Written evidence (dated 20 December 2005)
from Grammar Principals' Group, Concerned Parents for Education,
Confederation of Grammar Schools' Former Pupils' Associations
and Governing Bodies' Association
RESPONSE TO THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM ANGELA
SMITH MP, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION SUBMITTED TO THE NORTHERN IRELAND
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY 14 DECEMBER 2005
We have ordered our response to Ms Smith's submission
according to the numbers used in that submission. As in our earlier
submissions we do not argue for the status quo, nor do we argue
that measures are not required to promote social inclusion and
to address demographic change. As our earlier documents affirmed
we believe that change should build on our present system, be
based on an honest appraisal of its strengths and weaknesses,
be properly costed, and be in accordance with democratic principles.
1.1 Most pupils, parents and employers view
A*-C grades as "passes" and there are very few employment
opportunities where grades lower than a C are considered. The
examination performance of pupils in Northern Ireland overtook
that of their peers in England and Wales in the 1970s, following
the introduction of comprehensive education in those areas, despite
the fact that conflict, community division, and high levels of
poverty would have been expected to produce a lower performance.
1.2 The figure for Advanced Level passes
is misleading. We do not have access to the most recent figures
but the statistics for 1999-2000 show that 37.7% of 18 year olds
achieved two Advanced Level passes or equivalent, while the figure
for England and Wales is only 30%.
2.1 We dispute the suggestion that "academic
success masks deep-rooted problems." All education systems
face challenges and those facing us cannot be remedied by adopting
approaches that have not been successful in other parts of these
islands. Moreover, it is important to consider the social structure
in which the education system operates. Recently a Swedish person,
visiting relatives in Northern Ireland, wrote to the Belfast
Telegraph to point out that it was this factor, and not the
education system, that resulted in a relatively narrow gap between
high and low achievers in Sweden.
2.2 We do not know exactly how the GCSE
point score referred to in section 2, bullet point 1, is calculated.
Since Northern Ireland's pupils outperform, significantly, their
peers in England and Wales, however, in terms of A grades at GCSE
and achieving 5+A*-C grades at GCSE, the discrepancy must arise
through the inclusion of D-G grades. A similar measure purporting
to show that performance in England exceeded that in Northern
Ireland was produced for the Costello Report. Under that measure
a pupil obtaining 6 D grades and 1 E grade at GCSE would have
obtained a higher score than a pupil with 5 C grades. In reality,
pupils, parents, schools and employers would regard the former
outcome as better than the latter. Indeed, the Minister herself
accepts this point by referring to A*-C grades as "good GCSEs".
2.3 Section 2, bullet point 2 confirms our
evidence that while weaker pupils perform on a par with their
peers in England our higher achieving pupils perform much better.
The Minister has chosen to focus on those achieving fewer than
5 A*-G grades at GCSE to show that England outperforms Northern
Ireland by 1%, but such a gap is not statistically significant.
In any case the proportion leaving school with no GCSEs of any
grade is actually lower in Northern Ireland: 4% as opposed to
5% for England.
2.4 We dispute the Minister's use of the
international comparisons in the PISA research quoted in Section
2, bullet point 3. As already indicated we have a number of reservations
about the PISA research. Its critics included Professor Sig Prais
of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research who
at the time the results of the 2000 survey were released had been
leading the Institute's team which has been carrying out a detailed
investigation of international comparisons of standards in mathematics
for almost a decade National Institute of Economic and Social
Research.
One concern noted by Prof Pais about the English
figures for 2000 was that more able pupils in better performing
schools were much more likely to be included than pupils from
schools with a poor performance. In contrast, a representative
sample was used in 2000 and 2003 to produce Northern Ireland's
figures. We do not accept, therefore, the suggestion that the
performance of English pupils was on a par with their peers in
Northern Ireland in 2000. In respect of the PISA 2003 results
the English sample was again unrepresentative, but showed a very
substantial decline from 2000. On this occasion it was decided
to disregard the English figures.
Even if we set aside our concerns about the
survey it cannot be argued that it portrays Northern Ireland's
education system in a negative light. A summary of the PISA report
published by the Office for National Statistics stated that "the
proficiency in mathematical, reading and scientific literacy of
15 year olds in Northern Ireland compares well with that of young
people of the same age in other countries." Only two countries
in the world performed at significantly better in either reading
or scientific literacy, while only six countries performed significantly
better in mathematical literacy.
With respect to Ms Smith's comments about the
wide variation of scores in Northern Ireland it is apposite to
consider the comments on mathematical literacy in the Office for
National statistics summary report: "A small proportion of
15 year olds was not able to demonstrate the lowest level of proficiency:
in Northern Ireland, 5% of students were in this category, below
the proportion in the OECD as a whole (8%) and the same as the
proportion in the Republic of Ireland."
Commenting on the "good news story"
of Northern Ireland's PISA 2003 results, Alan Lennon, Chairman
of the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Evaluation
and Assessment stated:
"What this means for educational policy
makers in NI is that great care must be taken in considering and
implementing changes to the current curriculum and examinations
systems and the supporting school infrastructure. In the many
changes currently under consideration, it is of vital importance
to remember that the Province is starting from a position of relative
strength, as confirmed by the PISA study."
He concluded by stating:
"However, if NI society, as a whole, is
not sufficiently well informed to appreciate the context in which
change is taking place, society may be effectively handing over
important decision making to a relatively small cadre of experts
in CCEA [his own organisation] and beyond. That would not be good
either for education or democracy."
2.5 The arguments made in Section 2, bullet
points 4 and 5, do not relate to the current performance of Northern
Ireland's education system. In any case the relatively small size
of Northern Ireland means that many graduates move to seek employment
opportunities elsewhere. Since it is often the best qualified
who are most geographically mobile this would affect the percentage
of the working population without qualifications as would a number
of other factors stretching back more than 50 years when our older
workers were educated.
3.1 Ms Smith makes a number of claims in
respect of research into the current transfer arrangements, while
not revealing the source of this research. We do not seek to defend
the current 11 plus examinations and have offered an alternative
that meets the objections to these tests. Nevertheless, we wish
to counter the claims made.
3.2 We dispute the simplistic suggestion
that the 11 plus divides people into successes and failures. It
may be the case that some pupils who do not receive the grade
required to obtain a place in a grammar school experience feelings
of failure, but this is not universal. It should be remembered
also that a significant proportion of children does not take the
transfer test and therefore does not experience these emotions.
Our alternative would be a reliable and valid pupil profile, built
up over a period of years for all pupils, which would be diagnostic
and support learning. It would remove any anxiety associated with
the two-test 11+ model.
To suggest that pupils who do not achieve the
11 plus grade required for a place in a grammar school and who,
therefore, are educated in a secondary school, have in some way
"failed", is to belittle the work of our secondary school
colleagues.
If feelings of failure associated with the 11
plus were strong we would expect that those respondents to the
Household Survey who had pupils at secondary schools would have
been opposed to academic selection: in fact a majority support
its retention. Likewise the Omnibus Survey of a random sample
of the population showed a majority of respondents who had attended
secondary schools also support its retention.
3.3 While our proposals articulate the need
for greater flexibility for transfer between post-primary schools
to take account of the changing needs of pupils we do not agree
that the existing system is limited to the extent suggested by
Section 3, bullet point 2. Pupils who develop academic ability
at a later stage often have the opportunity to take advantage
of sixth form provision in some secondary schools, a grammar school
place, or a place in a further education college. This degree
of flexibility is illustrated by the larger percentages of young
people in Northern Ireland remaining in education post 16 and
post 18 than in Great Britain and the fact that we have a higher
proportion of young people from working class and disadvantaged
backgrounds progressing to higher education than anywhere else
in these islands.
3.4 Dr Morrison's paper, "The Case
for an alternative to the Costello Pupil Profile" outlines
how bullet points 3-8 in Section 3 could be addressed. In particular
we would draw attention to Dr Morrison's evidence that the type
of testing we propose would serve to reduce the gap between the
"haves" and the "have nots".
4.1 We strongly refute the suggestion that
academic selection perpetuates social disadvantage.
4.2 Ms Smith uses the relatively low percentage
of pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds in grammar schools
in Northern Ireland as evidence that the system perpetuates social
disadvantage (Section 3, bullet point 1). She does not indicate,
however, that this figure (7%) is more than twice as high as the
average for the top 200 state schools in England. As Sir Peter
Lampl, Chairman of the Sutton trust commented "The best comprehensives
serve the relatively affluent" and, in reference to England,
"We have replaced an education system which selected on ability
with one that is socially selective."
Ms Smith comments on the lack of pupils proceeding
to grammar school from one small area (the Shankill Road) as evidence
of a wider malaise. She may not be aware of the particular problems
in that area that remain in the aftermath of the conflict here.
She may also be unfamiliar with the fact, mentioned on a recent
radio phone-in by a primary school principal in the area, that
some pupils, who obtain a high grade in the transfer tests, prefer
to go to the Girls' or Boys' Model Secondary schools, that provide
excellent educational opportunities including a range of Advanced
Level examinations. Moreover, one could refer to large areas in
any city in Great Britain or the south of Ireland where educational
outcomes are poor and where hardly any young person achieves a
university place. During presentation of our oral evidence Mr
Cosgrove made reference to the example of Nottingham.
Ms Smith fails to mention that we do not have
the type of "selection by bank balance" that occurs
in Great Britain and in the south of Ireland, with parents with
the resources to do so, buying a place for their children in a
private school, or moving to the catchment areas of the most prestigious
comprehensive schools. While private education flourishes in Great
Britain and the south of Ireland, particularly in urban areas
(eg Edinburgh where 25% of pupils are privately educated) it is
almost non-existent in Northern Ireland, where there is only one
small private school.
4.3 In section 4, bullet point 3, Ms Smith
comments on the poor performance in terms of 5 A*-C GCSE grades
of the most disadvantaged pupils, without revealing that the performance
of this group is much poorer in English schools. In England 26.1%
of pupils in receipt of Free School Meals achieve this level.
The most recent figures available for Northern Ireland are 31%
for 1997. However, since the Minister's memorandum suggests that
"the most disadvantaged pupils are only around half as likely
to achieve five good GCSEs (A-C) as the least disadvantaged"
we can infer that the current performance is likely to be significantly
higher than this figure.
4.4 With respect to course availability
(section 4, bullet point 4) we accept that pupils should have
access to a reasonable range of subjects but regard the proposed
24 at GCSE level and 27 post-GCSE as both unnecessary and impractical.
We have yet to see any educational research to suggest that such
a large range is necessary. The result would be a massive programme
of school closures with many rural communities losing their local
schools. The larger school size that would be a consequence of
implementation of the Entitlement Framework, and would be necessary
for a comprehensive intake, would be inconvenient for many and,
and presents difficulties for discipline and pastoral care.
One piece of evidence for this position was
quoted in section 5.2.2 in our Submission to the Northern Ireland
Affairs Committee, further evidence is found in Malcolm Gladwell's
book, "The Tipping Point." He discusses how "The
figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals
with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship." He
points out that this number, or one close to it, crops up as the
size of tribes in different parts of the world, Hutterite communities,
successful businesses and military units. He then goes on to suggest
that, "If we want to develop schools in disadvantaged communities
that can successfully counteract the poisonous atmosphere of their
surrounding neighbourhoods, this tells us that we're better off
building lots of little schools than one or two big ones."
We believe there is a role for a variety of
school sizes to serve the differing needs of the population. Just
as practical difficulties with the move to comprehensive education
on split site campuses in England in the 1970s led to rationalisation
on a single campus, the imposition of an all-ability intake and
the Entitlement Framework would lead to the closure or amalgamation
of small to medium sized schools here. The negative impact of
such changes would be most keenly felt by children from the most
disadvantaged backgrounds.
5.1 Ms Smith's comments on the relationship
between education and the economy suggest an incomplete understanding
of prevailing economic conditions in Northern Ireland. During
the long period of conflict, successive governments pumped money
into the public sector to counteract the understandable weakness
of the private sector. This experience of dependence on the public
sector is a major reason for there being a lower level of entrepreneurial
activity in Northern Ireland than in some areas of Great Britain.
There is no evidence to suggest that replacing Northern Ireland's
education system with an all-ability system would lead to an improvement
here when it has been less successful than our current system
in more fortuitous circumstances.
Some of Northern Ireland's schools have existed
for several hundred years. They have succeeded in making evolutionary
changes to adapt to changing needs and they are entirely capable
of meeting the challenges of the 21st century through evolution
of our current system rather than its destruction.
6/7 We have answered these points in Section
7 of our Follow-up Submission. We accept that there has been a
decline in pupil numbers and that although it has slowed considerably,
this decline will continue for several more years. We have offered
evidence to dispute the scale of the decline and the notion that
it will continue indefinitely.
8.1 We welcome Ms Smith's acknowledgement
that "grammar schools are currently seen as the preferred
choice of many". This assertion supports our view that removing
any academic barrier to access will result in massive oversubscription
of these schools so that selection by postcode or lottery will
become widespread. As we have already shown in Section 5 of our
original submission this would have negative consequences for
education, particularly the education of children from working
class or disadvantaged backgrounds.
8.2 Ms Smith makes a number of points regarding
the impact of open enrolment on secondary schools in a situation
of demographic decline. We accept that the demographic downturn
has had a disproportionate effect on secondary school numbers.
Mr McCallion indicated in his oral evidence to the Northern Ireland
Affairs Committee that grammar schools have also suffered because
of population decline, and the creation of a significant number
of new integrated schools has compounded the problem of falling
rolls at existing schools. Section 7.2 of our Follow-up Submission
records the willingness of the grammar sector to shoulder its
share of the burden of demographic decline, although this must
be based on a realistic appraisal of the scale of that decline.
8.3 We note Ms Smith's assertion in Section
8, bullet point 2 that, under current arrangements, falling numbers
is having the effect of further widening the ability profile of
grammar schools, requiring these schools to adjust their teaching
and learning to make appropriate provision for pupils admitted.
While we have already shown in Section 9 of our Follow-up Submission
that claims of significant widening of the ability base of grammar
school entrants are false, we agree that widening the ability
range would require a very different teaching and learning style.
Clearly the move to a system in which all schools must accommodate
children of all abilities would require radical change. This view,
however, contradicts earlier statements by officials in Ms Smith's
Department. In the first few months of 2005 Department officials
responded to queries from the public with a standard letter that
stated "Grammar schools can maintain their academic ethos
through the curriculum they offer, the style of teaching and the
pace and depth of learning." Ms Smith has conceded that this
would not be the case.
9. We are not entirely clear what point
the Minister is making in this section. It is possible for grammar
schools to arrange to decrease their intake numbers. Having done
this, however, they are not permitted to increase them again in
subsequent years if suitably qualified pupils apply. Reluctance
of schools to agree long term reductions in their numbers, if
they have a chance of more pupils applying in future years causes
variation in the grades required by different schools.
10. In Section 2.2 of our Follow-up Submission
we outline the unrepresentative nature of Costello Committee and
how it was used to subvert the public will.
11. Our previous submissions to the Department,
and our oral evidence, explain why the recommendations of the
Costello Committee are not, as claimed by the Minister, "a
sound basis on which to develop new arrangements for post-primary
education."
12.1 We have already articulated a positive
alternative vision to the Costello proposals that would build
on the strengths of our existing secondary and grammar schools
and recognise the individual needs, abilities and interests of
each child. While the Costello proposals purport to be child-focused
we have shown that, if implemented, they would damage the interests
of children, especially those from working class or disadvantaged
backgrounds.
12.2 In addition to our concerns about the
imposition of proposals that will lead to the creation of one-size-fits-all
comprehensive schools, we also believe that the direction of curricular
reform and reform of the administration of schools is unwise.
Moreover, at a time when some schools in England and Wales have
been given greater independence, and the government intends that
this be extended, it is proposed to curtail severely the independence
of voluntary grammar schools, which enjoy an excellent reputation
and are financially well managed.
14. Insufficient attention has been given
to the value of traditional academic subjects in developing such
skills as analysis, evaluation and written communication.
15-21 We have already indicated that we
do not object to voluntary co-operation between schools where
this is practical. The proposed Entitlement Framework, however,
is ill-conceived and will not operate in practice for the reasons
outlined in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.5 of our Submission, Section
3 of our Follow-up Submission, and Section 4.4 above. We note
that Ms Smith's paper does not even address such basic practical
issues as transport costs, responsibility for the care of pupils
in transit, pastoral care and discipline issues when a pupil is
off-site, and the technicalities of faith schools and non-denominational
schools co-operating.
23-29 We regard as entirely illogical, the
proposal to permit specialisms in such areas as sport or music
but not to allow schools to be academic specialists.
30-37 Our objections to the proposed new
admissions arrangements, and to the proposed Pupil Profile, are
outlined in Dr Morrison's paper, "The Case for an alternative
to the Costello Pupil Profile", and in Section 5.1 of our
Submission and Section 4 of our Follow-up Submission. It remains
our view that a profile should be developed in keeping with Dr
Morrison's recommendations and that this should be used in cases
of oversubscription to ensure that school places be allocated
to the pupils most likely to benefit from them. Regardless of
the use to which the profile is put, we believe also that parents
have the right to a profile that meets international standards
of reliability and validity.
While Ms Smith records the fact that over 14,000
responses were received to the consultation on admissions, which
ended in June, the report on the consultation, released on the
same date as the Draft Order in Council, did not reveal the fact
that over 90% of respondents disagreed with the Minister's proposals.
Furthermore, it is clear that while the Minister is aware of the
strength of opposition to the current proposals she has chosen
to ignore it.
39-40 If the figure of 47,000 surplus school
places is correct, this is a major problem that should have been
addressed some time ago. It may be the case, however, that so-called
surplus places could be used to tackle underachievement in some
cases by reducing class sizes in schools where performance of
pupils is weak. We would have reservations about projections for
any future surplus given the inaccuracies in the population statistics
published in the Costello Report.
41. If the progress towards implementation
referred to in Section 41 means an increase in expenditure on
educational bureaucracy then progress has been made. There is
no evidence that planning for school closures, redundancies, retraining
of teachers for an all-ability intake, or for transport requirements,
etc has taken place. There appears to be undue haste to pass the
changes into legislation without any idea of costs.
42. Section 42 refers to a period of consultation
on the draft legislation. Since every test of public opinion to
date, and the opposition of a majority of our locally elected
politicians, has been ignored, we have no confidence that the
Minister will treat responses to the current consultation seriously.
Mr William Young, Grammar
Principals' Group.
Mr Peter Cosgrove, Co-Chairperson,
Concerned Parents for Education.
Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, Confederation
of Grammar Schools' Past Pupils' Association.
Mr Finbarr McCallion,
Governing Bodies' Association.
Dr Hugh Morrison, School
of Education, Queen's University Belfast
20 December 2005
| 
