them
into one school or another, then you will find teachers not wanting
to play that game, but if the focus is on the child and identifying
what is best for the child without the intrusion of this instrument
for selective purposes, I think teachers will be in a much stronger
position to make honest assessments. It is not about pleasing
parents. It is about meeting the needs of children.
Q94 Sammy Wilson: I am not sure you
have answered the question.
Mr Clarke: I think we would say
this is a matter for the schools themselves. Let us be clear about
it. The Key Stage 3 curriculum is a common curriculum as it currently
is. It will not change. The choice element is going to be in the
14-19 range. In terms of choosing a school what parents need to
be mindful of is not the curriculum that is on offer at Key Stage
3 but the opportunities that that school, in association with
other schools or by itself, can offer their child at 14 and 16.
Mr Flanagan: Can I make a comment
in terms of Lady Herman's question? As a former primary school
teacher and former primary school head, I was in the position
of dialoguing with parents over a period of time essentially from
about P4 right through to P7 in relation to their child's abilities,
and in some cases lack of ability, or their strengths and weaknesses,
etc. I have found in all my experience as an educator that there
are very few parents who do not have a complete understanding
of their children's ability and what they wish for their children.
What we have created in the system in Northern Ireland is the
notion that one school is better than the other and obviously
every parent, when faced with that scenario, will always seek
to do what they believe to be best for their children.
Q95 Rosie Cooper: Would this Pupil
Profile be available to the parents at all times?
Mr Flanagan: Yes.
Q96 Rosie Cooper: Do you think that
would influence what the teachers would write down and we would
get into that culture of—
Mr Clarke: One of the characteristics
of the Pupil Profile is that it is a combination of a range of
testing regimes and assessment regimes that are focused on academic
areas. It is also about other areas of personal and social development
that the child would engage in. It is intended to give a rounded
picture. Part of the plus side in my view of the Pupil Profile
is that it is going to involve the parent much more in the discussion
of their child's education. The challenge for that, if I could
pick up some of the strands from earlier, is that that gives the
middle-class parent an advantage, but it only gives an advantage
if you have a selective system. What we want to do is encourage
parents to become more involved in the education of their child
throughout, not at the age of 10 going to 11 but very much so
at every stage and particularly as they reach the real decision
points at 14 and 16. We also have to recognise that a Pupil Profile
in the early years of primary education in the foundation stage
is very much a document between the parent and the teacher. As
the child grows through age 14 into 16 it becomes more of a dialogue
between the student, the teacher and the parent. We have to involve
parents and it is about transparency but it is not about absolutes.
With respect to the argument in Dr Morrison's paper about levels,
levels were never intended to be absolute. They were never supposed
to be reliable in the academic sense that Dr Morrison refers to
them. They were intended to draw evidence on performance in literacy,
in numeracy, from a wide range of sources, some of which were
quite clear testing regimes.
Q97 Gordon Banks: Margaret Martin,
you mentioned the student situation you have. I would be interested
to hear what movement there is between streams.
Ms Martin: I am very glad you
asked me that; it is very important. As I said, we have above
average, average and special needs. The partnership I spoke of
between school and home is one that we value so that at every
stage in Key Stage 3, which is a three-year cycle, we will sit
down and look at the placement of our pupils. If we find that
the level of maturity has brought about a significant progression
then we will take the opportunity to move that pupil so that there
is tremendous flexibility built into our system. That is why we
do not stream, we band, so that we have parallel bands and that
ensures that we have competition, which I think is essential,
and we do not have mixed ability but that, as young people mature
and as very often they take a leap forward, we can move within
our banding system in order to support their own progression.
Yes, that does happen and we will do that at the end of every
year and very significantly, obviously, at the end of Key Stage
3.
Q98 Gordon Banks: My other question
is about the collaborative arrangements. I have long been a supporter
of collaboration in education systems, especially involving further
education colleges, but what do you think are the practical difficulties
and disruptions that might come about from trying to collaborate
between school and further education?
Ms Martin: We have a history of
this. Since 1985 we have been involved in collaboration with what
were originally the two boys' grammar schools. We have a three-way
system going there for a sixth form consortium. It puts constraints
on us, obviously. The timetabling demands a lot of liaison. It
is possible and it is feasible and in the last number of years
we have expanded that further into the links that we have with
Armagh College of Further Education, so we already have those
collaborative links well established. In addition to that, bearing
in mind that I think education has a role to play in healing some
of the social and religious divisions that we have in our community,
we have very strong links with Armagh Royal School and also with
the City of Armagh High School. All of those are very significant.
Q99 Gordon Banks: When you talk about
the links with further education, is it one-way traffic?
Ms Martin: At the moment, yes,
it is one-way traffic, which I say with regret. We go to them.
As yet they do not come to us. That is another stage in the development
that I would like to see happen.
| 
