Written evidence (dated 10 January 2006)
from Grammar Principals' Group, Concerned Parents for Education,
Confederation of Grammar Schools' Former Pupils' Associations
and Governing Bodies' Association
RESPONSE TO ORAL EVIDENCE OF MS ANGELA SMITH
MP, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION TAKEN BEFORE THE NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY 14 DECEMBER 2005
POST-PRIMARY
EDUCATION IN
NORTHERN IRELAND
In commenting on the transcript we recognise
that it is not yet an approved formal record of proceedings as
neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct
the record.
Our comments are ordered in accordance with a number
of key themes that arose during the session.
1. DEMOCRACY
1.1 We dispute the suggestion that the response
rate to the Household Survey was low (Q177). We are not aware
of any consultation in any part of these islands that has awakened
such public interest. The Minister at the time of the consultation,
Mr McGuinness, stated: "I want to give the people who really
count, the people out there in the street, the opportunity to
have their say on an issue which has been a burning issue for
our society for many decades". In the same interview, at
a time when less than 50% of the total responses had been returned
he described the response rate as "incredible" and promised:
"I have 100,000 responses in my Department and those are
the people that count."1
There has been a number of other surveys on education,
all of which confirm the findings of the Household Survey.2
1.2 Ms Smith asserted that the Costello
Committee took all views into account yet we have shown in Section
2.2 of our Follow-up Submission that the composition of the Committee
was heavily weighted in favour of those who oppose academic selection.
1.3 We know of no survey in which the level of
support for academic selection fell to a figure as low as 50%
or of any which indicated majority support for sending all pupils
to their local school (Q182). We do know that over 90% of respondents
to the government's consultation on admissions arrangements oppose
the current plans.3
1.4 We are surprised at Ms Smith's suggestion
(Q184) that she does not know how a local Assembly would approach
this issue. Given that the two largest Unionist parties have made
manifesto commitments on this issue, and spokespersons for a majority
of the elected representatives have made their opposition to the
Costello proposals clear to her, we find this statement difficult
to comprehend.
It is important to record that once enacted, the
make-up of the Assembly, and the type of weighted majority voting
system involved, would make it almost impossible to repeal the
legislation.
1.5 Ms Smith stated that she has had a large
number of meetings with the GBA (Q185). Even if we leave aside
the fact that the GBA does not represent all Northern Ireland's
grammar schools, it is clear that, while Ms Smith may have listened
to the concerns of representatives of grammar schools, there is
no evidence that she has taken heed of those concerns or responded
to the arguments put to her.
2. THE CURRICULUM
2.1 It is true that a common curriculum was implemented
in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain but this does not mean,
as Ms Smith suggested, repeatedly (Q181 Q210 and Q201), that all
pupils are "taught in the same way, at the same level".
This statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how
the Northern Ireland education system works. Academically weaker
pupils are entered for lower level papers at GCSE than academically
stronger pupils and teaching styles vary enormously. Indeed one
of the strengths of Northern Ireland's current system is the development
of expertise in appropriate teaching styles in different types
of schools, something that is more difficult in the all-ability
comprehensive.
We have set out a vision of how our current system
might evolve to better meet the needs of all our young people.
We agree that schools should be freed from the constraints of
a large common curriculum. This can best be achieved by allowing
schools to evolve on the basis of their current strengths. We
cannot see how the introduction of a non-academically selective
education system, which has delivered much lower average GCSE
results for young people, particularly for those from disadvantaged
backgrounds, in Great Britain, could improve performance in Northern
Ireland (Q179).
3. THE FUTURE
OF GRAMMAR
SCHOOLS
3.1 Ms Smith made the claim that the Government's
views have been misrepresented (Q180). If, as is the case later
in her oral evidence, this is a reference to the issue of grammar
schools remaining (Q181, 200-202, 209-210), it is clear that she
is very much in the minority in this assertion. A casual glance
at the letters pages of the Belfast Telegraph will illustrate
that although there are very few proponents of the Costello proposals
in comparison to its opponents, all but the Minister and her officials
accept that Costello will result in the creation of all-ability
or one-size-fits-all comprehensive schools. It cannot be otherwise
if every school must offer a mix of vocational and academic subjects
and accept pupils irrespective of ability.
3.2 In response to Q200 Ms Smith stated: "I
am not sure all schools will be all-ability schools." She
is therefore accepting that it is possible that all schools will
be all-ability schools. 55% of pupils receive a grade D in the
11+ examination and 10% receive a grade C, giving a total for
these grades of 65%. We reject the Minister's suggestion that
grammar schools have already moved significantly in this direction
since over 90% of grammar school entrants have an A or B grade
in the 11 plus examination and less than 10% have grades C and
D, many of who are special cases.4
3.3 We welcome the acceptance of the Minister
(Q209) that the very modest widening of the grammar school intake
that has taken place is not something that grammar schools have
been deliberately pursuing.
3.4 Ms Smith failed to address the point that,
given their popularity and the lack of any barrier to application
based on the suitability of a child to an academic education,
grammar schools would be transformed into one-size-fits-all comprehensives
if the Costello proposals are implemented (Q202 and Q210).
4. ACADEMIC SELECTION
AND SOCIAL
MOBILITY
4.1 Having provided a substantial amount of evidence
to indicate how our education system outperforms others in these
islands (see our earlier submissions) for young people from working
class and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, we are disappointed
by Ms Smith's claim that academic selection does not increase
social mobility. We are willing to provide further evidence from
leading academics to show that this is incorrect. In particular,
highly regarded research by Richard Breen of the University of
Oxford (see, for example, his chapter in the recently published
Understanding Social Change) demonstrates conclusively that comprehensive
education has been powerless to enhance social mobility.5 When
the progressivist nature of the new curricular arrangements is
added to a Comprehensive model of schooling, the clear message
of the international literature is that social disadvantage will
worsen under the Costello proposals.
4.2 The problem of selection by postcode in
comprehensive systems is explicitly admitted in the Burns Report:
"For example, when geography is used as the final criterion
for admission purposes, comprehensive school systems can display
a relatively high level of social differentiation, particularly
in cities. In practice this can mean that socially advantaged
parents are likely to live in areas served by the highest status
schools and are better placed to take advantage of any flexibility
in their admissions arrangements. Alongside this there is then
the prospect that cities are likely to contain sufficient demand
for private schools in circumstances where parents are dissatisfied
with the admissions arrangements or other aspects of local schools".6
The Minister may claim that she is not imposing a comprehensive
system but there is no mechanism in the Costello proposals to
prevent the social differentiation described in the Burns Report.
4.3 Ms Smith stated a particular concern for
the children of the Shankill Road (Q203) although further questioning
revealed that this had not, as yet, translated itself into significant
additional resources for the area. We have commented on the particular
circumstances of the Shankill area in our response to Ms Smith's
written evidence (4.2) and reiterate the point that pockets of
educational under-achievement are found in all countries. In a
recent report The UK Higher Education Funding Council found that
"Many cities and towns are educationally divided, containing
neighbourhoods where almost no one goes to university and neighbourhoods
where two out of three or more will enter higher education."
The Council report noted that young people living in the parliamentary
constituency of Kensington and Chelsea were ten times more likely
to go to university than those living in Sheffield, Brightside,
who were eight times less likely to go than those living in Sheffield,
Hallam. Those living in Bristol West were five times more likely
to go to university than those living in Bristol South.7
If moving to a non-selective system would address
the problems of the Shankill Road why has this approach not succeeded
anywhere else on these islands?
5. THE PUPIL
PROFILE
5.1 In the Department of Education's press
release of 23 June 2004, the then Education Minister (Mr Barry
Gardner) states, in respect of assessment: "It should be
an assessment for learning." CCEA's documentation to schools
makes clear that assessment of learning is to be replaced by assessment
for learning.8 A central plank of assessment for learning is that
children take responsibility for assessing their own work and
that of their peers. It is important to point out that CCEA have
very little (if any) room for manoeuvre here because the robustness
of the Costello Profile is predicated on the reliability and validity
of teacher assessment. Under assessment for learning, if pupils
were denied a role in the assessment of their own work, the Profile's
consequential validity would be undermined. In short, reliable
and valid assessment cannot be disentangled from curriculum design—teachers
couldn't be free to assess in the traditional way. There is no
suggestion that pupils would complete their own profile, only
that, under the Costello arrangements, they must play a pivotal
part in the assessments upon which the Profile is based.
5.2 In her response to Q200 Ms Smith indicated
that proposed future arrangements would involve parents choosing
between different types of schools using the information in the
pupil profile. We do not share this belief for reasons already
outlined. If we accept the minister's vision, however, the pupil
profile becomes a critical document in helping parents decide
between different types of school. If information in the profile
does not meet international standards of reliability and validity
then parents may choose an inappropriate school for their children.
5.3 The Minister may not be aware of the international
standards which are used by most developed countries to ensure
that assessment instruments are both reliable and valid but CCEA
(Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment) are very
familiar with them since they were cited in the Gardner and Cowan
study that attacked CCEA's current 11 plus tests.9 Even if parents
have the right to disregard the profile, as the Minister proposes,
is it not a reasonable request that they should have access to
information that meets international standards of validity and
reliability, especially in the light of her acceptance of the
need for reliability and validity in her answer to Q204?
5.4 In response to Q204 we can confirm that Dr
Morrison approached CCEA with his concerns about the "scientific
rationale" (brain-based learning) of the curriculum, and
the link between a robust Profile and a curriculum which passed
responsibility for assessment to the pupil. The approach was made
to Mr Alistair Walker and Mr Martin Montgomery when they visited
the University as part of their consultation process. Dr Morrison
asked that CCEA reply to him in detail on the issue of the "Mereological
fallacy" which undermines the entire Costello framework.
He also asked that CCEA include a reference on their website to
Diane Ravitch's famous text Left Back cataloguing the negative
impact of innovative curricula on the poor. Neither detailed reply
nor website link happened.
Dr Morrison is happy to accept an invitation from
the Minister to discuss his concerns and has written to her to
that effect.
6. COST
We note that the answers of the Minister when questioned
by Committee members support our contention that the Costello
proposals have not been adequately costed.
7. THE SCHOOL
POPULATION
There was a lack of clarity in the Minister's evidence
with respect to the role of demographic change as a driver of
reform. Since the government has accepted that one of the published
population statistics in the Costello Report is incorrect by a
wide margin, we do not have confidence in any of the other figures.10
We are also concerned that the closure of small schools that would
be a consequence of imposing the excessively large Proposed Entitlement
Framework would not only damage local communities but also have
a negative effect on social justice
10 January 2006
REFERENCES 1. Daily
Mirror, 14 June 2002.
2. See 2.1 of our Follow Up Submission.
3. Belfast Telegraph 7 December 2005.
4. Freedom of Information request to the
Department of Education October 2005.
5. Breen R (2005), Why did class inequalities
in educational attainment remain unchanged over much of the twentieth
century?, In A F Heath, J Ermisch, & Gallie, D (Eds),
Understanding Social Change (pp 55-72). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
6. Department of Education (2001) Education
for the 21st Century: Report by the Post-Primary Review Body
(The Burns Report), Bangor: Department of Education, p101.
7. Daily Telegraph, 20 January 2005.
8. Council For the Curriculum Examinations
and Assessment (2003a), Proposals for Curriculum and Assessment
at Key stage 3, Part 1, Discussion Papers and Case Studies, Belfast,
CCEA.
Council For the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment
(2003b), Proposals for Curriculum and Assessment at Key stage
3, Part 2, Discussion Papers and Case Studies, Belfast, CCEA.
9. Gardner J and Cowan P, A Study of
the Reliability and Validity of the Northern Ireland Transfer
Procedure Test, Queen's University Belfast Graduate School
of Education.
10. See 7.1 of our Follow Up Submission.
| 
