Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 219)
WEDNESDAY 14 DECEMBER 2005
ANGELA E SMITH
MP, MR DAVID
WOODS AND
MS JACQUI
MCLAUGHLIN
Q200 Mr Fraser: But when you look
at the Costello report it actually says that all-ability intake
may impact on the achievements of higher ability pupils and more
able pupils may not be stretched fully. As Costello's advice has
been accepted in everything else, why have you made an exception
in this case?
Angela Smith: I do not think we
have. I am not sure all schools will be all-ability schools, although
I have to say that some grammar schools are becoming all-ability
schools now as a consequence of falling rolls. Last year[3]
we saw grammar schools taking 4% and then last year it got to
9% of children admitted with Cs and Ds. The do-nothing option
is to see all-ability schools. What Costello and the proposals
for the pupil profile show is teachers making the assessment over
the period of that child's time in a primary school, parents using
that information to make a choice about what kind of education,
what school best suits the young person. I do not think all schools
will be mixed ability schools; the driver on choice will be the
kind of curriculum being offered by the school. You are aware
that the curriculum will be one third academic, one third vocation
and technical and one third will be for the school to choose what
best suits the kind of school it wants to be. That will be the
driver for parents choosing the best school for the needs of their
child and within schools they can set and stream.
Q201 Mr Fraser: You claim you want
to preserve the excellent standards achieved by grammar schools,
but then you want to abolish academic selection. Perhaps it is
just me, but I am not clear from what you have told us so far
how your objective is achieved if academic selection disappears.
Could you very briefly explain it again to me? Perhaps I am foggy
on it, but I cannot see that you have actually answered that.
Angela Smith: At the moment every
school in Northern Ireland teaches the same curriculum in the
same way. Under the new proposals there will be the opportunity
for schools to vary, have more flexibility around the curriculum
and in the way it is taught as well. It will not be for me to
tell teachers how to teach a subject. The schools who want to
have a more academic ethos have an academic curriculum and that
will attract parents who want their children to have that academic
excellence. I want to add a little word of warning, that it would
be unfair to say that the only schools in Northern Ireland which
achieve academic excellence for their pupils are the grammar schools.
There are several very, very good secondary schools which do not
have selection. Particularly with falling rolls, the other post-primary
schools which are not grammar schools do not have a choice in
the pupils they take and some of the results from those are equally
excellent. At the moment you will find, and it will continue,
that grammar schools are taking an increasingly mixed intake:
88% of grammar schools took children with Cs and Ds last year.
Q202 Mr Fraser: If, as you are saying,
grammar schools can have an amount of academically orientated
curriculum, in effect they are being denied a voice in identifying
the pupils who would benefit most from that curriculum.
Angela Smith: Because it is not
the schools who are making the choice any more. The proposal would
be for the parents to make the choice. The parents would consult
the schools and it is up to parents, if they wish to discuss with
the staff of the school whether that is the best route for their
child, to do so. Grammar schools are not just about who they admit.
If they were, they would not be admitting Cs and Ds in many schools
now, because that would not suit their ethos. It would be the
range of opportunities offered, the curriculum offered, parents
would be making that choice. What we have at the moment is a number
of young people who at the age of 11 have one shot over two days
of exams and that decides which route they take. What I am saying
is that there is a choice for parents to make for their children
at age 11; there is also a choice to be made at age 14 when they
choose the subjects they study. We are not cutting off options
for young people at age 11; we are opening those up and then there
is further choice at age 14 around the new curriculum.
Q203 Mr Fraser: How do you answer
the charge that the abolition of academic selection results in
a decrease in social mobility?
Angela Smith: It would have to
be proved to me that academic selection in itself provides an
increase in social mobility and it does not. No evidence has been
presented to me which shows that removing it decreases that. I
know that there are some good examples of people who have gone
into grammar school, but I am quite upset that only 5% of kids
on the Shankill in three years ever got a shot at a grammar school
place. I do not believe that 95% of kids on the Shankill are not
competent or able to have an academic education. They are; they
can achieve, but they are not getting the opportunity for various
reasons. I know you have also met the Shankill principals and
I have met the Shankill principals and I have visited schools
on the Shankill. They say that this is a discussion which does
not really affect them, that their kids are not even getting to
take the 11-plus. Some of them may achieve later on, but at 11-plus
they are not ready to make that decision for their future. I have
also visited and met with principals of secondary schools, post-primary
schools which have a non-selective intake, and they have young
people coming to them who have not taken the 11 lus selection
exam, or who have Cs or Ds, who are going on to do degrees. I
do not accept that the only way for social mobility is through
a selection exam, academic selection at the age of 11.
Q204 Chairman: It is incumbent upon
us to be fair to our witnesses. When the grammar school group
came before us, they were at pains to say that they were not there
to advocate the retention of the 11-plus as it currently exists.
There seemed to be no support for that at all, whether they were
lining up behind Costello or not. What they were adamant in saying
to us was that a form of academic selection was necessary and
they were suggesting that computerised adaptive testing, a special
computer-based profile, offered a surer and a better way forward
than what was proposed in Costello. It does not seem to me that
in your answers to Mr Fraser, or indeed to anybody else, that
has been faced up to.
Angela Smith: I am sorry you have
that view. I think you are talking about Dr Morrison's evidence.
I was a little bit disappointed with Dr Morrison's evidence to
you, which misrepresented what the pupil profiles do. The point
I made earlier was that when he says pupils were making their
own assessments and that of others, that does not happen. There
is some merit in what Dr Morrison says. It is disappointing that
Dr Morrison never approached the Department directly or CCEA who
are developing the pupil profiles and piloting them, because there
is some merit and we should welcome the opportunity to discuss
that. I received copies of his papers, not directly but from others
who helpfully gave them to me. They are quite technical. I think
he is under a misapprehension about some of the work of the pupil
profiles and that is why I passed them on to CCEA for them to
make an assessment. He is right on the computer assessment tools
and they have been incorporated into pupil profiles. You need
that rigour and robustness of pupil profiles. Computer adaptive
tests can give very valid and reliable outcomes and I think they
help prove the consistency of teacher assessment. One of the things
we need to do, if parents are making an assessment of the future
educational route of their child, is ensure they are be able to
make an informed choice. I should agree with him on the computer
assessment tools.
Q205 Mr Fraser: Whatever is adopted
in terms of the pupil profile, are you determined to meet international
standards of validity and reliability?
Angela Smith: I am not aware that
there is an international standard, but there will be standards
of reliability. These are professional judgments being made by
professional teachers. We are confident that the relationship
between the teacher giving the information to the parents each
year, really replacing the annual report with the pupil profile—it
will include class work, teacher observation—is reliable
and robust. It is not a replacement for a selection tool. It is
important to note that it is a different kind of assessment. It
is not replacing the transfer tests; it is a kind of assessment.
We are confident that it is robust and can give the information
that parents need to make an informed choice.
Q206 Mr Fraser: There seems to be
a determination to impose the fundamental elements of the comprehensive
system in Northern Ireland. That is the charge which has been
laid. It goes against the wish of the people in Northern Ireland
when you look at the statistics. The Prime Minister and the Secretary
of State for Education Ruth Kelly are currently trying to mitigate
the consequences of that failure elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
How do you balance that?
Angela Smith: I do not agree with
your assessment of that.
Q207 Chairman: I did not think you
would.
Angela Smith: I listened carefully
and I am sure you appreciate that the point has been made to me
on more than one occasion. We are not imposing the kind of comprehensive
system you are talking about, the one-size-fits-all comprehensive
system. That is one of the difficulties. You interjected and I
have to respond to that. With respect, it is one of the difficulties
of what is a very complex issue, a change in the curriculum, a
change in the transfer process, which cannot in a nutshell just
be about the end of academic selection. It is not just about academic
selection, it is about a completely different kind of educational
system which challenges every child, gets the best out of every
child. The pupil profiles are very important in that. In terms
of academic selection, both the Secretary of State for Education
and the Prime Minister made it very clear in Prime Minister's
Questions in the Secretary of State's statements to the House
that the White Paper in England is not a return to academic selection.
I cannot remember the exact quote from Ruth Kelly but she made
it very, very clear in numerous speeches she has made and as recently
as last week—
Q208 Stephen Pound: Not by the front
door, not by the back door and not by the trap door.
Angela Smith: That was it. Even
last week the Prime Minister again reiterated that there is no
return to academic selection in England. The fact is that the
proposals put forward in the White Paper in England, particularly
in terms of banding, are trying to increase "comprehensivisation"
in England. What we are saying is that we need to change the curriculum
in Northern Ireland to be more responsive to future needs and
to the economy and we need to have a better way of deciding how
young people move from primary to post-primary.
Q209 Sammy Wilson: In your submission
to the Committee on this particular issue, a number of things
do require some explanation. First of all you talk about the widening
profile in the grammar schools as though this were something grammar
schools were deliberately pursuing. Is it not a fact that the
Department set the criterion that if someone applies for a grammar
school place below an A grade or a B grade and there are places
available, they are obliged to take those people and if the Department
wants that changed the Department can change it, but it has consistently
refused to do so.
Angela Smith: I am not apportioning
blame; it is not a matter of blame, it is a matter of fact. As
numbers overall in the post-primary sector decline and are set
to decline more there are more applications to grammar schools
and they will take a wider range of intake. That is a matter of
fact not blame. It has gone up and this year was 9% Cs and Ds;
it was 4% last [4]year,
so you can see that increasing. That is why I say, if you are
talking about changing the profile of grammar schools, that it
will happen by default if nothing is done. You say that grammar
schools are obliged: they are not actually obliged. A grammar
school can apply to the Department if it feels that a grammar
school education would be detrimental to the education of that
child; the grammar school can apply to not take that particular
child if the education in the school would be detrimental. This
year only three grammar schools made that application and 15[5]
pupils were refused admission to grammar schools on that basis.
A grammar school is not obliged to take a child if he or she would
not benefit from grammar school education.
Q210 Sammy Wilson: I was hoping you
would give me the answer you have given me. If you follow your
logic on this, and given what you have said in paragraph 8 of
your submission to us that "Grammar schools are currently
seen as the preferred choice of many parents and the combination
of this and falling pupil numbers is having the effect of "
and you list a number of things, is it therefore not logical to
suggest that, given the proposals which we have, contained in
this draft document, that process is going to accelerate because
the popular schools, whether we like it or not, are grammar schools,
and if there is an open-door policy, that is exactly what you
are going to get. Therefore it defies logic to say later on in
the document that grammar schools are not being abolished and
comprehensive schools are not being imposed, because you are going
to have a wider range of academic ability and the grammar school
ethos will be lost and a wider range of academic ability, if you
have all-ability comprehensive schools.
Angela Smith: Two points: one
point is about the curriculum. At the moment every single post-primary
school in Northern Ireland has the same curriculum taught the
same way. If you want an academic curriculum you can go to any
of the schools, but the grammar schools have more of a reputation
for academic excellence. What we are talking about is changing
that curriculum so that there will be different kinds of curricula
in different schools. Every school will be one third academic,
one third technical and vocational and one third of the curriculum
will be chosen by the school to match the school ethos. It may
well be better in the interests of a more vocational pupil, one
who has an aptitude in a different way, to apply to a school which
is not the more academic kind of school. So it is about the curriculum.
It is also about the relationship which the parent will have with
the primary school to best meet their child's needs in their secondary
school. For some children that will of course be more academic;
for others it will be more vocational, but every child, whatever
school they are at, will have the opportunity to do academic and
vocational courses.
Q211 Dr McDonnell: You mentioned
the child in the Shankill Road and that is something which has
perhaps been glossed over in a lot of our discussion at times.
I congratulate you on the good work you have done in education
in Northern Ireland but my deep concern is what we can do and
what you can see being done for the child who has not achieved,
for the disadvantaged areas. I see it essentially mainly for disadvantaged
Protestant areas. You mentioned the Shankill there and there are
others as well which are not exclusively on that side of the divide,
but the worst black spots appear to be concentrated in places
like the Shankill. Where do you see the education system and the
changes making a difference for those children? I think the inclination
of what you said was that it was all above their heads and some
of them felt it did not even relate to them.
Angela Smith: I think you are
quite right in that. This is not something which education alone
can resolve. If we were to say that the education system on its
own can deal with social disadvantage, education disadvantage,
it cannot; it has to be done across government. The Secretary
of State today announced the budget and the children and young
persons' package in that budget places £28 million next year
and £33 million the year after for improving the life chances
of children and young people. Part of that will be building on
the work we have done around education action zones, rather than
just having two education action zones in each Board area, rolling
across Northern Ireland in areas of particular need the enhanced
provision, the wrap-around provision extended to schools, SureStart,
after-school clubs, breakfast clubs and that kind of wider provision
across government supporting the education system and that funding
goes forward to support that; £28 million next year and £33
million the year after. It is very much looking at an integrated
delivery from education, from health, from social development
working together where the need is to improve the life chances
and the educational opportunities of young people in the more
deprived areas.
Q212 Dr McDonnell: Do you have much
confidence that there will be a positive outcome?
Angela Smith: Yes; I do think
it is the way forward and the way to deal with the issue. I have
met with heads in these areas, I have visited the schools and
I think they are doing a tremendous job. I really admire the work
they are doing in very difficult circumstances. You will have
spoken to some of the heads and visited some of the schools, but
in circumstances which are more challenging probably than any
teacher in this country faces. They need additional support and
one of the things which struck me in speaking to them was, for
example, if a child needs speech therapy it often means the child
has to be taken to a speech therapist and that is delivered somewhere
outside the school. Why can we not do that in the school for the
kids who need it? Why can we not provide a breakfast club in the
school where the children may not get the food they need before
they come to school? Why not have an after-school club at that
school which will keep children so they can do their homework
in school and receive extra support. If we have that wrap-around
provision, then I really believe we can make a difference to those
young people. It is not just saying that it is the less able;
very often it is children who are very able but do not have the
opportunities to fulfil their potential. A fund of £28 million
sounds like a lot of money, but it is really a pilot to see how
this works. If we can really get government working together across
departments to make a difference for young people, then we start
to break down the kind of issues and concerns we have about young
people not achieving.
Q213 Mr Anderson: May I take you
back to the education action zones? We asked the people from Belfast
area partnerships about them and in their view they were announced
but nothing further happened. Is that a fair comment?
Angela Smith: It is but the announcement
today will help. It was not that nothing happened; perhaps everyone
was not kept as well informed as they should have been. A lot
of work was undertaken: £2 million was made available to
each Board area to bring forward plans. Two costed proposals for
each area were to be given to the Department. Looking at that
now, it has been overtaken by this new fund which the Secretary
of State announced finally today in the Budget; it was announced
in the draft Budget a few weeks ago. So we can now extend the
benefits from those areas much wider than we would have done otherwise.
From today we can go back to schools and give more information
out, after the final budget announcement was made today.
Q214 Chairman: Will they still be
called education action zones?
Angela Smith: Probably not; we
might not call them that. It does not really matter particularly
what we call them.
Q215 Chairman: A degree of consistency
and intelligibility is always commendable in government.
Angela Smith: And possibly wishful
thinking sometimes. Cynicism in one so young. What will be achieved
will be that the outcomes will be very consistent with education
action zones, but it will be wider than the two proposals we would
have looked at for each Education and Library Board area.
Q216 Mr Anderson: Just to be clear,
did anything actually happen? Did anybody go in, because they
do not say they did?
Angela Smith: Yes, £2 million
was earmarked and was put in and the Boards have had staff in
place working up proposals. It is just that it came to us that
we could do more, so the proposal was to have two in each Board
area, but, with the announcement of new money, we can do more
and extend it further.
Q217 Chairman: Our witnesses told
us that nothing happened for three years. You have effectively
confirmed that.
Angela Smith: Work was ongoing
at Board level, as I understand it.
Q218 Chairman: Come on.
Angela Smith: A level of bureaucracy
which can give money direct to schools would be more effective.
Chairman: Mr Anderson has highlighted
a very important point. Do you want to pursue it any more?
Q219 Mr Anderson: I do, because it
links into the whole feeling we had when we were over there that
this was a most depressing time because people just felt hopeless.
We asked about Costello and we really pressed them on this and
people said the truth was that it meant nothing to them, it would
not change what was happening to their children. That has to be
an indictment. How will it help them?
Angela Smith: One of the things
is the package I have mentioned of £28 million and £33
million. The other one is having a much better policy on sustainable
schools in the longer term.
3 Correction from Minister: [delete last year and
insert] In 1998-99 Back
4
Correction from Minister: [delete last year and insert] five
years ago Back
5
Correction from Minister: 12 Back
| 
