Written evidence (dated November 2005)
from the Grammar Principals' Group, Concerned Parents for Education,
Confederation of Grammar Schools' Former Pupils' Associations
and Governing Bodies' Association
POST-PRIMARY EDUCATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. We are grateful for the opportunity to
put before Members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee our
main concerns about the Government's proposals for post-primary
education.
2. We have no desire to retain the present
Transfer Test (the 11+). We recognise the need for change to enhance
the educational experience of many of our young people, not least
through the provision of a diversity of pathways to enable them
to develop their talents, whether academic or vocational, to the
full in schools perceived to enjoy equality in prestige and public
esteem.
3. Our objections to the policy based on
implementation of the recommendations in the Costello Report are:
(a) The proposed admissions arrangements
are flawed
The proposed system is incapable of delivering the
objective of matching pupils to schools best suited to their abilities.
(b) The Costello curriculum is unworkable
The proposed curriculum in most cases can only be
provided by collaboration between schools on a scale wasteful
of resources, teaching and financial, and will be prejudicial
to discipline, pastoral care and identity with a particular campus.
(c) Social mobility would decline
The proposed changes would decrease social mobility
rather than increase it.
(d) Examination results would deteriorate
The proposed system would lead to a decline in examination
performance of children in Northern Ireland.
(e) The proposals lack any estimate
of costs
(f) The proposals lack democratic approval
Fundamental changes to the education system in Northern
Ireland are being imposed against the will of a majority of parents
and teachers as registered in a survey of households carried out
by the Department of Education itself and confirmed by subsequent
opinion polls commissioned by the media.
4. A POSITIVE
ALTERNATIVE
There is a workable alternative which addresses
these objections. We believe that, rather than rush ahead with
the introduction of legislation to implement proposals which are
not fit for purpose, the alternative should now be fully evaluated.
5. OUR OBJECTIONS
IN FURTHER
DETAIL
5.1 The proposed admissions arrangements are
flawed
5.1.1 The Costello Report states that, "the
fundamental principle . . . should be informed choice by parents
and pupils" and that this should be based on a "pupil
profile" drawn up by the primary school.1
5.1.2 The profile being proposed is conceptually
flawed, does not meet international standards and is incapable
of being amended to make it an acceptable instrument.2
5.1.3 Parental choice would be reduced rather
than increased, with schools which are highly regarded being vastly
over-subscribed. At present 88% of parents secure a place in their
first choice of school.3
5.1.4 Parental choice in the terms proposed
would increase inequality as schools would give precedence to
pupils from their local community, benefiting families with the
financial resources to move into areas adjacent to perceived "good
schools". A recent study of transfer in the Republic of Ireland
by Maeve O'Brien concluded that the concept of equal choice was
a myth since, "middle class parents possess a greater economic
and cultural capital which affords them and their children a greater
range of choice than those in more disadvantaged circumstances."4
5.2 The Costello curriculum is unworkable
5.2.1 Dr Morrison of Queen's University
Belfast has demonstrated that there is a complete equivalence
between the curriculum proposed by CCEA (The Northern Ireland
Council for Curriculum and Assessment) and educational "progressivism"
which American schools rejected in the 1960s.5 The principal reason
for the demise of progressivism was its negative impact on disadvantaged
children in general, and the children of the working class black
community in particular. There is therefore a total contradiction
between a stated concern of the Costello Report to ameliorate
social disadvantage in education and a proposed curricular model
rejected four decades ago because of its deleterious effects on
the poor.
5.2.2 The proposed curriculum requires pupils
to have access to 24 subjects at GCSE and 27 subjects post GCSE,
but only a handful of Northern Ireland's schools are sufficiently
large to offer this level of choice. The proposed solution is
to require schools to co-ordinate provision and to share resources,
with new bureaucratic structures created to co-ordinate the process
at a number of levels.6 In effect, pupils and teachers would need
to be shuttled between schools and it has even been suggested
that classes could be delivered via video link. While voluntary
co-operation is desirable, where practical, the type of compulsory
co-operation which would be required presents a huge variety of
problems concerning issues such as co-ordination of timetables,
transport and safety, time wasted in travel, pastoral care and
discipline. Many of these problems have already been experienced
in England, where secondary and grammar schools were amalgamated
in the late 1960s and early 1970s to provide the school sizes
required by comprehensive education. Problems encountered by the
split-site model have led to its abandonment in many cases, with
the rationalisation of schools on a single site. Large schools
would be necessary to accommodate the entire ability range and
this presents further difficulties. Recent research from the US
National Centre for Education Statistics concluded "As school
enrolment increased, so did the likelihood of schools reporting
each (categorized) discipline problem . . . 26% of principals
at schools with 1,000 or more students reported student verbal
abuse of teachers, compared to 14% of schools with 500-999 students,
10% of schools with 300-499 students, and 7% of schools with less
than 300 students."7
5.3 Social mobility would decline
5.3.1 Since 1947 children in Northern Ireland,
irrespective of their socio-economic category or residential location,
have been able to avail themselves of an opportunity to maximise
their achievements according to their abilities. Hundreds of thousands
from socially deprived backgrounds have been the first in their
family to benefit from a university education, having gained the
entry requirements in grammar schools, secondary schools and further
education colleges. At present 41.3% of students accepted into
higher education in Northern Ireland are drawn from the four lowest
socio-economic groups, compared to only 28.4% for the United Kingdom
as a whole.8
5.3.2 If the Government's current proposals
were implemented, selection by ability would be replaced by selection
on the basis of class and economic power. Middle-class children
would go to middle-class schools, whose catchment areas would
comprise middle-class neighbourhoods, while working-class children
would be left to fester in the poorer districts from which their
parents are unable to escape.9
5.3.3 Obviously this would not enhance social
equality, but in educational terms would increase the gap between
those who have and those who have not. The effect would be worse
in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain as there is a significantly
higher proportion of pupils from working-class and disadvantaged
backgrounds in higher education here than elsewhere in the United
Kingdom.
5.3.4 The middle-classes are much better
placed to exploit the proposals and manipulate the system to secure
the best deal for their children than working-class parents.
5.3.5 As schools which are highly regarded
would be markedly over-subscribed, the proposals would result
in selection by postcode. The choice of school would be determined
by where parents can afford to live rather than by their child's
ability. Already there are instances of parents, anticipating
implementation of the proposals, moving house to gain advantage
of proximity to "a good school". Thus, for a majority,
rather than further the stated objective of affording parents
greater choice, in practice their right to choose the most appropriate
and suitable school for their child would be taken away. Children
would have to attend the nearest school, regardless of its suitability.
5.3.6 Research suggests that a system such
as is now being proposed for Northern Ireland would not remove
the link between education and class but would strengthen it.10
Bright children from poor families would suffer disproportionately.
A recent report on the United Kingdom, supported by the Sutton
Trust, and published in April 2005, confirms that social mobility
has declined since the introduction of a comprehensive system
in Great Britain.11
5.3.7 The proposals would do nothing to
raise the performance of schools which need assistance to improve
their standing in local communities and the very children most
dependent upon state education would be failed by it.
5.4 Examination results would deteriorate
5.4.1 It is generally accepted that there
is a link between social deprivation and examination results.
One would expect, therefore, that results from Northern Ireland,
which suffers higher levels of social deprivation than England
and Wales, and is emerging from serious internal conflict, should
have lower examination results. The reality is, however, contrary
to this expectation. In 2004 60% of pupils in Northern Ireland
obtained five GCSEs or equivalent at grades A*-C while the figure
for England was 54% and for Wales was 51%. In the same year the
percentage of pupils achieving no GCSEs were 4%, 5% and 7% for
Northern Ireland, England and Wales respectively.12
5.4.2 We attribute this success to the teaching
of pupils with others of similar abilities, the expertise contained
within our secondary and grammar schools and the beneficial effects
of smaller average school size (see section 5.2.2), particularly
in the secondary sector. Forcing all schools to accommodate the
full ability range, in what would be, in effect, a split-site
comprehensive system would mean the loss of many of these strengths.
The Costello Committee's minutes record an admission that in all-ability
schools "more able pupils may not be stretched fully"
and that such a system "may impact on the achievements of
high ability pupils".13 We believe that a similar impact
would also be felt by weaker pupils.
5.5 The proposals lack any estimates of cost
The HM Treasury Green Book advocates, as a matter
of best practice, the introduction of an economic appraisal framework
at an early stage of consideration of a new policy proposal.14
The Costello proposals represent the most far-reaching change
in Northern Ireland's education system for more than 60 years
but the Government has not published any estimate of the costs
of implementation.
5.6 The proposals lack democratic approval
5.6.1 Following publication of the Burns
Report in October 2001, the then Minister for Education in the
devolved administration at Stormont, Mr Martin McGuinness, set
in train a consultation process (cost £419,000) on its recommendations.15
When just over half of the responses had been returned to the
Department he declared, "I have 100,000 responses sitting
in my Department and those are the people that count."16
The results were published in October 2002.
5.6.2 The responses from 200,551 households,
including 162,000 parents and 21,000 teachers, showed that while
57% of households, 58% of parents, and 64% of teachers, were in
favour of abolishing the 11+, 64% of households, 63% of parents,
and 62% of teachers favoured the retention of academic selection.17
Opinion on these issues was seen to cross both class and sectarian
divides. The findings were confirmed by opinion polls commissioned
by the media.18
5.6.3 On the suspension of the devolved
Assembly in October 2002, Mr McGuinness announced in a press statement
as he left office that the 11+ would be abolished. He made no
reference to any alternative system. This decision had not been
discussed at any time by the Northern Ireland Executive.
5.6.4 On the re-introduction of Direct Rule
the Costello Committee was appointed, the vast majority of whose
members were selected from bodies which had expressed support
for ending academic selection, to advise on future arrangements.
Its report, published in January 2004, dismissed the views of
parents and teachers recorded in the Household Survey and other
expressions of public opinion by concluding that, "a transfer
test or any other means of academic selection should have no place
in the transfer arrangements to post-primary education."19
5.6.5 The Costello recommendations were
accepted in full by the Government. In consequence parents in
Northern Ireland have fewer rights than their counterparts in
England—a situation highlighted by a statement by the Department
for Education and Skills: "Where selection exists, the government
believes in local decision-making as to whether it should continue
and has put in place mechanisms to allow this to happen."20
6. A POSITIVE
VISION
We are not opposed to change. We wish to retain
all that is best in our current system of secondary and grammar
schools, while allowing them to develop to better meet the needs,
abilities and aspirations of all our young people.
7. OUR PROPOSALS
(a) Recognise that underachievement and
inequality do not begin at age 11.
(b) Preserve opportunities for academically
gifted pupils to develop their talents to the full.
(c) Allow schools to develop or retain specialisms
which could offer pupils genuine alternatives in terms of academic
and vocational pathways.
(d) Develop, in specialist schools of perceived
status, technical and vocational qualifications that carry real
weight and would have increased economic relevance for both pupils
and prospective employers.
(e) End the 11+ as soon as new admissions
procedures have been developed and piloted.
(f) Develop a Pupil Profile that would contain
information on pupil attainment that would meet international
standards of reliability and validity.
(g) Allow parents to make an informed choice,
taking into account the advice of both primary and post-primary
schools, who would have an absolute right to see the profile in
advance of any decision regarding admission. In the event of oversubscription,
schools should be permitted to offer places to those pupils most
likely to benefit from their provision, based on the information
contained in the profile.
(h) Develop a coherent strategy to address
the specific problems arising from a revised assessment of the
scale of demographic change.
8. Finally, it would be our wish that the
introduction of legislation intended to implement proposals, which
are demonstrably not fit for purpose, should be deferred so that
a more holistic appraisal can be undertaken of Northern Ireland's
real educational needs.
November 2005
REFERENCES 1. Department
of Education (2004) Future Post-Primary Arrangements in Northern
Ireland: Advice from the Post-Primary review Working Group (The
Costello Report), Bangor: Department of Education, P27 and 52-53.
2. Morrison H (2005a) The Case for an alternative
for to the Costello Pupil Profile, Queen's University Belfast
School of Education (Unpublished paper), P3.
3. BBC Newsline Survey, 26 Jan 2004.
4. O'Brien M (2004) Making the Move: Students',
Teachers and Parents' Perspectives of Transfer from First to Second-level
Schooling, Dublin, Marino Institute of Education, P36.
5. Morrison H (2005b) The consequences for
children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds of the current
proposals for revising curriculum and assessment in Northern Ireland,
Queen's University Belfast (Unpublished paper), P16-25.
6. Department of Education (2004), P59-63.
7. Preston P, The Guardian, 26 July
2004.
8. Higher Education Statistics Agency, cited
in John Clare, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2004.
9. Adonis A and Pollard P (1998), A Class
Act: The Myth of Britain's Classless Society, Penguin Books, P51-55.
10. O'Brien M (2004) P6,7,21,32,33,35,36,41
and 89. She also cites the following to support this view Bordieu
(1977 and 1984), Gerwitz et al (1994), Reay and Ball (1998).
11. Blanden J, Machin S and Gregg P (2005)
Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America: A Report
Supported by the Sutton Trust, London School of Economics Centre
for Economic Performance, P7 and 8.
12. Inquiry to Department of Education November
2005.
13. Minutes of the (Costello) Post-Primary
review Working Group 10-11 September 2003.
14. Cited in Appendix L of Post-Primary
Review Body (2001), Education for the 21st Century (The Burns
Report), Bangor: Department of Education, P314.
15. Hansard: Reply by Angela Smith
to PQ 05/774 Tabled by Lady Hermon.
16. Daily Mirror, 14 June 2002.
17. Department of Education (2002) Review
of Post-Primary Education: report on Responses to Consultation,
Bangor: Department of Education, P73 Table 2.
18. Department of Education (2002), Omnibus
Survey P71 Table 1, BBC Newsline Survey 24 January 2004, Belfast
Telegraph Survey 9 September 2005.
19. Department of Education (2004) P48.
20. Sunday Times, 31 July 2005.
| 
