Written evidence from The Down Area Parents'
Group
POST-PRIMARY REFORM
The Down Area Parents' Group represents parents
from both sides of the community, who have children in nursery,
primary and secondary education. While we support the abolition
of the 11+, we are opposed to the current proposals for post-primary
reform. These proposals ignore the expressed wish of the great
majority of people in Northern Ireland, as consistently expressed
in the Household Consultation and opinion polls, to retain some
form of academic selection as the basis of transfer from primary
to post-primary education. We do not wish to have an educational
process that has not been approved by the people of Northern Ireland,
through their representatives, foisted on us.
We wish to ensure that the rural community in
Northern Ireland have the same right to a quality education and
parental choice, which they will not have if the Costello proposals
are implemented. Proximity to good schools will discriminate against
those living in the countryside.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The proposed changes are not workable
The changes are being imposed upon the people
of Northern Ireland without being discussed by the representatives
of the people of Northern Ireland and with many unresolved problems
which will render them unworkable.
2. Pupil entitlement and movement between
schools
The 24/27 subject choice demanded by Costello
can only be met if schools and FE Colleges collaborate. This will
cause logistical problems of transport and timetabling, creating
potential dangers of travelling, pastoral care and discipline.
3. Administrative layers
The new layers of administration required to
keep this system working are unnecessary, expensive and cumbersome.
Unfortunately, many of them are already putatively in place.
4. Alternative transfer arrangements
Costello believes that selection by ability
should not happen at any stage of a child's education; all schools
will have an all-ability intake. The Department of Education has
not commissioned any research to investigate alternative means
of placing children in schools where their abilities will best
match the specialism the school has to offer.
5. Oversubscription and the myth of parental
choice
The Costello Report promises parental choice
based on informed election. This cannot happen when schools are
over-subscribed and the deciding criterion is likely to be proximity
to the school, irrespective of the suitability of the child to
the specialism the school has to offer.
6. Profiles
Pupil Profiles currently being constructed cannot
be objective; they will be written by class and head teachers,
who will be put under undue pressure to write favourable reports.
A much more objective alternative has been ignored by the Department
of Education.
7. The new curriculum
The proposed new curriculum will favour middle
class children whose parents have both social and fiscal capital
to invest in the "child centred" project work and case
studies that will be central to the new curriculum.
8. Cost
There has been no public audit of cost made
available.
9. Lack of democratic approval
There has been overwhelming public support demonstrated
in several Consultations and opinion polls for the principle of
selection. The current proposals have never been discussed by
the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
Why should the Order-in-Council be delayed?
1. The proposed changes are not workable
1.1 The debate on post-primary reform is
now entering its fifth year; it has challenged and, in some cases,
changed the status quo in post-primary education in Northern Ireland.
It is widely acknowledged that the current 11+ Transfer Test is
not fit for the purpose and should be scrapped.
1.2 The debate has moved on considerably
since it was first aired in the Assembly, but because devolution
has not yet been re-established, the local representatives have
not had a chance to re-engage with the more recent proposals.
1.3 Moreover the proposed changes would
result in a radical shift in the provision of education in Northern
Ireland, destroying a system of educational diversity and giving
us also an untried and revolutionary curriculum, based on progressivism
at its worst.
1.4 The current timetabling of a Draft Order
in Council is untimely because the various ramifications of the
proposals have not been properly thought through and there are
areas which need a great deal more consultation and time spent
on them before legislation of such magnitude is introduced into
Northern Ireland.
1.5 If the proposals in the Draft Order
in Council are based on the Costello Report (as Peter Hain indicated
at the Labour Party Conference) they are unworkable as they stand
for several reasons:
— Pupil entitlement and movement between
schools.
— Alternative transfer arrangements.
— Oversubscription and the myth of
parental choice.
— Lack of democratic approval.
2. Pupil entitlement and movement between
schools
2.1 The current proposal for Pupil Entitlement
is for 24 subjects to be offered at GCSE and 27 subjects to be
offered at A Level, (one third of which must be vocational and
one third academic).
2.2 There are few schools in Northern Ireland
(even the 1,400+ pupil size) that could offer the Pupil Entitlement
as it stands. The Entitlement could only be met by schools collaborating
with other neighbouring schools or Colleges of Further Education.
2.3 For some schools, which share adjacent
campuses (usually a grammar school and a secondary school, and
also usually Catholic) such movement between schools would be
relatively simple as the geographic distance would be negligible
and the physical dangers of crossing roads, dealing with traffic
etc would be minimised. The common timetabling would also be easier
to organise.
2.4 For most schools, however, the enforced
collaboration would present problems on a very large scale:
(i) Physical dangers of moving between schools,
involving transportation, crossing roads (at a time when "lollipop
men" are being made redundant due to lack of funding) would
be an issue of concern to parents and teachers alike.
(ii) Teaching time lost in moving between
schools. Even city/town schools will lose teaching time due to
pupils getting in and out of buses, traffic to be encountered,
pupils getting to class in an unfamiliar school/college. Country
schools will lose even more teaching time in the transportation
of pupils.
(iii) The suggestion that distance or "e"
learning could replace the classroom teacher and eliminate much
of this movement is unrealistic in the short term (insufficient
conferencing facilities in all post-primary schools) even if its
desirability were not being questioned by those who do not see
how large numbers of pupils can be monitored during class conferencing.
(iv) It would be impossible for schools to
have their own timetable. All schools in a catchment area would
have to have a common timetable to allow for the transfer of pupils
to other schools for classes. This would be a logistical nightmare.
(v) Discipline and pastoral care of pupils
as they transfer from one school to another and the less formal
atmosphere of the Colleges of Education will create problems.
Issues such as intimidation, bullying and safety should be foremost
for consideration, but no mention is made of them in the Costello
Report.
(vi) Schools will need to supervise the movement
of children for safety and insurance purposes. This presupposes
that schools can afford to employ a member of staff to accompany
pupils rather than teach. In a climate of savage financial cut-backs
for grammar schools and some secondary schools, this is an impossible
request. Pupils will end up travelling unaccompanied.
(vii) The cost of the transport between schools
has to be considered. Not every school has a minibus or a school
bus that can be used to transport children. Will the Education
& Library Boards be able to provide the additional transport
on a daily basis between schools? This is very unlikely resource
wise and highly improbable cost wise.
(viii) Questions arise from the sectarian
nature of education in Northern Ireland. There is no guarantee
that Catholic schools would be happy sending their pupils to non-catholic
schools for classes or vice-versa. If the nearest school is of
a different religion, it could mean sending the children a considerable
distance to the nearest "compatible school" or forcing
them to attend a school of a different nature.
(ix) Lessons should be learned from the early
years of the implementation of comprehensive education in Britain.
Split-site comprehensives were singularly unsuccessful; the smaller
school was closed down and the bigger school was expanded or a
single new campus school was created.
3. Administrative layers
3.1 The Costello proposals outline new layers
of administration for the new system which will oversee the "voluntary"
collaboration between schools. These layers are an additional,
expensive and unnecessary level of bureaucracy.
3.2 To this existing over-governance the
Costello report has proposed adding additional layers (indeed
many are already in existence in shadowy form).
3.3 The necessary consequence of the movement
between schools envisaged could not possibly be met by simple
voluntary collaboration between schools. The timetabling alone
would have to be done a large scale.
3.4 The claim in the Costello Report that
schools would enjoy their own identity and ethos is therefore
false; this move to collectivity would run directly counter to
the educational diversity being proposed in the new White Paper
for Education in England and Wales.
4. Alternative transfer arrangements
4.1 The official position as cited in the
Costello Report is that selection by ability should have no part
whatsoever in the transfer of a child from primary to post-primary
education or at any stage in a child's school career.
4.2 The alternative suggested is that children
and their parents will choose the post-primary school, based on
the child's interest and the evidence of the Pupil Profile available
from the primary school.
4.3 The Costello Report further suggests
that the child and parents should have interviews with the primary
and post-primary Heads of any schools the child might be interested
in attending to ascertain the best school for their child's abilities
and interests.
4.4 However, there is nothing mandatory
about this consultation and on paper it would be possible for
parents to simply ignore any advice given to them or to not even
attend any interviews or take any advice from primary or post-primary
Heads.
4.5 Even if the parents were to approach
the Heads of the post-primary schools the actual process of interviewing
would be impossible to fit into the time schedule of any Head.
He or she would be faced with interviewing several hundred applicants
(depending on the size of the school) and giving advice based
on a pupil profile which they may not have seen prior to the actual
interview.
4.6 This point of view has been challenged.
The Household Consultation showed 64% of the public favoured the
retention of selection as a means of Transfer, while only 57%
favoured the ending of the 11+.
4.7 Various alternatives to the apparent
unlimited parental choice have been suggested, but have been summarily
dismissed. In fact the Costello Report made a reference to the
impracticability of using any other form of selection as part
of the Transfer process.
4.8 Research or evidence that would have
shown why it would be educationally unsound to have some form
of selection has not been forthcoming from the Department.
5. Oversubscription and the myth of parental
choice
5.1 The current educational thinking is
that parents and children should have the choice as to which post-primary
school their child attends; the nub of the argument about selection
is that the system selects the child for the school, not the other
way round.
5.2 However, the situation in Northern Ireland
is markedly different from that of the rest of the United Kingdom.
5.3 In areas of the United Kingdom where
grammar schools exist, parental choice is allowed to be exercised
(through a local ballot) in deciding whether or not the school
remains a selective grammar school.
5.4 This choice is being denied to the parents
of Northern Ireland, who have expressed their preference for the
retention of selection many times over in Consultations, Opinion
Polls and letters in the local press.
5.5 The choice that is being offered to
parents in Northern Ireland is deceptive. On the one hand they
are being encouraged to be responsible and take into account the
talents and aptitudes of their child, as demonstrated in the proposed
Pupil Profile, to decide on the kind of school their child would
most enjoy and benefit from.
5.6 On the other, the lack of any directive
that parents must take advice and seek interviews with primary
and post-primary Heads, means that a parent may simply opt to
send their child to the nearest or best (in their perception)
school, without the child necessarily having the requisite talents
and abilities to cope with the "specialist" kind of
curriculum it might offer.
5.7 In the event of that school being oversubscribed,
how will the school differentiate between the children who will
or will not get places? Invariably the decision, after the obvious
criteria of siblings at the school, will be distance from the
school. This means that a child who is closer, but not necessarily
equipped with the kind of talents/aptitudes will get a place ahead
of a child who may be more suited to the curriculum on offer,
but who lives further afield.
5.8 Middle class parents will seek to move
houses into the catchment area of what is perceived to be the
"better" schools, which will also inevitably be the
best secondary and grammar schools. It will leave the children
from the inner cities and the rural areas with little choice;
the current selection by ability (flawed as it is) will be replaced
by selection by mortgage.
5.9 In Northern Ireland there has been continued
intergenerational social mobility over the last 30 years, despite
the political unrest and social problems. This contrasts starkly
with the rest of the United Kingdom where, with the removal of
selection in most parts of the United Kingdom, social mobility
seems to have declined quite markedly.
6. Profiles
6.1 Taking Costello at its most optimistic,
parents will be basing their decision on where to send their child
for post-primary education largely on the evidence in the proposed
Pupil Profile. The current proposals for this Pupil Profile are
totally unfit for the purpose.
6.2 The Pupil Profile has little chance
of being objective when it is drawn up by a succession of classroom
teachers, of varying ages and experience, with no opportunity
to compare the child's performance with other children of a similar
age.
6.3 This will lend itself to undue pressure
being placed on primary school teachers for a favourable report
on a child. This has been adequately demonstrated in the few years
when the 11+ was dropped as a means of Transfer and pupil placement
in post-primary education was made by the Head's recommendation.
6.4 The Pupil Profile, if correctly done,
will involve the primary school teacher in a considerable amount
of record keeping and paperwork. The more conscientious teachers
will meet the high standards, but others will not and some children
will have a less than adequate mirror of their abilities and aptitudes.
6.5 Of greatest concern has to be the lack
of objectivity in determining a child's capacity for certain skills,
particularly the academic. Parents will want to know if their
child has the ability to cope with the demands of a rigorous academic
curriculum; it is both unfair and unkind to have a Profile which
cannot realistically give an answer.
6.6 Middle class parents will be able to
manipulate the Pupil Profile with all the extra classes, tuition
in languages, music, ballet etc that money can buy. Working class
children may not have parents with the money to afford these extras
or the inclination/understanding to provide such extra-curricular
activities.
6.7 Alternative proposals have been made
by Dr Hugh Morrison of Queens University Belfast for a computer
generated Pupil Profile that actively works with a child's current
abilities and presents tasks unique to him/her that allows the
child to develop at his/her own level.
6.8 This is a much more reliable indicator
of how well a child is performing in relation to other children
of his/her age group and is a much better guide as to what kind
of post-primary school would be best suited to the talents/aptitudes
thus displayed. The Department of Education has yet to acknowledge,
never mind respond to this alternative.
7. The new curriculum
7.1 Post-primary reform has to be seen in
the context of a radical shake-up in the curriculum being proposed
in Northern Ireland by CCEA, based on the discredited "scientific
rationale" model. It is an untried and revolutionary curriculum,
representing progressivism at its very worst.
7.2 The proposed new curriculum, based as
it is on project work and pupil self assessment, favours children
from middle class backgrounds who will have parental knowledge
and support, as well as the resources to do well. Working class
children, who are much less likely to have the resources or the
support, will be severely disadvantaged, as can be seen from the
failed efforts to apply this style of curriculum in the USA.
7.3 The end of selective/academically specialist
schools is essential if this curriculum is to work and the Costello
proposals are an essential ingredient in imposing this curriculum
by the back door on an unsuspecting teaching force and public.
8. Cost
8.1 There has been no audit of cost for
this exercise made public.
9. Lack of democratic approval
9.1 Public support for the retention of
selection has not wavered, despite the best efforts of the PR
machinery of a government department to persuade parents of the
benefits of the Costello proposals.
9.2 The support from the public is both
across class and religious boundaries. It is not a sectarian issue
on the ground, even though it may appear to be from the vested
interests that are arguing in the public, political and educational
domains.
Annika Nestius-Brown
Chair
25 November 2005
| 
