COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Education Bill

11 February 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mervyn Storey (Chairperson)
Mr Dominic Bradley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Trevor Lunn
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr John O’Dowd
Mr Edwin Poots

Witnesses:
Mr Tom Flynn )
Mr John McGrath ) Department of Education
Mr Eugene Rooney )
Mr Chris Stewart )

The Chairperson (Mr Storey):

I welcome John McGrath, Chris Stewart, Eugene Rooney and Tom Flynn. Good morning, gentlemen. I remind members that this session is being covered by Hansard because it forms part of the scrutiny of the Education Bill.

Today we will consider area-based planning, on which I am sure that members will have concerns and questions. I will ask John to speak to the Committee first.

Mr John McGrath (Department of Education):

Thank you, Chairman. We are grateful for the opportunity to be here on a Wednesday morning yet again to discuss area-based planning and to deal with the Committee’s queries. We have distributed papers to the Committee on the recent public consultation exercise on the draft policy paper on area-based planning; the paper identifies issues that were raised in the consultation. We have also distributed responses to the issues that Committee members raised on the draft policy as set out in the letter from the Committee Clerk dated 16 January. I propose to outline the key points in the papers before we take any questions.

The rationale for area-based planning is set out in the policy paper. Fundamentally, it is about introducing a much more strategic planning process into the education service to ensure that children and young people can access and benefit from provision that best meets their needs and which makes the best use of resources. The objective is to bring better cohesion, consistency and co-ordination into planning in order to address the weaknesses that are increasingly evident in the current bottom-up system. The aim is to have much better alignment of provision to overall integrated needs.

The policy paper went out to consultation last year. We received 34 written submissions, and colleagues met key stakeholders in the education sector.

The list of respondents is included in the paper that was made available to the Committee. The consultation responses were broadly positive towards our approach, particularly the education and skills authority’s (ESA) having the lead responsibility for producing area plans, and also for the concept that area plans should, over time, cover a wide range of provision, including pre-school, primary, post-primary and youth provision.

Some of the issues that were raised during the consultation are identified in the Committee’s briefing, and some relate to matters that the Committee raised previously. I will briefly deal with those in the order that is set out in appendix 3 of the briefing. The comments will be considered by the Minister, and our intention is that a revised draft policy paper that reflects her views will subsequently be issued to the Committee.

A recurring theme in the responses was the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders, and the Committee raised that issue in previous discussions. The consultation responses mainly concerned the respective roles of the ESA and the various sectoral interests of the schools. Some of the sectoral interests argued that they should have a more elevated role, while others sought further clarification on the policy statement. In addition, some felt that there should be no erosion of the envisaged role of the ESA, and others simply sought clarification of their involvement in the process.

In consideration with the Minister, we aim to clarify roles in the review when we update and revise the policy paper. The review will stick to the core principle that the ESA will have the lead and the statutory role in producing draft area plans, including how the various interests can bring their influence to bear on the ESA in the production of those plans so that the process is as inclusive as possible.

As well as setting policy and overall budgets, the Department will have a challenge-and-approve role in the area-planning process, including area plans and strategic investment plans. Under the review of public administration (RPA) changes, the ESA will have the statutory duty to produce area plans, and, as far as possible, it should seek agreement from stakeholders about the proposals in the plans. When the ESA cannot achieve such consensus, it should detail those issues in its submission to the Department. A lack of overall consensus is not necessarily a veto on the planning process.

The Committee and some of the respondents raised the issue of community planning and its links with area-based planning. The Minister is keen that area-based planning links in with community planning as it develops under the RPA and local government; that will be reflected in the revised policy paper. That will clarify that the processes should link in with the proposed community planning model for the 11 new councils and that the ESA will have a duty to participate in the community planning process. Indeed, the Bain Report recommended that education planning should be related to planning in other areas; the advent of community planning is a mechanism to ensure that that happens.

The Committee raised concerns about school sectoral consultations and development proposals in the period before area plans will be in place. As I said, under the RPA changes the ESA will have the statutory responsibility for putting in place area plans. In the interim, sector bodies may continue to undertake planning and consultation exercises within their own remits, but those will be superseded by the area plans. The existence of such proposals or plans in individual sectors will not be allowed to hamper the overall area-based planning process.

Under existing legislation, the Department cannot prevent bodies and groups submitting development proposals. However, in advising on proposals, it takes into account the consistency of the proposal with the anticipated need for provision in an area. When area plans are in place, the draft policy paper points out that only those proposals that are consistent with the plan will be taken forward, and that there will be opportunities for sectors and groups to raise their proposals with the ESA as area plans are developed and reviewed.

The Committee also raised the issue of club bank and area-based planning.

When area plans are in place throughout the region, club-bank style arrangements should not be required because all schemes that have been approved as part of the planning process should have been appropriately funded from the outset. Some legacy schemes may still be operating at the beginning of the process, but the need for loans should diminish and become redundant as each of those schemes is completed.

The Committee asked for an update on the post-primary exercise, concentrating on the entitlement framework. The framework is detailed in the briefing paper, and the exercise has a dedicated website, so I shall only select some of the highlights.

The exercise sought submissions from interested parties, and 76 submissions, which are now being considered by the area groups, were received by the closing date at the end of last month. The central group has met on four occasions; it is due to meet again on 19 February 2009. Each area group has met several times, and all the groups meet in a forum.

On 27 October 2008, the central group submitted an interim report to the Minister that highlighted all instances of positive engagement by sectors. A progress report from the central group is due to be with the Minister at the end of this month, and the group’s initial regional review report is due in May.

Those are the substantive issues with respect to the current position. The next step will be to complete responses to all the matters that were raised during the consultation process and, in consultation with the Minister, to complete the revised policy paper. At that stage, we will bring the revised policy paper to the Committee.

Although the drafting of the second Bill will be based on that agreed policy, we are keen to hear the Committee’s opinions and answer questions about the present state of work. Therefore, we stand ready to deal with any queries that members might wish to raise.

The Chairperson:

Thank you, John. The timescale of events concerning this matter and the way in which announcements were made are bewildering. In March and December 2008 the Minister made statements in the House setting out the work of the central group; we then had to wait to get the terms of reference. Eventually, the central group and the subgroups were up and running. How does that series of events fit in with implementing a final, full area plan, and, given that the entitlement framework is supposed to come together in 2013, is the Department planning to introduce any interim arrangements from 2010?

I worry to hear you talk about a report coming out in May, as the central group has sent work back to the Department. What is the present situation, and, in light of the new statistics that have been gathered, how does the work on the area plan sit with the development proposals, about which we have been haranguing Eugene for weeks and months? We want to see progress on new builds; we want to see schools in place. What work is being done to bring all those factors together so that we do not end up in the same position as we did in the past on other matters? The process has been like a patchwork quilt with no joined-up approach.

Mr McGrath:

I was afraid that you would begin with such a complex question.

The Chairperson:

I am glad to fulfil your expectations.

Mr McGrath:

I said that I was afraid. [Laughter.] There are several strands involved. The post-primary entitlement framework is, in a sense, being taken forward as a non-statutory exercise, reflecting several matters that must be dealt with. Furthermore, that work will prepare the ground in the education service for the various sectors, informing them about the types of approach, behaviours and expectations that area-based planning will involve. Consequently, the work has taken longer than expected to reach this stage.

This is the first time that such work has been undertaken in the education sector, and during the process significant lessons have been learned about what the various sectors can expect and about whether and on what basis they will participate. It has taken some time to get the process to where it is now, but much has been learned that will be relevant for the future. Any process can be technocratic and mechanistic; however, the behaviour and motives of the players in the process are equally important.

It is a valuable introduction to the discipline and behaviour that a more strategic approach to planning will bring to the education sector; whereas, to date, there has been a locally based, bottom-up micro-system with no overview. That work is continuing and will provide a valuable back-drop.

However, it is not a statutory basis for area-based planning; that will be in the second Bill, and the ESA will have the responsibility of putting in place a series of area-based plans that should, over time, cover the entire region. However, it will, undoubtedly, take time for a full set of area plans, covering not only school services but early-years and youth services, because we are moving from one spectrum to another. There will be a migration from where we are now, and we will have to work carefully to fine-tune the process of moving to the implementation of area-based plans.

The determination of which plans should be initiated in the early days, as opposed to later, depends on various factors. Judgements will have to be made on whether there is stability of provision and whether there is consensus on that provision and whether there is a balance between provision and need. If the answer is yes, the judgement may be that a full area-based plan would not be needed until later.

In some areas, and I am sure that we can think of some, there may be pressing issues about the state of investment or the imbalance between provision and need, or perhaps several proposals or issues about rationalisation need to be dealt with. The ESA should immediately identify those areas that require early work on area-based plans. The process of migration means that it will be some time after 2010 before the full pattern of area-based plans is complete.

The Chairperson:

The difficulty, John, is that the patchwork quilt will grow over coming years because if we allow sectors and organisations to continue to do what they have always done, which is to work within the parameters of their own legally defined silos, will we ever reach the point of completion?

Some of us may question the need for the ESA. The probable rationale of the Department is that the ESA is required precisely because, to date, everyone has worked within their own legislative frameworks. Those frameworks have defined what they have been able to do, and that has not always reflected what is happening in other sectors. Realistically, however, that behaviour will continue for several years to come.

Mr McGrath:

It is recognised that a much more strategic approach to planning is required in the education sector. Even if the ESA were not to provide that, the consensus is that discipline must be introduced. Given that we are moving from a localised, bottom-up approach, which, in many cases, is based on provision rather than need and in which the providers are the drivers, it will be a long migration.

However, we do not want a free for all to apply until there is almost a complete set of area plans; we want to prioritise where area plans should be put in place at an early date. That would put a stop to the diverse range of thoughts and proposals and provide a context in which to bring all of them together in one framework.

We have an idea of the direction that we want to take in the various areas. There will, therefore, be a much heightened scrutiny of any proposals, and they will be set against the overall strategic context. At present, we cannot stop development proposals being made, and they must be considered and approved — or not; however, there is no automatic assumption that a development proposal must be agreed. Eugene may wish to add a few words because, to date, he has more scars on his back from development proposals than I have.

We will want to look at that in context in order to address the perception that various interests may try to bring forward proposals in order to get them over the line before area-based planning is introduced. We must be very careful about that, because those plans will trigger decisions about capital investment for the next 25 to 30 years. Strategic decisions must be made in the right context; we cannot be bounced into making misguided decisions after a bit of strategic reflection.

Mr Eugene Rooney (Department of Education):

John has covered the points that are central to the ESA’s role in planning. The ESA will be taking over completed and partly completed work; it will be aware of investment proposals; it will take forward investment projects; it will have information, not least from the central planning group, whose work on how areas might be configured is due to be completed this year; and it will provide advice and analysis on development proposals. It will be two to three years before the ESA starts to make a significant contribution to putting all that together and in challenging plans that do not fit. From day one, areas that need to be looked at, proposals, and the existing investment programme that it will inherit, will be a priority for the ESA.

The central planning group is unique in bringing together the different sectors to look at issues on an area level, and the five area groups are doing that at the moment. Valuable information will come out of those groups that can inform the process that the ESA is required to take up and deliver on. That material will be used to help to ensure that the planning process is as effective as it can be. It focuses primarily on post-primary schools, although, as John outlined, area planning covers primary, pre-primary and post-primary schools. That exercise will have an important input; however, the ESA will be expected to do much more.

The Chairperson:

John, you explained the issues that arose from the consultation. The Department anticipates that the revised policy paper will be available from the second week in March; it would be valuable for the Committee to see that. We would appreciate if you could come back then; this is an important area that must be resolved.

Mr McGrath:

Absolutely.

The Chairperson:

The Committee wants to understand exactly where the thinking is as we develop the details of the second Bill. On 4 March 2008, in her statement to the House about the timescale of post-primary area-based planning, the Minister of Education said that:

"This will be used to identify the structural change required for the delivery to every young person of election at 14 and the entitlement framework from 2013." — [Official Report, Vol 28, No 4, p186, col 1].

Will area-based planning focus only on a young person’s election at 14; or, as many people would prefer, will it look at transfer at age 11 through to 19? It is not specific, and the concern is that area-based planning may be used for reasons other than considering the provision of need; the worry is that it may be used to change the debate around the transfer issue.

Mr McGrath:

The primary focus is on the entitlement framework. Some people think that area-based planning concerns only the physical estate, but the physical estate must reflect how the curriculum entitlement framework will be delivered. Area-based planning is not just about buildings, and that has been reflected in our language.

The buildings flow from the pattern of services and the issues of critical mass and quality, not just bricks and mortar. We are likely to reflect that broader dimension to area-based planning in the revisions to the policy paper.

Mr Tom Flynn (Department of Education):

The exercise focuses on the 14 to 19 entitlement framework. Given the timescale, it also focuses on provision in the existing and planned estate; that is to say the projects that you have had details of from the investment delivery plan. We are talking about a short time.

The post-primary exercise is submissions-based in that it elicits submissions from organisations and individuals. In that respect, it is not as broad or as pro-active an exercise as we would expect under full area-based planning with the ESA.

The Chairperson:

Is there any indication as to what the key elements in the Department’s revised policy paper would be following the consultation? Do you have any idea, at this stage, what would be put in place that would be different from the policy paper?

Mr McGrath:

First, we identified the issues that people raised; some people asked for clarification, so perhaps the paper is not entirely clear. One issue that we will emphasise is the relative roles of the ESA in area planning, and the various sectoral interests and sectoral support bodies. The latter represent their sector and provide their input, but the statutory responsibility — the responsibility for taking forward area planning — will rest with the ESA.

The stakeholders, as in any public consultation exercise, will be the public at large, including, but not exclusively, sectoral interests. There are various issues that we want to clarify. Issues arise from area-based planning’s being about meeting overall education needs, and, through that, what the investment needs are, although it is not just about investment.

There are issues about the mechanics of area planning groups in that we may have to examine who the key stakeholders are. At official level, we want to ensure that the advice that we submit reflects where we are now and some of the discussions that we have had with the Committee about how area-based planning fits with the role of sector groups.

We spoke last week of the controlled estate body. There may be issues over whether it should have a role in the development proposals in future if no one else brings such proposals forward. There is an updating of thinking, but primarily it will concern the issues raised in the consultation paper. However, the discussion that we have started today is about where we will be on 1 January 2010 if we roll out area plans. The Committee will be interested in that. That may not be so much of an issue in the policy paper, but there is a query over how we move to the implementation of policy. I hope that when we come back to the Committee in March 2009, we will be able to fill in some of the gaps.

Mr D Bradley:

Good morning. Area-based planning will be an ongoing process because communities’ needs will evolve and change.

A key element in that will be the sustainable schools policy. At the moment, there are six criteria by which the viability of schools is judged, and since no weighting is given any individual criterion, to all intents and purposes they are of equal value. How can you ensure that one area group does not value one criterion more highly than the rest, while another area group will value a different criterion more highly? How can you ensure even application of the policy across all areas?

At the moment, we face an unregulated system. There will still be open enrolment at post-primary level, but we will not follow the policy envisaged by the Minister whereby most pupils will travel to their nearest local school. In order to area-plan, you must be able to contain pupils in an area; however, that will not be possible in an unregulated system. How can area-based planning operate in an unregulated system?

We have already discussed my next point. The enrolment statistics of schools in Northern Ireland show that a huge number of small rural primary schools fail to meet the sustainability criterion of 105 pupils — some are well below it. Is that not a challenge? Should it not be included in your revised policy paper?

A further point that I want to raise is related to the amalgamation of schools, although that may be Eugene Rooney’s area of expertise. Are there guidelines for amalgamation? Must amalgamating schools be of roughly similar size, give or take, say, 50 or 80 pupils? Will the sustainable schools policy be incorporated into your revised policy paper?

Mr McGrath:

The sustainable schools policy has been published. In area-based planning, we expect it to set some of the parameters. It does not need to be reflected; it is part of the context.

Mr D Bradley:

Will it take into consideration my point about how the six criteria can be interpreted differently by each area?

Mr McGrath:

I was coming to that. In future, under the changes envisaged, the ESA will have a statutory role in area-based planning. It will have guidance from the Department and will be expected to adopt a common approach, guided by the entitlement framework, school improvement and the sustainable schools policy.

Mr D Bradley:

Does that mean that the ESA will give a certain weighting to each of the six criteria?

Mr McGrath:

We expect each area plan to take account of the various policy parameters, of which the sustainable schools policy is one. Each area will be expected to make judgements on the relative importance of the sustainable schools criteria and explain why, for example, the judgement in one case showed a greater bias towards size or quality than the judgement in another.

Area-based planning will not be so mechanistic as to allow one to stick the numbers in at one end and collect an answer at the other. Judgements will have to be made about the size of schools. You mentioned small schools and the different criteria but, at the end of the day, the quality of the learning experience for children will be very high. The enrolment of a school may be below the figure set for a sustainable school, but the test of a school’s worth will be whether it can address the challenges — either through amalgamation or federation — that were raised about the quality of the learning experience.

If it can meet the challenges, an ESA plan could envisage that a school could function below the threshold; if a school cannot, it might not be allowed to do so. Judgements will have to be made in different places. There will be a common policy approach, and when proposing an area plan, the ESA will be expected to explain the judgements that it makes in different circumstances. That is no different from any other major strategic-planning exercise.

Mr D Bradley:

Will that not be rather confusing for the public? A school with a low enrolment might remain open while one with a higher enrolment might close.

Mr McGrath:

Those things happen. Hypothetically, a school with a smaller enrolment could work in collaboration with nearby schools to deliver the entitlement framework and quality of learning; equally, a school with a higher enrolment might be geographically isolated or unwilling to work in collaboration and have poor results.

My experience in the Health Service, in which there are always issues about viability and facilities, taught me that different solutions apply to different places because circumstances are different. Geography means that there are differences in what happens in Downpatrick, Omagh and Coleraine because one can factor in different solutions. There is no one-size-fits-all solution; however, issues of critical mass and quality must be examined.

Mr D Bradley:

I thought that one of the points of the ESA was to stop the irregularity of application of policy across the board.

Mr McGrath:

It is about how policy is applied. It is certainly not envisaged that we will have an almost entirely mechanistic system. The exact primary and post-primary configuration around Omagh will not be the same as that in Coleraine or Downpatrick. However, it is consistency of approach and rigour, and about explaining how the issues balance.

Mr D Bradley:

Do you not agree that the sustainable schools policy is such a key element in area-based planning that there should be at least some reference to it in your revised policy paper?

Mr McGrath:

It is a clear policy. We may set out in the guidance that area-based planning should include sustainable schools among the key policy parameters of which it must take account. Do not read this as a dilution of the proposal. Issues of critical mass in education — as in other sectors — will become sharper as time progresses. Therefore many messages about the sustainable schools policy will bite much more sharply in future than they do now.

Schools may find solutions through collaboration between sectors; they should at least be given the opportunity to do so.

Mr Rooney:

Sustainable schools will be central to area-based planning. Before sustainable schools existed, sectors planned according to their own factors and criteria; there was no common approach. The sustainable-schools policy has set out six criteria that everyone can consider.

They must be interpreted by considering local circumstances. There cannot be a mechanistic approach that states that every school in a rural area must be reviewed if its enrolment falls below the threshold of 105. The policy clarifies that the key objective is to ensure that the educational experience of children is paramount when considering the provision of the estate in an area and how the facilities that are provided meet the educational needs of children. That is a key element of the policy, and it will be a key element of area-based planning to ensure that children’s education is of the right standard and that they have access to the broad curriculum to which they are entitled.

The individual criteria were not weighted. We considered that, but the Minister decided that the criteria should be applied with regard to local circumstances. One criterion was not put above another — they had to be considered together. The indicators are intended to help the education sector to identify where action is needed in areas to address issues that might arise in schools.

The ESA will have a key role in ensuring consistency of application across the region, because it will draw up the draft area plans and consider issues of sustainability across the schools estate. That is a key element of the ESA’s work on area-based planning.

The key issue with amalgamations is that when the options of how best to ensure an area’s educational needs are considered, it requires two or more schools to amalgamate to provide a viable solution. As a broad guide, we expect that the schools involved in an amalgamation would be broadly equal in size; that would be one of the initial factors to consider. That is not necessarily an absolute requirement for an amalgamation; there can be many different types of amalgamation.

We consider whether an amalgamation will deliver an effective solution in an area, whether it will provide a sustainable solution and whether the educational needs of children will be met. There is no hard-and-fast rule on when an amalgamation should or should not apply, but we will consider whether it is viable.

Mr D Bradley:

My other question was whether area-based planning can operate in an unregulated system, given that children can leave their own area to attend schools in other areas.

Mr McGrath:

When running a sector such as education, which has a pivotal role and a large budget, it is a no-brainer that a strategic-planning discipline is needed. I do not wish to get into the detail of transfer to post-primary school, because that is not my forte; however, the taxpayer would expect a system of strategic planning no matter what arrangements are in place. Strategic planning is not in place, and not having it creates more challenges.

At its heart, area-based planning is not based around particular policy considerations; it is designed to take a strategic look at the education estate in the light of the policies of the day. Some may make it more complicated; some may make it easier. What is needed is a strategic planning process that better shapes the nature and delivery of the service, reflects investment needs and gives confidence that the right investments are being made in the right places. It is a puzzle to me how the education sector has gone for so long without it.

Mr D Bradley:

I agree that area-based planning is needed, but it will be difficult —

Mr McGrath:

It will be challenging, and it is early days. It will take some time for area-based planning to bed in completely.

Mr D Bradley:

I question whether that is where the process should start. My other question was about small schools. Do you not agree that such a challenging issue should be incorporated into your revised policy paper with specific guidance?

Mr McGrath:

The policy paper is for area-based planning, which will govern the legislation; it will not get down to the detail of individual or perhaps local guidance, depending on the circumstance. For example, it may be more relevant to rural than to urban areas, although not exclusively so. It is an important issue, but it may be further down the implementation path when it features in guidance.

Mr Flynn:

There are two sides to the issue. In a sense, area-based planning is about identifying a need and the solutions to it; that is where the solution of sustainable schools comes in on the supply side. If the issues are considered from an area basis rather than from a facility basis, some of the risk of local enrolment is being pooled. If an area is large enough, more of the movements will be internalised and more of the flows of pupils will be captured.

Area-based planning is about delivering policies, a key one of which is sustainable schools. There is a balancing act, as planning challenges are thrown up by some of the policies. It is not meant to be a centralised, autocratic system of supply provision; it must allow policies to interact. My preference is to avoid singling out an individual strand in the policy paper for area-based planning, because it is about the delivery of a range of policies.

The issue of thresholds and enrolments is a subset of one criterion of sustainable schools, but it is something that people pick up on; however, as John said, it was never intended to apply the policy mechanistically. The fact that it is about the range of policies as well as sustainable schools means that there must be flexibility in application at the facility level. The key point of area-based planning is its focus on determining need at an area level.

I do not know whether that answers your questions, but it is an attempt to do so.

Mr D Bradley:

Thank you.

Mr Elliott:

My point relates to a question that Dominic asked about smaller schools. It concerns me that area-based planning will be forced by capital spend and capital budget, particularly in rural areas of Northern Ireland, without having a more designed plan. Ultimately, pupil numbers will drive that process. I think that Eugene said that the sustainable schools policy is central to area-based planning. I see that tied in to a policy that is driven more by those two aspects than being a feasible plan, particularly in rural areas.

Mr McGrath:

Small rural schools will face challenges in the future, and we must take those challenges into account when formulating a plan for them. In a sense, that confirms the point made by Dominic, and it will be an issue to address. Finding solutions in certain cases through greater co-operation or collaboration will be a challenge. With or without area-based planning, some small schools will face challenges; how those challenges are dealt with is the issue.

Mr Rooney:

When looking at small schools in an area-based planning context, one can plan so that they are viable and supported to deliver the education that is needed in an area; that will ensure that they are needed in the future. That is because the area-planning process should allow a complete view of how best to address the needs of an area, which may include a review of some schools and a decision that they are required in the long term and should be supported to maintain delivery.

The present process is different — pupil numbers often dwindle, which increases pressure on schools, but there is no plan for whether the school is needed in the long term. As pupil numbers fall year on year, the school gets smaller, the pressures on teachers grow, but no proactive action is taken. That is what the area-planning process must change. It should identify all an area’s schools, its projected needs, and how those needs can best be addressed in the prevailing circumstances.

It is a process of planning and management rather than of reacting to situations in which small schools face the challenges that they always have and always will. The question is how best to address those challenges once the circumstances of an area involved have been fully assessed.

Mr Elliott:

How will smaller schools be protected if their plans are not accepted by the ESA or the Department? That will cause friction. You may argue that smaller schools face challenges; however, the challenge for the Department of Education and the ESA is to work with them, and to date, the Department has, in many instances, not met that challenge. I would like the Department to adopt a much more open approach, which is a challenge that also faces the ESA.

Mr McGrath:

Tom makes some good points. Usually, events dictate what happens: small schools dwindle and may close, and the resulting pattern is dictated by happenstance. We always talk about particular primary schools, but, in area planning the approach is based on how to meet the needs of primary-school children in a specific area for the next 25 years. Tom is right that the Department must come up with a plan that is more strategic and proactive than simply waiting to see what happens and devil take the hindmost, or, as may happen in many cases, only the strongest will survive. That will present a challenge to the ESA, but all those involved must acknowledge that since the present pattern will not survive, a new one must be determined — as opposed to the winner being the last one standing. The ESA’s challenge is to ensure that it meets, rather than ducks out of meeting, educational need.

Mr Elliott:

To return to Dominic’s point, I know that the Department cannot permit too many inconsistencies, but one size does not fit all in the Province. I am keen to receive an assurance that guidance will be provided to ensure that that will not happen and that there will be flexibility.

Mr McGrath:

There will be local flexibility. The challenges will be to deliver choice and equality of learning. A solution that works in Fermanagh may not work elsewhere, but there must be scope for devising a local solution. If there is a diversity of approach, the test for the ESA will be to explain why something that worked in place X would not work in place Y; local communities deserve to know why that should be the case. Collaboration and the sharing of resources may result in a local solution being successful in one area. However, it may not work elsewhere because such arrangements were not possible, people were not willing to collaborate or the distances between schools were too great. One solution does not fit all, particularly for very localised issues.

The Chairperson:

John, at this stage, the devil is in the detail. To follow on from the points made by Tom and Dominic, several factors will determine the decision that is ultimately taken on a school. First, there is an issue about the trustees and ownership, and there is a long way to go on that in the controlled sector. The trustees have no statutory responsibility for development proposals.

Take into account all that you and Eugene said about flexibility and consider the longstanding viability of a particular school. What happens if, in an area context, the ESA makes a determination and submits a development proposal stating that it can provide for the needs in the area by closing that school? As everything is set in the context of sustainable schools and, particularly in the case of post-primary schools, the entitlement framework, ultimately the ESA would have the power to close that school. Neither the school’s board of governors nor the trustees could do anything about it.

That differs slightly from the present situation. Members know of schools that have amalgamated and are still not viable but which continue to existence; yet the Department cannot get some sectors to acknowledge that, ultimately, a particular school should close.

Is that the key difference between where we are and where we will be?

Mr McGrath:

I hesitate to link that to a specific sector.

The Chairperson:

I did not name the sector, so you cannot accuse me of doing so. I did not cite a school or sector; I spoke in generic terms, so you can use the same protection.

Mr McGrath:

I defer to your wisdom. You will want the education and skills authority to have a role; it will consult on and debate an area plan before bringing its proposals to the Department. If those proposals are approved, the ESA envisages our investment proposals being guided by a decision to change the pattern for a particular provision, such as the primary-school sector, for example.

As you said, rationalisation is not unknown in certain sectors at different paces in different places; the issue is about the quality of learning and the viability of critical mass. The Department or the ESA will not invent those: they already exist. We will want the force of a plan that has statutory effect to provide more of a catalyst to make changes.

The Chairperson:

Will an unregulated system be open to litigation? We hear various assertions about what could happen in the post-11-plus era. Is the argument the same for area plans? Could a school’s trustees legally challenge an area plan or development proposal if they did not agree with the closure of their school?

Mr McGrath:

Anyone has a right to go to court on any matter. Ultimately, schools rely on taxpayers’ money. If a rational piece of work suggests that a school should not have a future and should not be provided for, we would expect that to bite.

Mr Chris Stewart (Department of Education):

As John said, area-based planning will work best if it works on consensus. I reassure you that differences in ownership will not be an impediment. As the legislation stands, any grant-aided school can be closed by means of a development proposal, and the owners of that school cannot block it.

The Chairperson:

I appreciate that clarification.

Mr O’Dowd:

Who speaks on behalf of the nursery-school sector in the area-based planning groups? I am thinking specifically of standalone units.

Mr McGrath:

The current work relates only to post-primary schools.

Mr O’Dowd:

The review of public administration says that area plans should relate to areas covering the provision of, among others, nursery schools.

Mr Flynn:

That will be the case. Representation will need to be found for the nursery and pre-school sector in the area groups for area planning.

The Chairperson:

Therefore the focus is on post-primary schools at present.

Mr McGrath:

The non-statutory exercise is focused on the post-primary sector at present. In future, we want area planning to cover the spectrum of the services for which we are responsible.

The Chairperson:

Will that include youth services?

Mr McGrath:

Yes; we want area planning to cover everything from the early-years sector to youth services. In the early-years sector, there is a mix of nursery and pre-school provision and a mix of statutory and voluntary and community provision. That presents its challenges, as it is a much more diverse sector than the normal education sector. We will need the means to allow people to be represented. In that sector, there are issues about the differences in quality between pre-school provision and nursery provision, which the chief inspector highlighted in his recent report. An inclusive approach will be needed.

In youth services there is also a mix of statutory and voluntary and community provision, and the number of providers is much broader and more diverse.

The Chairperson:

There are 11 organisations on the central group: the education and library boards; CCMS; the Irish-language lobby; the GBA; the Council for Integrated Education; trades unions; DETI; DEL; the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges; a representative from the Republic; and a representative from the ESA. One of the criticisms was that the make-up of groups — not just the central group, but the five subgroups too — was biased against the controlled sector, and I notice that that was picked up on in some of the other issues that arose from the consultation. Will that issue be addressed in the Department’s revised paper?

Mr McGrath:

The current exercise is non-statutory; the groups that are doing the work are made up of the providers of education. Under the RPA changes, the ESA will take the lead and do the work in consultation with the education providers; however, the ESA will be the executive body. The nature of area planning groups will be different from the present ones, and we will have to make sure that we get the right diversity. There must be a community input as distinct from the input of the education providers; it is important that the views of those who receive education are not lost. That is an issue that we will look at throughout our work, and to which we will return in light of the Minister’s views.

Mr Poots:

Paragraph 2 of the central group’s terms of reference states that:

“While the issues around transfer at 11 are not within the remit of this exercise, it will be important that the group’s proposals are consistent with any resolution reached.”

I am not sure whether a resolution has been reached. However, at least we are being realistic, as the Minister has recognised — in deeds if not in words — that academic selection will continue to be used by some schools and that there is nothing she can do about it. In that context, I assume that the work of the central group will be based on reality and not the Minister’s hopes?

Mr McGrath:

Those are the terms of reference for the groups and within them it is up to the groups to decide what they will do and how they will come back to us; there is no diktat on them.

Mr Poots:

The Minister has made many suggestions about what will happen and what she would like to see happen. There has been much talk about election at 14, but that has not been elaborated on. It appears to me that transfer at age 11 will continue; the only difference will be the privatisation of the test. Will the groups be guided by reality or by what the Minister wants?

Mr McGrath:

I cannot speak for the groups; they have their terms of reference, and they are made up of bodies that may have differing views on the issue. It is up to them how they address that, what they come back to the Minister with, and, as you say, whether or not that is deemed a resolution.

Mr Poots:

What advice are they getting, for example, on transferring to an alternative school at age 14? At present, that is not on the radar; there is little debate about pupils not in the Dickson Plan transferring again at age 14.

Mr Flynn:

The post-primary exercise is submissions-based; it elicits submissions from groups and individuals.

The exercise will collate those submissions. We are not close to this exercise, because the central group will report to the Minister when it has brought all the submissions together. I cannot give detail on what it is doing at present; we have not seen it.

Mr Poots:

Is that linked to the estate?

Mr Flynn:

Their terms of reference focus on the delivery of the curriculum in the estate or on planned developments in the estate — those that have already been announced — given the time frame for the delivery of the entitlement framework.

Mr Poots:

If we move to election at 14, a huge rationalisation of the estate — and huge changes — will be required. If that is a reality — as opposed to a hope — the context in which the group operates will change. However, why should the group go down this route if it is only a hope? How would you operate now if you were a member of that group?

Mr Flynn:

I cannot speak for the sectors represented on the group; I will wait to see what they come up with.

Mr Poots:

These are confusing times.

The Chairperson:

We have been there before; no doubt, we will be there again. People are concerned that area-based planning will be used to get to a different point from where we are at present. We will be paying close attention to that. We will see whether it is used to drive through a policy on which there is not consensus. For instance, I see the arrangement regarding schools setting their own transfer tests as an interim measure, as, ultimately, everyone will have to agree on a proper transfer system into which everyone can buy. We are where we are until that is achieved.

However, we must be careful that other measures of area planning are not used as a mechanism to try to get to the same destination.

Miss McIlveen:

Perhaps my question follows on from what Edwin said, but it relates to something that Mr McGrath said in his opening presentation. I got the impression that there might have been reluctance on the part of some sectors at the beginning of the process or that some people had difficulties with it. Have all sectors engaged fully? Were difficulties identified from the outset? If so, have they been resolved?

Mr McGrath:

As the current exercise is new, some sectors or interests required more clarification on what the opportunities were, and they wanted information on areas that they might have seen as threats before they signed up. It took some time before all participants came on board. Why, however, they felt like that is up to them, Michelle.

Miss McIlveen:

I will leave it at that.

The Chairperson:

The Committee raised concerns about club banks. Your paper states:

“Therefore, the need for Club bank loans should diminish and become redundant in time as existing schemes are completed.”

What progress has been made in getting to the stage where club banks become redundant?

Mr McGrath:

Previously, club-bank arrangements related to schools that had received approval but into which public capital investment could not be injected until they reached viability. Some schools bridged the interim period by club-bank arrangements. In future, greater rigour should be applied to ensure that schools are viable following an area plan; therefore public investment should be assured from the start. That is why I do not see a need for ad hoc arrangements in future. Some schools may be linked to such arrangements at present, but we do not envisage any further schools requiring recourse to the club-bank arrangements once the present ones have ended.

Miss McIlveen:

Does that mean that certain sectors will be unable to set up a Portakabin, put a sign outside it and call it a school? Will they have to go through a different process?

Mr McGrath:

At present, a school may be approved and receive revenue funding; however, no capital will be put in until it reaches certain viability thresholds. They have recourse to arrangements such as a club bank to expand the number of Portakabins and achieve those viability criteria. In future, planning arrangements will be more robust, and the Department will approve a school when it forms a judgement, on the basis of an ESA plan, that the school will meet those viability criteria. In those cases, we will inject public funds from the start, which could, in the early years, be used for Portakabins until a school achieves enough critical mass.

Mr Rooney:

That is the planned approach, and it does not prevent someone from setting up a Portakabin and creating a school that is not funded by the Department; a parents’ group can establish an independent school in a Portakabin. The role of the club bank is where a school has been approved and, in the early years, until it demonstrates long-term viability, recurrent funding is provided but not capital. The sector uses the club bank to provide capital for accommodation until a school has demonstrated long-term viability.

How does the ESA link with the area-planning process? If a proposal for a new school has been analysed and approved at local level, the ESA will, in the early stages, be involved in accommodation matters. As John said, temporary accommodation could be provided until a school proves its viability. However, if an assessment is approved at the outset that a school is needed, it will be supported to ensure that a sector does not need to use a bank loan to obtain the capital for a school that has been approved. The ESA will work with the sector to provide the accommodation that is required in such a school’s early years. That approach applies to all sectors.

Mr Lunn:

Will that make it easier or more difficult for integrated and Irish-medium schools to establish themselves?

Mr McGrath:

A bit of both. In future, it will be more of a challenge to demonstrate the need for a school, and the test will be more difficult to pass; more will be involved than submitting an aspirational proposal. If a proposal is approved, public funding should be available from the start, and providing capital from hand to mouth would cease. In future, we need clearer and more robust planning to replace the “set-off-and-see” approach that sometimes occurs. Although that approach has worked in many cases, it has caused problems in others.

The Chairperson:

That affects development proposals. The Committee raised the issue that development proposals that are submitted before the establishment of area planning could lead to school blighting. In the past, a few individuals have been able to submit a development proposal that has ultimately changed a school’s nature or designation. I will not start a debate on the merits of integrated education — and I am sure that Trevor will be delighted to hear that — but there is sense of hurt in some areas when schools have been forced to take a road that has not been based on the merits of a case. Schools have been forced down that road because they are afraid of losing pupils — it has been a numbers exercise. How can we stop that happening in future?

Every sector has a right to exist, but we need fairness if we want to achieve equity or, to employ a well-used phrase, to see a level playing field. I would love to see that: I do not think that it exists; I do not think that even Wembley Stadium is a level playing field. I hope that the playing field is level for Northern Ireland’s game tonight.

People argue that there has not been fairness to date because of issues such as club banking that provides an advantage, or the ability to present a development proposal. That forces a sector or school to go down a road for reasons not based on merit.

Mr McGrath:

There will be challenges before area plans are in place. Area plans are about getting an overall assessment of need and responding to it. Neither the Department nor the ESA would be happy with proposals being brought forward in isolation, as in some of the circumstances that the Chairperson described.

First, because a development proposal is made does not mean that it must be accepted. There is no assumption one way or the other: it must be considered on its merits. The likely strategic needs of an area would have to be taken into account, as would any relevant issues, and how far off an area planning exercise is likely to be. We would look at those issues through a much more critical lens.

The Department and the ESA would also dialogue locally with all the sectors to tell them that we need to change. Simply submitting proposals to get them in before the tighter disciplines are in place is not the way to apply.

Mr Rooney:

Proposals for transformations have been turned down because they were perceived not to be about long-term viability but about falling roll numbers. Proposals can be turned down once all the factors have been taken into account. The Minister has done that on several occasions. The area-planning disciplines will consider those issues and other factors in an area and what is right in an individual case. Suggestions, ideas and comments on plans from various stakeholders are taken into account. However, it must ultimately be asked whether that is the right solution in that area, given the educational needs that must be addressed.

The Chairperson:

The subgroup of the central group is working on the basis of the five education and library boards. There was reference in the Minister’s statement, as well as in some of the papers, to working on the new model for 11 local councils for area planning. Is that still the basis on which the work is predicated? Is there any other thinking on whether it should be an amalgamation of the 11 areas? Do you know the group’s thinking?

Mr McGrath:

The exercise should be concluded before the ESA comes into being. Organisationally, the statutory role of the ESA will be based around six local area offices, covering two of the new local government boundaries and one based in Belfast. The areas for area-based planning are likely to be much smaller and reflect travel-to-school-areas. They could incorporate Coleraine and its surrounding area or an area in Fermanagh. It would depend on the travel-to-school patterns, for example. Some would be bigger and some smaller — we will have to take account of local circumstances. We do not propose a one-size-fits-all definition for area-based planning, as that would not be sensitive to local circumstances.

The Chairperson:

Thank you, John, Tom, Eugene and Chris. I will soon know your names off by heart without having to consult my papers.