Examination of Witnesses (Questions 139
- 159)
MONDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2005
MR NORMAN
UPRICHARD, MR
JIM KEITH
AND MR
UEL MCCREA
Q139 Chairman: May I welcome you
and your colleagues. These sessions come about because of approaches
which the committee received at the time of its last visit six
weeks ago from the Headmaster of Belfast Royal Academy and others
concerned about the potential implications of possible forthcoming
changes in secondary education. They were very anxious to see
the committee and with no devolved Assembly in being we are the
one collective body and so we said of course they could come and
give evidence, explain their position and make submissions. Having
decided to do that we thought it only right to give others with
an interest in this subject an equal opportunity. That was why
we invited you and your colleagues and we are very glad that you
accepted the invitation. The session will be taken down in shorthand
and you will receive a transcript. You will have the opportunity
to correct any factual inaccuracies and then it will be published.
The committee may or may not choose to issue a report on this
subject but the evidence will certainly be published and we shall
without any doubt be raising points raised with us today by our
various witnesses with the Minister for Education here in Northern
Ireland, Angela Smith, when we see her on 14 December. Would you
like briefly to introduce your colleagues and, if you wish to
make an opening submission, please do so and then we can ask some
questions?
Mr Uprichard: Thank you very much
indeed, Sir Patrick. I am Norman Uprichard. I did not manage to
get through the 11-plus procedure. My secondary education was
at Ballygomartin Secondary School which served the top end of
the Shankill Road. Mr McCrea went to the old technical college
for his secondary education and Mr Keith went to a grammar school
but has been converted in recent years.
Q140 Chairman: He has not suffered
too badly!
Mr Uprichard: We would like to
thank you all for this opportunity to speak. We make it clear
that we are from the secondary controlled sector. We are not purporting
to speak for the whole sector but, as we said in the submission,
we feel that we are representing views which are widely held in
our sector. We are very conscious of the place that tradition
has in the education system in Northern Ireland and we have no
wish to put that down or be negative in the points we make. We
have a very positive view of what education should be about in
Northern Ireland and that it should incorporate all that is best
in all traditions, but it is in our view time to start some new
traditions because there is no reason why a new tradition cannot
be a good, and indeed a better, tradition. I am going to leave
it as short as that and ask Uel to say a few words.
Mr McCrea: I am Principal of a
non-selective, academically selective school, 11-18, over 1,000
students, over 65 members of staff.
Q141 Chairman: Co-educational?
Mr McCrea: Co-educational. It
is over-subscribed, it is popular. It has been over-subscribed
for several years. It is growing; we have the biggest numbers
yet. It is "successful", and I heard earlier on about
excellent schools. There is an implication sometimes that excellent
schools are equivalent to grammar schools and there are other
schools equivalent to secondary schools, but I have to say that
I am proud of the staff and the youngsters in our school. Approximately
49% of them have gained five A-star to Cs and that is in an area
where approximately 40% of the "ability range" goes
off to selective academic schools. Less than 13% have free school
meals, so there is confidence in our area, the area that I have
worked in for over 20 years. It is a small rural town with three
primary schools, two controlled, one maintained. They are the
all-ability schools in our area and parents seem very happy with
them. Then it comes to the age of 11 and children largely have
to put on two different uniforms. Families have to be split, have
to go their separate ways. There is a selective school in our
town with well over 1,000 students and ourselves. Both are large
schools. You might say at my stage of life why am I in favour
of change if all those things are so positive—and they are
positive. It is quite simple: because academic selection is wrong.
Q142 Chairman: That is your opinion.
Mr McCrea: Absolutely, because
I think we need to put children first, not institutions. We are
there to serve the needs of children, not the other way round.
Just because I have a school of a certain tradition and a successful
school does not mean to say that that means that children have
to go through the 11-plus. It devalues a sizeable majority of
children. It does not matter how hard those teachers worked with
those primary school youngsters months ago. Last Friday again,
no matter how much effort they put in, at least 40% of them will
have been regarded as Ds at the age of 10 or 11. I think it reinforces
disadvantage. I think it leads to disaffection and damages self-esteem.
It distorts the primary school curriculum. For what? What is the
reason for it? It is clearly just for a pecking order from which
a type of school can get its new entrants. Remember, it is the
same GCSEs; remember, it is the same A-levels. Interestingly enough,
some people say we need it to maintain standards. Let us look
at that argument very quickly, but there is just one thing I would
say to you. The present figures from Northern Ireland are these,
that 96% of grammar school youngsters gained five A-stars to C,
but that is with 40% of the population creamed off. In secondary
schools such as our own, if you take the top 25% of our ability
range, when you have creamed off it is 100% gaining five A-stars
to C. What I am saying quite clearly is that if it is a standards
argument we are happy to argue for it. That still does not mean
you need selection to have high standards.
Q143 Chairman: Could we please leave
it there because it was rather a long statement and colleagues
will want to ask you some questions and I will myself? Thank you
for that. What would you like to add, Mr Keith?
Mr Keith: I was interested to
hear Jackie Redpath talk about the Greater Shankill. I have taught
boys from the Shankill for the last 35 years. I have huge concerns
about the way things are going, largely because of demographic
trends. There is a falling population in the area. It is served
by two excellent secondary schools. Only 5% of the children go
to grammar schools so a lot of them would go to those secondary
schools. Because of declining numbers grammar schools are now
taking more and more children that they would not have taken in
the past and it is having an impact on the rolls of secondary
schools. The secondary sector is the only one which is suffering
because of demographic trends. It worries me because they are
going to be sink schools in the secondary sector and once that
spiral starts it is going to be more and more difficult for those
children who enter those schools to make something of themselves.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
I think I should just put on the record—it would only be
fair to do so because you made the point Mr McCrea about excellent
schools that were not grammar schools—that it was very fully
acknowledged by those from the grammar school group who came this
morning that they were not arguing that there were no other excellent
schools. All that they were arguing essentially was that they
felt there should be a form of academic selection, not the 11-plus;
they were unanimous on that, but some form of selection because
otherwise there would be a real danger of jeopardising some excellent
schools in Northern Ireland. That was essentially their case.
Yours is clearly a different one and my colleagues would like
to ask you questions.
Q144 Rosie Cooper: Welcome. You are
very strongly opposed to selection so I would like to explore
things like the Pupil Profile and what role and relevance that
has got for your admissions process: whether you want full access
to that, whether you think teachers will be in any way inhibited
by what they write, by parent pressure, that whole bit of how
you see the admissions process to your schools.
Mr Uprichard: As I said in the
submission, we recognise that there is a lot in Costello that
is very commendable and certainly we recognise what he is trying
to do when he talks about co-operation with different types of
schools across the various sectors; I know exactly what he is
getting at there. However, it does seem, to me anyway, that he
is proposing a very convoluted system here which is still justifying
selection at 11 years of age, and I have to say that I just do
not understand why we are so tied into this idea that we must
select children at 11 years of age. In fact, I fear that the proposals
for the Pupil Profile are going to put even greater strains upon
the primary schools and we are going to have an even greater distortion
of curriculum at primary schools in order again to go through
a process of selecting children so that they will pass on to the
benefit of one particular sector and to the detriment of our society
as a whole. There are enough things to divide us in Northern Ireland,
God knows. I still see it as a process of selection which is unnecessary.
Mr McCrea: What is the nature
of the Pupil Profile? What is it for? Some of our colleagues,
and I pay tribute to excellent schools; I am not knocking grammar
schools, would wish to have the Pupil Profile. Remember, the Pupil
Profile is likely to happen in the P6 year, not P7. It will be
formulated in year 6, and some would wish to use that Pupil Profile
to determine whether that child is suitable for my type of school.
I do not think that is what it is designed for. If I understand
it, the Pupil Profile is really to help parents nominate a school
with a certain ethos, yes, in harmony with their parental wishes,
but an ethos which they would feel happy with, and we in the second
level (whatever type of school) use that profile to guide us in
terms of how we are going to put on an education provision. In
other words, we are not as post-primary schools determining that
this Pupil Profile is for us. It is primarily for parental help.
Q145 Rosie Cooper: One of your colleagues
this morning suggested that the Pupil Profile would be used by
a secondary school in order to band children.
Mr McCrea: It is an interesting
concept but at the present time in an ability range such as our
own or in Jim Keith's school we would consult with our primary
school colleagues and try and find out, yes, the strengths and
areas for development, but the information that comes from primary
school is not used for banding purposes in terms of differentiating
along those lines. I think it is back to this question of what
is envisaged by the Pupil Profile and what is it used for.
Q146 Chairman: You ought to be aware
that there were two versions of the profile put before the committee
this morning. One was the Costello version. The other was the
version advocated by Dr Morrison, who was with the team that came
to argue the grammar school case, and he was arguing for a much
more scientific, computer-based profiling which would take place
over a three-year period. Are you not familiar with this?
Mr McCrea: I am aware of some
of it. I thought by implication it might give pseudo-objective
evidence upon which children were being selected.
Q147 Chairman: Let us both choose
our words carefully. You are very good at injecting epithets.
The argument to us was that this was more objective than the highly
subjective Costello, that it was less susceptible to parental
pressure and that it was more analytical and gave a better opportunity—I
think I am précising it accurately—for the perhaps
temporary setback of a child to be ignored because there would
be the opportunity to re-assess over this period.
Mr Uprichard: That may well be
the case, Sir Patrick, but nonetheless it still rides on the back
of selection at 11-plus. We seem to have this obsession here in
Northern Ireland that we have to select children at 11-plus and
split them up. In fact, and I am certainly speaking for myself
and I think for my colleagues here, I would love to see a truly
integrated education system in Northern Ireland. There are all
sorts of difficulties and it is not going to happen tomorrow or
the day after, but certainly by a generic process that is what
I would like to see. With the best of intentions, though, we have
had the introduction of integrated schools in the past number
of years which has actually put a third layer into the overall
system, where you have the grammar schools, you have the highly
motivated middle-class parents who did not get their children
into the grammar school and who see this as another way, and then
you have the secondary sector, which largely, it has to be said,
particularly in areas of Belfast, picks up the socially disadvantaged
youngsters. It is very easy then to point a finger and say it
is sink schools, but in fact we are legislating for sink schools,
particularly when we are having the demographic trends that we
are having at the moment. We did make the point in the paper that
whilst the numbers available to the secondary sector have dropped
drastically grammar schools still have the same number of children.
If the argument is that they are there to maintain academic standards
how come there have been no closures in grammar schools, because
the same number of pupils are available in the system?
Q148 Stephen Pound: Thank you very
much indeed for your submission. Thank you particularly for the
measured and tempered tone of your written submission which, although
very polite, does not disguise the passion and the depth of feeling.
Can I also say, in line with the Uprichard declaration policy,
that I was one who failed the 11-plus but got to grammar school
because I was male, because in the late 1950s, had the 11-plus
been applied objectively, every single grammar school in London
would have been all-girl, so you got extra points for being male,
which rather shows the nonsense of it. Could I pick up a point
on the household response form because you make a very powerful
case but it is clearly not a case that is being echoed out there
in the wider community? I appreciate that only 16% of the people
who received the response forms returned them, but of those who
did the very high percentage were in favour of the maintenance
of selection. Why are people like yourselves losing the argument
out there?
Mr Uprichard: There are a number
of reasons, as I have said. There is a public perception and a
tradition in Northern Ireland which feels this way. I listened
with interest to the folk who were here before us who feel that
in many cases there is a disconnection between the value of education
and the traditional attitudes which persist, particularly in working
class areas of Belfast, for the boys who went into trades and
were almost guaranteed a place in the shipyard, Mackie's or whatever.
That is one thing. The other thing is that politically the grammar
schools in Northern Ireland have had it very much their own way.
Folks have, for their own reasons, felt strongly on behalf of
the grammar schools and that was the case which was most strongly
made in the corridors of power.
Mr McCrea: Following on from that,
you take some of the myths: they are believed. For example, let
us take the myth that in Northern Ireland the A-level results
are better. That is fine; we accept that, but what they fail to
say is that that only accounts for 55%. The route through which
we get those gold standards of A-levels, is that, on the latest
figures, 55% come from selective schools; 45% come from FE and
non-selective schools. If, for example, the grammar school argument
is about gold standards, they perhaps say that and say it and
say it, and indeed some of our politicians may believe them without
necessarily asking the question, what percentage are coming from
that grammar school route? In another example, that route favours
youngsters from lower socio-economic groups. The latest figures
I have show that it is only one in four in the grammar school
sector, but 38% in the FE sector coming from lower socio-economic
groups, and about 45% of entrants into higher education coming
from lower socio-economic groups come from non-selective schools.
I think Norman is right. Perhaps we do not get the same press
coverage or we have not got ourselves organised, but on the other
hand, Chairman, I certainly as a principal would not have gone
into my teachers and handed out sheets telling them how to write
in in a survey. I would not have sent or circulated to my parents
an open letter indicating to them to write to their MP and to
send in the responses along a certain line.
Q149 Stephen Pound: Just for the
record, are you saying that you are aware of schools where that
happened, without naming the schools? It is very important that
we get that on the record.
Mr McCrea: I am absolutely certain
and I could bring the documentary evidence and I can send the
documentary evidence.
Q150 Chairman: Are you referring
to a school?
Mr McCrea: A number of schools,
more than one. I would suggest it was a lobby and I suggest that
professionally we ourselves are not trying to be squeaky-clean,
but I feel that morally and professionally I could not come to
a point where I indicated to my staff, "There is the letter.
You might wish to use it". I certainly would not write out
to my parents and indicate to them that there was a possible way
to respond.
Chairman: There is, of course nothing
improper in that and it is widely done. We are the recipients
of such epistles on a daily basis. I can think of so many campaigns
in recent years where that has been done, education included.
Anyhow, you have got it on the record and it is duly noted.
Q151 Sammy Wilson: Chairman, I have
read through the document and I have listened to Mr McCrea and,
having some personal knowledge of his school, his is actually
a selective school. I get parents sitting in my office traumatised
because their youngsters cannot get into Mr McCrea's school. Sometimes
they are turned down on the basis that they do not live in the
right place; the catchment area is not right Sometimes they are
turned down on the basis that they do not have a brother or sister
at the school. So, Mr McCrea, when you talk about a non-selective
system, you are not talking about the absence of selection. You
are talking about a certain kind of selection; is that right?
Mr McCrea: Absolutely, Chairman.
If I have misled anyone in this group I apologise. I thought I
said at the beginning that we are an over-subscribed school. Therefore,
you have to deal with over-subscription. What I am saying, however,
is that I do not have a school in which children are labelled
because they do not get into my school.
Q152 Chairman: Let us just deal with
the question: how do you select and what is the element of over-subscription?
Mr McCrea: The over-subscription
would be in the region of 20% but you have to take into account
that you are obviously trying to have a community school. If we
were moving on, and I wish we were able to move on to what is
the vision that we would like to see, I think every community
requires excellent schools and therefore we have to have a mechanism
by which, if there is over-subscription, we deal with it, but
that mechanism should not involve children being labelled.
Mr Uprichard: Chairman, can I
add to that? Mr Wilson, there are enough places in secondary schools
in Northern Ireland to do away with the need for any sort of selection.
Q153 Sammy Wilson: This is the point
I am trying to make. Your argument throughout this document, and
you have said it I think seven times, is that we should have no
selection because selection is divisive, it is traumatic, it damages
youngsters. All I am trying to say is that Mr McCrea practises
selection, the school you were formerly Principal of practises
selection. It is selection of a different sort and if you do not
go down the route for an over-subscribed school of deciding to
do this on an educational basis then you do it on a social basis
or you do it on some other kind of basis, a geographical basis
maybe, and that is as damaging as and maybe even more frustrating
than academic selection, is the point I am trying to make to you.
Mr Uprichard: You are quite right:
I was in a situation where I was at a school which was over-subscribed.
I had a different experience before that. It is not our fault
that we are told that we have to make selection. We were told
we had to select. We were told, "You have to draw up criteria
by which you are going to do that".
Q154 Sammy Wilson: How else would
you have dealt with a situation of over-subscription?
Mr Uprichard: Maybe we could move
into what we would see as the vision rather than continuing with
the argument about selection.
Q155 Sammy Wilson: You raised selection.
That is why I want to try and sort it out.
Mr Uprichard: Because we want
to move away from selection. That is what we are clearly saying:
we want to move away from selection in any form. I feel it is
totally unnecessary.
Q156 Chairman: May I just ask Mr
Keith, who has been commendably silent, possibly because of the
loquacity of his colleagues, if he would like to add something?
You, after all, Mr Keith, are head of a model school, so how do
you do it?
Mr Keith: Yes. The model school
has been around for over 150 years so we have a great deal of
tradition behind us. To be honest with you, I would give up that
tradition and give up that school for the sake of the children
because it is not institutions that are important, as Mr McCrea
said earlier; it is the children. Sammy, I have to disagree. I
think academic selection is really harmful and I deal with those
children who come to me harmed in a great way.
Q157 Sammy Wilson: It depends how
rich the parents are.
Mr Keith: There are very few rich
parents who send their children to my school, so I do not deal
with them as often. It is really traumatic for the children. We
have to rebuild their confidence. All I can say is that so many
schools do such a good job of rebuilding the confidence of those
children which has been demolished at the age of 11 and I do not
think we should have to continue to do that. I think children
should not be harmed by the process by which we select them at
the very tender age of 11.
Q158 Sammy Wilson: Apart from open
enrolment, which we have heard is very damaging, how do you avoid
selection?
Mr Keith: When you say "selection",
you are talking about all types of selection?
Q159 Sammy Wilson: Yes.
Mr Keith: I think we would look
at community and involving our community within the schools. I
think that is incredibly important, to build community schools,
and to do that you may well be going down the line of saying where
the children come from. That is one way of doing it. That is not
a way I would want to do it because a lot of my children come
from the Shankill, which is not a community where my school is
situated. They come there because they feel it is a good school
and I think children should have the opportunity to go to the
school of their choice if possible.
| 
