Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 17 October 2000 (continued)
5.30 pm
Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, but that is not because Barbara Brown, Martin McGuinness, John Hume, Gerry Adams or Seamus Mallon tells us. It is part of the United Kingdom because the vast majority of the people of this country decided through the ballot box to be a part of the United Kingdom.
Members have given their views, and we have witnessed the bleating of Republican propagandists even though the majority viewpoint is that this country is part of the United Kingdom and part of Her Majesty's territory, and its flag is the Union flag. I am proud of that flag, and I am proud of those who served under that flag.
Every day that the Assembly sits the flag should fly upon the Building, giving it the respect it deserves as a part of the democratic process and the parliamentary procedure for this part of the United Kingdom.
I congratulate my Friend and Colleague for his expertise in chairing the Committee, and I trust that we will see the flag flying upon this Building every day that the Assembly sits.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún):
A Cheann Comhairle. In relation to the motion and Mrs Joan Carson's comments I must make it clear that my civil servants did not ask me what to do about the flying of the flag. I took the ministerial decision. The only thing that I got from civil servants was a list of flag-flying days. I made the decision, and the suggestion by Mrs Carson that this decision was in any way prompted by civil servants is totally and utterly incorrect.
Mr Armstrong:
I welcome the spirit of the Regulations but have some concerns on the detail. The only reason we are debating the issue of flying the Union flag is because of weak Government at Westminster. It is time that the British Government supported its loyal citizens. In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, it has been the custom and practice over many years to fly the Union flag on 20 designated days. When devolved Government was restored in June of this year three flag-flying days of the month were ignored by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and by the Department of Education.
A problem arose because two Ministers, who under the Belfast Agreement accepted Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, did not accept what they agreed to in the Belfast Agreement. In the Belfast Agreement, under the principle of consent, Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast Agreement states
"the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish".
Like it or not, all the people of Northern Ireland live under United Kingdom laws and should abide by them. The Ministers have accepted their posts in the Northern Ireland Executive as a devolved Administration under the United Kingdom Government and should therefore follow the same customs and practices as the rest of the United Kingdom.
The flying of the flag should be a country's way of displaying its allegiance and its national identity to the world at large. As such, a flag should be treated with the utmost respect in the way that it is flown and in the civic esteem accorded to it. The flying of the Union flag from Government buildings is a clear expression of the constitutional position. The flying of the Union flag is not held in the esteem that it deserves.
There is no specification of any penalties that would apply if the Union flag were not flown. The Union flag is the ultimate symbol of a constitutional position and it should be respected.
Flying the flag of the Union should not be an issue, but the Regulations have been deemed necessary, and therefore every detail must be examined and regulated so that there is no ambiguity. It is the responsibility of all Ministers who signed up to the Belfast Agreement to ensure that the Union flag flies on all Government buildings, as has been the custom and practice for many years.
Mr Agnew:
It has been an interesting debate. Many of the issues related to the terms of reference, with which the Committee had difficulties, have been mentioned by Members this afternoon. I hope that those issues will be taken on board. Although the Union flag has never been adopted officially as the national flag of the United Kingdom, it has, as Dr Birnie said, become so through usage. The Government have already stated that it is the correct flag for use by British citizens. Practice is slightly different at sea, as the Government reserve the Union flag for specific military purposes. In fact, the flag should only be called the Union Jack by the Royal Navy.
We did not get into an argument over the Act of Union. I found out recently that the Flag Institute has published a draft Flag Act that would confirm in law the Union flag's status as our national flag. It has laid down specifications and a usage code. The institute is hoping to have the matter brought before Parliament in time for the bicentenary of the United Kingdom and the current Union flag in 2001.
Ms Morrice said that the Women's Coalition wanted to widen the debate, turning the Ad Hoc Committee into some kind of permanent Committee. I thank God that it was not made permanent. It was simply not in our remit to extend the debate. The Women's Coalition may be disappointed at that, but we could not accept that argument.
The principal argument from the Nationalist side - SDLP and Sinn Féin - put great emphasis on equality and parity of esteem. I have great difficulty with that. Mr Ken Robinson wanted to intervene earlier. I suspect that he wanted to speak about the Union flag not being flown on 12 July. It was probably at the back of his mind that the Act of Settlement provided for a society in which there were equal rights for all and special privileges for none. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland the minority appears to be denying the majority its rights. I believe firmly in equal rights for all and special privileges for none, but the minority must realise that the majority has rights as well, including the right to fly the flag of our country.
Equality and parity of esteem can mean many things. Some people, particularly on the Nationalist side, fail to realise that the Union flag is not a symbol of Unionist domination, or of a desire to put the Micks into the ground as it were - far from it. It is the outward and visible sign that the Unionist community believes in a society that is based firmly on civil and religious liberty. The Union Jack is the outward and visible sign of that society, a society that we have enjoyed for over 300 years.
Mr C Murphy:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Chairperson of a Committee to speak as a representative of his political party? He should speak on behalf of the Committee of which he is Chairperson.
Is Mr Agnew speaking as a Member of the United Unionist Assembly Party - or whatever its title may be - or is he speaking as Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee?
Mr Speaker:
It certainly is the case that when a Chairman of a Committee, whether it is an Ad Hoc Committee or whether it is a departmental Committee, proposes a motion on behalf of the Committee and or winds up, he is speaking as Chairperson of that Committee.
Mr P Robinson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there not a difficulty for this Chairman, in that this is not a normal Committee report? It is a report bringing a collection of views, albeit views that have been weighted by the degree of support there was in the Committee.
Mr Speaker:
I have no doubt that that makes it difficult for the Chairman, but it still would not justify taking one particular element of the report and amplifying on that and not amplifying on the others. However, I do recognise his difficulty.
Mr Agnew:
Even the interventions illustrate the difficulty the Committee had in dealing with this matter.
Today we have certainly heard a wide-ranging debate on the flying of the Union flag. Based on all of the submissions that we have heard today - and all that I have heard - it seems to me all the more amazing that the Committee was able to produce a report at all.
However, we do have a report that was agreed by the Committee, albeit setting out differing views. We have fulfilled the task that was set for us by the Secretary of State, and we can now let him have our views. In closing, I commend the report to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Flags set up to consider the draft Regulations laid by the Secretary of State under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Secondary Education
Mr Gallagher:
I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the recent report 'The Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland' and calls for wide-ranging consultations involving all of the education partners about the best way forward for post-primary education.
Devising the best possible system of post-primary education is one of the most important challenges that the Assembly will face. This recently published report should be used now to stimulate debate and to consult widely with all of the educational partners, administrators of education, parents, teachers, school governors and others about what should be the best way forward.
We have had selection for more than 50 years, and it has been a controversial issue. The accuracy and the legitimacy of the tests have been constantly questioned by teachers and others in education. Despite changes in the form at various times, the tests have never been able to accurately predict future educational performance. The use of coaching and practice papers to improve performance has become a widespread and expensive practice. Many families nowadays are prepared to pay £45 per week, in some cases more, on coaching. It is not difficult to realise that there are many children in deprived social circumstances who are losing out.
Since it was obvious that the introduction of open enrolment was making an already socially divisive system even more socially divisive, the Department of Education, two years ago, commissioned a review of the selective system of education in Northern Ireland.
5.45 pm
The report of the review team contained extensive research, and most here are fairly familiar with the five options set out in it for discussion about a possible way forward. We know too that many of the doubts that parents and professionals have had about selection appear to be borne out by the findings of the report. There is considerable evidence that we administer two unequal systems of post-primary education. The report recognises that we have some strengths in the system, but we all must accept that present arrangements are fundamentally flawed and unable to deliver equality of opportunity. We must therefore use this opportunity to initiate a debate. The debate should include something about the purpose of education and how it should best prepare young people for the twenty-first century.
Before the report was launched we had a consultation paper by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) about a new curriculum for schools. The CCEA stresses the importance of developing every child as an individual and as a contributor to society, the economy and the environment. One of the major challenges for us all is how to prepare our young people for what is an increasingly global economy. They need to be, at the very least, as skilled and as competent as their counterparts in other countries. Education for employability requires that all young people be equipped with the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, and with the key skill of information and communication technology (ICT). These are the skills which will be demanded by employers. It is clear from the CCEA consultation document that these are key skills which will have to be imparted at all of the key stages, in education pre-16.
It is clear from the report of the review group - and it is a view that is also being mirrored in reports from the Education and Training Inspectorate - that because of the 11-plus some important areas of study are presently being neglected. Too much time is being spent on English, maths and science at Key Stage 2, and teachers at Key Stage 3 have the task of trying to compensate for earlier omissions. In the section of the report that deals with the impact of selective education on the primary-school sector it says that pupils are not receiving the broad and balanced experience envisaged by the statutory curriculum.
We cannot justify, and we can no longer afford to continue with, a system which, in the interest of a minority of children, narrows and limits the curriculum experiences of all children. The lack of equality of opportunity in education, is a handicap. It is a handicap that carries on into later working life, and it is something that needs to be tackled urgently. Our priority must be to put in place the means whereby all children receive the highest quality of education possible.
We have presently significant strengths, which are mentioned in the report. The high levels of attainment in our grammar, and some of our secondary, schools are examples of that. However, it is also very clear that we have a disproportionate number of low achieving secondary schools.
In our search for an improved form of education we must retain everything that is best about the present system while removing its inconsistencies, inequalities and injustices. We should aim to adapt rather than dismantle the present post-primary system. This can be done so that academic education and vocational education are accorded equal importance.
Five possible options are listed in the report but we might have to look beyond these. It could well be that one single option might not suit all parts of Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that we debate and consult widely about where education is going. If our post-primary schools are prepared to contribute to the debate to find a solution then a better and more comprehensive model of secondary education can be devised to suit the needs of every young person.
The five options give us a starting point. There is the Craigavon model, and I am sure some Members have experience of that and will be better placed to speak about it. We could go for a fully comprehensive model, but we will have to decide what type. We have examples of the strengths and weaknesses of comprehensive systems in Scotland, England and the Republic of Ireland. Our third option suggests a common lower-secondary school with children divided along different routes at higher-secondary level. The fourth option offers different post-primary schools with distinctive academic or vocational routes, but I think everybody would agree that it is important that there is parity of esteem between those routes. The fifth option is for the status quo.
Consultation should not be restricted to those five options. There is agreement between the Education Committee and the Minister that there should be no restrictions or limitations on the options we might consider. Prof Gallagher and Prof Smith shared that view when they met the Committee. I hope we can all agree that we need a wide-ranging consultation with everyone involved in education - where they will have an opportunity to put forward what they believe are the most appropriate models to serve the needs of all our children.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Given the number of Members wanting to take part in this debate, and the fact that we have allocated it two hours, I would advise Members to keep their speeches within the 10-minute time allocation. I call Mr Kennedy, the Chairperson of the Education Committee.
The Chairperson of the Education Committee (Mr Kennedy):
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this motion. I am a little surprised that the Gallagher Report has been launched. I would certainly have preferred to listen to the representations made, and even heard something from the review body, before the Assembly had taken it in this format. However, I hope the Assembly will have an opportunity later to review progress of this issue.
The report will trigger a wide-ranging debate on the future of education. It will be interesting to see how the different political parties operate within that debate, and I think there will be major differences within parties.
Some will say that I am used to that in respect of other issues, and it will be interesting to see where political parties fall on either side of this great debate. I certainly welcome it, it is a timely opportunity for me as Chairperson of the Assembly's Education Committee to speak about the launch of the Gallagher Report and its findings.
Looking at the consultation process that is being established by the Department - and I am glad to see that the Minister is in his place - I welcome the opportunity to advise the Assembly on how the Committee views its role in that consultation exercise and to highlight some issues regarding selection that I and my Committee members will be discussing.
My colleague Ken Robinson, a Member of the Education Committee, has regularly described the education debate as opening Pandora's educational box. That is fairly apt. I am sure that, like everyone else in Northern Ireland, we welcomed the long-awaited publication of this piece of research. There has been an ongoing debate about education selection in Northern Ireland for some considerable time, and the Gallagher Report has ensured that that now takes on an added earnestness, and even a new focus that all previous reviews have lacked. We now have local representatives in this Assembly who are part of that process, and a cross-party Education Committee has been formed. I welcome that. As a result, people now believe, and rightly so, that their locally elected representatives will be making the important decisions that affect their lives and that they will listen very carefully to what all sections will have to say in this major debate.
I consider the report by Gallagher and Smith to be a very well-researched one. I pay tribute to Profs Gallagher and Smith, and I commend them on the manner in which it has been presented.
My Committee received a public presentation of the findings on the afternoon of its launch, which was very welcome and allowed Committee members their first opportunity for questioning the report's findings. I am sure that I speak for all my Committee's members when I say that we found this very useful and informative, but I have to say that the contents of the report were not entirely surprising in one respect.
My Committee has some concerns about the structures and the mechanism that the Minister has put in place to take this consultation forward, and we sought clarification from him about this at last week's Education Committee meeting. We can, I think, all agree on the need for such an emotive and highly sensitive issue to be handled openly and fairly. However, at the Education Committee meeting, members highlighted their concerns regarding the number of bodies being established to take the consultation exercise forward and the relationship between these bodies and the Education Department. The Committee also asked that, in addition to Prof Gallagher, the Minister should consider appointing another local education adviser to the panel of experts that will consider and assist the review body. Perhaps we will hear from the Minister today whether he has given that suggestion any active consideration. We also agreed that even though the report deals with a number of options, any other viable options should be considered.
6.00 pm
For example, my party outlined another option: it might be worth investigating the provision of additional grammar schools to offset many of the local problems in areas of the Province.
Concerns have been expressed about the timescale of the consultation exercise. I am particularly concerned about that. I understand that the Minister would like everything to be done by May of next year; I must greet that with scepticism. Organisations like the CCMS have also indicated that the proposed time frame is impractical.
There has been an undertaking that public meetings will be organised alongside those scheduled for educational experts within area boards. Given the importance of this debate, every effort should be made to set up accessible public meetings in all areas of Northern Ireland to ensure that everyone gets an opportunity to express his views and hear how this matter is progressing. Equally, the review body must ensure that information is presented in an easily understood format. To date there has been some confusion about the roles of the various bodies and the seminars for education providers. The review body must put procedures in place to ensure that the consultation process is transparent to, and understood by, everyone.
However, we must make progress with this issue, and it is important that we consider the time frame. Children, teachers, and parents await the outcome of this exercise. The Education Committee will play a leading role in the consultation process. My members and I are now defining precisely what this role will involve, and we hope to invite Mr Burns along very soon to outline his plans for the review body. We also plan to consider expert advice on the options outlined in the Gallagher Report to inform our decision on the approach we should take. All political parties will be able to make representations to the review body, but the Education Committee - and I want to stress this - will be able to take a more political focus in this, thanks to its powers as a Committee of the Assembly. We will have ongoing access to the review body, the panel of education revisers and the educational consultative forum.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Will the Member please bring his remarks to a close.
Mr Kennedy:
My Committee intends to discuss the issues that have been highlighted with leading academics and to commission research on all possible options before publishing its response.
We all welcome this debate, and we must try to ensure that everyone participates and that all views are heard. We must also ensure that we get this right. We have the chance to put in place a system of secondary education which will give all the children in the Province equal access to the quality education that they need. Our educational, social and economic perspectives can then start to grow as we move into the twenty-first century.
Mr S Wilson:
This is an extremely important issue which has pre-occupied practitioners within education as well as parents and children. The Assembly must have the opportunity to discuss this issue in full.
Before discussing the DUP's approach to this question, I emphasize that the motion states that there should be
"wide-ranging consultations involving all of the education partners".
The Minister stated that he had set up a review body, a panel of advisers and various forums. It is significant that the two bodies which he ignored were the Assembly and the Assembly Committee. When the Minister was questioned by the Committee on its role, he said that we could make a submission to Mr Burns and his review body and examine the submissions made on the web site. He also said that we could get a final report from Mr Burns and that we could question him in Committee. We could do only two things of any significance.
As has happened in the past, the Department is seeking to bypass the elected representatives, and I suspect that the Minister is again seeking an outcome which is favourable to himself. We all know his views - the one thing he does not want is democratic scrutiny by the elected body of the results of this review.
I will outline four principles which the DUP believes must be applied to any post-primary system of education. First, we believe that selection is inevitable. There is a prevailing idea that the abolition of the 11-plus will do away with the selection process, but there will have to be some mechanism by which parents decide where their youngsters go when they leave primary school. That can be done on the basis of where you live, as happens in Scotland. Prof Gallagher says of the Scottish system that
"schools in both areas display a similar pattern of social differentiation."
Let us not pretend that neighbourhood comprehensive schools are inclusive, as stated earlier.
Alternatively, pupils can be allocated places on the basis of an interview with headmasters, where they live or what they can afford to pay. These systems of selection would be just as socially divisive, and they are methods which this House has rejected. We conclude, therefore, that some sort of selection is inevitable and that it should be carried out on the basis of what is the best education route for youngsters to take.
The second point is that any system of post-primary education will have to accept that differentiation is necessary or, to use Prof Gallagher's term, that there have to be distinctive routes.
Not everybody has the same academic or practical aptitudes. We have to recognise that there are differences, and any system of post-primary education ought to accept that. We have a nonsense at present, and this is what has led to secondary schools feeling that they are second-class schools.
At present, we separate people at the age of 11 on academic grounds, and then send them to schools where they follow the same curriculum and end up in the same exam process. Those who have not got through the 11-plus go to secondary schools, and the results in those schools are not as good as those of grammar schools. One would not expect anything different. That explains the low esteem felt by youngsters who go to secondary schools and teachers who teach there.
My third point is that if we are going to have distinctive routes then those routes must have equal status. One must not be seen as being better than another. It has to be made clear that they have different objectives. The Gallagher report points out that there is a division between academic and technical or vocational education in many European countries. People know that they are heading for distinctly different goals, and they respect that the institution they go to has got the ability, the status, and the standing to deliver them to those goals.
If we are going to have equal status, there must be, as Prof Gallagher says, pathways between those different routes. If people find that they have set off on a particular route, and later they decide that it is not the right one, then they can switch. It is not regarded as a step down or a step up - it is simply a sideways movement to a more appropriate system. Gallagher points out that in some schools in Europe, if pupils do not reach a certain level in each year they are held back until they do, or they are asked to review whether they are in the most suitable system, and they move to a different one. We need to look at that. We must ensure that people do not feel that they are in a better system than someone else. There should be equal status for each part of a differentiated system. That would overcome many of the problems associated with the present system.
The fourth thing that we must bear in mind is that we cannot divorce this from the costs involved. Prof Gallagher hints that if we go down the route of simply having neighbourhood schools, or a totally comprehensive system, we could be talking about the closure or amalgamation of up to 60 schools. That is one way in which the costs might be absorbed.
The last time that this exercise was talked about by Lord Melchett, in 1979, the cost was put at £90 million. I have heard people say that it does not matter what the cost is. Their attitude is to get the best system of education and then find the money for it. I have heard unions talk like that. That is nonsense. We have to work within the strict budget that we have. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what kind of system can be put in place using the present framework.
We have to do two things. We must preserve the high academic achievements that we have in the present system. Gallagher pays tribute to that. In footnote 81, he points out that where selection is based on academic aptitude, the results between Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 show that there is value added.
We need to look at a system that does not ignore the fact that there is selection, a system which gives equal status to youngsters, whatever route they choose, and ensures there are options open to them to maximise their potential.
6.15 pm
Mr McHugh:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. People will welcome the opportunity to hear our views and the current state of play in this important issue. I welcome the review of the present selection system and the consultation period proposed by the Minister. I hope that everyone will have an opportunity to put his views, wherever he lives in the Six Counties, and that all those views will be considered. I hope too that an early decision is taken so that we can proceed.
The Gardiner Report is one barometer that people can go by, and that report concludes that the vast majority of exam results are inaccurate - figures state that around 70% of results are questionable. The highly critical conclusions reached by Prof Gardiner about the 11-plus exam reinforce the widely held view that the 11-plus is a bad exam. It is bad for the child who sits it and for the education system as a whole. The report concludes that the exam should be scrapped. Many people share this strong view.
I have many difficulties with the present selection system. We need to provide choice - choice based on equality and equality of opportunity and not on the elitism of the current system. Branding children failures at 11 years of age is a difficulty for me. Secondary schools have to sweep up and try to reinvigorate children who have lost their confidence and have to try to regain it the following year so they can start to perform at a satisfactory level.
Under the present system primary schools are vying with one another. Principals and parents are involved in a race for academic achievement over and above everything else. Tremendous pressure is placed on children of that age to attain this spurious goal. Many parents do not take account of the fact that their child is not capable of taking and passing the 11-plus, but they pressurise the child because they think it is the right thing to do.
This practice has been in use for 50 years. It creates difficulties for parents and children. This is about education. Education is a basic human right and we should seek to have a high-quality education system which is freely available and accessible to all. These are basic principles. Education should enhance the minds, and enrich and empower youngsters. Education is an investment in the future: a high-quality education system would produce a skilled and enlightened workforce, which could contribute to the economic wealth and well-being of society.
Education can also help to mould attitudes, and there is a need for a high-quality education system that will develop understanding and tolerance in our society. These are important principles, and there has to be a correct method with which to go forward - one that will take those principles to their ultimate conclusion. I am not even sure that the present curriculum is delivering that.
The time is right for us to discuss these issues, to deal with them and to debate them in public, particularly the issue of selection. It is controversial, and the debate on it will be intense and wide-ranging - especially when it goes out to the public. There is a need for informed debate on what is a particularly complex issue. People want change and will be looking for change.
When the results of the review are known we must find the best way forward. There are a number of options suggested, and there are other options which perhaps people could look at as benchmarks in relation to other models which have proved to be successful. Such models are found in European and other countries, and they are delivering in relation to the needs of today's society - and not just academically. We need options that are based on the needs of education in today's world. They should be based on equality of opportunity, where all remain equal from the start of their education through to the finish. They should produce children who are able to face the world outside and who not only have academic skills, but also have the interpersonal skills that are essential for a person to be able to handle situations and to reach full potential at all levels. That is where we need to get to with this debate, and I think that we will get there.
Mrs E Bell:
I am one of the success stories of the 11-plus. I would not be here today if I had not passed it, but I am wondering whether "success" was the right word to use. This motion is timely, and we should state loudly and clearly that consultation on this important issue should be as wide, comprehensive and effective as possible. I will concentrate on the key point of the motion, which is consultation. That is the right message to be giving to the Minister and to the review body. If the consultation process is right then the result should be right.
The findings of this report will be far reaching, and its impact on future generations will be massive and life forming. We must be very careful therefore about our final decisions. We must ensure that all interested parties - from teachers to parents - are adequately consulted so that, as far as possible, the most satisfactory outcome is achieved for all the pupils that it will affect.
The Gallagher Report, after all the years of emotional and subjective concern, gives us a focus on this issue. It did not tell us anything really new, but it has provided the basis for further consideration of the five options and others. We must look closely at these over the coming months, and also the submissions which will undoubtedly come from all areas and levels of the existing structures. We can but hope that concentration on the issues identified by Prof Gallagher will lead to the correct conclusions.
I say again that this motion is extremely timely, because of the press release which outlined the first stages of the consultation and gave way to some confusion. The meetings that have been planned so far, according that press release, are to be by invitation only for school principals and representatives of educational and related organisations. We asked the Minister about this at a meeting of the Education Committee and he said that this was only for the schools. However, it did not send out the right message, and I think that he knows that now.
We are told that public meetings will be held by the review body when it sets up its programme. I await the details of these meetings with great interest. I trust that they will be both many and widespread and that they will be held in the very near future.
Apart from the views of experts in education, we all know that there are a large number of parents with seven-, eight- and nine-year-old children who are fervently hoping that they, and their children, will not have to deal with the stresses that are currently being endured by P5 and P6 pupils and their families. These parents will want not only to attend the meetings but also to have their say, to have their questions answered and to have their heartfelt concerns met. These are the people who need to be listened to and to be reassured that whatever option is finally chosen it is the best way forward for their children - indeed, all the children of Northern Ireland.
The Minister has said that it is important that we have an informed debate on the report, and I totally agree, especially on the key issues that are raised in the report - the sense of failure; the severe blow to self-esteem; the long tail of low achievers; the divisiveness of the grammar versus secondary systems; and the vastly detrimental impact that preparation for the transfer test currently has on primary schools.
All of us in the education field are well aware of these issues and have repeatedly seen their effect on schools. Parents have even gone to the extreme lengths of preventing their children from taking the test. We must consider and acknowledge this strength of feeling in our considerations.
The Education Committee will be taking these key issues very seriously indeed, looking at the options outlined in the report as well as others. The Alliance Party will also be looking closely at the record of all-ability integrated schools since they will show us how a modern comprehensive system might look. We must take the review seriously as its findings and eventual conclusions will substantially change the future of post-primary education and will improve the situation and potential of all of our young people in their future lives.
The Gallagher Report clearly shows the universally accepted disadvantages of the current education and examination systems caused mostly by the 11-plus exam with its weaknesses. I agree with Mr Sammy Wilson that selection may still be regarded as necessary or inevitable, but this must be done in the best interests of each child, whatever its age.
The Minister also said
"Everyone with a view on this issue must be given an opportunity to express it."
I am sure that all sections of the community will approach this in a constructive way. It must be seen to be an all-inclusive real consultation. That means one that is not predetermined at any stage by experts, and one that will ensure that we get the education system that society, the economy, and most of all, our children deserve. Whatever we do with this system will be repeated across the whole of the education process for each child.
Finally, it goes without saying that our current system, which brands a large number of our future citizens as failures when they have lived, at most, one sixth of their lives, must be radically changed. We do not want change for change's sake, rather we want change for the sake of improvement. I support the motion.
Mr B Hutchinson:
When I saw this motion I wondered what it was about for the report has been delivered, and it is quite clear what needs to happen. It might have been better to have this debate after the Education Committee had considered the report. However, now that it is taking place there are a number of points that I wish to make.
First of all, I want to commend the report. Mr Gallagher and Mr Smith have done what was asked of them by the Department of Education. They have met the terms of reference and produced clear evidence of the effects of selection. They have also given alternatives for consideration.
6.30 pm
I want to talk for a couple of minutes on the effects of the 11-plus. There has been a great deal of talk about that. Do any of us realise how badly this reflects on working-class areas? I am really concerned. This is not meant to be a sectarian comment, but I would like to ask the rest of my Unionist Colleagues if they have looked at the facts and figures on 11-plus passes in Protestant working-class areas and compared them with those in Catholic working-class areas. Catholics have a better pass rate; it is not all that much higher but is considerably lower than the national average. We need to focus on that. We say that we want to give people opportunity, but we are not giving them much of an opportunity.
In the area where I live and went to school, a number of years ago, people from the school I attended went to Queen's and to universities across the water, but nobody can do an A level in that school now. Is anybody going to tell me that Protestants have become stupid, or is there something wrong?
We need to look at the system. In many ways there has been a loss of educational value in the Protestant community. Perhaps that is to do with tradition; it may be due to the Protestant work ethic or to the fact that we have a different system now. In the past, people could get jobs in the shipyard, serve their time and get further education on day release and one night at school. We really need to take this seriously and look at how it affects working-class people.
We also need to examine the effect it is having on primary school teachers. While they are preparing children for the selection process, they are neglecting the remainder of the curriculum. What effect does that have on the other children?
We must also look at the whole notion that this system is fair. In my opinion, it is an accident of birth that someone can afford to pay for children to have a tutor. In other areas people cannot do that. I do not suggest that people should be prevented, but we need to look at this. Some people can afford a tutor; others cannot.
Children who attend secondary schools go to those schools with low self-esteem and lacking in confidence. Most of us could look around our constituencies and identify at least one secondary school that is perceived as a dumping ground. No parents want to send their children there. If they do they say "Johnny" - or "Jane" - "is not going to do well anyway, so what is the point?". That is an indictment of the education system.
Look at some of the children who are leaving school at age 16 with NVQs. In my constituency of North Belfast they cannot get an NVQ level 3 - nobody can do level 3 in North Belfast. A young person has to go out of the area to do one. The difficulty is that all children at the age of 16 can go on to Jobskills and other schemes through NVQ level 1 but not through level 2. They are the children coming out of the secondary schools. Is that not about self-esteem and confidence?
My Colleague Mr Sammy Wilson said that all children are not academically bright. I accept that. I do not accept an education system that does not produce a rounded child. We need to ensure that all our children reach their full potential. Whether that is about achieving academic success or vocational success, we need to make sure it happens.
What about the confidence and self-esteem of the teachers who have to teach in these secondary schools? That is on the wane. No matter how well they teach, they will never achieve the same success as grammar schools do, and that is as a result of the system. That is not fair on teachers, and we should look at how we can change that. Our taxes go towards putting teachers through teacher training school, and perhaps each of them should be made to spend at least three years in a secondary school in a disadvantaged area before being allowed to teach in a grammar school.
Those are things we need to look at. After all, we are the people who put them through the system to become teachers. We train them to be teachers. We spend a lot of money on the education system they go through before they become teachers. In my opinion - not that of my party - it might be better if we did not have grammar schools at all. That is another story for another day.
In the UK as a whole we deliver the worst education to low-income families. If people are not in the top 20% in Northern Ireland, they are not going to do well. The other 80% are out there somewhere, waiting about, down at the bottom. They are not going to do anything. They will just go through school. Some of them will come out unable to read and write. That is a difficulty. If people are in the top 20%, they are going to do very well, they are going to end up at university and get the best jobs. Low-income families do not get that chance. We need to ask ourselves why we are the worst in the UK as far as low-income families' education is concerned.
The hardest part of this debate is not proving that the present system fails but finding a suitable alternative. We have to consider change in order to pursue a policy that will tackle social inequality. We should create a system that delivers equality of opportunity, equality of access to educational resources, equality of access to good teaching, and a safe and secure educational environment. We should also look at equality of respect for all pupils. We can talk about grammar schools or the 11-plus, but unless we focus on a system that delivers all those things in terms of equality, we are wasting our time. If we achieve that, then perhaps low-income families will be a lot better off in terms of education.
Ms McWilliams:
This is a timely debate. I heard members of the Education Committee saying that we should have waited until the Education Committee had had a look at the report before coming to the Floor of the Assembly. People outside do not understand our structures. All they know is that Tony Gallagher and Alan Smith have produced a report. They heard the Minister on television talking about it and wondered what the Assembly was doing. It is good to have it here in the Assembly, with us debating it and taking note of it, and also having the Committee's opinion on it. There is no doubt that it will return here again.
I told the Minister on the day the report was launched that I was a little disappointed. I am sure it was not the fault of Tony Gallagher and Alan Smith that it took so long for the report to finally arrive with us. I know there were reasons for that, and indeed the terms of reference were extended. My major concern is that it seems that we have put this decision off for 40 years. Now that we have an opportunity to look at it, we should not delay. I am aware that the Minister said that the review he has established will be complete by May. I hope that it will not be pushed a further six months down the line. I am reassured that the Minister said that that will not be the case. By the end of May we should have the view of that body.
Nonetheless, the major points we need to make come from our constituents and from public meetings. This report speaks to two things. It asks what the purpose of education is, and it says that we have decisions to make about the structure of our education system. Do we want to reinforce social divisions, to make one group of elites and another of losers? Do we continue to have a limited concept of intelligence and punish the assumed lack of it? Punishing is what we do. I do not want to hear any more people say "I did not pass the 11-plus, but .". Neither do I want to hear people saying that they would not be where they are if it were not for the 11-plus.
It is not right to say these things. This is the only test that 11-year-old children will have to take and, if they fail, they cannot resit. My children completed the test recently. The incumbent trauma is exaggerated; these children are told that their entire life depends on this test from primary six onwards, by teachers under the stress of working in an education system based on selection. There is a hothouse effect for children whose parents have extra money, as when they come home from school, they have extra tuition. There is stress in the home and in the school. Throughout the summer holidays, stress builds up as children are repeatedly made to study practice questions. Having put my own children through this process, it is not something I want for anyone else's children. However, there is currently very little choice in whether children take the test.
Do we want to continue dividing society like this? In a society that is bitterly divided by religion and national identity, we should not make further divisions according to class and social standing, or within families - children in the same family may end up in different schools. We have the opportunity to address these problems.
I believe that, through signing the Good Friday Agreement, we will create opportunities for the future. This is an area for opportunity which we can focus on. The transfer test is the very embodiment of division in our society.
A child will not be educated for life by studying for this transfer test, as it is so limited that it loses sight of the broader purpose of education. On the day the report was launched, readers asked if its terms of reference were academic achievement and the future of the economy. The review body's terms of reference must also include social and political outcomes. When I studied the terms of reference for the findings of this report, I was glad to see that a number of useful issues were highlighted.
Recently, there was a public meeting in Stormont on the issue of the transfer test, attended by the Chairperson of the Education Committee. Questions were asked by the public, including teachers, parents, trade unions and advisory bodies. Some of these questions were worrying: how would it affect the redeployment of teachers in schools and the physical infrastructure of schools? Would it have fitness for purpose? These reservations indicate that the current system is unfit.
If the system is to be more comprehensive, will it be fully comprehensive, or will it be selectively comprehensive? If the latter applies, what are known as "sink classes" will exist alongside the upper classes.
At the moment, there is a notion that some children are at better schools than others. I want the best for my children and for others in this country. I also want the best schools. I do not want us to go on talking like this any more. It is almost like a market system where people want to send their children to the "best" school. This idea has infiltrated people's minds. Otherwise, why would parents put their children through extra jumps and hurdles to get them into these schools?
6.45 pm
What sort of in-school support will be available for special needs children in a new, restructured system? Obviously, there will be children with different abilities and different educational needs; the restructuring should address that. I compliment the Minister for establishing a review body, a local education forum and an advisory body. The three of them sit well together and provide a means of moving forward. I hope that they will all report at the same time.
Our public meeting on the transfer test produced a proposal for a parent/teacher council; Northern Ireland does not have such a council at present. The system is mainly led by teachers and those with a special interest in servicing the education system. Consumers, particularly parents, do not have much input. The representative of the parent/teacher council addressed the meeting, and what she said was very effective.
A delegate from Scotland told the meeting that, as a consequence of the restructuring that took place there in 1965, they have achieved an above-average level of attainment, lower levels of inequality and social segregation and less variation between schools. All of that is borne out by research. The Gallagher report shows that the benefit to a child of a grammar school education is 16 GCSE points.
For all those reasons, I call upon the Minister to address the way forward as comprehensively as possible and commend the findings of the Gallagher and Smith Report. We want a system that gives parity of esteem and status to a wide range of skills, not just the current little bit of maths, English and science. We want a much more comprehensive system-comprehensive in ethos, population and curriculum and more integrated, in terms of gender, class, culture, ethnicity and, most important of all, religion and ability. The final result will be a fairer distribution of resources and capital investment, and better targeting of social need. We should be able to put our hands on our hearts and say that we have enhanced equality and diversity in this country, not restricted it.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
There are more names on the list than there is time for, especially if everybody speaks for ten minutes. If Members would reduce that further, others might appreciate it.
Mr K Robinson:
The Gallagher report is particularly timely, and I welcome it. However, I have reservations about the timing of the debate. I would have preferred it if the public debate had been well under way before the Assembly met to discuss these matters. The issue is so important to the community's future. I noticed the great crowd in the Public Gallery who came to hear the deliberations, and the attendance in the Chamber. That reinforces my view that this was not the best time to bring the matter forward.
I wanted to start off on a slightly different tack, but I must say that it sounded as if Ms McWilliams was sending her little wish list up the chimney. The Minister has never struck me as being a Santa Claus lookalike.
Perhaps more than most Members, I have seen the system from several sides. Like Mrs Eileen Bell, I went through the system when it was known as "the qualifying". I sat an examination that I knew little about in a strange school with strange teachers supervising. I went back one day and received an letter saying that I had to go to a grammar school - whatever that might be. I was totally oblivious to all those things, because, in my house, it was a natural progression.
I was concerned to hear about all the stress, the work done during the summer holidays and the use of tutors - all emotive things. That is one of the fundamental problems with the transfer procedure.
There are faults in the procedure itself but they are hyped up, elaborated on and magnified by events that happen outside the school. I want to come back to those events later on.
I hate to hear the word "fail". I hate to use it, and I have never used it professionally or in my home. In my family, two of us went to grammar schools, and one did not. In my own family, two of my sons went to grammar schools, and one did not.
The school that I first worked in as a principal, was a rural school and the sort of school that Barry McElduff and Gerry McHugh on the opposite Bench would recognise. The children were treated equally, and those people who wanted children to go on a certain course made sacrifices to get them into that. But we did not view those children who went on a different course as "failures".
I can remember once pleading with parents who wanted to put their hands in their pockets to buy a grammar-school place and telling them very seriously that they would not be doing their child a favour. Their child would go on to blossom, and his talents would be expanded in another setting. I am delighted to say that those parents listened to me.
Mr Billy Hutchinson is here, and he has heard me speak on this in other places. I was a principal on the Shankill Road, and I know what it is like to try to get people through the 11-plus on the Shankill Road. Mr Hutchinson knows the reasons, which we will not go into now, for my feeling that the Shankill Road and other working-class districts have changed over the last 20 to 30 years. There is a problem there that must be addressed, but there are very specific reasons for that situation's having moved on there.
I finished off in one of the leafy suburban schools - one of the "good schools" that were being referred to earlier. Parents viewed those schools as good for very specific reasons. We did not have a label outside the school saying "This is a good school. Please come in." We were responding to customer demand. They may have been buying the wrong goods - and we can come back to that later - but those are the situations that I have found myself in both professionally and personally.
I have no axe to grind in this. I want to hear as full a debate as possible, but I do not want to hear emotive words used. I noticed that there was a public meeting held in this Building, and I believe that it was a seminar and that it was perhaps held before the Gallagher Report was launched. Some putting the cart before the horse has been going on. Let us slow down, look at the real problems and see if we can come up with a proper, lasting and equitable solution.
They say that a week is a long time in politics - then surely 50 years is a very long time in educational terms. If you add in the frequent changes in the other facets of education that have taken place over the last five to ten years, the right and proper thing to do is stop and study this in depth.
I draw Members' attention to the title of the Gallagher Report. It is to study
"The effects of the selective system of secondary education in Northern Ireland."
I suggest that we cannot look at that in a vacuum. Other things impinge on that, some of which I believe Tony Gallagher came across as he developed his research. Other things still lie out there, and perhaps I can highlight some of them today.
I would like to flag up some of the pitfalls, which lie before us. This debate must focus on the issues in a constructive and objective manner. We will not do them justice unless it does. We will not serve our children or society at large properly if we allow the discussion to degenerate into an emotional diatribe between two opposing camps. We know that there are vested interests, but we do not want this to become a slanging match.
The Gallagher Report helps us to pause and look at the current situation, warts and all. There are faults in the system, but let us identify why the faults are there and see if we can cure some of them, if not all of them.
The public perception - and the Gallagher Report seems to reinforce this - is that we have a grammar-school system which is referred to as "successful", and, as a result, we currently have about 35% of our transferring pupils being encouraged to take that route at secondary level. In some quarters, to which I have referred already, the other 65% of pupils are viewed as "failures" being channelled into an inferior sector. I strongly disagree with that view. As a parent, and as a former governor of a secondary school for eight years, I know the quality of education and the commitment of the staff that is available within the majority of such schools.
What I cannot ignore, what the Assembly cannot ignore and what wider society cannot ignore is the fact that a significant percentage of pupils leave formal education after 11 years without qualifications and - and perhaps this is even more serious - with impaired levels of literacy and numeracy.
That fact alone should focus all of our attention during this prolonged period of consultation, for it begs the question as to whether these children commenced the process of failure at the 11-plus stage.