Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 111)
MONDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2005
MR DONAL
FLANAGAN, MR
JIM CLARKE
AND MS
MARGARET MARTIN
Q100 Sammy Wilson: You talk about
the sixth form level. How many people would be involved in moving
from one school to another currently within your system?
Ms Martin: You mean in our consortium
arrangements with St Patrick's Grammar School?
Q101 Sammy Wilson: How many pupils
would be involved in that?
Ms Martin: We are talking of between
20 and 30.
Q102 Sammy Wilson: Is that not significant?
What Costello was talking about was perhaps a consortium which
would have to facilitate up to 27 subjects where from GCSE level
onwards you would have maybe that movement. It is one thing to
manage 20 pupils out of your 1,050, but is it not another thing
to manage a consortium arrangement which involves people moving
from GCSE right through to A-level and having to spend a third
of their time probably out of school?
Ms Martin: My colleague is very
keen to come in on that. Currently we have almost 27 subjects
at sixth form level in any case.
Q103 Sammy Wilson: Yes, but you are
a large school and in many rural areas you are not going to have
that. In fact, you are going to have maybe more than third of
the subjects having to be taught in other schools.
Mr Clarke: Can I, as an aside
to Gordon Banks, say that in my experience in north Belfast we
did bring the FE college in to deliver in the school at Key Stage
4 and there are other schools that do that. Sammy is right, but
really what he is hitting at here is the issue of demographics
as well as the practicalities of organising schools. One of the
things which has bedevilled this post-primary debate is the notion
that every school will stay the same. The fact is that demographics
are kicking in here big time and, while the previous group may
have wished to challenge that, even if they are right a little
bit the simple fact of life is that we are losing 10% of the 2002
enrolment by 2010; by 2015 we are down 16% and by 2041 we are
down 26%. That is a quarter of the entire school-going population
at the age of 11-16. Even if we have got it a percentage or two
wrong we are into significant demographic downturn. We are not
in the business of closing schools, nor are we in the business
of keeping schools open where children are not accessing choice
which is motivating to them. You will see in St Gabriel's and
some other schools that there are choices of maybe one or two
subjects post-14. That is the reality. You are right that people
moving from one area to another is not necessarily the way that
all these arrangements can be delivered. I have enclosed with
your papers Appendix 7, Sir Patrick, which identifies at one point
theoretical delivery models which include (I have put them into
five different groups) a single 11-19 school on a single site,
a single managed school on several sites with options for 11-14,
14-19 and all kinds of collaborations in between. I have also
suggested models which look at some schools specialising in whatever
area is agreed with the group within the particular area, and
we have also looked at other more imaginative models which would
include things like seven to 14, or four to 14 models of various
federations, and part of that is to reflect both the demographics
and the fact that Northern Ireland is a rural community. One of
the issues which we addressed in Costello was the fact that a
child living in Beleek, Fermanagh, was entitled to have the same
access to choice as a child living in Belfast. That is essentially
the underpinning logic of the 24 and 27. Also within the 24 and
27 there is the notion that one third should be copper-fastened
academic, one third should be copper-fastened vocational, and
that was to respond to the needs of individual children to have
an education which motivated them.
Chairman: And what about very special
children?
Q104 Mr Hepburn: What benefits or
otherwise do you think specialist schools can bring to the education
system, bearing in mind that a specialist school does entail an
element of selection?
Mr Clarke: We in CCMS have not
supported the specialist schools project which is currently being
run in Northern Ireland, largely because we saw it built on an
English model which was primarily a school improvement model.
However, we do see the logic of specialisms emerging within schools
but those specialisms we believe need to be drawn by that particularly
community and they need to be part of the system which is reflecting
the economic profile of that area, or at least the aspiring economic
profile of that area. We would not necessarily feel that we should
be predetermining what the specialism is and the way forward.
We believe that a local discussion needs to take place to identify
what areas of specialism would interest the pupils, would interest
the schools in terms of delivery, and would interest the employers
in terms of supporting them.
Q105 Mr Hepburn: What about the question
of selection, because obviously it entails an element of selection?
Mr Clarke: It depends. On the
model that we are proposing we believe that the choice element
is internal and that, while you might have an element of specialism
within one part of the school, you can supplement that, as is
the case in England, with a much broader education. Let us be
clear: in England specialism accounts for only about 10% of the
curriculum and the mechanism to provide a means of children choosing
that is one of the complicating factors of the admissions criteria
debate in England. We do not believe that it is necessary to have
that complication. We believe that the specialism should respond
to the market need in a particular area. Indeed, part of our thinking
in terms of how schools are funded is about maybe having elements
which allow areas, particularly newly developed curricular areas,
to be promoted within the formula.
Q106 Lady Hermon: How would you describe
the relationship between CCMS and the Department of Education?
Is it a good working relationship? Is it a close working relationship?
Mr Flanagan: I had better say
it is a good working relationship. It is a good working relationship.
It is in no-one's interest to have anything other than that it
is a good working relationship. There is challenge, there is debate.
We do not always agree. Sometimes the department convince us of
the error of our ways and vice versa. It is very much part
of the centralised/localised dimension. We have been involved
with the department and with the Education and Library Boards
for a long period of time and in every area that we work in to
find post-primary solutions we will involve the Education and
Library Board, we will involve NICIE, we will involve CNED, we
will involve the voluntary grammar and the FE sector because they
all have a voice in there.
Q107 Lady Hermon: Specifically, if
I could narrow it down to the response on the Costello Report,
and I ask that particularly because the previous set of witnesses
gave a very clear indication to the committee that they had not
had a welcome on the mat from the Department of Education when
they had asked for meetings, has it been the opposite for CCMS?
Mr Flanagan: No, it has not been
the opposite for CCMS, and CCMS has struggled more than any other
body in Northern Ireland to get the funding that it needs to do
the work.
Q108 Chairman: The question is not
about funds.
Mr Flanagan: The question is about
relationship. The word that we get back from the department repeatedly
over the years, and this is our real criticism of how we operate
in Northern Ireland, is that presentationally it has been difficult
to allow CCMS to grow.
Mr Clarke: We have had significant
difficulties with the Department of Education. We have had this
now since 26 January 2003. The amount of progress that we have
made on implementing Costello in our view is not satisfactory.
We believe that communication of information strategy has been
lacking and we have made this point to the department on a number
of occasions. We have had much more difficulty getting meetings
with ministers than the GBA, particularly in relation to the previous
Minister, where the GBA seemed to have ready access to the Minister.
We have been very frustrated in our relationship with the department
and very frustrated in encouraging the department to work on the
policy which is government policy. We continue to have that experience
today.
Q109 Lady Hermon: Even with the present
Minister?
Mr Clarke: I think the present
Minister has at least made a very clear statement that selection
is ending. We have not been absolutely certain of that until three
or four weeks ago when the Secretary of State made the comment
and I think that is significant.
Q110 Chairman: It is not an announcement
that would be welcome in every quarter, of course.
Mr Clarke: But it is government
policy.
Q111 Meg Hillier: The Review of Public
Administration was naming the new proposals last week. I was wondering
if you had a quick comment about how you felt the proposed single
education board would make a difference to the future of education
in Northern Ireland. It is something which we should have asked
our previous witnesses.
Mr Flanagan: I suppose if ever
there was a time for it to come this would not be the right time
because there are two major changes of agenda on the books. One
is in terms of the new curricular change and the second one is
post-primary review. We cannot set everything aside and wait to
get the structures in place before we can move forward with these.
The new curriculum needs to be embedded within the next three
years. The post-primary review is already under way and should
continue apace. Structures have a great habit of, if you like,
dissipating energies because people begin to look at their own
future and their own jobs. There is a job in education. We have
said to the Department of Education that that is our agenda and
we will wish to continue with this even though the RPA will attract
some of our energies over this period of time.
Chairman: We are going to draw this to
a close now because we are going to visit some schools and we
will be visiting a school of which you used to be head.
Thank you very much indeed for your evidence.
You, Margaret Martin, clearly are head of a school that we really
ought to try and visit at some stage and I would welcome that
opportunity personally and I am sure colleagues would.
Lady Hermon: It is a very good girls'
school.
Chairman: We are aware it is a girls'
school. You see, I even get heckled by members of the committee.
We are very grateful to you. Could I make the same point that
I made to witnesses earlier this morning, that if there are any
points you wish to amplify if there is anything that you feel
we should have asked you about please let our Clerk know and we
will take everything into account. We are seeing the Minister
on 14 December so it would be helpful to have any additional submissions
fairly sharply, but if you could do that we would be grateful.
You will, of course, be receiving a transcript of your evidence
and if you have any corrections to make please let our Clerk know
and that evidence will in due course be published. Thank you very
much indeed.
| 
